Is Endfield's Gacha Bad? Nail in The Coffin Gacha Psychology

Added: 2026-05-17

[00:00:00]for free to play players or anyone who can't always stockpile 120 poles. The entire structure flips from more generous than usual to predatory.

[00:00:06]>> You feel punished in this game for things that in other gotachas you celebrate.

[00:00:11]>> And this is one of the worst feeling gota systems I have ever experienced so far.

[00:00:18]>> All right, that's enough of that.

[00:00:21]If you've been in the gotacha space recently, it's no secret that Hypergrist's new game Ark Knight's Enfield has been under a lot of scrutiny lately, as any major gotcha will be.

[00:00:30]Some of it has been genuine criticism.

[00:00:32]>> Does Ark Knight's Enfield have the worst pity system in Gotacha history? No.

[00:00:36]>> If you were to go ahead and pull without any self-control, this system is legitimately really, really bad for you >> or criticism made in bad faith. If you don't want to have an opinion on it, people will think worse than you.

[00:00:52]>> If you don't want to have an opinion about Ark Knight's gotcha, this is like not having an opinion about the Holocaust.

[00:00:58]>> Oh, that's real nice.

[00:01:01]>> Cuz they hate me. And you want to know why? Cuz they ate me, >> man. Shut your >> Even before release, the gotcha system caused a lot of discussion. Everyone has an opinion. I wanted to say to you, yeah, you listening to this video on the side while you're playing a game. And also you who's listening while you're on the toilet, I see you. You better wipe.

[00:01:25]I've seen people's feelings on it and your feelings about it, you're right, but maybe not in the way you think. Just hear me out. So, I think a quick disclaimer is in order. I started working on this video within the first month of Infield being out. Infield drama is a little old now, so earlier parts of my video aren't contemporary, but they're set up for the latter half.

[00:01:44]This is ultimately a video essay about human psychology. So, even without the drama, there's interesting stuff here.

[00:01:50]We good? Cool. My goal with this video is to explain all of the nuances, highs and lows, I can infield system in comparison to contemporaries. I don't want anyone to walk away from this video saying that one game system is objectively better or worse, cuz that's not my goal. Moving along, I'll be straight with you guys. This video was mostly made in response to this video by Imtach. I'm going to go over what he experienced, my own experience, which was fairly similar, as well as many of the other arguments I've seen, but that'll come later. Here's what you can expect.

[00:02:28]What makes a gotcha predatory? Um, everything.

[00:02:33]>> That's the easy answer. But to have a discussion, we need to establish a consistent metric to measure these games by. We'll be cutting out things that don't apply or so prevalent that they count against every game. Well, except one, but we'll get there. Here are the factors we'll be looking for. Keep these in mind going forward. There's more that could be included, but I feel these cover the basis of what people measure by. All gotchas have some combination of predatory tactics. And because everyone is comparing infield to other gotchas, the fairest way to do this is to count the presence of each factor as points against the games. And for some slight nuance, we'll be adding points in the game's favor if it's better than our set baseline. Being equal to a set baseline will be null because according to a bunch of people, it's the industry standard. Now, so therefore, it shouldn't be rewarded because it's expected. Now, let's define our terms.

[00:03:23]For low RNG, we'll be setting Ginchin 0.6% as the baseline to meet. Since people consider as the industry standard, it fits as the in between cuz there are games with much much lower.

[00:03:36]For inflated high pity, the base will be the 160 of Wua and Zenless. It's slightly more generous, and 160 is as common as 180. If the game uses a spark system instead of pity, we'll use 200 as the base, which is the same as Umamus.

[00:03:50]We all know what FOMO is, but to prevent differing definitions, integrated FOMO means systems like limited banners or events that pressure players into pulling or spending money before they're gone, often for months. The FOMO point will be added if the character disappears when their banner ends.

[00:04:06]Reruns won't be considered as normally those come months later. It will also be added if in any way, shape, or form players are pressured to actively play, or else they're put in a disadvantage because character rates lower after debut. Power gated dupes mean dupes that are so strong and transformative that there's a noticeably wide gap between them. Power creep pressure is something that you can only get a hand on after the game's been out for a while. It's when players will feel pressured into getting the new stronger characters, often due to the difficulty of the content, making older characters somewhat obsolete. Seeing as I don't play all these games, I'll avoid points here to prevent misinformation. I'll instead just put an asterisk next to their total if it's present based on my search. And you can feel free to correct the info in the comments. Lastly, no safety nets means a lack of anything that acts as a protector of players resources in regards to getting their target characters. No guarantee or spark, no pity carryover, etc. And for the sake of being fair, because spark systems work differently than hard pity systems, we won't be counting no carryover against spark system games.

[00:05:12]The gotchas acting as comparisons will be Ginchin Impact, Hongai Star Rail, Zenless Zone Zero, Wthering Waves, Punishing Grey Raven, Fate Grand Order, Nikke, Uma Musame, and Ark Knights.

[00:05:25]These are some of the most topical gotchas right now. Infield normally gets compared to some of these, and others are here to be as objective as possible in showing what's out there. Can't accuse me of being a hyper grifter if I compare it to more generous games, can you?

[00:05:41]Okay, maybe I am a hyperbreaker.

[00:06:18]For those that don't know, here's a summary of how the gotacha works at the time of me writing this. To skip the summary, go to the next chapter. There's no jokes in this section, so you wouldn't be missing anything. Every gotacha needs resources to make pools.

