No plans to release Black Wolf/Elemental Order separately.

I don't particularly object to Elemental Order being sold as a costume pack for 400 points, but this is a really bad way to measure the value of Super Pack cards.

I would like to know how else you could assign the "discounted" value to the items in the packs. It is crystal clear that they are discounted compared with the store, as you can see the "full" prices of some of the items that are available outside of the packs, only it isn't the same value across the rarity layers (ie. all of the common "cards" aren't discounted the same).

To put it another way: Each card has a percentage value based on drop rate. That percentage is compared with the cost of the pack. The result is the value of that type of card when compared with the cost of a pack.

Triumph: White Succubus: 50 Ill/Emp/PF Snow Globe: 50 Ice/FF/Ice Strobe: 50 PB Shi Otomi: 50 Ninja/Ninjistu/GW Stalker My other characters

The problem is that your maths is completely wrong.

You can't take how common a card is and multiply that by the price of a pack to get the value of the card.
You have to take the predicted value of the card, multiply that by how common they are can check that the sum across all rarities totals 80PP.

Which is a completely different process to what you were doing, and one that allows multiple different values to each rarity of card. Further, you have to account for the fact that different items with-in each rarity might be worth different amounts, and that they have different probabilities of occurring too.

Except for the inspirations - they're overpriced on a card by card basis.

Originally Posted by Shubbie Im very good at taking a problem and making it worse.

I know I'm coming into this thread rather late, so possibly I missed an explanation of this earlier; if so, a link or post number will suffice. At a glance, at least, I'm not convinced of this. 5 cards for 80 points would suggest 16 points per card, but that only holds if all the cards have the same value, which they don't. Specifically, inspirations appear only on Common cards, which are the least valuable kind.

But anyway, since the contents of the Super Pack are inseparable, even if some components end up taking up more of the cost of the pack than they would purchased separately, I feel pretty confident saying that the total average value of a pack exceeds 80 points, so it's discounted as a bulk purchase and because you don't get to choose specifically what you get.

They don't even SELL medium inspirations separately - they didn't change the contents of the super packs when they slashed the store prices of inspirations.

Originally Posted by Shubbie Im very good at taking a problem and making it worse.

In aggregate, Arcana's numbers are saying 44.20% Common, 20.00% Uncommon, 20.00% Rare, 15.80% Very Rare. That is the average over a sample size of 600,000 packs. So each pack can be expected to have a distribution of 44.20%/20.00%/20.00%/15.80%. Not guaranteed, but close enough to a baseline. About the only thing I did wrong is to combine 2-3 commons, 0-2 uncommons, 0-2 rare, and 0-1 very rare.

Approximately 44.20% of a Super pack cost is returned in common cards.
Approximately 20.00% of a Super pack cost is returned in uncommon cards.
Approximately 20.00% of a Super pack cost is returned in rare cards.
Approximately 15.80% of a Super pack cost is returned in very rare cards.

Given that duplicate cards appear in multiple categories (ATOs are exactly duplicated in both rare and very rare for instance), it is almost impossible to place a value on an individual card in the way you suggest.

No, I take a predicted value of a pack (without discounts of any kind), and can say the combined common cards in a pack on average have X value, and the same principle can be applied to the other rarities. Is it perfect? No. Is it close enough, yes.

If I did as you suggest, the discounted value of each card would be far less than I stated.

Oh, you mean like in the store itself? I didn't see the need to be exact, as that value is mutable. That is why I kept using the word "approximately". You know what that word means, right?

That is an unneeded complication in this case. More to the point, if I did that, the relative value of the items would be far less numerically.

From paragonwiki, also from Arcanaville's notes:

Super Packs are guaranteed one Rare or Very Rare with each set of cards flipped. The other four cards will be a mixture of Common, Uncommon, and Rare, with there always being at least two Common cards. The following table lists the card set types and their (approximate) chance of being drawn, with data provided by Arcanaville in a post on the Issue 21 beta forums which has since been hidden from non-Paragon Studios access.

