the key to scoring more than your opponent is inefficiencies in the system.
Sending more shuttles over the same period of time.
Currently, with overnights, if you are sending doubles, you are doing essentially 8 shuttles in a 9 hour period. Folks feel the need to exploit the inefficiency of some players, and wake up every three hours to send boosted shuttles. If "everyone" used the current "doubles" because they gave you the equivalent of 12 shuttles in 3 hours, you will actually gain more of an advantage (more people using them then before) by continuing to blue speed boost, or even 1 hour boost, shuttles through the night, waking up even more often.
at 90 minutes shuttles you could run 24 in the same time period, even with green only boosts you could run the equivalent of 18(4.5 rounds).
I'm just saying there are unintended consequences to this adjustment, as you move the line for superior efficiency and someone will always press for an advantage, even if its to just break into the top 1k.
Personally, when I'm all out on a shuttle event, I blue boost constantly through the day, then double overnight and get what sleep I can (two small children).
If you are currently having to wake up every three hours through the night to attain the rank you want, your rank will be worse after the fact, as now every will have the same efficiency as you, and some will take the larger sacrifice to get ahead.
The real issue is shuttles have not been adjusted for the fact everyone has stacked crew now. I remember when in the top 200 of events, it would be a careful selection of do you boost that mission up to 80% or send it doubled overnight at 63%. now everyone in that ranking sends 85-95% unboosted no problem, so strategic choices are reduced, and it's all about efficiency and number of shuttles sent. "Completion" VP also worsened this, as scores are more homogenized and you aren't punished as much for choosing incorrectly.
I stopped trying for top 1000 ages ago. The closest I got was during Gates of Hell where I used up all my 3* time boosts and hit all the deadlines I could (I couldn't get away with no sleep at all, but I think I got by on just over 4 hours a night for the duration of the event, so only missed a couple of deadlines a night). I finished in the 1020s. Wasn't prepared to put that effort in again, so have accepted that I'll never get the event rank achievement. It is what it is. For the crazies that go all out for rank, all power to them. I'm not that crazy
Level 99. Latest Immortal (957): Chancellor Gowron - October 2023.
+1. Always wondered why it was only 2x rewards but 3x on the time.
They want people logging in more frequently. If it was 2X rewards, 2X time then people would just always do that and wouldn't log in (and possibly buy) as frequently
Look, we're all living in a Skinner Box. DB wants you in pain. The intent is to cause you pain so you'll pay to reduce the pain for a moment.
This is a Saw movie. If DB can only get $500 out of you over the life of your attendance, they'd prefer that you give them that entire $500 right now. It's a win if to get that $500 they talk you into cutting of your own leg. That's much preferred to you staying whole or healthy, but taking a year to give then the same $500.
These pain points are the primary design aspect of the game, and we're just cattle whose sole reason of existence is to feed them money.
For this reason, DB won't change the boosts, because the very existence of this thread proves their tactic is working.
get rid the bug/feature that players exploit in the beginning of event to open up more shuttles and quickly reach 4000
also during hybrid evens disallow shuttles to keep receiving points after second phase started
Why? Both these strategies are available to all.
Come join our fleet! We're a great social group that helps each other. You play the way you want to, participate as much as you want and if you want to be competitive, you can be! Check out our fleet ad:
get rid the bug/feature that players exploit in the beginning of event to open up more shuttles and quickly reach 4000
also during hybrid evens disallow shuttles to keep receiving points after second phase started
Why? Those aren’t bugs those are part of the strategy.
it is a strategy, but not everyone knows...
I know about this strategy, because I spend time on the forums and because my fleet are awesome and every event it can be used they help and/or remind us about it. If a player doesn't know about something that's unfortunate but ultimately not my fault. Lots of players airlocked voyage only crew before they realised that (at that time) they could only be obtained once. Should I therefore have all of mine removed because 'they didn't know'
I don't always use the kickstart, it takes a lot of blue 3* boosts and I don't always feel its an appropriate use of them. Also, I'm one of the players that sometimes sets alarms every 3 hours during the night. When I want that legendary then yes, I set alarms. That's my choice, I don't do it every week, and I dont do it for hybrids. So maybe once a month I choose to play that way.
Interestingly, as some of you know my OH plays. Generally, he does not set alarms. Last week though, he opened 38 packs and used every time boost he had. There were quite a few. All of Saturday and most of Sunday he ploughed through the event and was sitting under 1000. He's only made threshold once before on a faction so this was quite a big deal for him. Anyway, he realised that if he didn't wake up through the night he would lose out on his placement, and as my alarm went off he chose to also put on extra shuttle's.
For what its worth, even when there isn't a faction event I often wake during the night, stagger to the bathroom, and then drink half a pint of milk. It doesn't adversely affect me. I do occasionally question what screen brightness is doing to my eyes at 4am but given Iplay like this once a month or so I don't think I'm going to drop anytime soon, nor do i have mental health issues.
