I can see what Roonis is saying through my own player experience. I used to rank top 25 with unleveled purples because that's where we were in the game. Now, I've got a VIP0 account that ranks top 10 in events if I want or top 1k in shuttles. That's putting the strain at the top. It isn't necessarily "more people" but "people with more" available to them -- better crew (thanks, megas), more shuttles, and an abundance of resources to get there. I used to be weird for having 50k chrons but that's now the new normal. I think you should be a bit more open-minded to opposing viewpoints.
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.
To my recollection, you also haven't offered any proof nor provided specific numbers.
You didn't even try to collect accurate event participation data (say, by creating an additional account to score 1-10 VP in an event and seeing where that account ends up) before creating a mockup of your new event rewards, and patting yourself on the back for it.
I haven't seen any data from you regarding what top 1k looked like a year ago compared to now.
I also think that you're operating under a rather presumptious assumption- that there is anything wrong with the event rewards system.
It's awfully self-centered to decide that because YOU don't like the way things are now, that no one does.
Yet, based on your response, requesting that we share our ideas rather than tell you why we disagree with your ideas, you seem to think that we have a different idea than "don't fix what ain't broke".
So here's my idea: we keep current event rewards, and we shut up about it before DB realizes thresholds are waaay too easy these days, and decides to spread them out a bit more. That's my proposed version of free stuff- that they don't make the thresholds higher due to the ease of obtaining VP these days.
Also, I'm sorry, but I have to say this...
If your honor deficit bothers you that badly, perhaps you should reevaluate how much of yourself you are putting into a mobile game. If you want things, pay for them. Just like the real world.
I personally think honor should be rewarded at a flat rate of VP earned in an event. 1 honor per 10VP. The greater your participation, the more honor earned. I think this would encourage event participation and event pack pulls. Keep the other rewards as they are. Except, reduce the super-rare card wins to only 3 of each card. That way you can use your honor to cite the super-rares, the legendary, or something else. It would encourage spending (via pack pulls) but allow much greater rewards and flexibility for those who fully participate in the event. People who already have Soong and reach threshold, for example, would get 13,000 honor to spend on Malik or someone else. People who don't have Soong will get the cards and 13,000 honor towards a citation. People who reach 300,000VP can get 30,000 honor towards the citation of the legendary they receive in the packs, even if they don't reach the top 1000. That kind of thing.
I think there is perhaps some confusion about the difference between proposing different versions of how an idea might work, and offering certainties and making conclusive statements about how some unspecified version of it won't. The pivotal difference here is in certainty.
A secondary difference is in dismissiveness versus exploration. Given the lack of specificity in the feedback, it renders the "opposing viewpoint" less helpful than it could otherwise be. Making it more of a generalized statement, and reading as dismissiveness, rather than useful or even relevant feedback which adds to the conversation.
I have offered many of my ideas in the spirit of the exploration of the concepts, not offering any certainties about how I think things should be. I've only illustrated possible ways it could be. Could be, is different than, should be. One will note in my feedback to Roonis, that I asked questions, and requested clarification and specificity.
One will also note, that a great many of these "opposing viewpoints" which Roonis and others have offered, been expressed many in prior threads, and considered, and responded to at length. Restating the basic version of those counter points, seemingly without having considered any of the prior discussion indicates a lack of consideration of previous effort and awareness of and participation in, the ongoing conversation. Restating those points, apparently with the expectation that they are novel, conclusive and self-evident, is a bit...
To my recollection, you also haven't offered any proof nor provided specific numbers.
In addition to there being some numbers in the post to which you are referring. Shall I link some more specific numbers to you? Which aspect of which idea would you like to see numbers for? Perhaps we could start with one of them which, you participated in? https://forum.disruptorbeam.com/stt/discussion/comment/69610/#Comment_69610
Correct me if I am mistaken, but is that not you, quoting some specific numbers I had proposed in the spirit of exploring how an idea might work?
You didn't even try to collect accurate event participation data (say, by creating an additional account to score 1-10 VP in an event and seeing where that account ends up) before creating a mockup of your new event rewards, and patting yourself on the back for it.
I haven't seen any data from you regarding what top 1k looked like a year ago compared to now.
I was unaware that you were tracking my every movement and communication. It might be interesting to note that I did, in fact, gather data on what top 1k looked like from several people in the community on discord.
There is a remarkably high degree of certainty in your statement. Not a question if I did, but a statement that I did not. Interesting difference?
One will also note, that I have never claimed to speak for anyone other than myself, and have never claimed that everyone thinks (fill in the blank). I have however, tried on several occasions to work toward demonstrating that there is an issue, aggregating feedback and ideas from several threads, collaborating with people, building consensus, and that generally advocating things can be improved.
Yet, based on your response, requesting that we share our ideas rather than tell you why we disagree with your ideas, you seem to think that we have a different idea than "don't fix what ain't broke".
Actually, if you'd please reread what I wrote to Roonis, I asked him to be more specific in his feedback. So, I explicitly asked him to tell me why, and if, he disagreed with one of the versions of the ideas I've offered. I'm not sure where you're drawing the rest of your statement from.
If your honor deficit bothers you that badly, perhaps you should reevaluate how much of yourself you are putting into a mobile game. If you want things, pay for them. Just like the real world.
There seems to be an implicit assumption here that if I think things could be improved that I am somehow unhinged, and over invested in the game, or that I want everything for free.
As it so happens, none of these things are true. I'm simply suggesting that things could be better, and I've tried my best to articulate a couple ways in which that improvement might be made. Possible trajectories, things to look into.
Also, although it isn't much as compared to others, I happen to be just shy of VIP10. So, although I don't have much to spend, I do try to support the game. Perhaps it might be interesting to check in with your assumptions and characterizations, and maybe you'll find that you've missed the mark.
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 don't really understand why so many of you are so...unpleasant to one another. I really like seeing the discussions people have about the game and having fun. This isn't fun.
I personally like the discussions on review and change. Maybe that's my business and corporate experience. You don't continue doing the same thing ad infinitum without question, that's robot behaviour. Things become very stagnant without change. This is how things fail, an external force applies change (for example, an influx of players, or an increase in population) and no change means that over time, the system stops functioning as well and eventually breaks. Evolution is the ability of something to adjust its behaviour in relation to externally applied changes to the environment. Extinction is the result if a species does not manage to adjust to the changes.
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?
Yes. I used a few sources, the first was a secondary account I started in 2016 and abandoned, and recently refreshed for the purpose of testing out the VIP 0 changes with all the new features since then. This account had an event finish from September of 2016 Faction event "Second Act" that I did either one or two shuttles only on, this ranked in 71,146th place. Now, I don't remember exactly what it ran, but lets assume it ran and failed one shuttle and ended up the absolute last place in the event.
After refreshing the account, I ran it in events from Fire with Fire, till "The Butchers of Beta Penthe" doing a minimal amount of VP each time. The first couple faction events I accidently passed a shuttle, so did not get actual last place stats, but for Butchers last place was within 10 spots of the account, which finished at 78,226 and Rule 125 was also within 10 of the bottom of the board at 78,870. Reunification one 10 point shuttle was 76,505 and Fire with Fire was 79,611 Notably, for Reverie in Prime, one event recipe was actually enough for 65,234th place.
so these gave me solid final population numbers, and looked to show actual event population maxes out around 80,000 players. with proof that in Sept of 2016, population was at least 71,000. So 9,000 is a decent difference, but it all appears to be bottom end.
I used my main account to determine the next portion
I had two events where i did a small effort, 6500 VP in a Galaxy event for the 4* for honor or last copy to fuse in the historic case. the first being this years Prime Directive 3-4/18. Where around 6500 VP was 42,613th place. I compared to God's and Masters 3-4/17 where the same effort finished 40,621 to finish my 3/4 Sloan. so an approximate difference of 2,000 players at the first 4* threshold break point.
So while we have potentially added about 9,000 players in nearly two years. Year over year it is a difference of less than 2,000 players in total population at still "minimal effort" point. Year over year the amount of Galaxy players at that first 4* threshold and above has increased roughly 5%. I consider that a not significant population change, for the purposes of totally rescaling the ranked rewards.
Next, I do have a ton of very accurate data thanks to a fleet records hall, that does corroborate the score inflation portion, the true reason for the 5* being "harder" to earn.
For instance, in April of 2017, Faction scores in the 120k-150k range were hovering between top 1000 and 1500 in ranked finish. During the first Mega event, and around the time of the shuttle rework, scores SWELLED with 195k~ needed to top 1000. from there scores went up and up with citations and shuttles added to VIP 0 players, as well as every trying player having the highest command base in the game. within a month a top 1000 required 215k, within 2 it required 255k, as more mega event crew came in, and folks began citationing non mega crew, and resources became more plentiful that 1000 line went up and up and up to the point where the Killy event 410k was just outside the top 1000. I could cite how different increases impacted these scores more directly, but as you can see, the VP increases compared to the population changes are disproportionately large. The move to Fail shuttle VP reduced the "luck" curve where people with better crew than you would fall behind you. (still happens but reduced) The surplus of chrons has event characters max leveled near immediatley on threshold, inflating scores, everyone has huge base 5/5 event crew in the top 10-15% of the population now, vs the top .5% previously. This has increased competition, which actually has caused the conditions you wish to change.
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.
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?
"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.
1. You are, very specifically with your proposed reward structure change.
2. your ranked reward structure proposal which calls for ranks approx 7,000-15,000 receiving 50,000 honor per event, with players from about 700 to 1500 receiving 95,000 per event.
Given the current rate of a monthly card spender, who is able airlock repeat 4*s, the honor rate I and other have seen is about 50k honor per three weeks. these are for folks in that 700-1500 range or higher regularly, so with maybe a 10% decrease in honor from non event duplicates they can't airlock, you want to increase their honor income for that same 3 week period by 285,000. so a over 500% increase in honor income. I Call that massive.