Code:

Chance	 Rarity Card Sets
00.5%	Common, Common, Common, Uncommon, Rare
04.0% 	Common, Common, Common, Uncommon, Very Rare
04.0% 	Common, Common, Common, Rare, Rare
04.0% 	Common, Common, Uncommon, Uncommon, Rare
12.5%	Common, Common, Common, Rare, Very Rare
12.5%	Common, Common, Uncommon, Uncommon, Very Rare
12.5%	Common, Common, Uncommon, Rare, Rare
50.0% 	Common, Common, Uncommon, Rare, Very Rare

Given that 2-3 card are common, the combined value of commons in an un-discounted super pack is approximately 35 PP (44.20% of 80 PP).

Given that 0-2 card are uncommon, the combined value of uncommons in an un-discounted super pack is approximately 16 PP (20.00% of 80 PP).

Given that 0-2 card are rare, the combined value of rares in an un-discounted super pack is approximately 16 PP (20.00% of 80 PP).

Given that 0-1 card are very rare, the combined value of very rares in an un-discounted super pack is approximately 13 PP (15.80% of 80 PP).

Not what I'm saying. What I am saying is that the combined value of the common cards in a pack are more than uncommons and rares in a pack, which in turn have a combined value that exceeds the very rares in a pack.

Precisely due to the fact that the contents of the packs are, as you say, inseparable is the reason I chose to present an approximate value rather than a literal value.

Complete Paragon Market listing (http://boards.cityofheroes.com/showthread.php?t=271665), look at the bottom of the page and you'll see that Large Dual or Team Insps are 10-15 PP, so you're getting "overcharged" for the inspirations in the packs.

Triumph: White Succubus: 50 Ill/Emp/PF Snow Globe: 50 Ice/FF/Ice Strobe: 50 PB Shi Otomi: 50 Ninja/Ninjistu/GW Stalker My other characters

But then you're taking that value, and you're applying it *per item* to the parts of the costume pack.

To go back to Arcana's breakdown of packs, according to your system, the values of the different possible packs are:

Common, Common, Common, Uncommon, Rare - 137PP
Common, Common, Common, Uncommon, Very Rare - 134PP
Common, Common, Common, Rare, Rare - 137PP
Common, Common, Uncommon, Uncommon, Rare - 115PP
Common, Common, Common, Rare, Very Rare - 134PP
Common, Common, Uncommon, Uncommon, Very Rare - 115PP
Common, Common, Uncommon, Rare, Rare - 118PP
Common, Common, Uncommon, Rare, Very Rare - 115PP

Does that seem right to you?

No, this is the part that doesn't work. 44.2% of the cards you get are commons. That doesn't mean they make up 44.2% of the value. In fact, since Commons as a rule have the worst/least desirable/least valuable/easiest to obtain items, they make up less than 44.2% of the value, although since many of the items on the cards can't be purchased directly with points at all, it's impossible to say exactly how much. Similarly, Very Rares make up more than 15.8% of the value, because VR cards are more desirable than Common cards.

Also, you took your "44.2% of cards are commons" number and tried to interpret that as "a single common card is worth 44.2% of a super pack", which is a totally different thing. The first is commons-per-card, the second is value-per-common.

Edit: To illustrate further, a pack contains 5 cards. On average, with Arcanaville's percentages, that's 2.21 commons, 1 uncommon, 1 rare, and .79 very rares. By your method, this would mean that the average super pack is worth 2.21*44.2% + 1*20% + 1*20% + .79*15.8% = 150.1% of a pack. Your method leads to the conclusion that a Super Pack is worth more than a Super Pack, which is quite clearly not true. So either your method is not valid (and your conclusion is not proven), or Arcanaville's numbers aren't valid (and your method relies on them anyway, so if they are not valid your conclusion is still not proven).