I have worked as a security guard doing night shifts, and let me tell you that was a lot more detrimental to my health than briefly waking up once or twice a night for a few days. I felt like a walking zombie. The start of parenthood was also more difficult. I'm thinking probably because these are every night for several months, not for a few days every so often.
Finally, like the job I do or having children, its my choice! DB don't require me to wake up, I can play the game how I want. Should DB also remove the £90-odd pack from sale because some people may not be managing their money properly and so could be getting themselves into debt?
I think there's a very simple solution here, one that wouldn't upset anyone.
Regarding the top 25/50, there will always be players willing to exploit any advantage, be that time, money, boosts etc, to a degree that most would find unreasonable. And that's absolutely fine. It's the 500 - 1500 range that seems to be feeling extra pressure these days, probably largely due to players having a far stronger crew roster today than they did say a year ago. I certainly find myself in this category. This is a consequence of what should be an anticipated development of the game over time. As such db seriously need to reconsider the awards structure. This has been discussed in other threads many times, but simply extending the reward bands beyond 1000 would alleviate much pressure, reducing player burnout from having to turn a game into a job, or players leaving from discouragement due to an inability to rank well enough to gain the 5* character despite a strong crew and reasonable time and effort being used. Yes, the exact details are up for debate, but the basic premise of expanding the reward bands would seem a no brainer 🤔
Ten Forward Loungers - Give Your Best, Get Our Best!
I just woke up in the middle of my sleep to read this thread. Should the thread be closed in the interest of my good night's sleep? Is the OP responsible for my health and/ or unhealthy decisions I make? I am simply pointing out another way of looking at what already has been said (in this thread as well as others)...it is MY CHOICE to do what I want to do and no one is holding a gun to my head to do otherwise. I have no problem if you are concerned about fairness or people having an advantage and want to see things changed because of those concerns. What bothers me is when people take these concerns and turn them into something they are not.
To state the obvious: Nobody's being forced to wake up every 3 hours to change shuttles. If you want to rank at the very top of the leaderboard, it may be deemed necessary, but I've done very well in events sleeping through the night and letting the 9-hour boosts run.
To state the obvious, it's a very common practice and there is a good reason for that. It helps you improve your rank. If you believe that it's not necessary, then there will be no issues having it implemented at a gameplay level to avoid players having their mental and physical health impacted by a mistaken but commonly held belief that waking up throughout the night for 3 or 4 nights straight is essential for a good score in an event.
The responsibility for player time ultimately belongs to the player. I'm an adult and can regulate my own time. Parents are responsible for their kids times eg shutting off wifi at night. I see the point that is being made, but at the end of the day its up to us to take responsibility for ourselves.
Not entirely. A company has a duty of care to it's customers, and one of those issues is definitely health and safety. While it may not have been an issue in the past, if a gamer suffers serious health issues from gaming there is the potential for suing, should the company not have taken reasonable steps to ensure the health and safety of it's customers. Sure, it's a bit theoretical, but I would certainly be on the alert for rules and regulations in that direction were I a gaming company (any company, come to that). As an example, while it is up to the driver to drive responsibly
get rid the bug/feature that players exploit in the beginning of event to open up more shuttles and quickly reach 4000
also during hybrid evens disallow shuttles to keep receiving points after second phase started
Why? Those aren’t bugs those are part of the strategy.
it is a strategy, but not everyone knows...
I know about this strategy, because I spend time on the forums and because my fleet are awesome and every event it can be used they help and/or remind us about it. If a player doesn't know about something that's unfortunate but ultimately not my fault. Lots of players airlocked voyage only crew before they realised that (at that time) they could only be obtained once. Should I therefore have all of mine removed because 'they didn't know'
I don't always use the kickstart, it takes a lot of blue 3* boosts and I don't always feel its an appropriate use of them. Also, I'm one of the players that sometimes sets alarms every 3 hours during the night. When I want that legendary then yes, I set alarms. That's my choice, I don't do it every week, and I dont do it for hybrids. So maybe once a month I choose to play that way.
Interestingly, as some of you know my OH plays. Generally, he does not set alarms. Last week though, he opened 38 packs and used every time boost he had. There were quite a few. All of Saturday and most of Sunday he ploughed through the event and was sitting under 1000. He's only made threshold once before on a faction so this was quite a big deal for him. Anyway, he realised that if he didn't wake up through the night he would lose out on his placement, and as my alarm went off he chose to also put on extra shuttle's.
For what its worth, even when there isn't a faction event I often wake during the night, stagger to the bathroom, and then drink half a pint of milk. It doesn't adversely affect me. I do occasionally question what screen brightness is doing to my eyes at 4am but given Iplay like this once a month or so I don't think I'm going to drop anytime soon, nor do i have mental health issues.
I have worked as a security guard doing night shifts, and let me tell you that was a lot more detrimental to my health than briefly waking up once or twice a night for a few days. I felt like a walking zombie. The start of parenthood was also more difficult. I'm thinking probably because these are every night for several months, not for a few days every so often.