[00:06:29]Think of pooling like putting a quarter in a gumball machine and hoping for a certain flavor. Your pool currency in this game is made of ore barrel and ore geometry. Ora geometry is premium currency that can be both bought and earned. Ora barrel is only earned. This is how much you need to make pools. And don't worry, it's how much you can earn that's relevant, not the size of the numbers. The highest rarity are six stars, and the drop rates are 0.8% for six stars, 8% for five stars, and 91.2% for four stars. Every 10 pools, you are guaranteed at least one five-star operator. Character banners only give characters. Every pool gives currency exclusively for the weapon banner with higher amounts given for higher rarities. Your first 60 pulls on the featured banner gives a free 10 pool used on the next banner only. Your first 30 pulls gives a free 10 pull for that banner, but it doesn't affect pity. Hard pitties at 80 and a 50/50 for the featured operator. And 120 is a 100% guarantee. Soft pity starts at 65, increasing by 5% per pull until you get a six-star. The only guarantee is at 120. So there are multiple 50/50s. Now, the confusing part. The 80 hard pity carries over. The 120 guarantee does not. Think of them as two separate counters. If you pull 29 times on Levitain's banner without getting a six-star, then her banner ends. Your next pull will be your 30th pull towards the 50/50 counter, but it would be the first pull towards the 120. The next 50/50 counter resets whenever you pull a six-star. So, let's say that 30 pull with a non-featured six-star. The counter for the 50/50 resets to zero.

[00:07:55]The 120 counter stays at one, so it's still possible to pull early six stars.

[00:07:59]Featured characters temporarily rotate into the standard pool for the next two banners after theirs ends. So for the two additional banners, failing a 50/50 could get you someone you missed. In the weapon banner, you can only make 10 pulls. Six-star weapons have a 4% drop rate. Hard pitties are at 40 and 80.

[00:08:15]Every six-star weapon has a 25% chance to be the featured weapon, but the 80 is 100%. And remember, the weapon banner currency is separate and is earned mostly by character pools.

[00:08:26]The first argument I want to refute is people saying the game is predatory because people can get confused and spend their money expecting it to work like other gotchas. Sorry, but that's a dumb take. You're blaming people for getting confused by the gotcha mechanics. No, I agree it's a little convoluted. I'm not blaming people for getting confused. I'd blame people for not reading, then blaming the game for tricking them because it's different from other games. If you go to a new food place and order a cheeseburger, if you get mad it didn't come with fries and a drink, it's your fault that you didn't read the menu that says everything's alikart. I'd have no sympathy for someone who chose to spend their money on something they don't understand because they chose not to read it. And in my opinion, neither should you. Next argument. These are four quadrants relating to the four result states you can have. No, these quadrants are not the political compass.

[00:09:21]Generally speaking, the best case scenario for every game is to get your target early, while the worst case scenario is needing the guarantee. The argument I've seen is in other games, if I fail the 50/50 early, then I'm guaranteed to potentially get the target early. Infield is worse because I could fail the 50/50 and still go to guarantee. While it's true that can happen, you're comparing the other game's worst best case scenario to infield's worstcase scenario. Your argument is predicated on failing the 50/50 early when it's much more likely you won't. It's also assuming you still don't have to go to the next hard pity.

[00:10:00]This is a false equivalency. The main thing separating the best and worst case scenarios is getting your target early.

[00:10:07]For simplicity, I'll define infield's worst best case as failed 50/50 x times, got target early. While this looks almost identical to the other, the difference is there's variability. It's possible to fail only once or multiple times. And depending on the context, that could make things better or worse, but I'll revisit that in the next section.

[00:10:31]All right, here's the graph you've been waiting for. I crunched the numbers multiple times and I was objectively harsh about the numbers as I could be for every game. Let's see how this turned out. Whoa, that doesn't look right, does it? I know many of you are sitting here going, "Of course Infield's at the top. You're a bootlicker." Nah, that's just how the math broke down. And keep in mind, certain games could go a point higher or lower if power creep was included. Even changing the base numbers would have given similar results. But the 120 carryover, the repeated 50/50, etc. makes it predatory. H valid opinions. If you want me to be brutally honest about gotcha games being predatory, we can redo the M. No. What's this graph doing here? Anyone upset by Infield's placement should know the safety net question was added just for it to lose points. And FGO was collateral. Honestly, if I was skewing the results to what I like, then OG Ark Knights would be at the top. If I was skewing based on expectations, PGR and Nikk would have been at the top. If it makes you feel better, let's add bonus points like Mario Party, cuz Mario Party doesn't make people salty for feeling cheated by randomly chosen stars. Let's do five, cuz there's a lot of games.

[00:11:44]This bonus star goes to the game that doesn't have a 50/50 and instead has a 100% guarantee.

[00:11:51]This bonus star goes to the game whose spark doesn't expire. This bonus star goes to the game that gives a copy of the unit in addition to the spark. The next is a special multi-star and is for any game that lets you recycle byproducts from pools to get more and it goes to literally every game but FGO.

[00:12:13]This star goes to the game that doesn't have something most players hate. Any sort of weapons, supports, or anything similar. You only pull and build characters.

[00:12:26]Oh, look at that. Ark Knights is tired for the top with infield. I did get what I wanted. My point with all of that was we can't simply look at a gotacha system for what it does and doesn't have. I don't know their pull economy, but PGR and Nik by all accounts are the most generous systems in the list, but measuring them by the arbitrary standards many have been holding against infield makes them look worse. The whole is greater than the sum of its parts. We need to observe how each part works together. The mechanics aren't isolated.

[00:12:57]They synergize with other parts mostly.

[00:13:02]Don't worry, I'll get to you.

[00:13:06]Now that we've gotten all of that out of the way, let's finally get to the reason I started making this video. MTA made this video about his gotacha experience in Infield. And ironically, his experience is technically what that previous argument was about. He got Leong on pull 28, Ember on 30, and Levitane around 100. To address what I said earlier, the argument being made was a false equivalency because they compared two different cases. For Imtach, this is the exact same case, meaning it's not. He failed in this case multiple times, then got the target early. So yes, in another game if you had the exact same result, you would have gotten your target ridiculously early. So I understand what people are saying. However, while this is technically possible, the chances of this are so statistically unlikely that levying it against the whole system as if it's a common occurrence is reductive and somewhat intellectually bankrupt.

[00:14:08]I'm not calling you or how you feel dumb. Intellectually bankrupt has a different meaning. But honestly, how many of you got two top rarities within the first 30? How often do you even think that will happen? Infield system has so many other things involved, it's fellacious to ignore it all for one facet or unlikely outcome, especially to deem the whole thing as >> it's buns.

[00:14:34]>> On the weapon banner, he got double six-star weapons three times. The first one was by the 40 mark. The second one was somewhere between 40 and 80, and the last one was the final 70 to 80, where the final weapon was Levitane's signature. Hilariously, the other five six-star weapons were all clannable.

