To win a Galaxy event, you must spend money as well or play the game without spending any chronitons for almost half a year to get a chance. Faction events for me are a much safer way to get the Top 1000 gold crew star.
I burned all my chrons in the Lissan event. I’ve spent some leveling 4 or 5 crew since then but have saved the rest. I haven’t bought any either or extended any Voyages. I’m ready to make a run at first again. Can’t remember how long ago that event was. Two months?
Lissan was the last week in February, so about a month and a half. (:
I’m not interested in Warship Tuvok so onward I save. Between Voyages, gauntlet, event chrons were given for factions, cadet challenges, daily boosts and ad warps, chrons build up when you don’t use them
Event rewards primarily... with a focus on honor. Event rewards are completely outdated and I currently need over 11 million honor for my legendary characters to fully fuse them. It is crazy to think that people can ever gain on this when they keep adding new characters (unless a lot of money is spent).
In the forums there is a category called make it so. There are a number of suggestions there some good and some bad but very few of them are answered by anyone from the star trek timelines people. Would it be possible so that if some makes a suggestion it will be reviewed and commented by someone within the game.
I’ve posted numerous threads with very well-reasoned questions involving honor values, content prices and crew slots that sparked a lot of collaboration and discussion. It would be great if they could just look at those threads rather than make me try to distill those huge game balance issues into a single question with no context that will make sense for somebody who isn’t an active player.
Could you possibly revamp the rewards structure to more accurately reflect the number of players in the game (% based) and maybe add more rewards to Squad placement (honor and/dilithium)?
I asked about compensation and rewards being updated: Squad rewards are worthless, Event rewards need to scale by % and need to be adjusted so ranking top 20 is worth more than top 1000, dismissed crew compensation needs to change. All these limit play, limit spending and limit competition. The game has changed and these need to change too.
So I asked about revamped event rewards being integrated into existing event types as well resurrected Expeditions and new event types such as a gauntlet style event., Defend ds9 event
I didn't ask anything. It doesn't matter what we ask since DB is going to go forward as they see fit. They may fix little issues, but they don't seem to be focusing on the things that players REALLY want like:
1) Arena reworking or Making Ships mean something.
2) Gauntlet Walls
3) Event Rewards structure
4) All FF/Immortal beholds happening way more often to more players
5) Buffing Voyages back to their original state
6) Consistent portal updates
Those are the ONLY things I really want them to talk about, but I have a feeling the only answer we would get it, "We are looking into it, or that's been discussed." I don't see what a Q & A will do. They already know what we want, they just won't do it. A Q & A is not going to bring anything new to the table. Oh well, I'm almost done with this game anyways. I'll just keep giving my money to other mobile games instead lol.
EDIT: Please no one say, "well they updated the portal at our request." They do not get props for that. it should have been done months ago.
Even if you're understandably cynical about the process, it is still important to speak your mind and utilize the communication channels they are offering:
We are all downstream from each other and ourselves, therefore choose to be relaxed and groovy. Consider participating in civil discourse, understanding the Tardigrade, and wandering with the Subspace Eddies.
Working on the numbers for the idea of smoothing out the rewards between rank brackets, it seems that combining the honor values would be a reasonable first step. This is another one of the advantages to moving one of each event crew to thresholds and having the remaining reward crew converted to directly to equivalent to citation cost honor values. The honor currency would allow a smoother gradient and utility of ranked rewards, than does the crew or would citations.
That utility means that the value of the ranked rewards would be more consistent for more players under various scenarios. Put another way, the effective value of the ranked rewards wouldn't change as much depending on the crew you already have.
These are the current ranked honor totals from version 002 which has percentage based brackets. Keep in mind, this is not asking for more, this is a chart of equivalent to citation honor values for crew that is already being rewarded.
One can see that there is certainly room to smooth out these rewards. As one possible alternative structure, for sake of contrast, I will utilize a Tao 77 framework. For those interested, a rough interpretation:
Tao Te Ching - Lao Tzu - chapter 77
The way of Nature is like the bending of a bow,
the top is lowered, and the bottom is raised.
The way of Nature is for those who have taken too much,
to return some to those who do not have enough.
The Human way is different, they take from those who do not have enough,
to give to those who already have too much.
I don't suggest that this is the right way of smoothing out the ranked rewards, it is just one possible way, that demonstrates that it could be done.
We are all downstream from each other and ourselves, therefore choose to be relaxed and groovy. Consider participating in civil discourse, understanding the Tardigrade, and wandering with the Subspace Eddies.
Working on the numbers for the idea of smoothing out the rewards between rank brackets, it seems that combining the honor values would be a reasonable first step. This is another one of the advantages to moving one of each event crew to thresholds and having the remaining reward crew converted to directly to equivalent to citation cost honor values. The honor currency would allow a smoother gradient and utility of ranked rewards, than does the crew or would citations.
That utility means that the value of the ranked rewards would be more consistent for more players under various scenarios. Put another way, the effective value of the ranked rewards wouldn't change as much depending on the crew you already have.
These are the current ranked honor totals from version 002 which has percentage based brackets. Keep in mind, this is not asking for more, this is a chart of equivalent to citation honor values for crew that is already being rewarded.
One can see that there is certainly room to smooth out these rewards. As one possible alternative structure, for sake of contrast, I will utilize a Tao 77 framework. For those interested, a rough interpretation:
Tao Te Ching - Lao Tzu - chapter 77
The way of Nature is like the bending of a bow,
the top is lowered, and the bottom is raised.
The way of Nature is for those who have taken too much,
to return some to those who do not have enough.
The Human way is different, they take from those who do not have enough,
to give to those who already have too much.
I don't suggest that this is the right way of smoothing out the ranked rewards, it is just one possible way, that demonstrates that it could be done.
I would actually like if it were possible to smooth out the ranked numbers themselves, in a way. Hear me out (read me out? Something.)...
I like being able to look at my rank and know where I am as far as ranked rewards. I like being able to ask "hey, does anyone know where top 1k is at?" And have the people I'm talking to understand that I'm looking for how many points I need for a copy of the event legendary.
I would not like constantly adjusting event brackets. At all. It would drive me nuts. I'm weird, and I understand that, but... it would drive me nuts? Sorry.
As far as the event ranked rewards structure goes, I'm in favor of proportionally increasing the current brackets, with the exception of the top 25 ranks or so, based on the size of the player base. Perhaps they could reevaluate it every three months or something, and see if the player base has increased enough to expand the brackets again. -shrug-
That being said, if you're new Faction top 1000 is hard. I took me about 6-8 months before I did it, and now I do it consistently without buying boosts, etc. Its all about having some boosts built up from cadet challenges, using them judiciously AND having all the bonus crew you can for that event. That takes some crew building which takes time.
I made a version_003 demonstrating how rewards could be smoothed out between the ranks.
We are all downstream from each other and ourselves, therefore choose to be relaxed and groovy. Consider participating in civil discourse, understanding the Tardigrade, and wandering with the Subspace Eddies.
I feel the rewards as suggested are extremely high compared to what we receive now, or indeed, what is appropriate as rewards for every single event.
20,000 honor for barely participating?
5 free of *any 5 of your choice*, but none of the event 5, as rewards for winning?
I don't think these numbers are at all realistic.