Finally, like the job I do or having children, its my choice! DB don't require me to wake up, I can play the game how I want. Should DB also remove the £90-odd pack from sale because some people may not be managing their money properly and so could be getting themselves into debt?
As I've said before #eachtotheirown 😊
It's my experience with children that has made me realise just how much I love a good night's sleep... I'm ready to murder anyone who disrupts it nowadays!
Not entirely. A company has a duty of care to it's customers, and one of those issues is definitely health and safety. While it may not have been an issue in the past, if a gamer suffers serious health issues from gaming there is the potential for suing, should the company not have taken reasonable steps to ensure the health and safety of it's customers. Sure, it's a bit theoretical, but I would certainly be on the alert for rules and regulations in that direction were I a gaming company (any company, come to that). As an example, while it is up to the driver to drive responsibly
Legally or ethically? On a philosophic level I disagree with both, but I would like to know what exactly you mean when you say a company "has a duty to care about its customers". I agree it is probably smart for a company to care about its customers to encourage repeat business, but it is not/should not be considered mandatory.
I suppose though it matters in this discussion about the business model. A fruit dealer will want to make sure they offer a quality product at a fair price to get you to buy fruit again. A drug vendor has no concern about customer loyalty because they deal in an addiction and an addicted customer will come back to them no matter how badly they are treated.
If you are contending that DB is operating along similar channels to the drug vendor and are digital addiction distributors then perhaps we can find common ground with regard to an application of empathy regarding those effected, but even then I would still resist your claim that DB has an obligation to care about those people. They would be on the supply side of the transaction, and empathy would be best applied to the demand side, ie helping people break away from the addiction or discouraging them from ever getting addicted in the first place.
If you are contending this business model is closer to that of the fruit dealer then you have lost me completely on the notion that DB has an obligation or duty to care for customers. Customers are free to be adults, free to spend their money however they choose, and are also free to make decisions regarding their sleep needs.
Not entirely. A company has a duty of care to it's customers, and one of those issues is definitely health and safety. While it may not have been an issue in the past, if a gamer suffers serious health issues from gaming there is the potential for suing, should the company not have taken reasonable steps to ensure the health and safety of it's customers. Sure, it's a bit theoretical, but I would certainly be on the alert for rules and regulations in that direction were I a gaming company (any company, come to that). As an example, while it is up to the driver to drive responsibly
Legally or ethically? On a philosophic level I disagree with both, but I would like to know what exactly you mean when you say a company "has a duty to care about its customers". I agree it is probably smart for a company to care about its customers to encourage repeat business, but it is not/should not be considered mandatory.
I suppose though it matters in this discussion about the business model. A fruit dealer will want to make sure they offer a quality product at a fair price to get you to buy fruit again. A drug vendor has no concern about customer loyalty because they deal in an addiction and an addicted customer will come back to them no matter how badly they are treated.
If you are contending that DB is operating along similar channels to the drug vendor and are digital addiction distributors then perhaps we can find common ground with regard to an application of empathy regarding those effected, but even then I would still resist your claim that DB has an obligation to care about those people. They would be on the supply side of the transaction, and empathy would be best applied to the demand side, ie helping people break away from the addiction or discouraging them from ever getting addicted in the first place.
If you are contending this business model is closer to that of the fruit dealer then you have lost me completely on the notion that DB has an obligation or duty to care for customers. Customers are free to be adults, free to spend their money however they choose, and are also free to make decisions regarding their sleep needs.
Yeah sorry that was a draught I thought I'd deleted lol. To late for me to go back and try and explain what I meant, I'm exceptionally tired and need to sleep, I've got a rather important day tomorrow so bugger it. Someone else can pick it up, or you can claim a win.
it is bad for the company, but sounds what we need??
Sorry, but more socialism is definitely not what we need. If DB wants to restructure events or game features to prevent people from ruining their sleep schedules...fine. If they want to leave the players free to make their own choices, that is fine as well. Putting artificial controls on play time isn’t a solution for bad sleep habits, it’s a band-aid for the real problem of over-competitiveness and poor impulse control.
Not entirely. A company has a duty of care to it's customers, and one of those issues is definitely health and safety. While it may not have been an issue in the past, if a gamer suffers serious health issues from gaming there is the potential for suing, should the company not have taken reasonable steps to ensure the health and safety of it's customers. Sure, it's a bit theoretical, but I would certainly be on the alert for rules and regulations in that direction were I a gaming company (any company, come to that). As an example, while it is up to the driver to drive responsibly
Legally or ethically? On a philosophic level I disagree with both, but I would like to know what exactly you mean when you say a company "has a duty to care about its customers". I agree it is probably smart for a company to care about its customers to encourage repeat business, but it is not/should not be considered mandatory.