[00:14:53]>> Are you kidding me? This is impossible.

[00:14:56]>> This has to be the funniest video I've seen when it comes to Ark Knight's infill.

[00:15:00]>> THIS IS IMPOSSIBLE.

[00:15:02]THAT IS IMPOSSIBLE.

[00:15:05]Someone do the math on that. A very easy wish.

[00:15:09]>> For just the clan of ball pulls, it's about 1 in 33,000.

[00:15:13]>> I have granted your wish.

[00:15:16]>> While it may suck to have not gotten your target sooner, and I can also understand how it feels sucky to get so many of the same weapon, let's look from a different perspective. You did go up to guarantee for it. Yes, but you also on the way multiple times received double six-star weapons in the same pool. You got six top rarity weapons in total. Even though five of them were the same, you now have a maxed out version of the strongest weapon for a core member of the team centered around the character you just pulled for. Imagine Wolfguard lovers sitting at home watching you easily max out his strongest weapon with honestly godlike luck, still getting the banner weapon, then saying >> this gotcha system IS IT'S BUNS.

[00:16:08]>> I'm not trying to minimize his or anyone else's feelings. I can still understand how it wouldn't feel good. I'm just refraraming it from another perspective.

[00:16:18]In comparison to him, I did get Levitane's weapon on the guarantee, but it was also the only six-star weapon I got. By the time I got Levitane's weapon, he had an additional six-star weapon. While there's obvious value in making less pools, there's significantly more value with his roles. Honestly, ask yourself, would you consider getting six top rarity weapons for 80 pools unlucky in a system that only promises you two?

[00:16:47]That's 400% more value. While I can hear you out on the operator banner, you being unlucky on the weapon banner is a harder cell for me. Speaking of cell, let me sell you on the main argument of this video.

[00:17:05]game and it's such a tragedy because the game itself is actually good.

[00:17:13]>> While he doesn't directly say it, there's a heavy implication, it comes off as if he would have felt better if one of those early six stars didn't happen because then he wouldn't have lost again. I think I've been overall lucky with the amount of six stars I've gotten, but because I've lost on the banner so many times, it just it feels bad.

[00:17:34]>> This feeling is what I would call loss aversion. Loss aversion is a wellressearched term referring to the cognitive bias where losses feel roughly twice as intense as equivalent gains. In our specific context, this could mean you'd rather have less if it reduces your exposure to the feeling of loss.

[00:17:53]This is an opposition to the term value receptive. To be intellectually honest, value receptive isn't a pre-existing term. I'm coining a word to describe what pre-existing psychology research defined. The definition for this term is the cognitive and behavioral capacity to recognize and accept the value of an outcome independent of personal preference. In our context, this means you were willing to accept new additions that add value, even if it isn't ideal or conflicts with your goal. Think about what I said earlier. Take away one of his early six stars and keep everything the same. He would have gotten two six stars and the second one was close to guaranteed. Same results, but sounds closer to another game's experience. But when you compare these two side by side, you can see that at least in terms of resulting objective value, this is worse. Literally spending the same amount to get less. I'm not going to say you're wrong for feeling how you do. In fact, this study in layman's terms is saying that loss aversion is something that originates in our brain. I won't bore you with the neuroscience. I've decided to bore you with the neuroscience. This blue and green section is the vententral stratum. It's the brain's reward center. And this red and yellow section is the posterior insula. Think of it like the subjective experience center. It turns bodily signals or experiences like loss into felt emotions. These regions that activate during actual decisionmaking also show elevated resting state activity. The reward center deactivates more when losing than it activates when winning. An experience center spikes higher for a loss than it settles for a gain. And the more loss averse someone is behaviorally, the more active those brain regions are even at rest. It's normal to feel that way in any decision where we worry about losing can lead to it. But it's important to frame the psychology because we're complex and there's more to us than just how we feel. Now, let's get into the research papers. And I may not read out the info for each one, but I will put the citations on screen. Our first is Prospect theory developed by Conoran and Tiverki. and it's a cornerstone for behavioral economic psychology. People normally perceive outcomes as gains and losses rather than as final states of wealth. Gains and losses are defined relative to some neutral reference point, which usually corresponds to the current asset position, in which case gains and losses coincide with the actual amounts that are received or paid. Our reference point is normally something neutral, often the status quo of what we currently have, but commonly our expectations will shift it. Example, an unexpected tax withdrawal on a monthly paycheck. You view that as a loss and not a reduced gain. A discrepancy between the reference point and the current asset position may also arise because of recent changes in wealth to which one has not yet adapted.

[00:20:48]For example, if you're doing business and you've lost $2,000, but you have a choice between a sure gain of 1,000 and a 50/50 chance to gain either 2,000 or nothing. If you haven't adapted to your losses yet, you're likely to see it as a choice between for sure losing 1,000 or a 50% chance to lose 2,000. All gotcha games are designed to shift your reference point. When you really want a character, they subconsciously become an expectation. How many times when you've wanted a character have you imagined yourself playing them, building out their team, getting their weapon, angling the camera so you can go. That's by design. And anything falling outside that reference point gets coded as either a gain or a loss. And because losses hit roughly twice as hard as equivalent gains, even when you're winning, one loss can overshadow everything else. In practice, MTA by most metrics was winning. But every 5050 he lost psychologically outweighed what was technically a gain. It's not irrational. That's just what loss aversion is. Our focus is that it could have been the goal instead of realizing it could have more easily been another low rarity. This is something all got do, not just infield. If these gotacha games found your wallet, infield tells you it took some of your cash as payment for returning it. I am going to take a 20 cuz gas prices are pretty crazy.

[00:22:13]>> Other gotachas return it without telling you they stole your credit card numbers.

[00:22:17]>> Systems like infields reward discipline.

[00:22:20]Other creators have done the math to show that infield statistically will net you more over time. There's also this video that compares the averages for freetoplay and paytoplay.

[00:22:30]>> So Enfield's gacha is similar to watering waves due to similar drop rate.