I tend to agree. While I applaud the general idea, I think the Honor amounts listed in the graphic above should drop off severely outside of the top 5%, and I would also suggest several more tiers within the top 2%. One of my biggest issues with the current system is that there's not a lot of difference between 50th and 1000th place — and even within the top 50 there should be more. I was in the top 40 this last weekend, but would have spent more money if there was a significant reason for me to get top 30 or top 25, for example (my only potential push would have been for top 15, to get 2 extra copies of Tuvok instead of just one, but I knew that was just a wee bit beyond my reach).
Could you please continue the petty bickering? I find it most intriguing. ~ Data, ST:TNG "Haven"
Version 001 illustrated the concept of moving the crew into the thresholds and converting the remaining crew into equivalent to citation honor values.
Version 002 illustrated how the ranks could be configured based on percentages
Version 003 illustrates how smooth the ranked rewards could be between the ranks by converting the ranked rewards into currencies.
The numbers as they are in version 001 and 002 are based on the premise of converting directly to equivalent citation values. This was done for two reasons, some people were suggesting a direct to citation system, and I wanted to show the advantage in utility by going strait to honor. Using equivalent values seemed an appropriate way to pronounce that difference.
One of the advantages of going with honor rather than citations is shown in version 003. I had solicited feedback for how smooth the rewards should be, but in receiving none, I just made something up and took the opportunity to interject a bit of philosophy. Even so, those specific values are not the whole point. Understanding that those values are placeholders for sake of illustrating a concept, what would be helpful is to outline a more "realistic" set of values, and then explain how those values address the relevant concerns as communicated in previous posts in this thread and elsewhere.
Acknowledging that an increase in the utility of rewarding honor directly adds value to the rewards, also implies that, by design, the ranked rewards as they are aren't meant to actually be utilized. I think that is a useful thing to consider, as the question then includes a curiosity as to the actual intended value of the existing ranked rewards. Is it, by design, that most players earning those ranked rewards aren't meant to actually gain the value that they earned?
For instance, in the last event there was a 3/3 T'Pol in the ranked rewards. How many players earning those ranked reward sent those T'Pol's directly to the airlock? For the few who ranked high enough and did not already have 3/3 T'Pol immortalized, why does it make sense that the effective value of the reward for them is more than everyone else? I suggest, that one of the advantages of converting directly to honor values for the ranked rewards is that the actual, effective, value of the earned ranked rewards would be more consistent than it is now. Is suggesting a more consistent value "unrealistic"?
When factoring in the other concerns that this whole revision of event rewards is trying to address, particularly going upstream of the duplicates and honor dismissal values problems, honor owed/debt, lost revenue, incentives to compete and participate, being able to access the crew in the thresholds as to not get pushed out of the necessary rank. The general idea is the whole point of this thread.
As players, we can say that we like, or don't like, and advocate for or against the ideas of:
1. putting the crew in the thresholds, so we can access event crew and reduce duplicates.
2. honor being rewarded in the ranked, so we get maximum utility of what we have earned.
3. a percentage based ranked system, which scales to the active player base*.
4. smoother ranked reward structure, so there are reasons to compete across the spectrum.
* Active players could have a minimal VP participation to qualify in the event, to avoid most the concerns with a percentage based system. Additionally, there are other ways of optimizing the rank brackets to the current player base other than percentages, but would possibly require more on going effort to maintain.
The specific and final calibration of the values is, of course, DB's domain. My aim with this thread and the images was to illustrate how those things are possible. Just as I provided an example for how the then consensus on the old forums that the honor rate should be better and somewhere around 10:1 by making a 10:1 chart to contrast with the existing honor values:
Given that it has been stated that the honor values aren't going to change, yet the problems they were met to address remain. The ideas of percentage based and smoother ranked rewards, were proposed in many other posts and several other threads on this topic. I thought it might be helpful to provide an example of how that might look to test out the efficacy of those concepts, such that as with the charts I made for alternate honor dismissal values, that they might be utilized to refine those conversations.
Point is, restructuring event rewards and removing the all dupes beholds might be a way of solving or at least mitigating those ongoing issues.
We are all downstream from each other and ourselves, therefore choose to be relaxed and groovy. Consider participating in civil discourse, understanding the Tardigrade, and wandering with the Subspace Eddies.
Look, honor can not just be given out like candy. It’s SUPPOSED to be hard to immortalize a legendary. I’m glad it’s difficult. If everyone could easily do it, there would be way too much parity in the game and that is even less fun than scratching and clawing for honor. They know what they are doing by being stingy with the honor and quite frankly they should be. Otherwise the game would be dull.
For instance, in the last event there was a 3/3 T'Pol in the ranked rewards. How many players earning those ranked reward sent those T'Pol's directly to the airlock?
::raises hand::
Yeah, it's definitely goofy right now. And just to clarify — as I said, I applaud the general idea. Merely suggesting a few alterations that I thought would be more realistic, and more likely to be embraced by the company. The issue I mentioned of having very little difference among the rewards given for 50th-1000th place is hugely problematic, as I see it, so if a major overhaul were done, I would defnitely like to see that issue addressed.
The other big thing is that I do agree that a percentage-based system might be fairer (or at the very least a change to the number ranking system which is based on such a percentage), given the increase in active players since the reward structure was first established. As Travis mentioned in another thread today, clearing the thresholds only got him to something like 10,000th place. In the current structure, the rewards are awful for that rank... but with, say, top 5% being a significant reward rank point, someone who was only in it to "clear the thresholds, then out", might see that with just a little more effort (and possibly a little more spending), they could have a decent shot at a much better set of final rewards.
The reason I suggested that there be a significant drop below that point is just my estimation of the amount of effort and spending it took to get to that point (approximately 7500th place, give or take), based on reports from my fleet. For instance, in addition to my main STT account, I have two alt accounts that I operate on our sister fleet. One of them is F2P. I gave them both my all, and finally cleared the threshold rewards on Sunday for each of them. (Despite that, the strongest of the two ended the event in 16,732nd place.) Because I hadn't pre-farmed on those accounts, nor saved up anything more than about 1000 chrons, I don't feel I should really have gotten a lot more than what I did. Getting 40,000 to 50,000 Honor for the rankings I ended up with there would be too much. Especially compared to the Honor that comes in from fleet rewards. Since an event runs several days, I could get behind something like 2000 Honor for a rank in the range of 10,000th to 20,000th place, however.
Like you, I would love to see something better to replace the current system, and I hope DB considers some of the options we've discussed. But even small changes would be greatly appreciated.
Could you please continue the petty bickering? I find it most intriguing. ~ Data, ST:TNG "Haven"
At least they told you nicely it’s completely asking way too much. They let you down gently when normally this is a harsh forum. Look, honor can not just be given out like candy. It’s SUPPOSED to be hard to immortalize a legendary. I’m glad it’s difficult. If everyone could easily do it, there would be way too much parity in the game and that is even less fun than scratching and clawing for honor. They know what they are doing by being stingy with the honor and quite frankly they should be. Otherwise the game would be dull.
Looking past, what is perhaps an inadvertently condescending opening to your feedback, it is well documented that I understand, as it has been explicitly stated, that the intent was that honor be accumulated gradually. Should I link all the times I have quoted that exact text straight from the developers since patch 1.9, or would you kindly stop trying to explain that to me as if I don't already know?
All it does is signify that you haven't bothered to read the on going discussion, or consider who you are offering feedback to. What it also does, more critically, is undermine the conversation from evolving when we have to go back and reestablish basic concepts, or having those basic concepts argued as if they haven't been considered at all.