3. Because it bores people and the best we can do is use past DB behavior and game changes based on similar behavior, nobody can tell you the specific impact of increasing honor income 5-10-15-etc%. But we can see, DB has had three major reward reworks.
a)Previously, players under rank 1000 did not receive the 4/4 event character. This caused massive tanking to keep scores down so folks didn't get a 1/5 log jam and got the comparatively more helpful 4/4s. DB changed this to make ranked rewards cumulative to increase competition.
b) DB released the "new" event type with Hybrid events. DB took this opporunity to introduce the hybrid event reward ladder, which decreased the number of players receiving duplicate 5* copies from 25 to 15. Again, to promote competition.
c) DB released the new even type Skirmishes, and copied the Hybrid reward structure, to again further promote competition.
Based on these points, it appears DB prefers competition for rewards, so the current situation of more competition to get into the top 1000 is consistent with what DB appears to want. An event reward rework would be very unlikely to make it easier to obtain the ranked rewards. Again, conversely, it used to be that completing all thresholds was a good reward and took a bit of effort. Due to score inflation and resource increases, clearing thresholds is easy for any player who has been playing for more than a couple months, or has spent. DB previously rolled out higher VP level thresholds for an event with an extra day, indicating they don't want thresholds to be too easy. A full event reward rework could be expected, based on score inflation and DBs own past behavior, to increase threshold points required for all rewards.
The premise of the reward table rework is "the player base has grown" when in actuality, the resource pool of the existing player base has grown more. A change to the reward table as you suggest, would cause further score inflation, as folks can bypass 4*s they don't need for collections, and add multiple stars to 5*s per event. This would exacerbate, and in actuality exponentially increase the source of your perceived problem. The rich would get richer, competition would get tighter, and the thing you are trying to fix would be unchanged or worse, since you weren't attacking the actual reason for your perceived problem.
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.
I disagree with the premise of the idea. DB implemented honor and citations as a means to complete certain crew and get an increased value return from airlocking unneeded characters. The premise that you should be able to complete every 5* crew you earn or want from honor is a large change to the premise of the system. Instead of it being a bonus, a fail safe, or an additional source, you propose to change it to the main crew acquisition tool of the game. You unlock 4*s and 5*s from event thresholds in your model, and then acquire enough honor to citation 2 legendary stars, or 1 legendary star and the full other 3 stars on the 4 star. This would greatly inflate the crew roster of all players, and make 4* useless for shuttles for the top 15-20% of the playerbase within a matter of months.
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:
It is possible. however, a large number of players currently will pull packs from events to get the 1 copy they need to full fuse their event 4* from thresholds, those sales will be gone. Currently, the folks in the First To Max race alternate between being able to pull one copy DYC, and Full fuse from honor, and having to pull 4 copies and DYC. If they had consistent top 100 honor income from your model, they would consistently only have to pull for 1 copy of the 5* further reducing sales. In addition, there is the segment of players that will pull packs trying for the event 5* so they don't have to rank. They will never DYC because they don't think it's worth it, and now they know they just have to hit a threshold to get their 5*. Those sales are also gone. In addition, with 4*s both being in thresholds, and honor for citations easily acquired, the $25 and $10 sales packs would likely lose sales as well overall.
So yes, you will get some additional DYC sales, but at a large cost in other sales. Based mainly on the impact on the VIP 14 crowd who buys till 4/5 and DYC, I would theorize this as an overall loss. Again, this assumes your reward model AND your 5* in threshold. This is all before factoring in that the value of DYC would be diminished, as it would be much easier to citation the crew than currently, so comparatively, it becomes a much worse deal.
I may be right, I may be wrong, but I would say I expect the change would go my way.
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.
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?
Would change them compared to what? DB put the honor system in place, only they know sales numbers before and after the change. If honor implementation had increased pack sales, one would expect they would open that honor faucet more. It's the concept of inflation, as you increase the amount of something, its comparative value drops. I think honor from airlocking could increase at a reasonable rate, and possibly be a net gain. I think combining honor from airlocking increases with the event reward structures changes would devalue those pack purchases.
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.
So, there are a lot of flaws in your cited and stated ideas. Mainly your honor valuation. A Purple citation is more valuable than a copy of an event character, immensely so. You can use it on any 4* you want, you can save it without taking up a crew slow. 18k Honor is also more valuable than a 4* citation, as you have choice of how to use that purchasing power, to possibly save as a large portion of the 50k required for a much more valuable additional star on a 5*. Even folks who agree with your premise have cited your actual rewards as "very generous".
There is a cost to this kind of constant flawed request, it devalues the feedback others give to DB on these forums. DB employees have stated in person, its hard to get a real feel from the forums due to all the white noise and unrealistic requests. You can stand on a mountain top and say "I think we should all get XXX" and those in your situation might agree, because of course they want XXX, but that doesn't make it a correct or well reasoned opinion. And if DB is looking to the forums and all they see is XXX XXX XXX, they are less likely to listen to the folks reasoning and actually coming up with a valid reason to give everyone X. This is compounded with your need to dominate the conversation whenever these topics come up. Someone came up with a great well reasoned post about changing the valuation difference from ranks 75-1000, and you jumped in, pushed your wall of text, and dominated the conversation to the point the post was lost in the white noise.
In addition, your comments are often disingenuous, you talk about ideas and discussion and request feedback, but when confronted with contrary viewpoints, you refuse to address their valid well reasoned concerns with your ideas, and instead laser focus in on parts that let you label a post as "strawman" "ad hominem" or some other logical fallacy. If someone has 4 reasoned points, and also says something is "greedy" that doesn't invalidate their other points, and yet you dismiss it on a logical fallacy as an invalid argument and refuse to discuss it. That makes you as guilty as them of that same logical fallacy. Someone can disagree with your ideas, and not have the "right" answer themselves, especially when they can plainly see your premise is flawed.
TL:DR; Your stance of open discussion is disingenuous at best. Your assumptions on valuation of Honor and game population are based on wild assumptions that don't agree with real numbers or basic economic principles. There are serious shortcomings in your "logic" if you argue for percentage based rewards, then find out the base numbers don't match your expectations so say to just increase the percentages to meet your model, you don't actually want percentage based rewards you are just flailing to justify what you want. I feel like your attempted domination of this discussion point is detrimental to the discussion, and the unrealistic nature of your requests would keep DB from actually considering what is requested here on these forums. Ultimately, best case scenario, your plan of action would worsen the situation you are trying to fix by further driving score inflation.
I have to agree completely with Roonis. Just to give one small example, I used to be a small spender. Monthly Card plus the occasional "deal" that would pop up now and again. That alone was enough to give me a significant boost. Ever since all this freebie crap was introduced, that strategy no longer has any value. The boost that spending that amount on has all but vanished. I am now a completely free player having not spent on this game in about a year because I can no longer see any tangible difference between going free and going monthly card + a little extra here and there. I can't afford to spend $50-100 each month just to get some noticeable increase again.
And now you've got people like @·§ë· Xoiiku who advocate making it worse by throwing gasoline on the fire. DB has been generous, but they've been too generous and now the "give an inch, take a mile" rabble are out in full force.
First I'd like to say, thank you for your robust feedback. There are many points you've made, which you've made before, and others have made, and have been discussed previously. Those parts of the conversation are out there, and available for people to review if they found it interesting to do so.
As apparently some people are perceiving my efforts in the way you suggest, then if I say more it will just provide further evidence for their interpretation. If I say nothing, it would suggest that you are right and accurate on all counts.
That said, I would like to offer a different perspective on a few points:
The premise of the reward table rework is "the player base has grown" when in actuality, the resource pool of the existing player base has grown more.
"The player base has grown" is only one of a couple premises and not the primary one. I had asked many people and had gotten different information on the numbers that what you presented in your comments above. There was a question raised of "significance", though it is clear that your view is that resource pool is more the culprit and point to focus on.
Either way, there were actually other reasons and there were several threads, linked to after the op (in efforts at collaboration and being inclusive), in which people had discussed ideas for a percentage based system and smoothing out the rewards. I thought these were interesting ideas, so I attempted to model how they might work. I added in my own idea of putting the crew in the thresholds, as a way of reducing the number of duplicates, to facilitate that smoothing, as a way to alleviate the 5* 1001+ club, and to reduce people being frustrated by which 4* event crew was ranked vs threshold for that event.
That said, I understand that the resource pool has grown, that was never in dispute or not considered. I also understand and have acknowledged that equivalent to citation value honor would increase the utility and maintain the actual value of that reward earned for all players for of those rewards. So, there were several things I was trying to accomplish at once.
There is a cost to this kind of constant flawed request, it devalues the feedback others give to DB on these forums. DB employees have stated in person, its hard to get a real feel from the forums due to all the white noise and unrealistic requests... ...This is compounded with your need to dominate the conversation whenever these topics come up. Someone came up with a great well reasoned post about changing the valuation difference from ranks 75-1000, and you jumped in, pushed your wall of text, and dominated the conversation to the point the post was lost in the white noise.
I haven't intended to dominate the conversation, only to advocate for what I thought were interesting ideas and possibilities. If people feel that I have dominated or skewed the forums, I'd like to state both that I disagree, and I apologize if that was their experience. Specific to that particular accusation, I made a post in support of that idea and asked some follow up questions because I was curious how they might look at the things I was trying to incorporate into my version.
I then responded once more in that thread, saying "This threads event reward suggestion could be used to demonstrate some possibility like that as well." in support of their approach, and suggesting that we're all in this together. I also linked to their idea from my thread over in make-it-so:
TL:DR; Your stance of open discussion is disingenuous at best.
It is possible, to hear someone, to listen and to consider their perspectives and viewpoints, and to still disagree. When I have pointed to the possible influence of cognitive biases or logical fallacies, it was in exploration of the potential influence, not to dismiss their ideas out of hand. It would be inaccurate to conflate those two things.
I think cognitive biases and logical fallacies are fascinating, and a worthwhile thing to learn about and to consider. I realize that some other people have not shared my interest in openly exploring those things, or appreciated the way in which I have attempted to share those concepts. For instance, I think there is likely some motivated reasoning, informing a bit of the ad hominem in this thread against me.
I have responded hopefully with a clarification of my intent, and some evidence to that effect. Which might at least inform of options, other than my being disingenuous and such. Do with that what you will.
Peace.
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.
First I'd like to say, thank you for your robust feedback. There are many points you've made, which you've made before, and others have made, and have been discussed previously. Those parts of the conversation are out there, and available for people to review if they found it interesting to do so.