[00:22:33]I'm only showing you a snippet of his work, but if you want to see all the math, you should watch the full video because it's really well done. The point I'm making is to look at the difference in potential value. It's noticeable.

[00:22:45]Infield can give you more. You just have to be receptive to it. Or put another way, infield is actually more rewarding the unluckier you are. In other games, going to the guarantee will only get you two top rarities. Infield could give you the whole roster on one banner. You may not want everyone, but that's still more than two. Here's another perfect example by this creator. This was not a guarantee. So, without seeing the results of what he pulled, would you call this lucky? Getting three six stars in one tin pulled. A lot of people would say, "Of course it is." If your answer was, "It depends." Think about why that is. Not what it depends on, but why you feel it depends at all. That's what I'm getting at here. To someone who's los averse, those three six stars, if they aren't exactly what they wanted, will hurt more than if they weren't there at all. Four stars, which are objectively less value, would have hurt less.

[00:23:45]Disappointment when it's not what you wanted is natural and understandable.

[00:23:50]But I think it's important to look at this and ask yourself why after the dust settles that this feels worse. Infield is still new. The roster is small, so even getting extras you don't want won't brick your account when team building is key. And when more content drops, those extras may get better or find use in a team later on. Now, after you consider why this one feels worse, are you fully okay with that, or would you rather feel differently? I'm about to show the difference of the two mindsets side by side for demonstrative purposes. Do not bother anyone over this. Feeling disappointed is natural. My point is about how you choose to deal with it.

[00:24:34]What? Yo, that's crazy. Wait, why is Leviathan's not his weapon not here? I know I'm complaining after being really lucky, so I get how I'm coming across.

[00:24:44]So, I'm sorry for complaining. I'm not.

[00:24:47]That's a dude. I can't complain. No, even without this, it's still a double.

[00:24:50]>> Failure after failure after failure, back to back to back to back to back.

[00:24:55]All right, I'm going to the guarantee.

[00:24:56]But I mean, at least I got a lot of six stars along the way.

[00:24:58]>> If mathematically it isn't as bad as some other game, I don't really care because in other games, I have never went 120 polls to get a character and get screwed all the way along the way.

[00:25:08]>> Thank you.

[00:25:09]>> I didn't do anything wrong. I'm not playing worse than other people. I'm not causing drama, but some people get lucky and some people don't. And and I think I just can't really accept that.

[00:25:15]>> Being value receptive has benefits past just making you feel better in the moment. This research paper by James Gross and Oliver John studied two things. reappraisal, which is the active part of being value receptive, and suppression, which I infer can stem from loss aversion. All right, so this next part will be heavier on the research papers, so stay with me. I won't be reading everything that I put on the screen, so feel free to pause if you want to read the rest. Cognitive reappraisal is a form of cognitive change that involves construing a potentially emotional eliciting situation in a way that changes its emotional impact. Reappraisers experience and express more positive emotion, and they also experience and express less negative emotion than individuals who use the reappraisal strategy less frequently. Expressive suppression is a form of response modulation that involves inhibiting ongoing emotion expressive behavior.

[00:26:08]Suppressors felt more negative emotions than non-suppressors. They both experience and express less positive emotion than non-suppressors, and they feel more negative emotions. Reappraisal was related to coping through reinterpretation and suppression was related to coping through venting. Yes, both of these in the paper are technically types of coping. And despite its common use as a pjorative recently, in many situations, coping is a normal and healthy thing to do. And I swear if I see anyone in the comments acting like it's a bad thing, I will personally find, purchase, and train a bonobo to your lunchbox and scare the hoes away.

[00:26:50]As you saw earlier, suppression is related to venting, which is what MTA was doing in that video. Reappraisal, on the other hand, isn't just going, "Oh, well, better luck next time." It's a conscious effort. It's an active choice to reframe the value of what happened.

[00:27:07]It's a practice and one with lasting effects. To avoid getting too emotionally heavy in a video about a gotacha game, I'll just summarize, but again, pause the read if you want.

[00:27:18]Individuals who use suppression are less satisfied and tend to be more pessimistic. It also can lead to less expression of positive emotions and it won't reduce the negative ones as they may continue to linger. But individuals who habitually use reappraisal are more satisfied and optimistic. They also take charge of their emotional reactions, which gives them a sense that they're in charge of their environments. They also have closer relationships with friends.

[00:27:44]Indeed, their friends like them more than they like those who do not. And finally, reappraisal has more to recommend for its emphasis on controlling one's behavioral responses to events. Clearly, there are times when suppression is the best or even the only option. However, in terms of everyday emotional regulation, reappraisal has better lasting effects for relationships and well-being.

[00:28:08]All right, let's take a step back from the research papers. I'm not diagnosing anyone like I'm a Psych 101 student. I realize some of you are probably looking at me crazy, thinking it's just a game, and he was just disappointed in his gotcha roles. I'm not saying that his disappointment will make him hate his life or make his friends not like him or that venting will make him look like the bad guy when clearly he was doing meds scan.

[00:28:33]>> Have you ever heard of Among Us, Gregory?

[00:28:36]>> That's catastrophizing. And I'm not some clown hyperfixating on small issues in a video game like it's the end of service.

[00:28:43]I I meant the world. Sorry, I stuttered.

[00:28:45]How we process disappointment in low stakes situations often mirrors how we handle it when the stakes actually matter. If your first response to not getting what you want is to fixate on the loss and ignore everything you did get, that pattern typically doesn't stay in just the gotacha game. So, real quick, I want to summarize my gotacha background so you can understand where I'm coming from. My first gotacha was Fire Emblem Heroes back in 2019 before it had a guarantee.

[00:29:12]>> The enemy.

[00:29:13]>> I also played Ginchin for a while, so I've experienced its system and I am an Ark Knights fan. Ironically, Ark Knights is what pulled me away from Ginchin.

