DB - Thank you for listening! Shuttles, Dax art, + changes to events:
·§ë· For the Many
✭✭✭✭✭
in The Bridge
Shuttle missions:
Because not everything is black&white: there are degrees of failure and success, and things that we learn and gain from our failures and not-so-successes too.
From last year on the old forum:
"Scaled success/failure spectrum for shuttle/faction missions"
Not sure if Xoiiku's advocacy is what inspired this change but it's very much appreciated. Thanks DB.
It would also be great if players could choose the difficulty of shuttles, this way we can choose when to run shuttles for the "basic" items which drop less frequently at the upper levels.
Art:
After a while of thinking that we weren't really being taken seriously about the art and the Art Feedback thread in Engineering, it's really cool to see some things that indicate at least some of our concerns and suggestions were taken into account, for at least some of the cards. The Dax card in particular (Malik not so much).
While I still hope for a return to the softer facial lighting of old pieces (instead of solid yellow/blue outlines) and for a return to more more hair and facial detail - I think the colors, shading, and contrast between darkness and highlights on Dax's face make it look lifelike! It makes me feel like I'm looking at Jadzia Dax.
Thank you. More of this please.
Q&A:
Hopefully some of the other issues players care about or that affect them a lot, are taken more into account in the future too. The answers we got to some of the questions, I found vague or dismissive. For example the event Fleederboard and updating event reward structures.
I think that players shouldn't get less rewards for their efforts in an event, than they did a year or so ago. That it would be beneficial to both DB and to the players if the ranked reward structure is updated to an adaptive system to reflect the growing player base today and going forward:
- more of a percentage-based system (with some threshold for participation)
- the rewards smoothed out more through the ranks, so that I'm not getting roughly the same reward for rank 16 as for rank 1000
- and a copy of the legendary in the thresholds that roughly corresponds to the VP it took to get the 1/5 say, a year ago?
- maybe some different rewards like honour, to minimize duplicates?
Some ideas:
--> Smoothing, % system, threshold crew, honor
--> Zipf approach, smoothing
& while on the subject of changes to shuttles, and events:
- 9h boosts can give a more decent boost, and give 3x rewards for 3x the time, or be 6h boosts that give 2x the rewards. So more players can have a full sleep while still having a shot at their event goals.
Thanks!
Because not everything is black&white: there are degrees of failure and success, and things that we learn and gain from our failures and not-so-successes too.
From last year on the old forum:
"Scaled success/failure spectrum for shuttle/faction missions"
Not sure if Xoiiku's advocacy is what inspired this change but it's very much appreciated. Thanks DB.
It would also be great if players could choose the difficulty of shuttles, this way we can choose when to run shuttles for the "basic" items which drop less frequently at the upper levels.
Art:
After a while of thinking that we weren't really being taken seriously about the art and the Art Feedback thread in Engineering, it's really cool to see some things that indicate at least some of our concerns and suggestions were taken into account, for at least some of the cards. The Dax card in particular (Malik not so much).
While I still hope for a return to the softer facial lighting of old pieces (instead of solid yellow/blue outlines) and for a return to more more hair and facial detail - I think the colors, shading, and contrast between darkness and highlights on Dax's face make it look lifelike! It makes me feel like I'm looking at Jadzia Dax.
Thank you. More of this please.Q&A:
Hopefully some of the other issues players care about or that affect them a lot, are taken more into account in the future too. The answers we got to some of the questions, I found vague or dismissive. For example the event Fleederboard and updating event reward structures.
I think that players shouldn't get less rewards for their efforts in an event, than they did a year or so ago. That it would be beneficial to both DB and to the players if the ranked reward structure is updated to an adaptive system to reflect the growing player base today and going forward:
- more of a percentage-based system (with some threshold for participation)
- the rewards smoothed out more through the ranks, so that I'm not getting roughly the same reward for rank 16 as for rank 1000
- and a copy of the legendary in the thresholds that roughly corresponds to the VP it took to get the 1/5 say, a year ago?