Which is to say, that I have never argued for any form of "honor should be given out like candy". As I have replied elsewhere, mayhaps even earlier in this very thread, is that I am questioning the calibration of gradual. I suggest, that it could be recalibrated, not done away with.
I am, quite frankly, tired of the slippery slope and black and white arguments, which are seemingly willfully immune or purposefully oblivious to considering the whole picture or previous conversation. If you find the values "unrealistic" or "asking way too much", and if you'd like to actually contribute to the conversation, then do the work of outlining some values closer to what you would agree with. Put your ideas on the line, just offering the same feedback isn't helpful. Those values should reflect an understanding of the interrelated factors, as outlined elsewhere in this thread and other relevant threads on honor values, event reward structure and such.
Alternatively, and or additionally, you could also do the math and outline exactly how the placeholder values in the images would lead to the outcomes that you use to argue against them. I suggest referencing the honor owed/debt thread and all the threads on burn out and frustration, crew slot issues and such.
We are all downstream from each other and ourselves, therefore choose to be relaxed and groovy. Consider participating in civil discourse, understanding the Tardigrade, and wandering with the Subspace Eddies.
The issue I mentioned of having very little difference among the rewards given for 50th-1000th place is hugely problematic, as I see it, so if a major overhaul were done, I would defnitely like to see that issue addressed.
Do you mean that there is very little difference in the current event structure 50th-1000th place, or that there isn't enough difference in those ranks in version_003? The smoothing was specifically meant to address that, has it not gone far enough?
The other big thing is that I do agree that a percentage-based system might be fairer (or at the very least a change to the number ranking system which is based on such a percentage), given the increase in active players since the reward structure was first established.
Version_003 shows numbered ranks based on percentages. Though because I have no data on actual event participation rates I just estimated based on the arena.
The reason I suggested that there be a significant drop below that point is just my estimation of the amount of effort and spending it took to get to that point (approximately 7500th place, give or take), based on reports from my fleet.
I had solicited feedback on the smoothing in a post earlier in this thread, and in not receiving any I just made one to illustrate how converting to honor could aid in that smoothing. I fully understand that the Tao 77 perspective isn't going to work for most people, but I wanted to finish the third version and that's what I went with for abstract philosophical reasons.
That said, if people want to take the values outlined above and suggest alternate values for the smoothing or percentage brackets, that would be helpful.
Like you, I would love to see something better to replace the current system, and I hope DB considers some of the options we've discussed. But even small changes would be greatly appreciated.
Indeed.
We are all downstream from each other and ourselves, therefore choose to be relaxed and groovy. Consider participating in civil discourse, understanding the Tardigrade, and wandering with the Subspace Eddies.
At least they told you nicely it’s completely asking way too much. They let you down gently when normally this is a harsh forum. Look, honor can not just be given out like candy. It’s SUPPOSED to be hard to immortalize a legendary. I’m glad it’s difficult. If everyone could easily do it, there would be way too much parity in the game and that is even less fun than scratching and clawing for honor. They know what they are doing by being stingy with the honor and quite frankly they should be. Otherwise the game would be dull.
Looking past, what is perhaps an inadvertently condescending opening to your feedback, it is well documented that I understand, as it has been explicitly stated, that the intent was that honor be accumulated gradually. Should I link all the times I have quoted that exact text straight from the developers since patch 1.9, or would you kindly stop trying to explain that to me as if I don't already know?
All it does is signify that you haven't bothered to read the on going discussion, or consider who you are offering feedback to. What it also does, more critically, is undermine the conversation from evolving when we have to go back and reestablish basic concepts, or having those basic concepts argued as if they haven't been considered at all.
Which is to say, that I have never argued for any form of "honor should be given out like candy". As I have replied elsewhere, mayhaps even earlier in this very thread, is that I am questioning the calibration of gradual. I suggest, that it could be recalibrated, not done away with.
I am, quite frankly, tired of the slippery slope and black and white arguments, which are seemingly willfully immune or purposefully oblivious to considering the whole picture or previous conversation. If you find the values "unrealistic" or "asking way too much", and if you'd like to actually contribute to the conversation, then do the work of outlining some values closer to what you would agree with. Put your ideas on the line, just offering the same feedback isn't helpful. Those values should reflect an understanding of the interrelated factors, as outlined elsewhere in this thread and other relevant threads on honor values, event reward structure and such.
Alternatively, and or additionally, you could also do the math and outline exactly how the placeholder values in the images would lead to the outcomes that you use to argue against them. I suggest referencing the honor owed/debt thread and all the threads on burn out and frustration, crew slot issues and such.
I did edit that comment to take the first part out because after thinking about it, I didn’t need to sound that way and I do apologize. I do stand by the fact that it should be difficult to build up honor
I also don’t offer a solution because I think it’s fine the way it is and also offer no solution to the crew slot issue as I have never had one. I’m at 144/180
The main issue with going to percentages or a percentages/number hybrid versus any kind of strict numbering system, as far as I see it, is that rewards become potentially manipulable by folks creating extra accounts to change that percentage.
I've seen it happen in another game that gave out event rewards based on an unknown number (had to be top 20% of a number that you had no way of knowing what it would be in advance), and the predicted outcome turned out to be exactly what everyone who did the math said it would: many, many extra accounts were made for the express purpose of suppressing the number needed to get into the top 20% by having those extra accounts participate, but only to the minimum extent possible.
If we aren't going to go to percentages (probably for the reason I just cited), it would help if DB were to take a look at the average number of event participants as it's gone up over time, and recalculate what the number ranges should be for the different tiers of rewards - and that's in addition to making greater differentiation between the tiers for the top 1000 players.
One of the other changes I'd like to see is the continued addition of new 2- and 3-star crew in the thresholds and/or ranks for events. Both would be even better, and possibly alleviate some of the "I don't care about anything but the thresholds" mentality that people can get into when there are no rewards in the ranks that they can realistically achieve that they would care about.
The issue I mentioned of having very little difference among the rewards given for 50th-1000th place is hugely problematic, as I see it, so if a major overhaul were done, I would defnitely like to see that issue addressed.
Do you mean that there is very little difference in the current event structure 50th-1000th place, or that there isn't enough difference in those ranks in version_003? The smoothing was specifically meant to address that, has it not gone far enough?
I was actually speaking of the current system that we have in place right now. But as I touched on in my initial reply post, I do think your v3 would benefit from even more percentage-based tiers. Otherwise, with 20th and 70th place getting the same rewards, and 150th place getting the same rewards as 700th place, those are significant differences in VP amounts and thus there isn't much point to entice a player to want to move up. (Which is the situation we have right now, alas.)
The other big thing is that I do agree that a percentage-based system might be fairer (or at the very least a change to the number ranking system which is based on such a percentage), given the increase in active players since the reward structure was first established.
Version_003 shows numbered ranks based on percentages. Though because I have no data on actual event participation rates I just estimated based on the arena.
Right, I figured it was an estimation. If they do ever employ such a structure, I'm sure DB could and would adjust accordingly, based on their own actual figures.
The reason I suggested that there be a significant drop below that point is just my estimation of the amount of effort and spending it took to get to that point (approximately 7500th place, give or take), based on reports from my fleet.
I had solicited feedback on the smoothing in a post earlier in this thread, and in not receiving any I just made one to illustrate how converting to honor could aid in that smoothing. I fully understand that the Tao 77 perspective isn't going to work for most people, but I wanted to finish the third version and that's what I went with for abstract philosophical reasons.