I suppose though it matters in this discussion about the business model. A fruit dealer will want to make sure they offer a quality product at a fair price to get you to buy fruit again. A drug vendor has no concern about customer loyalty because they deal in an addiction and an addicted customer will come back to them no matter how badly they are treated.
If you are contending that DB is operating along similar channels to the drug vendor and are digital addiction distributors then perhaps we can find common ground with regard to an application of empathy regarding those effected, but even then I would still resist your claim that DB has an obligation to care about those people. They would be on the supply side of the transaction, and empathy would be best applied to the demand side, ie helping people break away from the addiction or discouraging them from ever getting addicted in the first place.
If you are contending this business model is closer to that of the fruit dealer then you have lost me completely on the notion that DB has an obligation or duty to care for customers. Customers are free to be adults, free to spend their money however they choose, and are also free to make decisions regarding their sleep needs.
Yeah sorry that was a draught I thought I'd deleted lol. To late for me to go back and try and explain what I meant, I'm exceptionally tired and need to sleep, I've got a rather important day tomorrow so bugger it. Someone else can pick it up, or you can claim a win.
Have a good one ByloBand!
Sorry if I have come across as someone out for a "win", I was more interested in the spirited debate. I am sorry you are having a rough go of things, I hope your day improves
--EDIT--
I like to think of us in this thread as I'm Ron Swanson, you are Leslie Knope. We are almost certainly never going to agree, but we can still be friends because it is OK for two adults to disagree and still respect each other.
I just woke up in the middle of my sleep to read this thread. Should the thread be closed in the interest of my good night's sleep? Is the OP responsible for my health and/ or unhealthy decisions I make? I am simply pointing out another way of looking at what already has been said (in this thread as well as others)...it is MY CHOICE to do what I want to do and no one is holding a gun to my head to do otherwise. I have no problem if you are concerned about fairness or people having an advantage and want to see things changed because of those concerns. What bothers me is when people take these concerns and turn them into something they are not.
That's a strawman argument. There would be no drawback to reading this thread later, or maybe not reading it at all.
I just woke up in the middle of my sleep to read this thread. Should the thread be closed in the interest of my good night's sleep? Is the OP responsible for my health and/ or unhealthy decisions I make? I am simply pointing out another way of looking at what already has been said (in this thread as well as others)...it is MY CHOICE to do what I want to do and no one is holding a gun to my head to do otherwise. I have no problem if you are concerned about fairness or people having an advantage and want to see things changed because of those concerns. What bothers me is when people take these concerns and turn them into something they are not.
That's a strawman argument. There would be no drawback to reading this thread later, or maybe not reading it at all.
HOWEVER, if it was a thread on the AND shuttle issue, that might be a different story.
I just woke up in the middle of my sleep to read this thread. Should the thread be closed in the interest of my good night's sleep? Is the OP responsible for my health and/ or unhealthy decisions I make? I am simply pointing out another way of looking at what already has been said (in this thread as well as others)...it is MY CHOICE to do what I want to do and no one is holding a gun to my head to do otherwise. I have no problem if you are concerned about fairness or people having an advantage and want to see things changed because of those concerns. What bothers me is when people take these concerns and turn them into something they are not.
That's a strawman argument. There would be no drawback to reading this thread later, or maybe not reading it at all.
Yeah, then perhaps my opinion was not understood. Again, it's to point out that no one is making me do it and it's my choice to make. Sorry but, as an adult, I do not like the idea of others needing (or feeling the need) to make decisions for me. I also don't need anyone acting as Mighty Mouse singing, "here I come to save the day". I'll also repeat that I have no problem with people wanting things changed for real (or perceived) disadvantages. But to do it behind the veil of altruistic reasons is shameful in my opinion.
Someone telling me I don't need to read a thread is the same as saying to someone they don't need to compete in an event or get a certain rank. I mean what's the drawback to not competing in an event or getting a certain rank? You won't receive texts and images that have no value outside the game? In a game that no one will ever even win? I've been keeping up with this thread because I think there are some interesting points being made on all sides and, in all honesty, I like being in the loop.
Yeah, then perhaps my opinion was not understood. Again, it's to point out that no one is making me do it and it's my choice to make. Sorry but, as an adult, I do not like the idea of others needing (or feeling the need) to make decisions for me. I also don't need anyone acting as Mighty Mouse singing, "here I come to save the day". I'll also repeat that I have no problem with people wanting things changed for real (or perceived) disadvantages. But to do it behind the veil of altruistic reasons is shameful in my opinion.
I'll keep this brief, since I think you'll believe what you want to believe anyway, but I also don't care about ranking in these events. I don't like a company profiting by encouraging unhealthy behavior, and I am actually concerned for the well being of other people I will never meet.
I can't speak for the others asking for a change, but I get the sense that they are also simply concerned.
Yeah, then perhaps my opinion was not understood. Again, it's to point out that no one is making me do it and it's my choice to make. Sorry but, as an adult, I do not like the idea of others needing (or feeling the need) to make decisions for me. I also don't need anyone acting as Mighty Mouse singing, "here I come to save the day". I'll also repeat that I have no problem with people wanting things changed for real (or perceived) disadvantages. But to do it behind the veil of altruistic reasons is shameful in my opinion.