- maybe some different rewards like honour, to minimize duplicates?
Some ideas:
--> Smoothing, % system, threshold crew, honor
--> Zipf approach, smoothing
& while on the subject of changes to shuttles, and events:
- 9h boosts can give a more decent boost, and give 3x rewards for 3x the time, or be 6h boosts that give 2x the rewards. So more players can have a full sleep while still having a shot at their event goals.
Thanks!
9
Comments
An update of the reward structure is a good idea, but I am completely against the idea of a legendary in the threshold. Not for personal reasons (cause who would mind that), but for longterm reasons, for reasons of the game. Cause I want it to live long and prosper, I want it to survive for as long as possible.
Up to 4* you can get all kinds of crew in so many different ways: Monthly reward, threshold, Voyages etc. On special occasions we even get a legendary card as gift.
For the factions F2P, monthly card player, medium spenders etc. over time enough decent crew to enjoy the game for "peanuts" or even zero.
The business model of the game is built around the legendaries. They are the "golden apple", are and shall be the desired cards. By the droprates and prices obvious as well.
Despite that STT is no revenue monster. Compared to the "big sharks in the pond" the revenue (check sites like www.sensortower.com to verify what I mean) is kinda small.
A money printer like Electronic Arts would kick this game. So we can be glad STT is developed by a small company like DB.
In case they would add legendaries to the thresholds they would lose some of their shine. The incentive to buy packs would be even lower.
I often read greed this, greed that. And in case we would be talking about Electronic Arts etc. (story for another day) I would completely sign that.
In this case: Without some of the expensive packs and people buying them this game could likely close shop soon or there would be no more new developments, we would have a dead game.
So, as said, while I and no one would mind stuff like that for the perspective of this game it would not be helpful.
I want to see the game to survive for as long and as much as possible too. While there are many new players who join, I see too many players get discouraged and leave. The game is succeeding; I think it could succeed more and be a better experience for all.
An update to a %-based structure like the arena would help a great deal of course and maybe even negate the need for it, as if set up well it can adapt to influx automatically.
~· Fly with the Subspace Eddies! ·~
So personally I doubt adding those cards to the thresholds could help the growth and lasting appeal of the game. Cause we also have the problems that the glory days of Star Trek are in the past and for the main audience of today (casual players) the whole concept could be overwhelming at first.
Many good suggestions by you no matter what. So let´s hope DB finds the right recipe....
If it were percentage based, wouldn’t we always have that “where the hell am I?” concern? Say some people join in the event at various times. With a constant influx my rank is getting tossed around. By the time the event is close to ending I’m thinking I have no idea where I’m going to end up
Yea!
A full success, for comparison: (where I was attempting to fail, but apparently 0% is ~15%)
~· Fly with the Subspace Eddies! ·~
People joining and competing at random times, moving around your rank already happens. Just as not knowing exactly where you're going to end up. After almost every event we have threads about the newest members of the 1001+ club. So the concerns you raised are already things which happen under the current system.
What a percentage based system could do is increase the size of the brackets if more people joined. In this way a percentage based system would alleviate your concerns, not cause them.
Think about it in this way. Let's say that there are 100 people playing the event at first, and there are 10 brackets with 10 spots each. When 900 more people join, now there are 1,000 people playing the event and still there are 10 brackets, meaning each bracket now has 100 spots each, up from 10. (this is a simplified model for sake of illustrating this one point.)
So, if you are in the top bracket when there are 100 people, when 900 more people join, you'd still be in the top bracket. In terms of your overall rank, you'd be competing as usual.
For those interested, version_003 demonstrates one possible way a percentage based system could work, along with smoothed rewards and some other ideas.
In terms of having the legendary in the threshold, in addition to it being placed at a reasonable amount of VP befitting an appropriate amount of effort as stated above it could also remedy the frustrations experienced by the 1001+ club. Making it such that even people pushed just outside of the top 1000 bracket (as it is now), who put the effort into earning a legendary could still earn one.