It would depend on the price point. I would expect them to cost more than the current costume pieces. At least 1000 points for the set. If they were released at the same price point as regular costumes then I'd probably be a bit annoyed.

It depends a lot on the price point. I can accept paying a premium to get it early but if the premium is to high then I'll wait (for what it's worth I tend to use the price of a 24-pack of super packs as my price point for the costume set so I'm comparing the costume only price to the 1440 points price for a 24-pack).

Would I be unhappy about it? No, but....

...it would mean I wouldn't touch the next set with someone else's hand.

Basically this - usually the Super packs hold little interest for me beyond the first two or so boxes (First gives me the costume set, second pads out my xp boosters/windfalls/unslotters/enh boosters). Catalysts are FAR too rare for me to justify buying the packs without the added shiny (aside from MAYBE using paragon reward tokens).

Originally Posted by Shubbie Im very good at taking a problem and making it worse.

I'm perpetually confused by folk who don't grasp this obvious & salient point.

Yes, there are people who hate super packs and would like to just buy stuff straight up- this isn't aimed at them.

The people it is aimed at would be alienated by Paragon shopping the good bits around at a trunk sale after everyone had dropped their $$$ on super packs.

If they wanted a deterministic system, they'd have made one.
They wanted it semi-random, they wanted it to appeal to acquisitive types who like randomness, collectors & game players.

You don't get to play it that way up front and then switch it around on the back side. Well, not if you expect to keep going to that well anyway- and the impending launch of Super Packs II: Electric Pirate Boogaloo indicates that they very much do want that return business.

So - and I want to make sure I'm not misunderstanding you - you aren't interested in the SuperPack mechanism per se, just what's in the packs. You'd be just as happy with the merchandise if it was offered as a bundle or as a SuperPack, yes?

I'd be fine with being able to buy it directly instead of a Super Pack. I'd be a little annoyed if Super Pack exclusive stuff was offered for direct buy now (especially at the price points SnowGlobe is asking for).

he's saying if they offered junk previously available exclusively via super pack for direct purchase, he'd never buy another super pack.

A reaction I'd say would be epidemic among players who picked up bundles of packs to get the costume set.

It is an obvious draw, and the Studio knows it.

May I ask, directly: if you bought the Super Packs, would you be unhappy about the EO pieces being released as a bundle at some point?

Not at all. I feel the same way about the Collector's Edition bonuses: Others get to enjoy them later, the people on the bleeding edge get to use the items first.

Would you feel slighted or cheated in any way?

It was an added cost to use it sooner than everyone else.

Would you feel your expense - of whatever sort - was a waste?

In as much as I did not want the revives, restores, other consumables, yes. I made sure that I didn't spend real money to get them though. Even so, the packs represent a waste of potential.

As a corollary, would you be less enthusiastic about buying the next round of Super Packs if you knew the costume set would not remain exclusive to it forever?

Actually, while the next costume set (super pack 2) is ok, it isn't to my taste, especially bundled with the consumables. I liked a lot of the EO set, and would have bought the full set straight up.

The Costume Creator is the core feature of the game. They knew exactly what they did when they put the costumes in the pack. They were aiming the EO and Space Pirate stuff directly at players that bought costumes to get them to buy the super packs.

Triumph: White Succubus: 50 Ill/Emp/PF Snow Globe: 50 Ice/FF/Ice Strobe: 50 PB Shi Otomi: 50 Ninja/Ninjistu/GW Stalker My other characters

To my perspective, the 5 cards are what I get for the purchase. If a type of card is 44.2% of those 5 cards, then to me that rarity is 44.2% of the cost. Same goes for the other rarities. At this point, I don't expect others to agree with me.

The developers could assign any value they want to the individual items, but in the end the breakdown of what a player gets for their 80 points is divided by what they get. Some items may be more or less valuable to the players than the developers.

Actually, that is your method, not mine or Arcanaville's. It is also clearly wrong because you are multiplying each number by itself.