As apparently some people are perceiving my efforts in the way you suggest, then if I say more it will just provide further evidence for their interpretation. If I say nothing, it would suggest that you are right and accurate on all counts.
That said, I would like to offer a different perspective on a few points:
The premise of the reward table rework is "the player base has grown" when in actuality, the resource pool of the existing player base has grown more.
"The player base has grown" is only one of a couple premises and not the primary one. I had asked many people and had gotten different information on the numbers that what you presented in your comments above. There was a question raised of "significance", though it is clear that your view is that resource pool is more the culprit and point to focus on.
Either way, there were actually other reasons and there were several threads, linked to after the op (in efforts at collaboration and being inclusive), in which people had discussed ideas for a percentage based system and smoothing out the rewards. I thought these were interesting ideas, so I attempted to model how they might work. I added in my own idea of putting the crew in the thresholds, as a way of reducing the number of duplicates, to facilitate that smoothing, as a way to alleviate the 5* 1001+ club, and to reduce people being frustrated by which 4* event crew was ranked vs threshold for that event.
That said, I understand that the resource pool has grown, that was never in dispute or not considered. I also understand and have acknowledged that equivalent to citation value honor would increase the utility and maintain the actual value of that reward earned for all players for of those rewards. So, there were several things I was trying to accomplish at once.
There is a cost to this kind of constant flawed request, it devalues the feedback others give to DB on these forums. DB employees have stated in person, its hard to get a real feel from the forums due to all the white noise and unrealistic requests... ...This is compounded with your need to dominate the conversation whenever these topics come up. Someone came up with a great well reasoned post about changing the valuation difference from ranks 75-1000, and you jumped in, pushed your wall of text, and dominated the conversation to the point the post was lost in the white noise.
I haven't intended to dominate the conversation, only to advocate for what I thought were interesting ideas and possibilities. If people feel that I have dominated or skewed the forums, I'd like to state both that I disagree, and I apologize if that was their experience. Specific to that particular accusation, I made a post in support of that idea and asked some follow up questions because I was curious how they might look at the things I was trying to incorporate into my version.
I then responded once more in that thread, saying "This threads event reward suggestion could be used to demonstrate some possibility like that as well." in support of their approach, and suggesting that we're all in this together. I also linked to their idea from my thread over in make-it-so:
TL:DR; Your stance of open discussion is disingenuous at best.
It is possible, to hear someone, to listen and to consider their perspectives and viewpoints, and to still disagree. When I have pointed to the possible influence of cognitive biases or logical fallacies, it was in exploration of the potential influence, not to dismiss their ideas out of hand. It would be inaccurate to conflate those two things.
I think cognitive biases and logical fallacies are fascinating, and a worthwhile thing to learn about and to consider. I realize that some other people have not shared my interest in openly exploring those things, or appreciated the way in which I have attempted to share those concepts. For instance, I think there is likely some motivated reasoning, informing a bit of the ad hominem in this thread against me.
I have responded hopefully with a clarification of my intent, and some evidence to that effect. Which might at least inform of options, other than my being disingenuous and such. Do with that what you will.
Peace.
So umm, do you have the ability to answer the question regarding your statement that the playerbase has grown to warrant the percentage based reward in a way that would not negatively impact players? Whereas that may not have been your only point, it is a significant factor when proposing changes. Understanding the scope and impact that is.
So umm, do you have the ability to answer the question regarding your statement that the playerbase has grown to warrant the percentage based reward in a way that would not negatively impact players? Whereas that may not have been your only point, it is a significant factor when proposing changes. Understanding the scope and impact that is.
Thanks for the question. I attempted to address a similar concern earlier in this thread, but at this point I just really don't have any motivation or interest in continuing to participate in these discussions. Sorry.
The percentage based ranks weren't even my idea, I had just read other people talking about it and thought I'd see how, or if, it could possibly work. Maybe one of those people who had suggested it in some of the other threads or some of the people who had asked about a change to event rewards for the Q&A could answer.
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 player base has grown" is only one of a couple premises and not the primary one. I had asked many people and had gotten different information on the numbers that what you presented in your comments above. There was a question raised of "significance", though it is clear that your view is that resource pool is more the culprit and point to focus on.
It is one of the most often stated reasons, the basis of the percentage based model, and the leading justification for change in the majority of those threads linked. And I feel I addressed most of those other reasons by pointing out: 1) Score inflation has made thresholds trivial, the minimum level of effort for fair compensation is skewed. and 2) Every change DB has historically made to rewards structure has been one that promotes competition, not discourages it by putting in a failsafe on the competition prize.
Saying you received contrary anecdotal evidence when I'm providing actual numbers is again, disingenuous. You keep telling people to provide data when they question your numbers, but don't have more than anecdotes and assumptions regarding the inflated arena population (dead accounts do not clear out of the rankings until attacked) as backing for your numbers. Also, that's not how things work. When you present an idea to the world for discussion and consideration, it is your responsibility to answer questions about the logic of your proposal, not the dissenting audiences job to prove you wrong. Demanding a higher standard of data from your detractors than of yourself to dissuade dissent is a shady debate tactic.
Either way, there were actually other reasons and there were linked to after the op (in efforts at collaboration and being inclusive), in which people had discussed ideas for a percentage based system and smoothing out the rewards. I thought these were interesting ideas, so I attempted to model how they might work. I added in my own idea of putting the crew in the thresholds, as a way of reducing the number of duplicates, to facilitate that smoothing, as a way to alleviate the 5* 1001+ club, and to reduce people being frustrated by which 4* event crew was ranked vs threshold for that event.
That said, I understand that the resource pool has grown, that was never in dispute or not considered. I also understand and have acknowledged that equivalent to citation value honor would increase the utility and maintain the actual value of that reward earned for all players for of those rewards. So, there were several things I was trying to accomplish at once.
the 76-1000 rewards could certainly use some stratification, I think an extra 5* or citations is extremely unlikely based on DBs historic changes. Advocating for realistic changes, like the mentioned models amounts of Honor from 2,500-5,000 would be a much better way to have that conversation. I think more importantly, stretching the 4* brackets out would promote sales, as more people get partial fuses, while also increasing compensation and the ability to grow for those outside the top 3k currently.
Your "increased" utility stance is understating the difference, and your refusal to consider the fact that 54k honor is worth considerably more than 3 copies of a 4* makes it difficult to continue the discussion. If makes those discussing things with you feel like you are ignoring feedback when you refuse to acknowledge that very simple and fundamental value difference.
I haven't intended to dominate the conversation, only to advocate for what I thought were interesting ideas and possibilities. If people feel that I have dominated or skewed the forums, I'd like to state both that I disagree, and I apologize if that was their experience. Specific to that particular accusation, I made a post in support of that idea and asked some follow up questions because I was curious how they might look at the things I was trying to incorporate into my version.
You don't get to disagree with how people feel about your behavior, but if the apology is sincere it's a step in the right direction. I can only speak from personal experience and feedback I have received, but I am aware of many people who immediately abandon thread when you enter and link your own ideas to someone else's. That thread specifically was being spoken about quite a bit, and when you came in and linked all your ideas, the discussion of the idea stopped.
I then responded once more in that thread, saying "This threads event reward suggestion could be used to demonstrate some possibility like that as well." in support of their approach, and suggesting that we're all in this together. I also linked to their idea from my thread over in make-it-so:
TL:DR; Your stance of open discussion is disingenuous at best.
It is possible, to hear someone, to listen and to consider their perspectives and viewpoints, and to still disagree. When I have pointed to the possible influence of cognitive biases or logical fallacies, it was in exploration of the potential influence, not to dismiss their ideas out of hand. It would be inaccurate to conflate those two things.
I think cognitive biases and logical fallacies are fascinating, and a worthwhile thing to learn about and to consider. I realize that some other people have not shared my interest in openly exploring those things, or appreciated the way in which I have attempted to share those concepts. For instance, I think there is likely some motivated reasoning, informing a bit of the ad hominem in this thread against me.
Paraphrasing is not straw manning, indicating an idea give the reader a feeling of _____ is not ad hominem, and repeatedly linking the same things and then not discussing their points without demanding they provide more proof than you did is worse than most of these "offenses".
It's like you feel debate can be won by disqualification when someone crosses outside of your preferred set of rules, and everything they said is then invalidated. I don't feel it's inaccurate to conflate the two things when the forum is well documented with you linking to the same article, and then demanding data proof before you will discuss the persons points.
Your ideas are well documented and known on the forums. If someone starts talking about something remotely related, you don't need to bring your's up and link and reference it. Talk about THEIR idea, and let that be the focus of their thread.
DB has stated they have no immediate plans to revisit rewards.
DB has stated they will not revisit the honor exchange rates anytime soon.
Trying to take these stances from zero to 100 with your proposed changes instead of looking at small incremental steps makes the whole conversation a non-starter for the folks actually making the decision.
@Roonis You are welcome to maintain your perspective despite any evidence to the contrary. I don't appreciate having my efforts at building community and collaborating with others misconstrued as something they are not. I'm completely willing to accept and acknowledge that some people may have misinterpreted my efforts as you suggest, but I know that was not my intent.
Your attacks on my character are unwarranted and unwelcome. If I have so missed the mark in my efforts, such that the way in which you characterize my behavior is indeed the consensus on the forums, then all I can do is apologize, and ask people to reconsider the evidence. I will also continue to try to be more clear and effective in my communication.
That said, I am not interested in discussing this topic about event reward structure with you anymore. You have slandered me and maligned my efforts thus far, which gives me no indication that we can get back to discussing the specific merits of any particular aspect of any of these ideas without it reinvigorating your attack and presumptions of my intent.
I am curious how a fair reading of this thread, would convey our behavior and treatment of others.
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.
@Roonis You are welcome to maintain your perspective despite any evidence to the contrary. I don't appreciate having my efforts at building community and collaborating with others misconstrued as something they are not. I'm completely willing to accept and acknowledge that some people may have misinterpreted my efforts as you suggest, but I know that was not my intent.
Your attacks on my character are unwarranted and unwelcome. If I have so missed the mark in my efforts, such that the way in which you characterize my behavior is indeed the consensus on the forums, then all I can do is apologize, and ask people to reconsider the evidence. I will also continue to try to be more clear and effective in my communication.