That said, if people want to take the values outlined above and suggest alternate values for the smoothing or percentage brackets, that would be helpful.
And I greatly appreciate your efforts and ideas. I would also welcome anyone else to give details on how they'd amend or add to what you've presented. However, beyond the small suggestions I already gave above, I will be the first one to admit that I'm likely far too lazy to be that person.
Could you please continue the petty bickering? I find it most intriguing. ~ Data, ST:TNG "Haven"
I feel the rewards as suggested are extremely high compared to what we receive now, or indeed, what is appropriate as rewards for every single event.
20,000 honor for barely participating?
5 free of *any 5 of your choice*, but none of the event 5, as rewards for winning?
I don't think these numbers are at all realistic.
They are not realistic compared to the status quo. However, many of us believe the status quo needs to be changed. (And I respect that many do not.) In my opinion, honor *should* be given out like candy. If they won't give crew spaces, make it easier to immortalize crew. And 20K is not too much to give. That isn't even half of a citation for a legendary. Honor debt is far too high.
For those looking at these honor numbers and thinking, they cray. Here's where they come from, and feel free to provide some alternative ranked honor values which you think would be more realistic or whatever.
In my version_003 I attempted to smooth them out utilizing a bit of philosophy, and offered the following: I don't suggest that this is the right way of smoothing out the ranked rewards, it is just one possible way, that demonstrates that it could be done.
Furthermore, I suggest looking at these rewards from perspectives I've offered earlier and throughout this thread, and particularly through the lens of the honor debt, or deficit, if you prefer:
001 2018-02-15 honor debt from legendary crew: (80 x 50,000) = 4,000,000 002 2018-04-11 honor debt from legendary crew: (134 x 50,000) = 6,700,000 003 2018-04-20 honor debt from legendary crew: (143 x 50,000) = 7,150,000
001 2018-02-15 honor debt from super rare crew: (No data) = 0
002 2018-04-11 honor debt from super rare crew: (161 x 18,000) = 2,898,000
003 2018-04-20 honor debt from super rare crew: (148 x 18,000) = 2,664,000
001 2018-02-15 total honor debt: incomplete data
002 2018-04-11 total honor debt: 9,598,000
003 2018-04-20 total honor debt: 9,814,000
So, let's see how just using the un-smooth numbers above how long it would take placing in the top 1000 in every event, to clear my honor deficit or whatever people would prefer to call it.
9,814,000 ÷ 63,000 = 156 top 1000 event finishes. 156 weeks ÷ 52 weeks in a year = 3 years.
Now, given that with current sources of honor the data we have, suggests that people are accumulating more honor deficit over time. Meaning that, 3 years from now when after placing top 1000 in every event, I would have just cleared the deficit I have now. The question then would be how much more honor deficit would be accumulated over that 3 year period?
Keep in mind, that 3 year estimate is based on some version of this idea being implemented with those values. Without that additional source of honor from events, by reducing duplicates, clearing your current honor deficit isn't going to happen for anyone other than a mega whale. That said, clearing the honor deficit isn't even the real point, it's about being able to utilize the honor system.
The whole notion of honor deficit is a thought experiment aimed getting people to consider the math behind the honor system, and to actually look at the numbers.
That math informs us of how useful the system actually is, and how well it's serving it's intended function (please see previous discussion before informing me that it's working as intended). Given the structure of the game as it is, of course people should have to make strategic choices about who to keep and who to level when, as it's about the only real strategy in this game. And of course there needs to be pain points in order to force those choices, crew slot limitations, honor limitations, item scarcity and let's not forget the tyranny of the RNG which dominates everything.
If you think the numbers are waaaayyy off, right on, feedback and iteration help ideas move forward. Then suggest an alternate breakdown, and I don't mean just stating that the numbers should be ambiguously different or lower, I mean do the work and put some numbers out there.
Additionally, if you think there is merit to certain parts of the idea, saying so and explaining why from your own perspective also helps.
We are all downstream from each other and ourselves, therefore choose to be relaxed and groovy. Consider participating in civil discourse, understanding the Tardigrade, and wandering with the Subspace Eddies.
So, let's see how just using the un-smooth numbers above how long it would take placing in the top 1000 in every event, to clear my honor deficit or whatever people would prefer to call it.
9,814,000 ÷ 63,000 = 156 top 1000 event finishes. 156 weeks ÷ 52 weeks in a year = 3 years.
How about a top 1000 finish with those crazy, mostly for sake of demonstration and philosophy, Tao 77 smoothed rewards?
9,814,000 ÷ 95,000 = 103 top 1000 event finishes. 103 weeks ÷ 52 weeks in a year = 1.9 Years
How much honor deficit might be accrued in 1.9 years? Well, I've been playing almost exactly that long. So, a rough estimate would be 9,814,000. Though if I was still playing by then, I'd have more 4* in the freezer for the collection bonuses, so my honor deficit might be higher with more 5* in my roster.
Is 1.9 years to cite only my current crew, too fast for gradual? Is 3 years? or is the current calibration of gradual, not in my lifetime, still the right one? Is there no room for improvement?
We are all downstream from each other and ourselves, therefore choose to be relaxed and groovy. Consider participating in civil discourse, understanding the Tardigrade, and wandering with the Subspace Eddies.
Mayhaps, there is still an ongoing unresolved issue with the honor system? The Honor Deficit thread only being the tip of an iceberg which stretches back through hundreds of posts on both the old and new forums.
We are all downstream from each other and ourselves, therefore choose to be relaxed and groovy. Consider participating in civil discourse, understanding the Tardigrade, and wandering with the Subspace Eddies.
Although Hanlon's Razor among other things come to mind, I don't have much of anything nice, constructive or civil to write in response. Even if I did, it would all just be wasted effort, which was always known as the likely outcome. Actually, no I've changed my mind, and I will offer a bit of commentary on those "answers".
*takes off diplomacy hat.
Unnecessary comments removed. ˜Shan
So, well done, on taking all of the time energy and effort the community has put in thinking about and providing feedback on this game, and doing basically nothing with it other than proving the cynics right. Which is the part which irritates me the most.
We are all downstream from each other and ourselves, therefore choose to be relaxed and groovy. Consider participating in civil discourse, understanding the Tardigrade, and wandering with the Subspace Eddies.
For those curious, the comments which were removed were a fairly robust and accurate deconstruction of mentalities and perspectives underlying the non-answers to the many questions and possibilities the community offered about the event rewards structure and the honor rates.
My statements were offered in humorous manner, with a healthy bit of well deserved sarcasm. Given how well sarcasm doesn't translate on the interweb, and that merits of different kinds of humor are a matter subjective opinion, I supposed it could be considered "Unnecessary".
That said, here is basically what I was saying, from a more succinct perspective:
Q11: Are there plans to rebalance event rewards? Solo ranked rewards are effectively the same from 26-1,000, while there could be more rewards for hitting higher thresholds.
A11: We plan to try some new reward structures for events in the NEAR FUTURE to better reflect the effort invested. We'll be looking at both the Threshold and Solo Ranked rewards and have some thoughts on how to improve Squad rewards as well.
From today:
Q: Will there be changes to the event rewards structure to give players more incentive to participate?
A: Participation in events is at an all time high. As such, we believe players are already highly attracted to the rewards and the events themselves.
Also, this image is my rendition in DB's business plan. I did a solid 45 minutes of photoshop and it deserves to be seen until it's no longer relevant or accurate:
We are all downstream from each other and ourselves, therefore choose to be relaxed and groovy. Consider participating in civil discourse, understanding the Tardigrade, and wandering with the Subspace Eddies.