[00:29:23]While you can consider that as bias, it's also experience. And while Ark Knights is by no means perfect, there's a reason its players are telling everybody to let Hypergri cook. Also, if anyone at Hypergri is listening, please put my wives in the game. I need to eat apple pie with Exusier. And god, could you picture the same people who animated Yavon animating someone thick like Yan Nectis to give her an ABSOLUTE DUMP TRUCK ASS. Now back to Imtach. I had a similar experience. I got a six-star around the 60s and I got another six-star in the 100s. Then I finally got Levitane on the guarantee. Our situations are pretty similar. We both got the same amount of six stars by the end and spent nearly the same amount of pools. What makes our situations different? two ways. My first failed 50/50 gave me Gilberta. This is where perspective matters, cuz ironically, I wasn't ecstatic having gotten her. I was hoping to fail the 50/50 and get Yavon.

[00:30:24]I was originally planning to skip Goa, which now I can without losing anything.

[00:30:29]I was still accepting of getting her though. Definitely better than not having her. I imagine to people sing for her that what I've said up to now is putting me on some type of list. The second difference is I failed the 50/50 when I was close to guaranteed, something that he was upset didn't happen. Now, I understand how he feels because I was literally in the same position. I remember saying the optimal thing would be to hopefully get another six-star before 120, but failed the 50/50, so I get another. But by that many pulls in, I stopped caring. I would have been fine regardless. As I said earlier, we tend to subconsciously set getting the character as an expectation.

[00:31:09]But another expectation we have is how much we expect to spend in pursuit. It's a subconscious deal we make with ourselves before we start pulling.

[00:31:18]Matching that expectation feels like a neutral win. Any sooner and it's a huge win. And anything that costs more feels like a loss, even if you still end up with what you wanted. That's why MTA could get Levitane and still feel bad.

[00:31:33]He got her, but the cost exceeded the deal he made with himself going in. And all gotchas are pretty good at this because those pity numbers subconsciously set the expectation for you. And another thing happened with image. His reference points shifted and it made me wonder if Ember had come much later like Pog did for me, would he have felt better? Here's what happened. Mtash was mentally comparing infield to other games. So if he lost more than 15050, it would already feel like a loss unless something of equal value like Yavon was the outcome. So Ember fell outside his expectations.

[00:32:17]>> Back-to back 50/50 losses that is going to push people away from the game for sure.

[00:32:23]>> As he approached the 120, his point of reference shifted. He wanted to lose.

[00:32:28]Why? because he's close to the guarantee. Getting Levitane is a foregone conclusion. The expectation isn't the subconscious goal anymore. He expects to get her now. So now he wants something extra. Maybe as a way to feel like he at least got something for the loss that he still hadn't moved on from.

[00:32:49]A person who has not made peace with his losses is likely to accept gamles that would be unacceptable to him otherwise.

[00:32:56]If you had asked him at the beginning, would you want to spend more for a random character that isn't who you want? I assume the answer would have been no. Most people would say no. And another thing he didn't seem to keep in mind, if he had lost, there was no guarantee it would have been someone different. It could have just been a dupe for someone you already had and didn't want. Keep in mind, dupes in infield are pretty minor compared to other games. So, would that dupe have been better than spending 20 more pools when every pull in a gotacha game counts? Remember, guarantees are a safety net. Even though I agree with you that the system making you feel that way is an issue, and I'll address that later. Complaining that you didn't need to use a safety net does sound kind of silly, doesn't it? So, after looking at both of our situations, you could even say he was luckier than me. We both got Levitane. We both pulled the same number of six stars, but I needed a guarantee while he got her early. I had to make more pulls to get the same amount of value as him. This is the reason why a decent amount of people in his comment section were pointing out that he was in fact lucky. You could argue over which of our looks you'd prefer, but when you look at the pure numbers by combining both operator and weapon banners, Mtash got nine six-stars for 190 pools, while I got four with60 across both. So, it felt strange to listen to him complain about how he felt like his luck was bad.

[00:34:28]>> If mathematically it isn't as bad as some other game, I don't really care.

[00:34:31]>> Here's how I think about it. Let's say that you're a funny person. You're also kind, smart enough to hold a conversation, and you're even doing okay in life. Unrealistic for gotcha gamers, I know, but in this case, you're short so it evens out. This would be like saying you're a failure or you're not attractive just because of that. You're ignoring all the other things you have going for you and focusing on the one thing you don't. While this is a common feeling that many of us can understand, it's a feeling that most of us, at least when looking at other people, also recognize as missing the forest for the trees. If you're still not getting what I mean, let me ask this. If he had lost those 50/50s to Gilberta or Yavon, would he feel the same? And we finally arrived at what people have been complaining about the most. The 120 guarantee not carrying over. It's a valid criticism.

[00:35:26]What? You're surprised I agreed. Having it does offer the player another safety net and in a sense more control. So yeah, you made a good point.

[00:35:35]>> You did it. Good. I'm proud of you.

[00:35:38]>> However, it's not necessary and the system works fine without it. That may sound blasphemous, but let me explain.

[00:35:46]I'm not saying it's good. What I mean is the game still manages to be above a certain predatory line. And here's a conversation no one's ready for.

[00:35:55]carryover is actually a psychological double-edged sword. Like walking a tightroppe with a high up safety net, even though you haven't trained, there's no reason to wait till you have the training. It'll catch you. In that case, why not do it all the time? Every time the second you can, you start craving risk-seeking and you'll keep going cuz there's no obvious harm. Well, other than that frayed spot all your falling was making. Too bad you never learn to actually walk that rope so you don't fall in that hole. And some people get so used to it, they'll argue against logic and statistics cuz they care more about being able to walk that tight rope than the result.

[00:36:43]All right, let me come down from my ivory twin XL bunk bed. Firstly, the most obvious is what that section just got done saying. When progress is saved, you don't have to care as much.

[00:36:55]Carryover is the equivalent of an NPC pissing you off and you just saving the game real quick. Or saving the game after you just filled up on explosives right before walking past an orphanage.

[00:37:07]>> That's why in these games when you don't have enough, most people just try their luck. But if we treated all the resources like money, well, most people try to not spend money they don't have.

[00:37:20]Though sometimes you don't have a choice. Being an adult is so fun. And why ARE HOUSES SO EXPENSIVE? AND FOR my second point, let's get back to the research. The tendency to approach a goal increases with proximity to the goal. The illusion of progress toward the goal induces purchase acceleration.