That said, I am not interested in discussing this topic about event reward structure with you anymore. You have slandered me and maligned my efforts thus far, which gives me no indication that we can get back to discussing the specific merits of any particular aspect of any of these ideas without it reinvigorating your attack and presumptions of my intent.
I am curious how a fair reading of this thread, would convey our behavior and treatment of others.
Let me see if I can translate this to English...
"Sorry that I was maybe, probably wrong, but not really. It's still your fault Roonis and your a meanie head who hurt my feelings. In order to not have to completely admit fault and to prevent any further logical butt-whoopings from you, I'm just going to stop talking to you now."
I think that about covers it. You'd better be careful with that pump-fake admission of fault. DB might try to hire you for their PR team.
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.
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!
All of this AND a bag of cookies please.
Sign me up.
@Roonis You are welcome to maintain your perspective despite any evidence to the contrary. I don't appreciate having my efforts at building community and collaborating with others misconstrued as something they are not. I'm completely willing to accept and acknowledge that some people may have misinterpreted my efforts as you suggest, but I know that was not my intent.
Your attacks on my character are unwarranted and unwelcome. If I have so missed the mark in my efforts, such that the way in which you characterize my behavior is indeed the consensus on the forums, then all I can do is apologize, and ask people to reconsider the evidence. I will also continue to try to be more clear and effective in my communication.
That said, I am not interested in discussing this topic about event reward structure with you anymore. You have slandered me and maligned my efforts thus far, which gives me no indication that we can get back to discussing the specific merits of any particular aspect of any of these ideas without it reinvigorating your attack and presumptions of my intent.
I am curious how a fair reading of this thread, would convey our behavior and treatment of others.
I tried rereading Roonis' posts and couldn't find much of what I would call "slander" or "attacks on character". Not sure if you misunderstood or if this is a bad attempt at gaslighting. Though, I suppose I may have missed a passage or two out of the volumes written in this thread.
"Sorry that I was maybe, probably wrong, but not really. It's still your fault Roonis and your a meanie head who hurt my feelings. In order to not have to completely admit fault and to prevent any further logical butt-whoopings from you, I'm just going to stop talking to you now."
I think that about covers it. You'd better be careful with that pump-fake admission of fault. DB might try to hire you for their PR team.
Question, when you find yourself in a conversation with someone, who is distorting and maligning previous conversations, or simply having exclusively pernicious misunderstandings, and arguing dismissively by verbosity and repetition, while ignoring any attempt you might make to clarify your meaning or intent, do you:
A. Continue to engage in an a contentious and unproductive conversation.
B. Step back and allow people to cool off and consider more carefully what has been discussed.
C. Agree with everything the other person says because they say it with more certainty and conviction.
While you consider how you might respond in that situation, among those options or others, know that I chose option B. Now you are welcome, of course, to perceive that however you want. If you care about the accuracy of your perception, then I suggest there might be more things to take into consideration.
Also, I meant what I wrote about apologizing if people interpreted my posts in the way that Roonis suggests some of them did. However, I am not going to simply agree that Roonis speaks for the forums as a whole or even accurately represents the views of other people, or that their view of my actions are accurate.
Inaccurate and false accusations happen. I am not simply going to be bullied or condescended into an "admission of fault". Misunderstandings can occur, and not every offense is one which was instigated by malicious intent. Among other possibilities, rather than hastily assigning one sided and myopic "fault", there is an option to track down where the misunderstanding occurred, look at it from multiple perspectives, and try to see the situation clearly and rationally.
For instance, I'd appreciate it if you'd consider the fact that you have offered me disrespect, and I don't even know how much of the reference material you have bothered to read, or consider, before doing so. You just show up in this thread, and pile on the hate train. How am I supposed to perceive of this kind of behavior? What is your intent? What is your purpose?
I tried rereading Roonis' posts and couldn't find much of what I would call "slander" or "attacks on character". Not sure if you misunderstood or if this is a bad attempt at gaslighting. Though, I suppose I may have missed a passage or two out of the volumes written in this thread.
Perhaps you could do a search for "disingenuous", and read a bit of the surrounding context and implications. Then note the lack of follow up on any one of the clarifications which I offered to some similar perceptions offered earlier, or examples I linked to which I think are demonstrative of my intent.
Additionally, it might be useful, if one was interested, to look into the links to the threads which he is using to try to substantiate his claims of my "dominating" the discussion. I have provided many examples of linking to other peoples post on several topics, and have tried to help promote others, and have done so in almost all of the threads I've started. This could indicate that I've read and considered other peoples views, and had the intent of collaboration and inclusivity.
So, within that context, you come into this conversation and suggest that I might be making a bad attempt at gaslighting? It could very well be that I've misunderstood, and misinterpreted some of what Roonis wrote. I am sure he is capable of clarifying if he so chose to.
I think perhaps with a more thorough reading of what has been written, and/or following the provided links, you might find a different perspective, or not.
Peace.
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.
Dude, leave the walls of text to someone like Travis, who writes things that are interesting, helpful, or both and the pedantry to Pallidyne, who is agreeable and pleasant even when schooling someone on their errors. Yours is not the only solution with merit and your method of debate is not conducive to the sharing of ideas, whether via veiled ad hominem counterattacks or just telling us that we don’t understand because we must not have read your tired screeds closely enough.
Perhaps it’s time to close down this thread before any more white noise drowns out the good ideas previously presented.
I have also talked with several people who won't go back to a thread after you visit, Xoiiku. They just don't want to be provoked into a response- because any response leads to this. Every time.
It's because of those people that I do try to respond and explain things from another point of view.
But the way much of what I have to say is met with "someone else has made this argument before, please read my response to them", doesn't foster healthy discussion, in my mind.
It's very dismissive, and sometimes what I'm saying isn't actually the same thing.
And if it is the same thing, then possibly there's something behind the argument that you should examine more closely.
It tells me you don't want to hear what I have to say unless what I have to say is me agreeing with you.
I thought Roonis did an excellent job of staying polite and on topic in this thread, while I did not. It's a character flaw of mine, and I accept that.
Sometimes it does feel like you're barging into threads unasked for- like the thread in Engineering where someone had an issue with scrolling in the event rewards screen, and you popped in to mention putting honor in the ranked rewards and link back to your thread in Make It So.
Anyway, regarding my comment about how you obviously have not collected historical event data- the numbers you're using for top 100% in your proposed percentage based rewards system is more than twice what recent data actually suggests- which suggests to me that either you are twisting the data for your own purposes, or you are ignorant of the actual numbers.
I chose to believe the latter, because the former is more manipulative than I'd like to believe you are. Feel free to prove me wrong, though.
@Dirk Gunderson Thank you for your contribution and specific feedback. It's really helped me see things more clearly and understand how some people are interpreting my posts.
@eXo | WhiteClifford I notice that you've ignored or chosen not to acknowledge any of my previous response to you. There are perhaps some things there which might be useful to consider. Maybe, maybe not.
When I have pointed out that similar statements have been made previously it is to acknowledge the prior discussion, and that it might be useful to reference that material such that we can iterate and move the concept forward without covering the same ground again. It's also a way, perhaps not always effective, of letting people know that those things have been considered and discussed, often at length from multiple perspectives, and that there might be other factors at play which are also worth considering.
That said, there have probably been times when I've misperceived something as being similar to a previous conversation. If so, that's my mistake, and it would be a simple enough thing to take a look at whatever I was referencing, and then letting me know where there is differentiation in the arguments. It isn't meant to be dismissive, it's meant to be referential, informative and encouraging the evolution and refinement of ideas, and acknowledging perspectives other than my own.
In some fields it's really important and useful to reference previous work and discussions on a topic. Particularly in science, and I happen to think it's useful in general. If that's not your cup of tea, that's cool. There are actually people who appreciate that acknowledgement and reference to their work.
I think we can agree to disagree, on how polite and on topic, Roonis was.
In terms of the thread in engineering, I was just trying to be funny, hence the
I posted one sentence, which I figured everyone would just ignore anyways. That thread continued on just fine. Do you have other examples of my "barging into threads unasked for" where "several people who won't go back to a thread after you (I) visit"?
In terms of all the numbers that I used in my event reward suggestions, all of those numbers are in that thread and all of those numbers where acknowledged as placeholder values to demonstrate the core concepts and illustrate one of many ways it could be done.
You might also find things like this curious statement:
I suppose at some point I could make a version 003 with the ranked rewards smoothed out as has been suggested as an additional change to the current reward structure. Before that though, I'd be curious to know if anyone has an alternate suggestion for the percentages used in version 002, or if those look workable enough for sake of demonstrating it's possible.
Additionally, it might be interesting to get a better sense of approximately how many captains are participating in events, such that we can test out those percentages with more accurate numbers than an estimate derived from the arena.
So, pardon me if I don't completely buy into the narrative being pushed. One might also like to look at the time stamps of the posts in my thread, there was plenty of time for someone in the community to offer up different numbers and help me out. My purpose was just to demonstrate that some of the ideas being discussed were possible, what they might achieve in terms of mechanics, increased competition and motivations, and how they might look.
I figured that at some point, if people had interest, we could figure out some specific values which might make more sense. I was trying to participate in an iterative process. Certain people tended to miss the point of the ideas being presented and focused to exclusion, on the placeholder variables, while ignoring the fact that I had asked for input and feedback on those prior to doing the work of making the image.
Then some people assumed the image to be some sort of definitive suggestion, and didn't apparently bother reading the bits in the thread about just trying to illustrate concepts. Mostly other people's concepts at that, and using placeholder values to do so. In that context, you accuse-not-accuse me of, "twisting the data for your own purposes, or you are ignorant of the actual numbers".
Yes, I am ignorant of the actual numbers. I have written as much many times and never claimed otherwise. I was just trying to do the best I could with the numbers I had to work with. Yes, I did ask several people on discord about many of the numbers which I used and you're welcome doubt that all you want. I did not make a nice spreadsheet or a graph of the various numbers I got from other sources, so I don't have that to offer as proof.
I plainly and explicitly stated that the participation numbers which I used were based on the arena and that it would be nice to have better numbers. As far as I know, as has been discussed in other threads, everyone other than DB is ignorant of the actual participation numbers. If you have more accurate numbers, it doesn't therefore universally devalue and dismiss everything else I was trying to illustrate the possibility of.