Players have been clamouring for communication and news on ideas we've put a lot of thought and effort into, to improve the game experience for all, its sustainability and longevity—like a free public think-tank for DB which could be a gold mine if actually engaged with.
I understand not yet having or being able to share all the details, but what we got were notably vague responses. That's not an unnecessary or derogatory statement, it's true and clear when reading them. The answer which relates to the topic of this thread was one of those.
"Participation in events is at an all time high."That doesn't mean it couldn't be higher. That doesn't mean it couldn't be improved. That doesn't mean it could't be more fun, and more reasonably rewarding for our efforts. That doesn't mean it's sustainable.
Growing participation is a large part of why the structure stands to benefit from updating.
I could study for an exam and get 90% and think gee that's great. I'd better not change anything. And then turn away the studying tips of friends whose ideas could help me achieve 95%.
Fact: There are many players competing. That number is growing.
Also fact: There could be more, and more could be retained, if care is taken to update the system to adequately address influx of new players and other factors which inevitably give us less and less rewards for the same amount of effort in events.
The two are not mutually exclusive.
I have valued fleet members who have supported the game and played every event for years, who have expressed privately in our recent fleet-wide feedback session, that it's becoming harder for them to reach top 1000 each week, despite putting in the same effort as before. They shouldn't be pushed out just because there are more people playing now. It's like scoring less on an exam because there are more people taking it.
Please update the reward structure with at least some of the ideas in this thread. I think especially:
• smoothing the rewards through the ranks,
• moving to a percentage-based system so it's adaptive, and
• having the legendary in the thresholds (at a VP similar to what it took to earn them from ranked rewards a year or 2 ago)
-would go a long way towards retaining older players and encouraging newer players to stick with it.
While I can't say I was really disappointed by today's Q&A post (because it's not like a simple set of questions-and-answers or even the fact of a respective number of players requesting a change in how things are done is suddenly going to make DB change their methods or restructure the game), I do heartily agree with this:
We are all downstream from each other and ourselves, therefore choose to be relaxed and groovy. Consider participating in civil discourse, understanding the Tardigrade, and wandering with the Subspace Eddies.
Something needs to change. Thanks to 100th event award and F2P I got all thresholds. Happy get all 4 stars Alan-a-dale Laforge and one copy of Vic Fontaine. Perhaps I should be happy about that. However now I am dropping in the rankings feel kind of cheated that the end I will get crappy rewards which I rare that I get all the thresh hold rewards doing all that hard work for several hours. I would loved at least 1 copy of Virtuoso Doctor. Oh well.
Something needs to change. Thanks to 100th event award and F2P I got all thresholds. Happy get all 4 stars Alan-a-dale Laforge and one copy of Vic Fontaine. Perhaps I should be happy about that. However now I am dropping in the rankings feel kind of cheated that the end I will get crappy rewards which I rare that I get all the thresh hold rewards doing all that hard work for several hours. I would loved at least 1 copy of Virtuoso Doctor. Oh well.
People putting in the effort and getting pushed out of top 1000 is one of the reasons I've tried to advocate for moving the first copy of the event 5* in the thresholds. I think thresholds and out, is a perfectly reasonable strategy, and level of effort and participation, which could include the 5* at a reasonable amount of VP.
Given how competitive this event is turning out to be, I think there are going to be a lot of people disappointed by missing out on the Virtuoso Doctor, given how many resources they will have dumped into trying to stay in the top 1000.
We are all downstream from each other and ourselves, therefore choose to be relaxed and groovy. Consider participating in civil discourse, understanding the Tardigrade, and wandering with the Subspace Eddies.
I like it better that what we have. It is ridiculous that there is no guaranteed 5* threshold. A set amount of work should net you a 1/5*. They can make it hard to reach that’s fine. But it should be there.
What about 1 honor per 10VP earned? That way if I reach the top 1000 as it currently stands, I get 30,000 honor for 300,000VP. Someone who hits 1,000,000 gets 100,000 honor. Two legendary citations. Someone who gets 10VP to earn the freebies in community rewards gets 1 honor.
My 30,000 honor can go towards a legendary citation (50,000 honor) or towards two super-rare citations (36,000 honor).
You can then rework the ranked and threshold rewards so that the honor can be used wisely on the crew given out in the event or elsewhere as I see fit.
This way we can expect value no matter how hard we play, commensurate to the amount of actual effort put in, and it really encourages higher participation even if we aren't guaranteed a 1/5 legendary it won't matter so much, as the rewards allow us to place it in other areas within the game.
There would be much more value in me going for the top 1000 more frequently, and encourage new players to really go hard in events even when they can't reach the 3000 rank. Because right now there's nothing of value between threshold (130,000VP) and 3 copies of the super-rare in ranked (currently about 250,000VP). But the honor difference would be 12,000 - not insignificant at all.
Anyway, I'm not sure I explained that too well, but it's an idea and one I think doesn't flood the game with honor but allows more flexibility and encouragement for players to participate strongly in events.
Comments
I’m not interested in Warship Tuvok so onward I save. Between Voyages, gauntlet, event chrons were given for factions, cadet challenges, daily boosts and ad warps, chrons build up when you don’t use them
Even if you're understandably cynical about the process, it is still important to speak your mind and utilize the communication channels they are offering:
Consider participating in civil discourse, understanding the Tardigrade, and wandering with the Subspace Eddies.
That utility means that the value of the ranked rewards would be more consistent for more players under various scenarios. Put another way, the effective value of the ranked rewards wouldn't change as much depending on the crew you already have.
These are the current ranked honor totals from version 002 which has percentage based brackets. Keep in mind, this is not asking for more, this is a chart of equivalent to citation honor values for crew that is already being rewarded.
Current Ranked Honor Rewards:
Rank 1 (0.001%) 200,000 + 54,000 + 9,000 = 263,000
Rank 2 - 7 (0.005%) 150,000 + 54,000 + 9,000 = 213,000
Rank 8 - 15 (0.01%) 100,000 + 54,000 + 9,000 = 163,000
Rank 16 - 73 (0.05%) 50,000 + 54,000 + 9,000 = 113,000
Rank 74 - 146 (0.1%) 54,000 + 9,000 = 63,000
Rank 147 - 735 (0.5%) 54,000 + 9,000 = 63,000
Rank 736 - 1470 (1.0%) 54,000 + 9,000 = 63,000
Rank 1471 - 2205 (1.5%) 54,000 + 9,000 = 63,000
Rank 2206 - 2940 (2.0%) 54,000 + 9,000 = 63,000
Rank 2941 - 3675 (2.5%) 54,000 + 9,000 = 63,000
Rank 3676 - 4410 (3.0%) 54,000 + 9,000 = 63,000
Rank 4411 - 5145 (3.5%) 54,000 + 9,000 = 63,000
Rank 5146 - 5879 (4.0%) 36,000 + 9,000 = 45,000
Rank 5880 - 6614 (4.5%) 18,000 + 9,000 = 27,000
Rank 6615 - 7349 (5.0%) 9,000
Rank 7350 -14699 (10%) 9,000
Rank 14700 - 22048 (15%) 4,500
Rank 22049 - 29397 (20%) 0
Rank 29398 - 36747 (25%) 0
Rank 36748 - 73493 (50%) 0
Rank 73494 - 110240 (75%) 0
Rank 110241 - 146986 (100%) 0
One can see that there is certainly room to smooth out these rewards. As one possible alternative structure, for sake of contrast, I will utilize a Tao 77 framework. For those interested, a rough interpretation:
Tao 77 Ranked Honor Rewards:
Rank 1 (0.001%) 250,000
Rank 2 - 7 (0.005%) 200,000
Rank 8 - 15 (0.01%) 175,000
Rank 16 - 73 (0.05%) 150,000
Rank 74 - 146 (0.1%) 125,000
Rank 147 - 735 (0.5%) 100,000
Rank 736 - 1470 (1.0%) 95,000
Rank 1471 - 2205 (1.5%) 90,000
Rank 2206 - 2940 (2.0%) 85,000
Rank 2941 - 3675 (2.5%) 80,000
Rank 3676 - 4410 (3.0%) 75,000
Rank 4411 - 5145 (3.5%) 70,000
Rank 5146 - 5879 (4.0%) 65,000
Rank 5880 - 6614 (4.5%) 55,000
Rank 6615 - 7349 (5.0%) 50,000
Rank 7350 -14699 (10%) 45,000
Rank 14700 - 22048 (15%) 40,000
Rank 22049 - 29397 (20%) 35,000
Rank 29398 - 36747 (25%) 30,000
Rank 36748 - 73493 (50%) 25,000
Rank 73494 - 110240 (75%) 20,000
Rank 110241 - 146986 (100%) 10,000
I don't suggest that this is the right way of smoothing out the ranked rewards, it is just one possible way, that demonstrates that it could be done.