[00:37:39]A stronger tendency to accelerate toward the goal predicts greater retention and faster re-engagement in the program. It can be applied to a broad range of goal-based motivational systems, including more complex incentive systems. Every time your pity carries over, your brain registers it as partial progress. We tend to put in more effort to complete a goal the closer we are.

[00:38:02]So, for example, seeing that pity counter at 60 out of 80, tends to increase the chances of you spending the rest as opposed to seeing it at zero out of 80, even if the distance is the same.

[00:38:14]Think about the last time you had to start something versus finishing it. How many of you have been putting off cleaning your car or writing that book or scheduling that doctor's appointment?

[00:38:25]Yeah, exactly.

[00:38:30]>> Damn it, he's right. I know I'm right.

[00:38:33]>> And not only that, but it manages to also increase your chances of sticking around to spin more or to come back when you've stopped. Even if the distance is the same, you can infer that the idea of a cost you've already sunk in makes it easier to finish what you started. Also, in case anyone is thinking that the distance isn't the same because your target is different now, hi. Hello. Uh, let me introduce you to someone. They're called moving the goalpost. The goal looks different, but the distance is the same. You're just as close to getting a top rarity character you want as you would have been even if the banner didn't end. The idea behind the goal gradient hypothesis is from Clark Hull all the way back in 1932 through 1934 in which he proved the hypothesis in animals like rats who ran faster as they approached food. The study I read was published in 2006 with its goal being to prove its application in humans. They did this through multiple different tests, but the easiest to explain was with a coffee rewards program.

[00:39:33]Participants were given cards that would get stamps with every purchase with certain milestones of stamps giving them a free coffee. I'll summarize it down to three points. This study found that one, enter purchase time decreased as they got closer to the goal. Two, that motivation towards a second similar reward would reset after receiving the first, then increase again as they approach the second. and three that there exist an illusion of progress that increases the motivation towards finishing the goal. This was proven through having two separate cards. The first was a 10 stamp card and the second was a 12 stamp card with two stamps already filled in despite the amount of purchases between the two cards being the same. Those with the pre-stamp card finished nearly 3 days, 20% sooner. But those are just examples from the study which I'm hoping everyone can see the overlap. And if anyone remains skeptical, as I said, there were multiple tests done of which they also tested for variables to conclude their hypothesis. I'll be linking every research paper in the description as I won't be going over the proofs. But if you want to argue over them, you can feel free to figure out all the math like I did. Now, let's use a gotacha game as an example. To be impartial and also because it's the most obvious, let's use infield. Everyone remember how I said you get a free tin pull at 30 that doesn't affect pity and at 60 you get a free tin pull for the next banner?

[00:40:58]Those were added in after feedback from the beta. So I can't say for certain how much they were aware of this, but in practice their addition puts players in that state of goal acceleration. In infield those markers are at 30, 60, 80, and 120. As I said earlier, the first step is often the hardest. So, when the pity counter resets to zero, it's normally a lot easier to save instead of spending. At least it would be. Oh, look, a free tinpool we get for every banner. And because they're banner limited, you basically have to use them or you're essentially throwing away free money. Well, look at that. You've already taken that first step. That's normally so hard, but it's cool. You still don't have to spend anything.

[00:41:44]Well, you are only 20 away from that 310 pool at the 30 mark. And we could all use the extra arsenal tickets, right?

[00:41:54]What's the harm? Look at that. You've made 40 pulls in total. 20 of them were free and your pity counters at 30. You made out like a bandit. Wait, hold on, guys. You see that?

[00:42:10]Huh?

[00:42:11]You know, I didn't realize how uh how close we got to that 60 mark. When you think about it, the dossier is basically a rebate cuz I get 10 free for later.

[00:42:23]It's only 30 away and we just did 30 and it barely cost anything. Maybe this will help me get lucky on the next operator.

[00:42:35]The 80 is right there. I haven't even gotten a six-star yet. I mean, the 80 does carry over, so I don't have to.

[00:42:46]Going to 60 and stopping is actually the smartest pulling strategy.

[00:42:51]Screw it. I'm going for it. Damn it.

[00:42:55]Failed the 50/50. I I mean, at this point, I may as well just go the rest of the way to hit guarantee. It's only 40 away, and if I don't, it resets anyway.

[00:43:06]Does that paint a clear enough picture?

[00:43:08]Oh, and that dossier you get at 60, well, when the banner resets, add it and the banner limited pools and you're only 10 away from 30. It's definitely good for you resource-wise, but it only makes the loop easier. And don't forget, because the 80 carries over, it can fall anywhere in this loop to make the next goal point worth going for.

[00:43:29]>> But I'm not done yet.

[00:43:30]>> Let's extrapolate a little further.

[00:43:32]Let's say you stopped yourself at 80 or maybe ran out of pools. If they turn the 120 into a spark, meaning the 120 stays even if you get the target early, your incentive is to finish the loop whether you won or lost the 50/50. To get an extra if you won, or to not feel like you wasted pulls if you lost. For those who have been dragging infield for not having carryover, well, what do you guys think will happen if your counter was already at 80 and next banner you get 20 pulls for free? What if it's a character you don't want? Are you just gonna throw away the free money so you don't risk getting them? Now, let's say you use that 20 and it didn't happen. If you still don't want the next operator or the one after that, you're in the same position as before of either throwing away free pulls are basically guaranteeing to get something you don't want. Pretty sucky. Now, obviously, the only real way to fix that is for them to turn the banner lock pulls into the chartered headunting tickets we can use on anything. something they should do, not just for us, but let's be honest, it' make them more money in the long run, too. People would buy those packs that pop up in the store for every banner and stockpile the tickets.

[00:44:40]Building pity never quite made sense to me. Back when I played Ginchin, I didn't really want Jong Lee cuz he didn't look fun and I believed in Noel supremacy.

[00:44:51]That being said, everyone around me kept talking about building pity, so I tried it and I got Shong Lee. Didn't want him wine.

[00:45:01]>> Never used him. Even if I had kind of wanted him, I'd have less for someone I want more. Obviously, I'm sure someone saying don't build pity on a banner you don't want. Yeah, it was a rookie mistake. But that's also basically the same as skipping and saving up. Why do some people build pity and try to lose the 50/50 like they control the results?