I'll keep this brief, since I think you'll believe what you want to believe anyway, but I also don't care about ranking in these events. I don't like a company profiting by encouraging unhealthy behavior, and I am actually concerned for the well being of other people I will never meet.
I can't speak for the others asking for a change, but I get the sense that they are also simply concerned.
Ok, so it's time for me to "come clean" about my true feelings here and it may or may not shock some following/ participating in this thread but, here goes:
I actually agree with the OP on everything except that the company is responsible for my choices. I agree that the reward boosts need to be reworked. I also agree that there are those that will sacrifice their well-being in order to do things that others might consider ludicrous and I personally don't think that it is wise to do so. However, this has been going on for as long as I've been playing this game (18+ months) and these unhealthy behaviors are evident in other, similar games and it is an unfortunate reality that many companies (not just DB) profit and will continue to profit from this. I'll admit though, I do wonder why, if this is such a concern, it hasn't been brought up before. Why not last week? Last month? Before last month? Maybe it's because we have had a few faction events in a row and that burnout has caused some to have an opinion or there could be another reason, I don't know. I also feel that debate should be used to help others formulate the best opinion possible and welcome it in any healthy form as should be evident from the last line in my previous post.
Finally, I am not an evil person (just felt like I should clarify that). In fact, if anyone here knew me in real life, they might think I am too kind and considerate of others. I think it is good to help one another, to be there for each other through support or any other means possible and to show concern. I also think we are stronger united than divided and should look out for each other but without dictating every personal choice someone else makes because, in my opinion, that is a slippery slope that can lead to more trouble than many of us would care to deal with.
My original intention, believe it or not, was actually for everyone to have more choice. Because I felt that, using Reward Boosts the way they are now, is not much of an option. I would have liked to see it become a more realistic option, but definitely not an overpowered one. More effort and interaction should, of course, still carry the best reward.
I still don't understand why suggesting what essentially amount to health and safety measures applicable to all is essentially 'limiting anyone's choices' or 'telling people what to do'.
Though, from experience, people do argue in this manner. I remember my brother-in-law complaining about seat-belts in cars when they were first introduced, a friend complaining about using a phone whilst driving, and colleagues complaining about sunscreen and hats even as others on the company were wandering off to the cancer clinic to get melanomas removed.
I admit, I stopped getting up every 3h when I bought my 4th shuttle.... I just couldn't do it any more.
I like the idea that it would give X3 the VP but I would also increase the price of speeding them up by 1/3. I already disagree with using dilithium and allowing that kind of thing in a competition (but not for shuttles outside the competition). No matter how you justify it or frame it, it will always be completely morally bankrupt in my book, but if you are going to allow this during the competitive part of the game then the price need to go higher.
I still don't understand why suggesting what essentially amount to health and safety measures applicable to all is essentially 'limiting anyone's choices' or 'telling people what to do'.
Though, from experience, people do argue in this manner. I remember my brother-in-law complaining about seat-belts in cars when they were first introduced, a friend complaining about using a phone whilst driving, and colleagues complaining about sunscreen and hats even as others on the company were wandering off to the cancer clinic to get melanomas removed.
In the spirit of understanding, I believe this meme is the best way to try and explain the answer to your question.
In short, forcing people to be healthy is denying them the right as a free, sentient to make a harmful choice. This is not the same thing as advocating FOR the unhealthy choice, but advocating for the right to choose.
But it works both ways, and to demonstrate I will use your example of sunscreen. It is established that in 2018 exposure to the sun's radiation is harmful to humans, it is known that sunscreen exists to prevent this problem, but it should not be a requirement to wear sunscreen. That being said, if somebody chooses not to wear sunscreen and gets skin cancer, the rest of us should not be expected to cover the cost of treatment. This person was free to choose, they chose to not protect themselves from a known danger, therefore they have assumed the responsibility.
It gets more complicated when these individual freedoms start to impact other people. The best example of those provided in your post is being on cell phones while driving. The personal rights and freedoms of the other people placed in danger as a result of one person's choice to use a phone while driving must outweigh one individual's right to choice in this case. In other words, if I use my phone while driving that is placing other people in danger because I may strike them with my car, and should not be permitted.
I still don't understand why suggesting what essentially amount to health and safety measures applicable to all is essentially 'limiting anyone's choices' or 'telling people what to do'.
Though, from experience, people do argue in this manner. I remember my brother-in-law complaining about seat-belts in cars when they were first introduced, a friend complaining about using a phone whilst driving, and colleagues complaining about sunscreen and hats even as others on the company were wandering off to the cancer clinic to get melanomas removed.
If it is a rule made by a business or a change in the way a product is delivered, people who disagree are free to leave to find another product or service to use. If it is a law made by the government...that is a problem, because there is no law so petty that someone won’t be killed over it. See also: Freddy Gray, Philando Castile, David Koresh.