If that was the case, it would have been helpful to have shared those numbers with me, rather than just criticizing me for not having that data, and assuming-not-assuming some malicious intent for working with what I had.
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 wonder why the player base hasn't grown? Do people get to a certain level and give up? Is it because it's almost impossible to do well in events without throwing in vast amounts of cash? Is it because of antagonism on the forums when they try to express new ideas?
I'm guessing heaps if people start this game and quit after a few months. I do wonder if I've been playing against the same people for the last 10 months, and that I've reached my peak of event scores because of stagnancy.
Anyway, I'm sure there are dozens if different speculations about why the player base isn't increasing, but maybe that's beyond the scope of this conversation.
I wonder why the player base hasn't grown? Do people get to a certain level and give up? Is it because it's almost impossible to do well in events without throwing in vast amounts of cash? Is it because of antagonism on the forums when they try to express new ideas?
I'm guessing heaps if people start this game and quit after a few months. I do wonder if I've been playing against the same people for the last 10 months, and that I've reached my peak of event scores because of stagnancy.
Anyway, I'm sure there are dozens if different speculations about why the player base isn't increasing, but maybe that's beyond the scope of this conversation.
Without trying to derail the thread any more than it already has, I think lack of new player retention is the problem. Our fleet sees so many people join, never change their name from Captain, say nothing, and go inactive after a few weeks...even when we reach out and offer welcoming greetings and hints on how to get started. Between buggy chat/PMs, a steep learning curve, and maybe a little bit of disappointment at how far down the ladder they are during events, I can see why non-Trek people wouldn’t stick around at all and why even some Trek fans may be discouraged to continue.
I wonder why the player base hasn't grown? Do people get to a certain level and give up? Is it because it's almost impossible to do well in events without throwing in vast amounts of cash? Is it because of antagonism on the forums when they try to express new ideas?
I'm guessing heaps if people start this game and quit after a few months. I do wonder if I've been playing against the same people for the last 10 months, and that I've reached my peak of event scores because of stagnancy.
Anyway, I'm sure there are dozens if different speculations about why the player base isn't increasing, but maybe that's beyond the scope of this conversation.
Without trying to derail the thread any more than it already has, I think lack of new player retention is the problem. Our fleet sees so many people join, never change their name from Captain, say nothing, and go inactive after a few weeks...even when we reach out and offer welcoming greetings and hints on how to get started. Between buggy chat/PMs, a steep learning curve, and maybe a little bit of disappointment at how far down the ladder they are during events, I can see why non-Trek people wouldn’t stick around at all and why even some Trek fans may be discouraged to continue.
There is a revolving door for sure on new players. There have been big steps to make it better, the honor system makes trainers much less of an issue than they used to be for one. So I feel like that retention is better than ever.
There is also a lot of burnout churn. It feels like every week there is at least one known long time VIP 14 notifying their fleet of retirement, to say nothing of the churn is lesser known or networked fleets. Some of that has always happened, and 2+ years in folks are going to naturally move on.
There is also quite a large alt population for a game that does not directly benefit alt play. (No trading, which is usually the number one reason for alt play in games) And that compounds both burnout rate, and impact of retired players taking multiple active accounts when they go.
This game targets a specific audience. Hence the pool of potential players is already limited by nature. Even more so cause the power days of Star Trek are in the past.
Massive revenue "monsters" in the mobile games market are casual things like Candy Crush or Homescapes.
Games everyone from a lil kiddo to an ancient granny can pick up and play. While veterans like us find everything in here easy over time, casual players could be overwhelmed at first by everything really.
When you just play without a plan and a strategy, you will hit countless roadblocks very soon. Also in general this is a test of patience. Not everyones cup of tea, many people want instant gratification and (could) regard various parts of STT as overly frustrating.
Also in time basically you are doing the same things over and over and over again. A further reason why many could leave the (star-)ship....
@Roonis You are welcome to maintain your perspective despite any evidence to the contrary. I don't appreciate having my efforts at building community and collaborating with others misconstrued as something they are not. I'm completely willing to accept and acknowledge that some people may have misinterpreted my efforts as you suggest, but I know that was not my intent.
Your attacks on my character are unwarranted and unwelcome. If I have so missed the mark in my efforts, such that the way in which you characterize my behavior is indeed the consensus on the forums, then all I can do is apologize, and ask people to reconsider the evidence. I will also continue to try to be more clear and effective in my communication.
That said, I am not interested in discussing this topic about event reward structure with you anymore. You have slandered me and maligned my efforts thus far, which gives me no indication that we can get back to discussing the specific merits of any particular aspect of any of these ideas without it reinvigorating your attack and presumptions of my intent.
I am curious how a fair reading of this thread, would convey our behavior and treatment of others.
You have not presented any evidence, you have presented conjecture and ideas, and when presented with differing opinions placed a demanding burden of proof on anyone who disagrees with you.
You have attempted to prevent any discussion of holes in your work with this burden of proof, multiple point questions, and walls of citations that don't actually match what you say they do. You just try to make it so difficult to disagree with you from the sheer volume of work involved, it makes people give up.
When I tired of watching you bully dissenting opinions, and put in the work to get the actual data you required, you ignore it, claim it was not a major factor anyways, and link to like five threads as proof of that, where the majority of the justification people bring for why rewards should change is because there are so many more people playing, reinforcing the importance of the data I presented. Then, in your reply you describe me finally meeting your standard required for dissenting opinion as "arguing dismissively by verbosity and repetition".
I've done nothing to attack your character. I know nothing of your character, I have pointed out flaws in how you present your facts and stances on issues. Some people get really worked up on certain issues and lose track from their normal behavior, if someone says irregardless in a discussion at work, I can't focus on anything else they say for instance. I think you are so emotionally invested in what you want, you see valid criticism of them as personal attacks.
I have not mocked you for not having the data I had. I've pointed out that requiring a higher standard of data of your dissenters than you hold yourself to is not really a fair method of debate. Please feel free to use the data I provided to inform future revisions to your plan. I've attached the 3 recent events with absolute minimum VP, 1 failed shuttle on Butchers and Rule, and one recipe on Reverie. The Second Act I can't say it's minimum VP, but assuming it's absolute last place gives you a conservative estimate while realistically I would expect a similar VP to the other two would put it in the 73k-75k range.
Additionally, you have historically defended your population assumptions by demanding this data before being willing to address the fact the numbers seemed very high. When someone finally presented the data, you said it wasn't important what the numbers were, even though it is the most often cited justification for the need for changes.
It's not wrong to say "I want more stuff". But when you use incorrect "data" to justify it as being deserved due to population changes, suggest a fundamental change in established pro competition changes by DB with a 5* in thresholds, refuse to listen to anyone with different numbers than you, and then somehow alter your historic stance when actually confronted with the data, you can see where someone might feel you are being disingenuous in that situation, not a dishonest person, or anything about you as a person; but as you have a deep attachment to something you have put a lot of work into, you are willing to ignore facts and figures that disagree with what you want due to your emotional involvement.
As far as dominating the discussion, I can believe that's not your intention, and that is why I'm even bringing it to your attention. Your reputation for unfair standards of proof for criticism, as well as linking back to your work, that many know is based on false numbers and premises, makes it so when you come in and link said flawed work, other feels the constructive conversation is over. If you come into a thread, and keep the discussion specific to that person's idea and that thread, I'm sure you will provide valuable feedback.
You can't argue with dissenters the way you do and then play the victim card when someone finally steps up to the plate with what you asked for.
You have not presented any evidence, you have presented conjecture and ideas, and when presented with differing opinions placed a demanding burden of proof on anyone who disagrees with you.
There is a difference between asking people what they are basing their feedback or ideas on, and if they have considered prior discussion matter (not just mine), and "demanding a burden of proof". This is at best a misunderstanding, though the directionality of it informs of other options.
I have been transparent with my reasoning, and only ever presented my contributions exactly as conjecture and ideas. Several times I've linked to statements acknowledging that I was working with incomplete and inexact numbers in order to illustrate the possibility of an idea.
You have attempted to prevent any discussion of holes in your work with this burden of proof, multiple point questions, and walls of citations that don't actually match what you say they do. You just try to make it so difficult to disagree with you from the sheer volume of work involved, it makes people give up.
Here is another string of accusations, based on a misunderstanding. You continue to push your assumption as fact, and then try to hold me accountable for it. When I point out, and demonstrate what I actually wrote, you disregard that information.
I'm not sure where these walls of citations are that don't match, please link. Your implication of purposeful obfuscation and duplicitous intent is noted.
Additionally, I have not attempted to prevent any discussion of those ideas. What I have done, is to ask people to recognize that there may in fact be a difference between what I am actually suggesting, and what they might think I am declaring. Notice the difference here, between suggesting and declaring.
When I tired of watching you bully dissenting opinions, and put in the work to get the actual data you required, you ignore it, claim it was not a major factor anyways, and link to like five threads as proof of that, where the majority of the justification people bring for why rewards should change is because there are so many more people playing, reinforcing the importance of the data I presented. Then, in your reply you describe me finally meeting your standard required for dissenting opinion as "arguing dismissively by verbosity and repetition".
Now I am bullying? You might want to consider the possible influence of projection.
I am not responsible for explaining other peoples reasoning, why don't you ask them? Furthermore, I disagree with your opinion that increased player population isn't a significant factor. Which is to say, something to take into consideration, not that it's the prime mover. However, I agree with your opinion that increased player resources are a factor, also worth taking into consideration. That said, I had taken player resources into consideration already, and I have a different perspective on how that would influence competition if the reward structure was reworked.
As you stated in a previous post, neither of us have numbers on packs sales, so neither of us, know how a change would ultimately play out. Something I have acknowledged previously in other threads. Your view, is that your interpretation of what I had suggested would negatively impact pack sales. My view is different, and the reasons can be found in that thread and elsewhere.
I've done nothing to attack your character. I know nothing of your character,
I have acknowledged previously that perhaps I've I misperceived your comments as ad-hominem. If that is the case, then I think perhaps it would be worthwhile to consider the way in which you've expressed things, what you imply, and explore the possibility for how there might be room for misinterpretation.