I suggest, that rather than decreasing revenue somehow, this could actually increase revenue. Based on the observation that less frustrated and happy players tend to spend more money.
Also, given that 1/5 legendaries come with a 200,000 honor deficit, there are still plenty of revenue generating options DB has in place past the first star.
Consider participating in civil discourse, understanding the Tardigrade, and wandering with the Subspace Eddies.
Rank jumps around before the end under the current system too, wouldn't it always?
In arena we can see what percentile category we fall into, and we can also see our exact rank. It's not mutually exclusive.
~· Fly with the Subspace Eddies! ·~
If it was percentage-based on the number of participants in the event, that would be a recipe for trouble. Because of fluctuations, as you say, but also because it would encourage the creation of multiple accounts just to "stretch" the rewards for people's main accounts. On the other hand, if it's a percentage of the people that completed the threshold (it requires effort to get there and be counted), then I think it's quite workable.
I've only seen components as rewards for shuttle failures, and no faction-only items. Not even the basic ones. I was really hoping the difficulties in getting the lower-rarity faction items to drop were being addressed here.
As I wrote in the original post in hopes of proactively addressing this concern,
"With some threshold for participation" - to be included in the %-ranks. So that would discourage the creation of multiple accounts to stretch the rewards.
~· Fly with the Subspace Eddies! ·~
Well, this honor deficit is another topic. Personally I find that term funny. Because by good selection that "deficit" is much smaller. There are certain characters like Seven of Nine who were mainly made for the Gauntlet. Even with all 5 stars she is nothing to write home about. Adding 4 stars to her would be regarded as a waste by me.
Unless someone is a die hard completionist adding stars should happen naturally, for reasons of strengthening your crew (or liking certain characters). Done with that approach this so called honor deficit is not as big as it is made out to be. Especially considering that by airlocking unneeded doubles from Voyages (+ the natural returns from it etc.) around 2000 honor can be made every day. Aka one legendary citation per month...
With at least eight new legendaries being released every month, that's a need for 32 (or more?) citations potentially being created. Yes, you probably won't get all of those crew. Yes, you probably don't need to cite all of them, either. And yes, there are other ways to add stars. But I believe the majority of players would feel that one citation per month doesn't even begin to keep pace with the release of new crew.
I don't necessarily think that there needs to be an absolute abundance of honor, either. But, perhaps... a better balance?
Isn't he called Bashir?
Check out our website to find out more:
https://wiki.tenforwardloungers.com/
This is great! I've not put any federation shuttle on in a month (since they went honoured) as I'm constantly failing them unless i put my best crew on shuttles instead of a voyage. This really is a welcome change
Thanks for sharing i had wondered how shuttle failures would be affected. Today's event will be even better for this.
Check out our website to find out more:
https://wiki.tenforwardloungers.com/
That way it doesn't hurt the bank so hard as folks who want really good 5s would still buy or really compete.
I believe the majority of players don't even earn one legendary character per month.
There are 70-80k active players per event. An update to a % base as requested would reduce the rewards given.
Thinking the same thing
― Musashi, Japan's Greatest Swordsman and Samurai
% based rewards - bad idea. only pain.
Second Star to the Right - Join Today!
Only when DB gives them out, maybe. Or from the freebie 10x pulls from galaxy events.
Damn it, DB. You're constantly increasing our "honor debt" with this free stuff.
Maybe that's where the problem is. Maybe this wouldn't be as much of an issue if DB just stopped giving us stuff.
Strange then, that we are now recommending they give us more free stuff...
I second this idea, even if only for repeat events where one of the golds is not tiered anymore and aged, throw a copy at the top of the rewards for the folks looking for 1 more star, and no one else feels the need push for that level since the stats of many cards do not withstand the test of time.
Proud member of Patterns of Force
Captain Level 99
Played since January 2017
TP: Do better!!!
or accidently double a lower difficulty shuttle, or send a 90 minute without a blue speed boost.
Of course it is, we are individuals after all. But imho there is no need to keep pace with the release of new crew. Unless, as already said, someone is a die hard completionist. That could indeed by tricky and frustrating.