I still don't understand why suggesting what essentially amount to health and safety measures applicable to all is essentially 'limiting anyone's choices' or 'telling people what to do'.
Though, from experience, people do argue in this manner. I remember my brother-in-law complaining about seat-belts in cars when they were first introduced, a friend complaining about using a phone whilst driving, and colleagues complaining about sunscreen and hats even as others on the company were wandering off to the cancer clinic to get melanomas removed.
In the spirit of understanding, I believe this meme is the best way to try and explain the answer to your question.
In short, forcing people to be healthy is denying them the right as a free, sentient to make a harmful choice. This is not the same thing as advocating FOR the unhealthy choice, but advocating for the right to choose.
But it works both ways, and to demonstrate I will use your example of sunscreen. It is established that in 2018 exposure to the sun's radiation is harmful to humans, it is known that sunscreen exists to prevent this problem, but it should not be a requirement to wear sunscreen. That being said, if somebody chooses not to wear sunscreen and gets skin cancer, the rest of us should not be expected to cover the cost of treatment. This person was free to choose, they chose to not protect themselves from a known danger, therefore they have assumed the responsibility.
It gets more complicated when these individual freedoms start to impact other people. The best example of those provided in your post is being on cell phones while driving. The personal rights and freedoms of the other people placed in danger as a result of one person's choice to use a phone while driving must outweigh one individual's right to choice in this case. In other words, if I use my phone while driving that is placing other people in danger because I may strike them with my car, and should not be permitted.
But if that person has 10 children whose lives would be adversely affected by their parent's death...
Ah freedom. Sadly, it invariably comes with responsibility towards others.
Comments
Sending more shuttles over the same period of time.
Currently, with overnights, if you are sending doubles, you are doing essentially 8 shuttles in a 9 hour period. Folks feel the need to exploit the inefficiency of some players, and wake up every three hours to send boosted shuttles. If "everyone" used the current "doubles" because they gave you the equivalent of 12 shuttles in 3 hours, you will actually gain more of an advantage (more people using them then before) by continuing to blue speed boost, or even 1 hour boost, shuttles through the night, waking up even more often.
at 90 minutes shuttles you could run 24 in the same time period, even with green only boosts you could run the equivalent of 18(4.5 rounds).
I'm just saying there are unintended consequences to this adjustment, as you move the line for superior efficiency and someone will always press for an advantage, even if its to just break into the top 1k.
Personally, when I'm all out on a shuttle event, I blue boost constantly through the day, then double overnight and get what sleep I can (two small children).
If you are currently having to wake up every three hours through the night to attain the rank you want, your rank will be worse after the fact, as now every will have the same efficiency as you, and some will take the larger sacrifice to get ahead.
The real issue is shuttles have not been adjusted for the fact everyone has stacked crew now. I remember when in the top 200 of events, it would be a careful selection of do you boost that mission up to 80% or send it doubled overnight at 63%. now everyone in that ranking sends 85-95% unboosted no problem, so strategic choices are reduced, and it's all about efficiency and number of shuttles sent. "Completion" VP also worsened this, as scores are more homogenized and you aren't punished as much for choosing incorrectly.
get rid the bug/feature that players exploit in the beginning of event to open up more shuttles and quickly reach 4000
also during hybrid evens disallow shuttles to keep receiving points after second phase started
Look, we're all living in a Skinner Box. DB wants you in pain. The intent is to cause you pain so you'll pay to reduce the pain for a moment.
This is a Saw movie. If DB can only get $500 out of you over the life of your attendance, they'd prefer that you give them that entire $500 right now. It's a win if to get that $500 they talk you into cutting of your own leg. That's much preferred to you staying whole or healthy, but taking a year to give then the same $500.
These pain points are the primary design aspect of the game, and we're just cattle whose sole reason of existence is to feed them money.
For this reason, DB won't change the boosts, because the very existence of this thread proves their tactic is working.
Why? Those aren’t bugs those are part of the strategy.
it is a strategy, but not everyone knows...
it is bad for the company, but sounds what we need??
Why? Both these strategies are available to all.
https://forum.disruptorbeam.com/stt/discussion/5023/qh-the-oldest-fleet-in-timelines-l91-starbase-daily-targets-met
I know about this strategy, because I spend time on the forums and because my fleet are awesome and every event it can be used they help and/or remind us about it. If a player doesn't know about something that's unfortunate but ultimately not my fault. Lots of players airlocked voyage only crew before they realised that (at that time) they could only be obtained once. Should I therefore have all of mine removed because 'they didn't know'
I don't always use the kickstart, it takes a lot of blue 3* boosts and I don't always feel its an appropriate use of them. Also, I'm one of the players that sometimes sets alarms every 3 hours during the night. When I want that legendary then yes, I set alarms. That's my choice, I don't do it every week, and I dont do it for hybrids. So maybe once a month I choose to play that way.