I have pointed out flaws in how you present your facts and stances on issues. Some people get really worked up on certain issues and lose track from their normal behavior, if someone says irregardless in a discussion at work, I can't focus on anything else they say for instance. I think you are so emotionally invested in what you want, you see valid criticism of them as personal attacks.
You have made assumptions about my "stance", and my level of "emotional investment" and then based your feedback on them. Your misunderstanding of what I wrote, does not constitute a flaw in my reasoning. Which is not to say that no flaws exist, many do. Your assumptions of my feelings and motivations, do not constitute a flaw in my efforts on these forums.
I have not mocked you for not having the data I had.
If I understand what your referencing, I'm pretty sure that was @eXo | WhiteClifford who was criticizing me for not having data which I had already admitted I didn't have.
I've pointed out that requiring a higher standard of data of your dissenters than you hold yourself to is not really a fair method of debate.
This is just spurious and incorrect accusation. This, "higher standard of data", which suggests that I am being duplicitous and holding a double standard. Please outline for me, exactly what criteria I am asking of other people, that you think I am not meeting myself?
You have repeatedly refused to acknowledge that I have openly and transparently shared my reasoning, and the numbers I had, in several places on my thread. It's all there.
In terms of all those other threads I've linked to, I have read every post. At least at the time of my initial linking. Before I participate in any idea oriented threads, and most of the other kinds, I read every post, from the beginning, so I can know what's been discussed already.
Please feel free to use the data I provided to inform future revisions to your plan.
Thank you for the data, however, I was already done putting any more effort into that concept after the last Q&A. If you, or any one else, would like to iterate off version_003 or zipf version, and submit those ideas to the forum, feel free and good luck.
As far as dominating the discussion, I can believe that's not your intention, and that is why I'm even bringing it to your attention. Your reputation for unfair standards of proof for criticism, as well as linking back to your work, that many know is based on false numbers and premises, makes it so when you come in and link said flawed work, other feels the constructive conversation is over.
You keep making that accusation and framing it as "my reputation", as if that is a universally shared consensus. Easy thing to say. Please link to the threads which I have come into and made it such that the "constructive conversation is over". Also, please explain how it was, that what I contributed, caused that result to occur.
You can't argue with dissenters the way you do and then play the victim card when someone finally steps up to the plate with what you asked for.
Is that what I've done? That's an interesting read on events. Thank you for once again, choosing to interpret what I've written, aside from all other options, in such a way which furthers this perception of me you are trying to push.
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.
Comments
Proud Former Officer of The Gluten Empire
Retired 12-14-20. So long, and thanks for all the cat pics!
To my recollection, you also haven't offered any proof nor provided specific numbers.
You didn't even try to collect accurate event participation data (say, by creating an additional account to score 1-10 VP in an event and seeing where that account ends up) before creating a mockup of your new event rewards, and patting yourself on the back for it.
I haven't seen any data from you regarding what top 1k looked like a year ago compared to now.
I also think that you're operating under a rather presumptious assumption- that there is anything wrong with the event rewards system.
It's awfully self-centered to decide that because YOU don't like the way things are now, that no one does.
Yet, based on your response, requesting that we share our ideas rather than tell you why we disagree with your ideas, you seem to think that we have a different idea than "don't fix what ain't broke".
So here's my idea: we keep current event rewards, and we shut up about it before DB realizes thresholds are waaay too easy these days, and decides to spread them out a bit more. That's my proposed version of free stuff- that they don't make the thresholds higher due to the ease of obtaining VP these days.
Also, I'm sorry, but I have to say this...
If your honor deficit bothers you that badly, perhaps you should reevaluate how much of yourself you are putting into a mobile game. If you want things, pay for them. Just like the real world.
And um, really? Concluded?
I can't even touch that one. Nope.
Check out our website to find out more:
https://wiki.tenforwardloungers.com/
A secondary difference is in dismissiveness versus exploration. Given the lack of specificity in the feedback, it renders the "opposing viewpoint" less helpful than it could otherwise be. Making it more of a generalized statement, and reading as dismissiveness, rather than useful or even relevant feedback which adds to the conversation.
I have offered many of my ideas in the spirit of the exploration of the concepts, not offering any certainties about how I think things should be. I've only illustrated possible ways it could be. Could be, is different than, should be. One will note in my feedback to Roonis, that I asked questions, and requested clarification and specificity.
One will also note, that a great many of these "opposing viewpoints" which Roonis and others have offered, been expressed many in prior threads, and considered, and responded to at length. Restating the basic version of those counter points, seemingly without having considered any of the prior discussion indicates a lack of consideration of previous effort and awareness of and participation in, the ongoing conversation. Restating those points, apparently with the expectation that they are novel, conclusive and self-evident, is a bit...
In addition to there being some numbers in the post to which you are referring. Shall I link some more specific numbers to you? Which aspect of which idea would you like to see numbers for? Perhaps we could start with one of them which, you participated in?
https://forum.disruptorbeam.com/stt/discussion/comment/69610/#Comment_69610
Correct me if I am mistaken, but is that not you, quoting some specific numbers I had proposed in the spirit of exploring how an idea might work?
I was unaware that you were tracking my every movement and communication. It might be interesting to note that I did, in fact, gather data on what top 1k looked like from several people in the community on discord.
There is a remarkably high degree of certainty in your statement. Not a question if I did, but a statement that I did not. Interesting difference?
One will note here, https://forum.disruptorbeam.com/stt/discussion/comment/69237/#Comment_69237, where I linked the comments of many others who asked about changes to the event reward structure. And here, https://forum.disruptorbeam.com/stt/discussion/comment/56943/#Comment_56943, where I linked to the other recent threads on the topic.
One will also note, that I have never claimed to speak for anyone other than myself, and have never claimed that everyone thinks (fill in the blank). I have however, tried on several occasions to work toward demonstrating that there is an issue, aggregating feedback and ideas from several threads, collaborating with people, building consensus, and that generally advocating things can be improved.
My deepest apologies.
Actually, if you'd please reread what I wrote to Roonis, I asked him to be more specific in his feedback. So, I explicitly asked him to tell me why, and if, he disagreed with one of the versions of the ideas I've offered. I'm not sure where you're drawing the rest of your statement from.
There seems to be an implicit assumption here that if I think things could be improved that I am somehow unhinged, and over invested in the game, or that I want everything for free.
As it so happens, none of these things are true. I'm simply suggesting that things could be better, and I've tried my best to articulate a couple ways in which that improvement might be made. Possible trajectories, things to look into.
Also, although it isn't much as compared to others, I happen to be just shy of VIP10. So, although I don't have much to spend, I do try to support the game. Perhaps it might be interesting to check in with your assumptions and characterizations, and maybe you'll find that you've missed the mark.
Consider participating in civil discourse, understanding the Tardigrade, and wandering with the Subspace Eddies.
Or.
Someone change the robots batteries. He's stuck on repeat.
Check out our website to find out more:
https://wiki.tenforwardloungers.com/
Yes. I used a few sources, the first was a secondary account I started in 2016 and abandoned, and recently refreshed for the purpose of testing out the VIP 0 changes with all the new features since then. This account had an event finish from September of 2016 Faction event "Second Act" that I did either one or two shuttles only on, this ranked in 71,146th place. Now, I don't remember exactly what it ran, but lets assume it ran and failed one shuttle and ended up the absolute last place in the event.
After refreshing the account, I ran it in events from Fire with Fire, till "The Butchers of Beta Penthe" doing a minimal amount of VP each time. The first couple faction events I accidently passed a shuttle, so did not get actual last place stats, but for Butchers last place was within 10 spots of the account, which finished at 78,226 and Rule 125 was also within 10 of the bottom of the board at 78,870. Reunification one 10 point shuttle was 76,505 and Fire with Fire was 79,611 Notably, for Reverie in Prime, one event recipe was actually enough for 65,234th place.
so these gave me solid final population numbers, and looked to show actual event population maxes out around 80,000 players. with proof that in Sept of 2016, population was at least 71,000. So 9,000 is a decent difference, but it all appears to be bottom end.
I used my main account to determine the next portion
I had two events where i did a small effort, 6500 VP in a Galaxy event for the 4* for honor or last copy to fuse in the historic case. the first being this years Prime Directive 3-4/18. Where around 6500 VP was 42,613th place. I compared to God's and Masters 3-4/17 where the same effort finished 40,621 to finish my 3/4 Sloan. so an approximate difference of 2,000 players at the first 4* threshold break point.
So while we have potentially added about 9,000 players in nearly two years. Year over year it is a difference of less than 2,000 players in total population at still "minimal effort" point. Year over year the amount of Galaxy players at that first 4* threshold and above has increased roughly 5%. I consider that a not significant population change, for the purposes of totally rescaling the ranked rewards.
Next, I do have a ton of very accurate data thanks to a fleet records hall, that does corroborate the score inflation portion, the true reason for the 5* being "harder" to earn.
For instance, in April of 2017, Faction scores in the 120k-150k range were hovering between top 1000 and 1500 in ranked finish. During the first Mega event, and around the time of the shuttle rework, scores SWELLED with 195k~ needed to top 1000. from there scores went up and up with citations and shuttles added to VIP 0 players, as well as every trying player having the highest command base in the game. within a month a top 1000 required 215k, within 2 it required 255k, as more mega event crew came in, and folks began citationing non mega crew, and resources became more plentiful that 1000 line went up and up and up to the point where the Killy event 410k was just outside the top 1000. I could cite how different increases impacted these scores more directly, but as you can see, the VP increases compared to the population changes are disproportionately large. The move to Fail shuttle VP reduced the "luck" curve where people with better crew than you would fall behind you. (still happens but reduced) The surplus of chrons has event characters max leveled near immediatley on threshold, inflating scores, everyone has huge base 5/5 event crew in the top 10-15% of the population now, vs the top .5% previously. This has increased competition, which actually has caused the conditions you wish to change.
1. You are, very specifically with your proposed reward structure change.
2. your ranked reward structure proposal which calls for ranks approx 7,000-15,000 receiving 50,000 honor per event, with players from about 700 to 1500 receiving 95,000 per event.