I follow my own pace, my own crew needs and plans, not the pace of releases by DB. When you have, say, 3 strong base characters for each skill (which was my first target when I started at the beginning of the last year) + around 12 good ones for Voyages and Gauntlet you have a team well prepared for all aspects of the game.
Cards useful for the bonus in events, round up characters behind the Top 3 in each skill excluded a strong core of 30 is a massive basis for STT. It is not about the quantity of crew, but the quality, the right crew.
As you said and I agreed with it is subjective, but a clear plan and approach etc. already reduce this often mentioned honor deficit.
What am I missing? Can't the % brackets be adjusted so that it wouldn't reduce the rewards given? The idea is to increase it back to what it was earlier.
Do you have ideas for how to address the influx of players competing in events, to avoid it becoming increasingly harder for actively competing players to earn decent rewards? An expansion and smoothing of the rewards at different ranks?
~· Fly with the Subspace Eddies! ·~
The rewards are exactly where they always were, top 1000, top 5000, etc.
The playerbase is not significantly larger than it previously was.
What HAS happened is that all players have seen a huge increase in resources in the last year.
Mega Event 4/5s and the honor system have brought 5/5s to the masses. Achievement and collection dilithium have brought 4 shuttles to the VIP 0 and low payer, and Voyages have brought a huge increase in chrono income to all players.
So everyone has more resources, and can do more in the game. Level crew faster, save chrono easier, staff 4k point shuttles easier.
We are seeing bunching at the top because of the free flow of resources, and an increase in competitiveness. A year ago, clearing all the thresholds on a galaxy event put you around 5k, now most events it puts you closer to 10k. Shuttle scores are inflating, with fail VP increasing that even more.
Basically all the free resources we keep asking for and getting are changing the game economy and making it easier and easier to score higher and higher. You don't work harder to score the same VP, that's the change that would warrant changes to rewards. Players are on a more level playing field and score higher now. This has also reduced the impact of small spender strategies, as a 5-10% advantage on the old base, is a 2-4% advantage on the current norm.
A true event reward rework would likely see....
Thresholds stretched over a higher score. It's easier to hit these now, they were intended to be the reward for a full event of hard work. With all the new resources they could easily adjust to require the same level of investment as before. This is something I'm sure they have considered, based on previously testing higher thresholds for a longer event time.
3* rewards stretched to a further rank. It used to be, getting into that 5k-7k range and getting some 3*s to bolster your roster helped. it doesn't now and almost no one who gets an old 3* from rewards actually needs it for crew strength (sure plenty need it for collections/achieves) getting these down to the folks who actually need them would likely stretch those down to around 20k in rank.
A possible increase in the 4* bracket sizes. I could see DB increasing the bracket sizes, possibly to full thousands, so 1001-3000 becomes 1001-5000. The partial fusion rewards of 4*s would be potentially a higher impact on spending than the 500 additional players who would get the 4/4.
No change to include Honor. There are a lot of requests for more honor. Prior to the system release, folks were hopeful and though being able to earn 1 5* a month would be a good balance and huge benefit. We are now getting that about every 3 weeks and folks are asking for massive increases in honor. We could do a whole write up on why this would not be beneficial, the short answer is, a massive increase in honor income would potentially negatively impact sales.
Minimal changes to the 5* structure. I think it would become more uniform, and DB would likely cut down to only the top 15 getting multiple copies, the opposite of what we all want and expected, but what they have done when they reworked galaxy rewards and then made the new skirmish ones.
The mega event 5*s are the 5* in thresholds you are asking for, they are active nearly half the time now.... asking for more than that and having the weekly 5* available in a similar manner would hurt sales.
We are where we are with the competitive level for ranked breakpoints due to the change in resource flow to the game. To think that more resources would correct that... unlikely. It would likely inflate scores more, and quickly devalue older cards more. People would cherry pick some 4*s for collections, but if they were earning a 5* citation a week, 4*s would become immaterial to future event performance. New characters would have to be stat monsters or fan favorites to attract actual sales, and the pulls for multiple copies would reduce as citationing would be easier.