[00:45:21]Gambling addiction. Now again, in certain situations, carryover comes in handy. If you wanted, say, Xiao and Huttow, it helped there. And yes, I'm using them as an example cuz that's how long ago I actually cared. The last five star I got was debut Mama Yolan. But in games like these, impulsivity isn't rewarding. If you don't have enough, pick one and save up. You should prepare for the worst in all gotchas, not just infield. In regards to multiple 50/50s, here's a hypothetical. You can imagine any two adjacent banner characters from whatever game, but I'll use Ginchin again. You could try your luck for Xiao and whatever's left goes to Huttowo if you don't get them. But if you get one, you don't get the other unless you're ridiculously lucky. With infield system, you decided you wanted Huttow base, by the way. You start pulling for you lose the 50/50 and got ti crap. You keep pulling, you lose again, but oh look, you got next 50/50, you get huttow before the guarantee. Would that really be the worst? The featured six stars in the lost pool have a 7.14% chance each, 14.28% 28% together, which means that in infield, you have roughly a 6535 split when it comes to getting a feature character. This is why nuance is important. For every down, there is an up. Or put another way, >> for every black cloud, there's little white neighborhood.

[00:46:53]>> Saving like that may not be ideal, and the system definitely isn't perfect, but it does provide benefits. Due to the rotating banner and the multiple 50/50s, I've been lucky enough so far to get every six-star currently in the game.

[00:47:07]And a friend of mine who skipped Gilberta for Yvon got Gilberta anyway.

[00:47:12]Obviously, these are just examples. I've heard a lot of people have been getting jump scared by the sheep. One of the bigger problems is just that getting dupes for six stars you want can be less reliable. But this is balanced by not really needing the dupes anyway. It's all about perspective. The weapon banner, which while it may have its issues, can also be pretty generous to free-to-play. A 4% drop rate for top rarity is significantly higher than other games. It's the only gotcha game where I felt able to and been able to get a character's signature without feeling like I'm shooting myself in the foot. Then again, Hypergri put some more weapon currency in the game. By the way, I know I've been kind of bragging about my operator pool so far. The fact that excluding Levitane, I've gotten every other operator in 60 pools or less must make me so happy with no downsides.

[00:48:04]Right.

[00:48:06]Right.

[00:48:08]No. Remember how weapon currency works in this game? Yeah. At the time of me making this video, I say hoping to god they changed this. The only way to actually get enough pools for weapons is pulling for characters. I have some backwards ass luck because ironically excluding Levitane whose weapon I got early unlike her every operator who I got early if I pulled for their weapon I went to guarantee I had to skip Gilberta and Rossy's weapons I didn't have a choice and that sucks even if you didn't care about getting their weapon even though signature weapons aren't necessary it STILL SUCKS PULLING AN OPERATOR EARLY I'M TIRED OF SPENDING EXTRA PULLS ON AN OPERATOR I ALREADY HAVE JUST TO AFFORD THEIR WEAPON. WHO KNEW WINNING THE LOTTERY WOULD MAKE ME [ __ ] POOR? I'M LITERALLY SUFFERING FROM SUCCESS. IF I HAVE TO GO TO [ __ ] GUARANTEE ONE MORE TIME, HYPER GRIP, I SWEAR TO GOD.

[00:49:07]SO, UH, all gotcha is inherently predatory.

[00:49:12]>> Yo, what the [ __ ] happened to my house?

[00:49:14]>> They're all going to prey on you. So, are we really arguing which we'd rather be eaten by when one is a hungry lion and the other is Epstein?

[00:49:24]Now that I've said all that, I want to revisit the beginning of the video. Is Infield's Gotcha actually bad?

[00:49:32]Objectively, no. It's still a gotacha game, but in some areas, it pulls ahead of its contemporaries in more ways than it falls short. If you're a free-to-play or a low spender, this system is actually more generous. All things considered, the stats back that up. But stats don't change how something feels.

[00:49:52]This is my final takeaway. I'm not here to tell you your feelings are wrong.

[00:49:59]Even the statement that it's the worst feeling is obviously subjective. But if handling loss aversion is something you struggle with, then even if you can argue it's mathematically better, the multiple 50/50s will wear on you. Also, devil's advocate. It's less beneficial the more operators you have. Infield's gotcha definitely has issues, and players from any game should always push their devs to improve. Some things on their own aren't issues with a simple change in mindset, and even good things often come with a potential downside.

[00:50:27]But I'm hoping after all of this, you're at least more aware of the tricks and why these games make you feel that way.

[00:50:32]Value receptive wasn't something I made to tell people their feelings are wrong or don't matter. That feeling does matter and you should be aware of it.

[00:50:41]Just don't let that feeling blind you to the value that's actually there.

[00:50:46]>> I've got lots of units to play with and even before I got them, I was dominating with this physical team. This physical team is crazy. I'm I'm making builds.

[00:50:54]I'm having a good time.

[00:50:59]>> And to wrap things up, let's talk solutions. I'm not going to list what would make it perfect. Perfect would be taking the good from every game on this list, which is unrealistic.

[00:51:08]>> Yo, editing Tiger here. I originally didn't plan to do this, but I took so long to make this that not mentioning the pool economy even once would be disingenuous. As of writing this, Infield, in my opinion, is in a weird spot. A lot of people at launch said the pool economy sucked, and frankly, that wasn't true. Enough people have crunched the numbers to prove that. Though I'm not 100% sure on the exact number, bookkeeping puts the launch patch over 200 charter pools. The real issue is that the pull amounts are very spread out and aren't always visible. Something the devs addressed in the 1.2 live stream. And from a feeling standpoint, it also doesn't help that so little of what you can gain comes from a recurring source. The golden number that Infield should aim for is at least 80 pulls per patch. That's at least one six-star per patch and a guaranteed to skip ratio of 2:1. A generous economy can cover the flaws and make it better than the competition, but too stingy and it can easily be worse. Also, at some point, they need to add other ways to monetize.