I like how you multiplied the rarity by itself though.

2.21 = 44.2% of 5
1 = 20% of 5
1 = 20% of 5
0.79 = 15.8% of 5

And people accuse me of having bad math skills.

35+16+16+13 = 80.

44.2% of 80 (2.21/5) is 35.
20% of 80 (1/5) is 16.
20% of 80 (1/5) is 16.
15.8% of 80 (0.79/5) is 13.

Triumph: White Succubus: 50 Ill/Emp/PF Snow Globe: 50 Ice/FF/Ice Strobe: 50 PB Shi Otomi: 50 Ninja/Ninjistu/GW Stalker My other characters

That is what the percentages you're using mean: the fraction of cards which are each rarity. This very same method, applied to 3 million cards, will tell you that you got .442*3,000,000 = 1,326,000 commons, .20*3,000,000 = 600,000 uncommons, .20*3,000,000 = 600,000 rares, and .158*3,000,000 = 474,000 very rares. That's how Arcanaville estimated those numbers in the first place, after all.

If you would like to say that a common card is worth 44.2% of a super pack, rather than that 44.2% of the cards in super packs are commons, you need to provide some kind of reasoning for why that particular number should be so. So far, you haven't actually provided any reason at all that the fraction of cards which are a given rarity should be equal to the fraction of a pack's value represented by a single card of that rarity. For the sake of argument for a moment, even if we accept your premise that all the cards in the pack are worth the same amount, so 44.2% of the pack's value is from the common cards and 20% is from the rare cards and etc, you still cannot say that a common card is worth 35.36 points. You can say that all the common cards in a pack are worth 35.36 points. And there is more than 1 common card in a pack.

As I said in my first post about this part, I don't even disagree with you about selling the Elemental Order pieces as a costume pack. I'm just pointing out that the math you're trying to use to justify it is not valid. And if you say each card is worth the same amount (as in post #255; I don't agree, but whatever), then each card is worth 16 points, regardless of rarity - this is mathematically more sound AND makes your point stronger! Then it's 16*11 = 176 points for the whole set, rather than the 205 you concluded back in post #232.

As others have mentioned, it is not 44.2% of the cost that is returned as common cards, but 44.2% of the cards that are common, those are NOT the same thing.

As has been shown by numerous examples from other people, your analysis simply does not add up.

No it isn't. It would be boring and time consuming, but no-where near impossible.
It would pretty easy compared to most probability problems. The hardest part would be keeping track of everything in a long calculation.

For that to be true, then each rarity of card would have to have the same value not different ones.

Edit: Here's a more accurate proof:

Let
P = total paragon points spent
P_c = paragon points spent on common cards
P_u = paragon points spent on uncommon cards
P_r = paragon points spent on rare cards
P_v = paragon points spent on v.rare cards
c = expected number of common cards
u = expected number of uncommon cards
r = expected number of rare cards
v = expected number of v.rare cards
x = total number of cards
s = number of super packs

Then P/s = 80
x/s = 5
0.442x = c
0.2x = u
0.2x = r
0.158x = v
=>
x = c + u + r + v
=>
5s = x = c + u + r + v
=>
s = (c + u + r + v)/5
=>
P = 80*(c + u + r + v)/5 = 16*(c + u + r + v) (by simple substitution and rearrangement)
Also P = P_c + P_u + P_r + P_v

You claim that
P_c/c = 35
P_u/u = 16
P_r/r = 16
P_v/v = 13
From which we can conclude
P_c = 35c
P_u = 16u
P_r = 16r
P_v = 13v
=> P = 35c + 16u + 16r + 13v
=> 35c + 16u + 16r + 13v = 16*(c + u + r + v)
=> 35c + 13v = 16c + 16v
=> 19c = 3v
=> c = (3/19)v

Which means that v is approximately 6 times larger than c. Except that c is the expected nubmer of commons and v the expected number of v.rares, and we know the expected number of rares is less than the expect number of commons, so we have a contradiction.