Consider participating in civil discourse, understanding the Tardigrade, and wandering with the Subspace Eddies.
I would actually like if it were possible to smooth out the ranked numbers themselves, in a way. Hear me out (read me out? Something.)...
I like being able to look at my rank and know where I am as far as ranked rewards. I like being able to ask "hey, does anyone know where top 1k is at?" And have the people I'm talking to understand that I'm looking for how many points I need for a copy of the event legendary.
I would not like constantly adjusting event brackets. At all. It would drive me nuts. I'm weird, and I understand that, but... it would drive me nuts? Sorry.
As far as the event ranked rewards structure goes, I'm in favor of proportionally increasing the current brackets, with the exception of the top 25 ranks or so, based on the size of the player base. Perhaps they could reevaluate it every three months or something, and see if the player base has increased enough to expand the brackets again. -shrug-
Just my thoughts...
Again, I'm weird.
To me a win is top 1000.
That being said, if you're new Faction top 1000 is hard. I took me about 6-8 months before I did it, and now I do it consistently without buying boosts, etc. Its all about having some boosts built up from cadet challenges, using them judiciously AND having all the bonus crew you can for that event. That takes some crew building which takes time.
I made a version_003 demonstrating how rewards could be smoothed out between the ranks.
Consider participating in civil discourse, understanding the Tardigrade, and wandering with the Subspace Eddies.
20,000 honor for barely participating?
5 free of *any 5 of your choice*, but none of the event 5, as rewards for winning?
I don't think these numbers are at all realistic.
I tend to agree. While I applaud the general idea, I think the Honor amounts listed in the graphic above should drop off severely outside of the top 5%, and I would also suggest several more tiers within the top 2%. One of my biggest issues with the current system is that there's not a lot of difference between 50th and 1000th place — and even within the top 50 there should be more. I was in the top 40 this last weekend, but would have spent more money if there was a significant reason for me to get top 30 or top 25, for example (my only potential push would have been for top 15, to get 2 extra copies of Tuvok instead of just one, but I knew that was just a wee bit beyond my reach).
Could you please continue the petty bickering? I find it most intriguing.
~ Data, ST:TNG "Haven"
Version 002 illustrated how the ranks could be configured based on percentages
Version 003 illustrates how smooth the ranked rewards could be between the ranks by converting the ranked rewards into currencies.
The numbers as they are in version 001 and 002 are based on the premise of converting directly to equivalent citation values. This was done for two reasons, some people were suggesting a direct to citation system, and I wanted to show the advantage in utility by going strait to honor. Using equivalent values seemed an appropriate way to pronounce that difference.
One of the advantages of going with honor rather than citations is shown in version 003. I had solicited feedback for how smooth the rewards should be, but in receiving none, I just made something up and took the opportunity to interject a bit of philosophy. Even so, those specific values are not the whole point. Understanding that those values are placeholders for sake of illustrating a concept, what would be helpful is to outline a more "realistic" set of values, and then explain how those values address the relevant concerns as communicated in previous posts in this thread and elsewhere.
Acknowledging that an increase in the utility of rewarding honor directly adds value to the rewards, also implies that, by design, the ranked rewards as they are aren't meant to actually be utilized. I think that is a useful thing to consider, as the question then includes a curiosity as to the actual intended value of the existing ranked rewards. Is it, by design, that most players earning those ranked rewards aren't meant to actually gain the value that they earned?
For instance, in the last event there was a 3/3 T'Pol in the ranked rewards. How many players earning those ranked reward sent those T'Pol's directly to the airlock? For the few who ranked high enough and did not already have 3/3 T'Pol immortalized, why does it make sense that the effective value of the reward for them is more than everyone else? I suggest, that one of the advantages of converting directly to honor values for the ranked rewards is that the actual, effective, value of the earned ranked rewards would be more consistent than it is now. Is suggesting a more consistent value "unrealistic"?
When factoring in the other concerns that this whole revision of event rewards is trying to address, particularly going upstream of the duplicates and honor dismissal values problems, honor owed/debt, lost revenue, incentives to compete and participate, being able to access the crew in the thresholds as to not get pushed out of the necessary rank. The general idea is the whole point of this thread.
As players, we can say that we like, or don't like, and advocate for or against the ideas of:
1. putting the crew in the thresholds, so we can access event crew and reduce duplicates.
2. honor being rewarded in the ranked, so we get maximum utility of what we have earned.
3. a percentage based ranked system, which scales to the active player base*.
4. smoother ranked reward structure, so there are reasons to compete across the spectrum.
* Active players could have a minimal VP participation to qualify in the event, to avoid most the concerns with a percentage based system. Additionally, there are other ways of optimizing the rank brackets to the current player base other than percentages, but would possibly require more on going effort to maintain.
The specific and final calibration of the values is, of course, DB's domain. My aim with this thread and the images was to illustrate how those things are possible. Just as I provided an example for how the then consensus on the old forums that the honor rate should be better and somewhere around 10:1 by making a 10:1 chart to contrast with the existing honor values:
Given that it has been stated that the honor values aren't going to change, yet the problems they were met to address remain. The ideas of percentage based and smoother ranked rewards, were proposed in many other posts and several other threads on this topic. I thought it might be helpful to provide an example of how that might look to test out the efficacy of those concepts, such that as with the charts I made for alternate honor dismissal values, that they might be utilized to refine those conversations.
Point is, restructuring event rewards and removing the all dupes beholds might be a way of solving or at least mitigating those ongoing issues.
Consider participating in civil discourse, understanding the Tardigrade, and wandering with the Subspace Eddies.
::raises hand::
Yeah, it's definitely goofy right now. And just to clarify — as I said, I applaud the general idea. Merely suggesting a few alterations that I thought would be more realistic, and more likely to be embraced by the company. The issue I mentioned of having very little difference among the rewards given for 50th-1000th place is hugely problematic, as I see it, so if a major overhaul were done, I would defnitely like to see that issue addressed.