Given the current rate of a monthly card spender, who is able airlock repeat 4*s, the honor rate I and other have seen is about 50k honor per three weeks. these are for folks in that 700-1500 range or higher regularly, so with maybe a 10% decrease in honor from non event duplicates they can't airlock, you want to increase their honor income for that same 3 week period by 285,000. so a over 500% increase in honor income. I Call that massive.
3. Because it bores people and the best we can do is use past DB behavior and game changes based on similar behavior, nobody can tell you the specific impact of increasing honor income 5-10-15-etc%. But we can see, DB has had three major reward reworks.
a)Previously, players under rank 1000 did not receive the 4/4 event character. This caused massive tanking to keep scores down so folks didn't get a 1/5 log jam and got the comparatively more helpful 4/4s. DB changed this to make ranked rewards cumulative to increase competition.
b) DB released the "new" event type with Hybrid events. DB took this opporunity to introduce the hybrid event reward ladder, which decreased the number of players receiving duplicate 5* copies from 25 to 15. Again, to promote competition.
c) DB released the new even type Skirmishes, and copied the Hybrid reward structure, to again further promote competition.
Based on these points, it appears DB prefers competition for rewards, so the current situation of more competition to get into the top 1000 is consistent with what DB appears to want. An event reward rework would be very unlikely to make it easier to obtain the ranked rewards. Again, conversely, it used to be that completing all thresholds was a good reward and took a bit of effort. Due to score inflation and resource increases, clearing thresholds is easy for any player who has been playing for more than a couple months, or has spent. DB previously rolled out higher VP level thresholds for an event with an extra day, indicating they don't want thresholds to be too easy. A full event reward rework could be expected, based on score inflation and DBs own past behavior, to increase threshold points required for all rewards.
The premise of the reward table rework is "the player base has grown" when in actuality, the resource pool of the existing player base has grown more. A change to the reward table as you suggest, would cause further score inflation, as folks can bypass 4*s they don't need for collections, and add multiple stars to 5*s per event. This would exacerbate, and in actuality exponentially increase the source of your perceived problem. The rich would get richer, competition would get tighter, and the thing you are trying to fix would be unchanged or worse, since you weren't attacking the actual reason for your perceived problem.
I disagree with the premise of the idea. DB implemented honor and citations as a means to complete certain crew and get an increased value return from airlocking unneeded characters. The premise that you should be able to complete every 5* crew you earn or want from honor is a large change to the premise of the system. Instead of it being a bonus, a fail safe, or an additional source, you propose to change it to the main crew acquisition tool of the game. You unlock 4*s and 5*s from event thresholds in your model, and then acquire enough honor to citation 2 legendary stars, or 1 legendary star and the full other 3 stars on the 4 star. This would greatly inflate the crew roster of all players, and make 4* useless for shuttles for the top 15-20% of the playerbase within a matter of months.
It is possible. however, a large number of players currently will pull packs from events to get the 1 copy they need to full fuse their event 4* from thresholds, those sales will be gone. Currently, the folks in the First To Max race alternate between being able to pull one copy DYC, and Full fuse from honor, and having to pull 4 copies and DYC. If they had consistent top 100 honor income from your model, they would consistently only have to pull for 1 copy of the 5* further reducing sales. In addition, there is the segment of players that will pull packs trying for the event 5* so they don't have to rank. They will never DYC because they don't think it's worth it, and now they know they just have to hit a threshold to get their 5*. Those sales are also gone. In addition, with 4*s both being in thresholds, and honor for citations easily acquired, the $25 and $10 sales packs would likely lose sales as well overall.
So yes, you will get some additional DYC sales, but at a large cost in other sales. Based mainly on the impact on the VIP 14 crowd who buys till 4/5 and DYC, I would theorize this as an overall loss. Again, this assumes your reward model AND your 5* in threshold. This is all before factoring in that the value of DYC would be diminished, as it would be much easier to citation the crew than currently, so comparatively, it becomes a much worse deal.
I may be right, I may be wrong, but I would say I expect the change would go my way.
Would change them compared to what? DB put the honor system in place, only they know sales numbers before and after the change. If honor implementation had increased pack sales, one would expect they would open that honor faucet more. It's the concept of inflation, as you increase the amount of something, its comparative value drops. I think honor from airlocking could increase at a reasonable rate, and possibly be a net gain. I think combining honor from airlocking increases with the event reward structures changes would devalue those pack purchases.
So, there are a lot of flaws in your cited and stated ideas. Mainly your honor valuation. A Purple citation is more valuable than a copy of an event character, immensely so. You can use it on any 4* you want, you can save it without taking up a crew slow. 18k Honor is also more valuable than a 4* citation, as you have choice of how to use that purchasing power, to possibly save as a large portion of the 50k required for a much more valuable additional star on a 5*. Even folks who agree with your premise have cited your actual rewards as "very generous".
There is a cost to this kind of constant flawed request, it devalues the feedback others give to DB on these forums. DB employees have stated in person, its hard to get a real feel from the forums due to all the white noise and unrealistic requests. You can stand on a mountain top and say "I think we should all get XXX" and those in your situation might agree, because of course they want XXX, but that doesn't make it a correct or well reasoned opinion. And if DB is looking to the forums and all they see is XXX XXX XXX, they are less likely to listen to the folks reasoning and actually coming up with a valid reason to give everyone X. This is compounded with your need to dominate the conversation whenever these topics come up. Someone came up with a great well reasoned post about changing the valuation difference from ranks 75-1000, and you jumped in, pushed your wall of text, and dominated the conversation to the point the post was lost in the white noise.
In addition, your comments are often disingenuous, you talk about ideas and discussion and request feedback, but when confronted with contrary viewpoints, you refuse to address their valid well reasoned concerns with your ideas, and instead laser focus in on parts that let you label a post as "strawman" "ad hominem" or some other logical fallacy. If someone has 4 reasoned points, and also says something is "greedy" that doesn't invalidate their other points, and yet you dismiss it on a logical fallacy as an invalid argument and refuse to discuss it. That makes you as guilty as them of that same logical fallacy. Someone can disagree with your ideas, and not have the "right" answer themselves, especially when they can plainly see your premise is flawed.
TL:DR; Your stance of open discussion is disingenuous at best. Your assumptions on valuation of Honor and game population are based on wild assumptions that don't agree with real numbers or basic economic principles. There are serious shortcomings in your "logic" if you argue for percentage based rewards, then find out the base numbers don't match your expectations so say to just increase the percentages to meet your model, you don't actually want percentage based rewards you are just flailing to justify what you want. I feel like your attempted domination of this discussion point is detrimental to the discussion, and the unrealistic nature of your requests would keep DB from actually considering what is requested here on these forums. Ultimately, best case scenario, your plan of action would worsen the situation you are trying to fix by further driving score inflation.
And now you've got people like @·§ë· Xoiiku who advocate making it worse by throwing gasoline on the fire. DB has been generous, but they've been too generous and now the "give an inch, take a mile" rabble are out in full force.
As apparently some people are perceiving my efforts in the way you suggest, then if I say more it will just provide further evidence for their interpretation. If I say nothing, it would suggest that you are right and accurate on all counts.
That said, I would like to offer a different perspective on a few points:
"The player base has grown" is only one of a couple premises and not the primary one. I had asked many people and had gotten different information on the numbers that what you presented in your comments above. There was a question raised of "significance", though it is clear that your view is that resource pool is more the culprit and point to focus on.
Either way, there were actually other reasons and there were several threads, linked to after the op (in efforts at collaboration and being inclusive), in which people had discussed ideas for a percentage based system and smoothing out the rewards. I thought these were interesting ideas, so I attempted to model how they might work. I added in my own idea of putting the crew in the thresholds, as a way of reducing the number of duplicates, to facilitate that smoothing, as a way to alleviate the 5* 1001+ club, and to reduce people being frustrated by which 4* event crew was ranked vs threshold for that event.
That said, I understand that the resource pool has grown, that was never in dispute or not considered. I also understand and have acknowledged that equivalent to citation value honor would increase the utility and maintain the actual value of that reward earned for all players for of those rewards. So, there were several things I was trying to accomplish at once.
I haven't intended to dominate the conversation, only to advocate for what I thought were interesting ideas and possibilities. If people feel that I have dominated or skewed the forums, I'd like to state both that I disagree, and I apologize if that was their experience. Specific to that particular accusation, I made a post in support of that idea and asked some follow up questions because I was curious how they might look at the things I was trying to incorporate into my version.
I then responded once more in that thread, saying "This threads event reward suggestion could be used to demonstrate some possibility like that as well." in support of their approach, and suggesting that we're all in this together. I also linked to their idea from my thread over in make-it-so:
I'm not sure how that gets misconstrued as dominating the conversation. I was trying to be supportive and collaborative.
It is possible, to hear someone, to listen and to consider their perspectives and viewpoints, and to still disagree. When I have pointed to the possible influence of cognitive biases or logical fallacies, it was in exploration of the potential influence, not to dismiss their ideas out of hand. It would be inaccurate to conflate those two things.
I think cognitive biases and logical fallacies are fascinating, and a worthwhile thing to learn about and to consider. I realize that some other people have not shared my interest in openly exploring those things, or appreciated the way in which I have attempted to share those concepts. For instance, I think there is likely some motivated reasoning, informing a bit of the ad hominem in this thread against me.
I have responded hopefully with a clarification of my intent, and some evidence to that effect. Which might at least inform of options, other than my being disingenuous and such. Do with that what you will.
Peace.
Consider participating in civil discourse, understanding the Tardigrade, and wandering with the Subspace Eddies.
So umm, do you have the ability to answer the question regarding your statement that the playerbase has grown to warrant the percentage based reward in a way that would not negatively impact players? Whereas that may not have been your only point, it is a significant factor when proposing changes. Understanding the scope and impact that is.
Thanks for the question. I attempted to address a similar concern earlier in this thread, but at this point I just really don't have any motivation or interest in continuing to participate in these discussions. Sorry.
The percentage based ranks weren't even my idea, I had just read other people talking about it and thought I'd see how, or if, it could possibly work. Maybe one of those people who had suggested it in some of the other threads or some of the people who had asked about a change to event rewards for the Q&A could answer.
Consider participating in civil discourse, understanding the Tardigrade, and wandering with the Subspace Eddies.