Two questions:
1. Could you provide your data on the number of players currently and historically?
2. How you have determined that the increase in the number of players is not significant?
Four questions:
1. Who is asking for a "massive increase" in honor?
2. What is your definition of a "massive increase" in honor?
3. If you are so certain of your conclusion, why not provide the "whole write up", for those of us who might benefit from your insights?
4. Could you specify exactly which version, of which idea proposing a "massive increase" of honor, will lead to the outcomes you propose?
As it is, you've made several declarative statements and offered no proof of their veracity, and provided no specific numbers which those statements are based on. You have also seemingly ignored naming a particular version of a particular idea, or addressing any of the specifics of the ideas which you are then dismissing out of hand, and then offering your own views into the space provided by your unsubstantiated refutation of the prior. This basically reads as:
"That won't work, because I said so. This is what will actually work" - Roonis
If that isn't an accurate synopsis of your contribution, feel free to provide evidence to the contrary.
So, in the absence of you offering any specifics, here are some numbers on how the equivalent to citation cost honor rates in the event reward structure I proposed could work, for one of many possible brackets, in one of many possible ways of structuring the rewards, relative to the current honor deficit, which provides at least a comparative baseline and relative scope for sake of discussion on how an increase in honor might effect the overall economy of the game:
So do you disagree with the premise of the idea, or it's particular implementation? Those are two different things. Mischaracterizing that idea, and any number of possible implementations as "asking for a massive increase in honor" is simply, unhelpful and inaccurate.
If this wasn't one of those ideas you lumped together, then please feel free to specify exactly which you are referring to. Doing so might then render your comments more useful and distinct from mere contrarianism.
You state with certainty that an increase in honor would negatively effect pack sales. What behavioral economic modeling are your drawing that from? What assumptions about player mentalities, perceptions and goals does that conclusion rely on? What is the confidence interval on your modeling and assumptions?
It may actually be that putting the event legendary in the thresholds at a reasonable amount of VP (as stated above) might actually increase revenue. Here is one reason why:
If more people know that they can earn a 1/5*, and not get bumped out of the top 1000, that will change the value proposition on the DYC offer as well as the specific crew packs. Rather than offering any certainty that it would lead to more pack sales, I suggest it is worth considering the possibility. Or did your assumptions already account for that?
Additionally, have you considered how current honor rates negatively effect pack sales? What's your baseline for sake of comparison which leads you to conclude that a change would result in less overall pack sales?
Lost revenue must be accounted for. There are many threads where people have explicitly stated that the current system discourages spending. Also, many players have left the game because of things being as they are with the current honor system and leveling/progression mechanics. So how does player loss vs player retention fit into your conclusions about overall pack sales?
The following comments are offered in general to the forum community. If you're not into or don't have time for unsolicited feedback and thinking about thinking, feel free to ignore and move on.
Maintaining the status quo is not lossless. Arguing against ideas, seemingly without bothering to first consider them, doesn't contribute to moving the conversation forward. Superficial contrarianism is easy. It's easy to do, and it's easy to get people to support that position, because it risks nothing and doesn't take much if any effort for others to think about if they actually agree with it or not.
We ought to all be wary of cognitive ease vs cognitive strain. If you find yourself agreeing with someone too quickly, it might be more due to confirmation bias than being convinced by those arguments.
Did you read through the ideas, consider the supporting evidence, understand the interrelationships, and think through the probable outcomes of the idea? Or did you see someone who said, "that won't work," and jumped onboard because that was the easiest and safest thing to do?
Useful, constructive and specific criticism is of course very valuable. One ought to solicit and consider negative feedback. However, that's only helpful if the feedback is focused and specific. General negativity, pessimism and arrogance, undifferentiated and nonspecific, in the guise of "feedback" about someone's perception of an idea, rather than the idea itself, is less than helpful or interesting.
Consider participating in civil discourse, understanding the Tardigrade, and wandering with the Subspace Eddies.