Interestingly, as some of you know my OH plays. Generally, he does not set alarms. Last week though, he opened 38 packs and used every time boost he had. There were quite a few. All of Saturday and most of Sunday he ploughed through the event and was sitting under 1000. He's only made threshold once before on a faction so this was quite a big deal for him. Anyway, he realised that if he didn't wake up through the night he would lose out on his placement, and as my alarm went off he chose to also put on extra shuttle's.
For what its worth, even when there isn't a faction event I often wake during the night, stagger to the bathroom, and then drink half a pint of milk. It doesn't adversely affect me. I do occasionally question what screen brightness is doing to my eyes at 4am but given Iplay like this once a month or so I don't think I'm going to drop anytime soon, nor do i have mental health issues.
I have worked as a security guard doing night shifts, and let me tell you that was a lot more detrimental to my health than briefly waking up once or twice a night for a few days. I felt like a walking zombie. The start of parenthood was also more difficult. I'm thinking probably because these are every night for several months, not for a few days every so often.
Finally, like the job I do or having children, its my choice! DB don't require me to wake up, I can play the game how I want. Should DB also remove the £90-odd pack from sale because some people may not be managing their money properly and so could be getting themselves into debt?
As I've said before #eachtotheirown 😊
Check out our website to find out more:
https://wiki.tenforwardloungers.com/
Regarding the top 25/50, there will always be players willing to exploit any advantage, be that time, money, boosts etc, to a degree that most would find unreasonable. And that's absolutely fine. It's the 500 - 1500 range that seems to be feeling extra pressure these days, probably largely due to players having a far stronger crew roster today than they did say a year ago. I certainly find myself in this category. This is a consequence of what should be an anticipated development of the game over time. As such db seriously need to reconsider the awards structure. This has been discussed in other threads many times, but simply extending the reward bands beyond 1000 would alleviate much pressure, reducing player burnout from having to turn a game into a job, or players leaving from discouragement due to an inability to rank well enough to gain the 5* character despite a strong crew and reasonable time and effort being used. Yes, the exact details are up for debate, but the basic premise of expanding the reward bands would seem a no brainer 🤔
Not entirely. A company has a duty of care to it's customers, and one of those issues is definitely health and safety. While it may not have been an issue in the past, if a gamer suffers serious health issues from gaming there is the potential for suing, should the company not have taken reasonable steps to ensure the health and safety of it's customers. Sure, it's a bit theoretical, but I would certainly be on the alert for rules and regulations in that direction were I a gaming company (any company, come to that). As an example, while it is up to the driver to drive responsibly
It's my experience with children that has made me realise just how much I love a good night's sleep... I'm ready to murder anyone who disrupts it nowadays!
Check out our website to find out more:
https://wiki.tenforwardloungers.com/
Legally or ethically? On a philosophic level I disagree with both, but I would like to know what exactly you mean when you say a company "has a duty to care about its customers". I agree it is probably smart for a company to care about its customers to encourage repeat business, but it is not/should not be considered mandatory.
I suppose though it matters in this discussion about the business model. A fruit dealer will want to make sure they offer a quality product at a fair price to get you to buy fruit again. A drug vendor has no concern about customer loyalty because they deal in an addiction and an addicted customer will come back to them no matter how badly they are treated.
If you are contending that DB is operating along similar channels to the drug vendor and are digital addiction distributors then perhaps we can find common ground with regard to an application of empathy regarding those effected, but even then I would still resist your claim that DB has an obligation to care about those people. They would be on the supply side of the transaction, and empathy would be best applied to the demand side, ie helping people break away from the addiction or discouraging them from ever getting addicted in the first place.
If you are contending this business model is closer to that of the fruit dealer then you have lost me completely on the notion that DB has an obligation or duty to care for customers. Customers are free to be adults, free to spend their money however they choose, and are also free to make decisions regarding their sleep needs.
Yeah sorry that was a draught I thought I'd deleted lol. To late for me to go back and try and explain what I meant, I'm exceptionally tired and need to sleep, I've got a rather important day tomorrow so bugger it. Someone else can pick it up, or you can claim a win.
Have a good one ByloBand!
Check out our website to find out more:
https://wiki.tenforwardloungers.com/
Sorry, but more socialism is definitely not what we need. If DB wants to restructure events or game features to prevent people from ruining their sleep schedules...fine. If they want to leave the players free to make their own choices, that is fine as well. Putting artificial controls on play time isn’t a solution for bad sleep habits, it’s a band-aid for the real problem of over-competitiveness and poor impulse control.
Sorry if I have come across as someone out for a "win", I was more interested in the spirited debate. I am sorry you are having a rough go of things, I hope your day improves
--EDIT--
I like to think of us in this thread as I'm Ron Swanson, you are Leslie Knope. We are almost certainly never going to agree, but we can still be friends because it is OK for two adults to disagree and still respect each other.