As we have a contradiction then one of our three assumptions must be faulty:
So, either super packs are not 80 points per pack.
Or super packs do not contain 44.2% common, 20% uncommon, 20% rare and 15.8% v.rare.
Or your claim that the price per card is 35 points for common, 16 for uncommon, 16 for rare and 13 for v.rare, is faulty.

Which do you think is most likely?

Now, if we assume that the cards are all worth the same value, then we get that p = p, which is fine (although it's not a proof that all the cards are worth the same, just that that is a valid view-point to take).

So, to reiterate, if you want to claim that you get 44.2% of the value of the packs in common cards, then that is a valid opinion to have, but it does not mean that each common card is 44.2% of 80PP, what it means is that you value every card in the pack equally, v.rare and common alike. More specifically, it means you assign a value of 16PP to each card.

And, importantly, that is still just your opinion on the value of the cards. You might think they're worth 16PP each, but someone else might value the commons, uncommons and rares at 0PP but the v.rares at 101 points each and that would still work out fine.
Someone else might go further and only value the costume pieces, which would further increase the value of those specific cards, while devaluing the rest.

And that is what I'm saying, thank you. The individual cards may vary, but the all the common cards are 44.2% of a 80 point pack. It is called a ball-park figure. I was never trying to say X card was exactly Y value, though many seem to be taking them that way. I look at my posts you mention, and I see that I used the word "approximately" an awful lot in them.

Yes, I've said repeatedly now that I assigned the value of all the costume "cards" in a rarity tier one approximate value equal to the percentage of that rarity in the pack. I've repeatedly said so.

So I've assigned an approximate value of all the common cards in a pack to each of the common costume pieces. The actual cost per card is much lower, but nowhere near 1,440/11 that Adeon Hawkwood assigned to the set.

And like others, you are so focused on "here is what I think he said" vs what I did say. So who's more at fault here? Here is the sad fact that you (and others) are intentionally missing: By using the all the commons in a pack as a price value that I'm inflating the numbers by a factor of 3. This means that while I've inflated the price for the costume pieces, Adeon Hawkwood's value of 1,440 is at least 7 times more than the value I've assigned them above. So why aren't you bothering him?

Boring and time consuming in a fiddling little matter = impossible to convince me it is worth the effort to go to the trouble. I do try not to be that pedantic, despite what people may think.

And I've repeatedly have said I don't care to find out the individual value of cards. If you find that fun though, knock yourself out. For my illustration to Adeon Hawkwood, it was enough just to price out the rarity value and use that as a basis for determining an approximate (if inflated) value for the costume pieces.

And that is all I've meant in these posts. All other assumption's are other player's, not mine.

I agree, but for my point to Adeon Hawkwood, it was close enough for my purposes.

Actually I don't think that at all. In reality, Very Rare > Rares > Uncommons > Commons. Like I said though, it makes for decent shorthand.

I'm glad you have acknowledged the hidden disclaimer in all my posts: Every post I make is my opinion. I don't speak for others, I speak for myself.

Triumph: White Succubus: 50 Ill/Emp/PF Snow Globe: 50 Ice/FF/Ice Strobe: 50 PB Shi Otomi: 50 Ninja/Ninjistu/GW Stalker My other characters

Because he only gave an option on the price he thought the costume set should be (and 1440 was his highest suggestion, not his lowest, does it not strike you as somewhat intellectually dishonest to only give one of the suggested prices, the one that looks worst on him and best on you, rather than the entire range he suggested?) while you made explicit mathematical statements that were provably contradictory and fallacious. Which is not something you can just wave away with "well, it was just my opinion".

Alrighty then - do you agree with him?
Is the only thing tempting you to buy SuperPacks the exclusivity of costume pieces?
You're indifferent to the SuperPack mechanic itself?