The other big thing is that I do agree that a percentage-based system might be fairer (or at the very least a change to the number ranking system which is based on such a percentage), given the increase in active players since the reward structure was first established. As Travis mentioned in another thread today, clearing the thresholds only got him to something like 10,000th place. In the current structure, the rewards are awful for that rank... but with, say, top 5% being a significant reward rank point, someone who was only in it to "clear the thresholds, then out", might see that with just a little more effort (and possibly a little more spending), they could have a decent shot at a much better set of final rewards.
The reason I suggested that there be a significant drop below that point is just my estimation of the amount of effort and spending it took to get to that point (approximately 7500th place, give or take), based on reports from my fleet. For instance, in addition to my main STT account, I have two alt accounts that I operate on our sister fleet. One of them is F2P. I gave them both my all, and finally cleared the threshold rewards on Sunday for each of them. (Despite that, the strongest of the two ended the event in 16,732nd place.) Because I hadn't pre-farmed on those accounts, nor saved up anything more than about 1000 chrons, I don't feel I should really have gotten a lot more than what I did. Getting 40,000 to 50,000 Honor for the rankings I ended up with there would be too much. Especially compared to the Honor that comes in from fleet rewards. Since an event runs several days, I could get behind something like 2000 Honor for a rank in the range of 10,000th to 20,000th place, however.
Like you, I would love to see something better to replace the current system, and I hope DB considers some of the options we've discussed. But even small changes would be greatly appreciated.
Could you please continue the petty bickering? I find it most intriguing.
~ Data, ST:TNG "Haven"
Looking past, what is perhaps an inadvertently condescending opening to your feedback, it is well documented that I understand, as it has been explicitly stated, that the intent was that honor be accumulated gradually. Should I link all the times I have quoted that exact text straight from the developers since patch 1.9, or would you kindly stop trying to explain that to me as if I don't already know?
All it does is signify that you haven't bothered to read the on going discussion, or consider who you are offering feedback to. What it also does, more critically, is undermine the conversation from evolving when we have to go back and reestablish basic concepts, or having those basic concepts argued as if they haven't been considered at all.
Which is to say, that I have never argued for any form of "honor should be given out like candy". As I have replied elsewhere, mayhaps even earlier in this very thread, is that I am questioning the calibration of gradual. I suggest, that it could be recalibrated, not done away with.
I am, quite frankly, tired of the slippery slope and black and white arguments, which are seemingly willfully immune or purposefully oblivious to considering the whole picture or previous conversation. If you find the values "unrealistic" or "asking way too much", and if you'd like to actually contribute to the conversation, then do the work of outlining some values closer to what you would agree with. Put your ideas on the line, just offering the same feedback isn't helpful. Those values should reflect an understanding of the interrelated factors, as outlined elsewhere in this thread and other relevant threads on honor values, event reward structure and such.
Alternatively, and or additionally, you could also do the math and outline exactly how the placeholder values in the images would lead to the outcomes that you use to argue against them. I suggest referencing the honor owed/debt thread and all the threads on burn out and frustration, crew slot issues and such.
Consider participating in civil discourse, understanding the Tardigrade, and wandering with the Subspace Eddies.
Do you mean that there is very little difference in the current event structure 50th-1000th place, or that there isn't enough difference in those ranks in version_003? The smoothing was specifically meant to address that, has it not gone far enough?
Version_003 shows numbered ranks based on percentages. Though because I have no data on actual event participation rates I just estimated based on the arena.
I had solicited feedback on the smoothing in a post earlier in this thread, and in not receiving any I just made one to illustrate how converting to honor could aid in that smoothing. I fully understand that the Tao 77 perspective isn't going to work for most people, but I wanted to finish the third version and that's what I went with for abstract philosophical reasons.
That said, if people want to take the values outlined above and suggest alternate values for the smoothing or percentage brackets, that would be helpful.
Indeed.
Consider participating in civil discourse, understanding the Tardigrade, and wandering with the Subspace Eddies.
I did edit that comment to take the first part out because after thinking about it, I didn’t need to sound that way and I do apologize. I do stand by the fact that it should be difficult to build up honor
I've seen it happen in another game that gave out event rewards based on an unknown number (had to be top 20% of a number that you had no way of knowing what it would be in advance), and the predicted outcome turned out to be exactly what everyone who did the math said it would: many, many extra accounts were made for the express purpose of suppressing the number needed to get into the top 20% by having those extra accounts participate, but only to the minimum extent possible.
If we aren't going to go to percentages (probably for the reason I just cited), it would help if DB were to take a look at the average number of event participants as it's gone up over time, and recalculate what the number ranges should be for the different tiers of rewards - and that's in addition to making greater differentiation between the tiers for the top 1000 players.
One of the other changes I'd like to see is the continued addition of new 2- and 3-star crew in the thresholds and/or ranks for events. Both would be even better, and possibly alleviate some of the "I don't care about anything but the thresholds" mentality that people can get into when there are no rewards in the ranks that they can realistically achieve that they would care about.
I was actually speaking of the current system that we have in place right now. But as I touched on in my initial reply post, I do think your v3 would benefit from even more percentage-based tiers. Otherwise, with 20th and 70th place getting the same rewards, and 150th place getting the same rewards as 700th place, those are significant differences in VP amounts and thus there isn't much point to entice a player to want to move up. (Which is the situation we have right now, alas.)
Right, I figured it was an estimation. If they do ever employ such a structure, I'm sure DB could and would adjust accordingly, based on their own actual figures.
And I greatly appreciate your efforts and ideas. I would also welcome anyone else to give details on how they'd amend or add to what you've presented. However, beyond the small suggestions I already gave above, I will be the first one to admit that I'm likely far too lazy to be that person.
Could you please continue the petty bickering? I find it most intriguing.
~ Data, ST:TNG "Haven"
They are not realistic compared to the status quo. However, many of us believe the status quo needs to be changed. (And I respect that many do not.) In my opinion, honor *should* be given out like candy. If they won't give crew spaces, make it easier to immortalize crew. And 20K is not too much to give. That isn't even half of a citation for a legendary. Honor debt is far too high.
In my version_003 I attempted to smooth them out utilizing a bit of philosophy, and offered the following: I don't suggest that this is the right way of smoothing out the ranked rewards, it is just one possible way, that demonstrates that it could be done.
Furthermore, I suggest looking at these rewards from perspectives I've offered earlier and throughout this thread, and particularly through the lens of the honor debt, or deficit, if you prefer:
So, let's see how just using the un-smooth numbers above how long it would take placing in the top 1000 in every event, to clear my honor deficit or whatever people would prefer to call it.
9,814,000 ÷ 63,000 = 156 top 1000 event finishes. 156 weeks ÷ 52 weeks in a year = 3 years.
Now, given that with current sources of honor the data we have, suggests that people are accumulating more honor deficit over time. Meaning that, 3 years from now when after placing top 1000 in every event, I would have just cleared the deficit I have now. The question then would be how much more honor deficit would be accumulated over that 3 year period?
Keep in mind, that 3 year estimate is based on some version of this idea being implemented with those values. Without that additional source of honor from events, by reducing duplicates, clearing your current honor deficit isn't going to happen for anyone other than a mega whale. That said, clearing the honor deficit isn't even the real point, it's about being able to utilize the honor system.
Is this the oft cited "gradually", that everyone is on board with?
The whole notion of honor deficit is a thought experiment aimed getting people to consider the math behind the honor system, and to actually look at the numbers.