That's a strawman argument. There would be no drawback to reading this thread later, or maybe not reading it at all.
HOWEVER, if it was a thread on the AND shuttle issue, that might be a different story.
Yeah someday I will tell my daughter (who is two now) how she helped me succeed in faction events and even an expedition when she was very little.
Hopefully your kid will sleep through the night soon, though.
Yeah, then perhaps my opinion was not understood. Again, it's to point out that no one is making me do it and it's my choice to make. Sorry but, as an adult, I do not like the idea of others needing (or feeling the need) to make decisions for me. I also don't need anyone acting as Mighty Mouse singing, "here I come to save the day". I'll also repeat that I have no problem with people wanting things changed for real (or perceived) disadvantages. But to do it behind the veil of altruistic reasons is shameful in my opinion.
Someone telling me I don't need to read a thread is the same as saying to someone they don't need to compete in an event or get a certain rank. I mean what's the drawback to not competing in an event or getting a certain rank? You won't receive texts and images that have no value outside the game? In a game that no one will ever even win? I've been keeping up with this thread because I think there are some interesting points being made on all sides and, in all honesty, I like being in the loop.
I'll keep this brief, since I think you'll believe what you want to believe anyway, but I also don't care about ranking in these events. I don't like a company profiting by encouraging unhealthy behavior, and I am actually concerned for the well being of other people I will never meet.
I can't speak for the others asking for a change, but I get the sense that they are also simply concerned.
Ok, so it's time for me to "come clean" about my true feelings here and it may or may not shock some following/ participating in this thread but, here goes:
I actually agree with the OP on everything except that the company is responsible for my choices. I agree that the reward boosts need to be reworked. I also agree that there are those that will sacrifice their well-being in order to do things that others might consider ludicrous and I personally don't think that it is wise to do so. However, this has been going on for as long as I've been playing this game (18+ months) and these unhealthy behaviors are evident in other, similar games and it is an unfortunate reality that many companies (not just DB) profit and will continue to profit from this. I'll admit though, I do wonder why, if this is such a concern, it hasn't been brought up before. Why not last week? Last month? Before last month? Maybe it's because we have had a few faction events in a row and that burnout has caused some to have an opinion or there could be another reason, I don't know. I also feel that debate should be used to help others formulate the best opinion possible and welcome it in any healthy form as should be evident from the last line in my previous post.
Finally, I am not an evil person (just felt like I should clarify that). In fact, if anyone here knew me in real life, they might think I am too kind and considerate of others. I think it is good to help one another, to be there for each other through support or any other means possible and to show concern. I also think we are stronger united than divided and should look out for each other but without dictating every personal choice someone else makes because, in my opinion, that is a slippery slope that can lead to more trouble than many of us would care to deal with.
Though, from experience, people do argue in this manner. I remember my brother-in-law complaining about seat-belts in cars when they were first introduced, a friend complaining about using a phone whilst driving, and colleagues complaining about sunscreen and hats even as others on the company were wandering off to the cancer clinic to get melanomas removed.
Check out our website to find out more:
https://wiki.tenforwardloungers.com/
I like the idea that it would give X3 the VP but I would also increase the price of speeding them up by 1/3. I already disagree with using dilithium and allowing that kind of thing in a competition (but not for shuttles outside the competition). No matter how you justify it or frame it, it will always be completely morally bankrupt in my book, but if you are going to allow this during the competitive part of the game then the price need to go higher.
In the spirit of understanding, I believe this meme is the best way to try and explain the answer to your question.
In short, forcing people to be healthy is denying them the right as a free, sentient to make a harmful choice. This is not the same thing as advocating FOR the unhealthy choice, but advocating for the right to choose.
But it works both ways, and to demonstrate I will use your example of sunscreen. It is established that in 2018 exposure to the sun's radiation is harmful to humans, it is known that sunscreen exists to prevent this problem, but it should not be a requirement to wear sunscreen. That being said, if somebody chooses not to wear sunscreen and gets skin cancer, the rest of us should not be expected to cover the cost of treatment. This person was free to choose, they chose to not protect themselves from a known danger, therefore they have assumed the responsibility.
It gets more complicated when these individual freedoms start to impact other people. The best example of those provided in your post is being on cell phones while driving. The personal rights and freedoms of the other people placed in danger as a result of one person's choice to use a phone while driving must outweigh one individual's right to choice in this case. In other words, if I use my phone while driving that is placing other people in danger because I may strike them with my car, and should not be permitted.
If it is a rule made by a business or a change in the way a product is delivered, people who disagree are free to leave to find another product or service to use. If it is a law made by the government...that is a problem, because there is no law so petty that someone won’t be killed over it. See also: Freddy Gray, Philando Castile, David Koresh.
But if that person has 10 children whose lives would be adversely affected by their parent's death...
Ah freedom. Sadly, it invariably comes with responsibility towards others.
Check out our website to find out more:
https://wiki.tenforwardloungers.com/