[00:51:57]I'm assuming they'll introduce skins at some point, which is why I'm saving the yellow rocks as much as I can. And if there's anyone still listening that somehow still thinks I'm a shill saying Hyper Griff can do no wrong, you should know that on one of the feedback surveys, I typed for so long that the game client closed. I play on PS5, so typing takes longer, but my point still stands. Despite my jokes about certain people hate grifting infield and complaining about the dumbest things, >> now the lightning's going to hit at an angle. Woohoo! You don't need to play 1.2 to to know it's going to be a steamy pile of [ __ ] >> Oh, Ricky, when I catch you, Ricky. The game does have issues, and the last thing I want them to do is actually screw things up to the point of no return. So, in trying to appeal to a mainstream audience that, to be frank, would often rather play the same thing in a different package, having issues when you're different can cause problems. But I probably don't have to tell you that we all remember middle school. So, before I continue, I need to explain the difference between a pity system and a spark system. Pity systems have a ceiling normally called hard pity. Hitting hard pity gives you the character. Outside a few games, if you get the character early, the pity expires. In a spark system, the ceiling once you hit it gives you what we call a spark. Think of it like tokens or a voucher that you can redeem to choose whatever character you want that's in the store. That's it. Everything else on these lists are common for the system, but not always present. So, by definition, Infield is a pity system, but it shares traits most common with spark systems, making it feel like a weird hybrid of both, having their downsides without their best benefits.

[00:53:29]So, while it has a lot of synergy, it also has dissonance. The system didn't exactly come out of nowhere either. Ark Knights has a lot of different banners with different gimmicks attached, which in the 1.2 live stream, they revealed we're getting one of them. Based on the definition, Ark Knight's limited banners use a spark system, and standard banners technically count as pity systems, but Ark Knights also had collab banners. Ark Knights has collabed with Rainbow Six Siege, Monster Hunter, Dungeon Messi, and A Mika, to name a few. Collab banners had a smaller ceiling at 120, and because collab events require business deals, they aren't always guaranteed to come back. There were limited time events where the banner progress didn't carry over cuz there was nowhere to carry it to. It's fine for a limited time event, but has issues if it's the main and only system. This is why there's been so much debate. This is why so many players have opinions that stop making sense when you think about it. Like saying we need 120 every patch if there's no carryover. While that would be nice, no, we don't. Anyone saying that acts like you can guarantee every character in every gotacha game as a freeto play, and that's just not true.

[00:54:40]So, how would I fix it? Which I'm only doing because these days people get on you if you complain without offering solutions. First, raise the rates. As an OG Ark Knights player, that 2% did some crazy work. I understand why it was lowered, but I think it'd be fine somewhere between 1 and 1.5%.

[00:55:00]I'm cool with multiple 50/50s, but in Ark Knights, they were offset by how often you got six stars. It was a magic trick in Ark Knights and Infield is missing the hat for its rabbit.

[00:55:11]>> You're still rocking that charm.

[00:55:12]>> Next, the 120 shouldn't reset the 80.

[00:55:15]Plain and simple. The 120 not carrying over is like a spark, but in a spark system, it wouldn't go away if you got them early. That's why it feels bad. The 120 needs to pick a lane. I'd prefer the spark side personally so we could redeem whoever we want. or at the very least the 120 wouldn't expire if you pull the focus unit early. In theory, this should also shift some of the pressure from FOMO into greed and impatience. Got them early, but oh no, that spark is only 40 away. Pair that with featured operators rotating into the loss pool and you can use the spark to get someone you skipped. That feels way better and puts feelings back into players hands. On that note, it would also reduce FOMO if previous operators after that period where they stick around for two more banners got added to the standard pool instead of phasing out. Then you could always potentially get them if you miss your window. And them getting added to the standard pool is something in Ark Knight, so it's not like they haven't done it before. Also, max pots. It's funny that for years I've seen a lot of people give whales in these games so much [ __ ] but now I'm seeing a 180 on this game. Statistically, you should max an operator by 480 pools at the latest because by that point, you'd have at least three guarantees. And while that is a lot, it's similar to or better than other games in our list. And honestly, if you haven't managed to get three other copies in 480, then >> bring that token down from every 240 to every 120. That gets you one extra copy by 480. I'm not saying the game needs all my suggestions. These are just things I would like.

[00:56:56]>> Editing Tiger here again. There was a recent article hinting that they may make changes. So, to future proof this video, I'm mentioning that things I've said throughout this video are subject to change. If those changes lead to some thinking this video aged poorly, those people need to realize that all my points still stand because the psychology facts wouldn't change even if the game does. I didn't say pity carryover was bad, only that it's still manipulative. And pointing that out can lead to cognitive dissonance for those already invested. The how I'd improve section is proof I think there should be changes. And out of that list, if nothing else, it should be stopping the 120 from resetting the 80, removing the banner lock on the free 10 pools, and picking a lane between pity and spark. I have a preference towards the spark, but ultimately don't care as they both have pros and cons. With those changes, it' be way more generous. People just need to embrace a different mindset. Like I've been saying, all this game is asking you to do is have discipline and not greed. And if you think I'm going to act like I'm above it all cuz I just save and wait, I'm not. Remember how I said I was a tinpool away from Levitane?

[00:57:57]I could have gotten the resources if I had literally just waited two more days.

[00:58:01]But I bought the $3 deal in the store cuz I didn't want to wait. Worst part is life hit me and I didn't even get to play her for the next two days anyway. I could have just waited and got her without spending money. But instead of thinking of it as $3 lost, I kept it pushing and thought of it as extra resources I could use next time. Point is, I'm still impulsive and impatient.

[00:58:23]I'm one of you guys. Then again, I literally have ADHD.

[00:58:28]>> What's your excuse?

[00:58:37]>> Yo, if you guys made it this far, I really appreciate you. I was working hard on this video. If you liked what you saw, please like and subscribe and it helped a lot. If you like videos with this sort of quality, please check out my unofficial guide series. They're funny. They're worth watching, even if you're not interested in the games.

[00:58:56]Trust me. With that being said, thanks again for watching and good luck on your pools. I'm Tiger Falco. Peace.