That math informs us of how useful the system actually is, and how well it's serving it's intended function (please see previous discussion before informing me that it's working as intended). Given the structure of the game as it is, of course people should have to make strategic choices about who to keep and who to level when, as it's about the only real strategy in this game. And of course there needs to be pain points in order to force those choices, crew slot limitations, honor limitations, item scarcity and let's not forget the tyranny of the RNG which dominates everything.
People have argued against any recalibration of those pain points as if changing anything is the same as doing away with everything, and/or we just "want everything for free", and/or that it's going to lead to absolute parity where everyone has everything, and/or people are just whining that the game is to difficult and/or back in my day we had to walk uphill both ways and we wore onions on our belts. One will notice upon further consideration that exactly none of those things are true, or helpful, in collaborating on, or advocating for a solution.
If you think the numbers are waaaayyy off, right on, feedback and iteration help ideas move forward. Then suggest an alternate breakdown, and I don't mean just stating that the numbers should be ambiguously different or lower, I mean do the work and put some numbers out there.
Additionally, if you think there is merit to certain parts of the idea, saying so and explaining why from your own perspective also helps.
Consider participating in civil discourse, understanding the Tardigrade, and wandering with the Subspace Eddies.
How about a top 1000 finish with those crazy, mostly for sake of demonstration and philosophy, Tao 77 smoothed rewards?
9,814,000 ÷ 95,000 = 103 top 1000 event finishes. 103 weeks ÷ 52 weeks in a year = 1.9 Years
How much honor deficit might be accrued in 1.9 years? Well, I've been playing almost exactly that long. So, a rough estimate would be 9,814,000. Though if I was still playing by then, I'd have more 4* in the freezer for the collection bonuses, so my honor deficit might be higher with more 5* in my roster.
Is 1.9 years to cite only my current crew, too fast for gradual? Is 3 years? or is the current calibration of gradual, not in my lifetime, still the right one? Is there no room for improvement?
Consider participating in civil discourse, understanding the Tardigrade, and wandering with the Subspace Eddies.
Perchance, there are interdependent issues which remain? Such as this latest thread on the so termed Crew Slot Crisis?
Let's not forget this thread of conversation about the upcoming Q&A. Which inquired of people what they asked about, and quite a few of which mentioned the honor system.
Several threads have been started, and many posts within others expressing doubt that the Q&A will meaningfully address the issues raised. One only has to reference the October Timelines Q&A to find those concerns reasonable and warranted, though often not tactfully or respectfully stated. Despite the ongoing signal to noise problem, the community has invested a lot of time and effort in offering feedback and identifying issues which lead to player burnout, frustration and quitting. All of which represent lost revenue and lost good will. It would be, nice, to see that those efforts have not been completely, or even mostly, wasted.
Hopefully and ostensibly, there will be meaningful, specific, and detailed responses from the developers about these ongoing issues and some plans which articulate an understanding of and some remedies for them.
Consider participating in civil discourse, understanding the Tardigrade, and wandering with the Subspace Eddies.
*takes off diplomacy hat.
Unnecessary comments removed. ˜Shan
So, well done, on taking all of the time energy and effort the community has put in thinking about and providing feedback on this game, and doing basically nothing with it other than proving the cynics right. Which is the part which irritates me the most.
Consider participating in civil discourse, understanding the Tardigrade, and wandering with the Subspace Eddies.
For those curious, the comments which were removed were a fairly robust and accurate deconstruction of mentalities and perspectives underlying the non-answers to the many questions and possibilities the community offered about the event rewards structure and the honor rates.
My statements were offered in humorous manner, with a healthy bit of well deserved sarcasm. Given how well sarcasm doesn't translate on the interweb, and that merits of different kinds of humor are a matter subjective opinion, I supposed it could be considered "Unnecessary".
That said, here is basically what I was saying, from a more succinct perspective:
Also, this image is my rendition in DB's business plan. I did a solid 45 minutes of photoshop and it deserves to be seen until it's no longer relevant or accurate:
Consider participating in civil discourse, understanding the Tardigrade, and wandering with the Subspace Eddies.
I understand not yet having or being able to share all the details, but what we got were notably vague responses. That's not an unnecessary or derogatory statement, it's true and clear when reading them. The answer which relates to the topic of this thread was one of those.
"Participation in events is at an all time high." That doesn't mean it couldn't be higher. That doesn't mean it couldn't be improved. That doesn't mean it could't be more fun, and more reasonably rewarding for our efforts. That doesn't mean it's sustainable.
Growing participation is a large part of why the structure stands to benefit from updating.
I could study for an exam and get 90% and think gee that's great. I'd better not change anything. And then turn away the studying tips of friends whose ideas could help me achieve 95%.
Fact: There are many players competing. That number is growing.
Also fact: There could be more, and more could be retained, if care is taken to update the system to adequately address influx of new players and other factors which inevitably give us less and less rewards for the same amount of effort in events.
The two are not mutually exclusive.
I have valued fleet members who have supported the game and played every event for years, who have expressed privately in our recent fleet-wide feedback session, that it's becoming harder for them to reach top 1000 each week, despite putting in the same effort as before. They shouldn't be pushed out just because there are more people playing now. It's like scoring less on an exam because there are more people taking it.
Please update the reward structure with at least some of the ideas in this thread. I think especially:
• smoothing the rewards through the ranks,
• moving to a percentage-based system so it's adaptive, and
• having the legendary in the thresholds (at a VP similar to what it took to earn them from ranked rewards a year or 2 ago)
-would go a long way towards retaining older players and encouraging newer players to stick with it.
There's a lot of opportunity here. Thanks!
~· Fly with the Subspace Eddies! ·~
Nothing more to add to that, really. It says it succinctly and perfectly.
Could you please continue the petty bickering? I find it most intriguing.
~ Data, ST:TNG "Haven"
Consider participating in civil discourse, understanding the Tardigrade, and wandering with the Subspace Eddies.
People putting in the effort and getting pushed out of top 1000 is one of the reasons I've tried to advocate for moving the first copy of the event 5* in the thresholds. I think thresholds and out, is a perfectly reasonable strategy, and level of effort and participation, which could include the 5* at a reasonable amount of VP.
Given how competitive this event is turning out to be, I think there are going to be a lot of people disappointed by missing out on the Virtuoso Doctor, given how many resources they will have dumped into trying to stay in the top 1000.
Consider participating in civil discourse, understanding the Tardigrade, and wandering with the Subspace Eddies.
My 30,000 honor can go towards a legendary citation (50,000 honor) or towards two super-rare citations (36,000 honor).
You can then rework the ranked and threshold rewards so that the honor can be used wisely on the crew given out in the event or elsewhere as I see fit.
This way we can expect value no matter how hard we play, commensurate to the amount of actual effort put in, and it really encourages higher participation even if we aren't guaranteed a 1/5 legendary it won't matter so much, as the rewards allow us to place it in other areas within the game.
There would be much more value in me going for the top 1000 more frequently, and encourage new players to really go hard in events even when they can't reach the 3000 rank. Because right now there's nothing of value between threshold (130,000VP) and 3 copies of the super-rare in ranked (currently about 250,000VP). But the honor difference would be 12,000 - not insignificant at all.
Anyway, I'm not sure I explained that too well, but it's an idea and one I think doesn't flood the game with honor but allows more flexibility and encouragement for players to participate strongly in events.
Check out our website to find out more:
https://wiki.tenforwardloungers.com/