It is one of the most often stated reasons, the basis of the percentage based model, and the leading justification for change in the majority of those threads linked. And I feel I addressed most of those other reasons by pointing out: 1) Score inflation has made thresholds trivial, the minimum level of effort for fair compensation is skewed. and 2) Every change DB has historically made to rewards structure has been one that promotes competition, not discourages it by putting in a failsafe on the competition prize.
Saying you received contrary anecdotal evidence when I'm providing actual numbers is again, disingenuous. You keep telling people to provide data when they question your numbers, but don't have more than anecdotes and assumptions regarding the inflated arena population (dead accounts do not clear out of the rankings until attacked) as backing for your numbers. Also, that's not how things work. When you present an idea to the world for discussion and consideration, it is your responsibility to answer questions about the logic of your proposal, not the dissenting audiences job to prove you wrong. Demanding a higher standard of data from your detractors than of yourself to dissuade dissent is a shady debate tactic.
the 76-1000 rewards could certainly use some stratification, I think an extra 5* or citations is extremely unlikely based on DBs historic changes. Advocating for realistic changes, like the mentioned models amounts of Honor from 2,500-5,000 would be a much better way to have that conversation. I think more importantly, stretching the 4* brackets out would promote sales, as more people get partial fuses, while also increasing compensation and the ability to grow for those outside the top 3k currently.
Your "increased" utility stance is understating the difference, and your refusal to consider the fact that 54k honor is worth considerably more than 3 copies of a 4* makes it difficult to continue the discussion. If makes those discussing things with you feel like you are ignoring feedback when you refuse to acknowledge that very simple and fundamental value difference.
You don't get to disagree with how people feel about your behavior, but if the apology is sincere it's a step in the right direction. I can only speak from personal experience and feedback I have received, but I am aware of many people who immediately abandon thread when you enter and link your own ideas to someone else's. That thread specifically was being spoken about quite a bit, and when you came in and linked all your ideas, the discussion of the idea stopped.
Paraphrasing is not straw manning, indicating an idea give the reader a feeling of _____ is not ad hominem, and repeatedly linking the same things and then not discussing their points without demanding they provide more proof than you did is worse than most of these "offenses".
It's like you feel debate can be won by disqualification when someone crosses outside of your preferred set of rules, and everything they said is then invalidated. I don't feel it's inaccurate to conflate the two things when the forum is well documented with you linking to the same article, and then demanding data proof before you will discuss the persons points.
Your ideas are well documented and known on the forums. If someone starts talking about something remotely related, you don't need to bring your's up and link and reference it. Talk about THEIR idea, and let that be the focus of their thread.
DB has stated they have no immediate plans to revisit rewards.
DB has stated they will not revisit the honor exchange rates anytime soon.
Trying to take these stances from zero to 100 with your proposed changes instead of looking at small incremental steps makes the whole conversation a non-starter for the folks actually making the decision.
Your attacks on my character are unwarranted and unwelcome. If I have so missed the mark in my efforts, such that the way in which you characterize my behavior is indeed the consensus on the forums, then all I can do is apologize, and ask people to reconsider the evidence. I will also continue to try to be more clear and effective in my communication.
That said, I am not interested in discussing this topic about event reward structure with you anymore. You have slandered me and maligned my efforts thus far, which gives me no indication that we can get back to discussing the specific merits of any particular aspect of any of these ideas without it reinvigorating your attack and presumptions of my intent.
I am curious how a fair reading of this thread, would convey our behavior and treatment of others.
Consider participating in civil discourse, understanding the Tardigrade, and wandering with the Subspace Eddies.
Let me see if I can translate this to English...
"Sorry that I was maybe, probably wrong, but not really. It's still your fault Roonis and your a meanie head who hurt my feelings. In order to not have to completely admit fault and to prevent any further logical butt-whoopings from you, I'm just going to stop talking to you now."
I think that about covers it. You'd better be careful with that pump-fake admission of fault. DB might try to hire you for their PR team.
All of this AND a bag of cookies please.
Sign me up.
I tried rereading Roonis' posts and couldn't find much of what I would call "slander" or "attacks on character". Not sure if you misunderstood or if this is a bad attempt at gaslighting. Though, I suppose I may have missed a passage or two out of the volumes written in this thread.
Question, when you find yourself in a conversation with someone, who is distorting and maligning previous conversations, or simply having exclusively pernicious misunderstandings, and arguing dismissively by verbosity and repetition, while ignoring any attempt you might make to clarify your meaning or intent, do you:
A. Continue to engage in an a contentious and unproductive conversation.
B. Step back and allow people to cool off and consider more carefully what has been discussed.
C. Agree with everything the other person says because they say it with more certainty and conviction.
While you consider how you might respond in that situation, among those options or others, know that I chose option B. Now you are welcome, of course, to perceive that however you want. If you care about the accuracy of your perception, then I suggest there might be more things to take into consideration.
Also, I meant what I wrote about apologizing if people interpreted my posts in the way that Roonis suggests some of them did. However, I am not going to simply agree that Roonis speaks for the forums as a whole or even accurately represents the views of other people, or that their view of my actions are accurate.
Inaccurate and false accusations happen. I am not simply going to be bullied or condescended into an "admission of fault". Misunderstandings can occur, and not every offense is one which was instigated by malicious intent. Among other possibilities, rather than hastily assigning one sided and myopic "fault", there is an option to track down where the misunderstanding occurred, look at it from multiple perspectives, and try to see the situation clearly and rationally.
For instance, I'd appreciate it if you'd consider the fact that you have offered me disrespect, and I don't even know how much of the reference material you have bothered to read, or consider, before doing so. You just show up in this thread, and pile on the hate train. How am I supposed to perceive of this kind of behavior? What is your intent? What is your purpose?
Perhaps you could do a search for "disingenuous", and read a bit of the surrounding context and implications. Then note the lack of follow up on any one of the clarifications which I offered to some similar perceptions offered earlier, or examples I linked to which I think are demonstrative of my intent.
Additionally, it might be useful, if one was interested, to look into the links to the threads which he is using to try to substantiate his claims of my "dominating" the discussion. I have provided many examples of linking to other peoples post on several topics, and have tried to help promote others, and have done so in almost all of the threads I've started. This could indicate that I've read and considered other peoples views, and had the intent of collaboration and inclusivity.
Reference the links to other peoples thoughts and efforts in these posts:
Event Rewards, Threshold:Crew and Ranked:Honor
Lost Revenue: Does the current honor exchange rate discourage your spending on packs?
How fused was your Mirror Picard before this con-fusing apology?
Gauntlet Data Set: Mirror Matches
So, within that context, you come into this conversation and suggest that I might be making a bad attempt at gaslighting? It could very well be that I've misunderstood, and misinterpreted some of what Roonis wrote. I am sure he is capable of clarifying if he so chose to.
I think perhaps with a more thorough reading of what has been written, and/or following the provided links, you might find a different perspective, or not.
Peace.
Consider participating in civil discourse, understanding the Tardigrade, and wandering with the Subspace Eddies.
Perhaps it’s time to close down this thread before any more white noise drowns out the good ideas previously presented.
It's because of those people that I do try to respond and explain things from another point of view.
But the way much of what I have to say is met with "someone else has made this argument before, please read my response to them", doesn't foster healthy discussion, in my mind.
It's very dismissive, and sometimes what I'm saying isn't actually the same thing.
And if it is the same thing, then possibly there's something behind the argument that you should examine more closely.
It tells me you don't want to hear what I have to say unless what I have to say is me agreeing with you.
I thought Roonis did an excellent job of staying polite and on topic in this thread, while I did not. It's a character flaw of mine, and I accept that.
Sometimes it does feel like you're barging into threads unasked for- like the thread in Engineering where someone had an issue with scrolling in the event rewards screen, and you popped in to mention putting honor in the ranked rewards and link back to your thread in Make It So.
Anyway, regarding my comment about how you obviously have not collected historical event data- the numbers you're using for top 100% in your proposed percentage based rewards system is more than twice what recent data actually suggests- which suggests to me that either you are twisting the data for your own purposes, or you are ignorant of the actual numbers.
I chose to believe the latter, because the former is more manipulative than I'd like to believe you are. Feel free to prove me wrong, though.
I would like to state however, that I've never made any claim to my ideas being "the only solution with merit". One might find it interesting to note statements like this, "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.".
@eXo | WhiteClifford I notice that you've ignored or chosen not to acknowledge any of my previous response to you. There are perhaps some things there which might be useful to consider. Maybe, maybe not.
When I have pointed out that similar statements have been made previously it is to acknowledge the prior discussion, and that it might be useful to reference that material such that we can iterate and move the concept forward without covering the same ground again. It's also a way, perhaps not always effective, of letting people know that those things have been considered and discussed, often at length from multiple perspectives, and that there might be other factors at play which are also worth considering.
That said, there have probably been times when I've misperceived something as being similar to a previous conversation. If so, that's my mistake, and it would be a simple enough thing to take a look at whatever I was referencing, and then letting me know where there is differentiation in the arguments. It isn't meant to be dismissive, it's meant to be referential, informative and encouraging the evolution and refinement of ideas, and acknowledging perspectives other than my own.
In some fields it's really important and useful to reference previous work and discussions on a topic. Particularly in science, and I happen to think it's useful in general. If that's not your cup of tea, that's cool. There are actually people who appreciate that acknowledgement and reference to their work.
I think we can agree to disagree, on how polite and on topic, Roonis was.
In terms of the thread in engineering, I was just trying to be funny, hence the
I posted one sentence, which I figured everyone would just ignore anyways. That thread continued on just fine. Do you have other examples of my "barging into threads unasked for" where "several people who won't go back to a thread after you (I) visit"?
In terms of all the numbers that I used in my event reward suggestions, all of those numbers are in that thread and all of those numbers where acknowledged as placeholder values to demonstrate the core concepts and illustrate one of many ways it could be done.
You might also find things like this curious statement:
So, pardon me if I don't completely buy into the narrative being pushed. One might also like to look at the time stamps of the posts in my thread, there was plenty of time for someone in the community to offer up different numbers and help me out. My purpose was just to demonstrate that some of the ideas being discussed were possible, what they might achieve in terms of mechanics, increased competition and motivations, and how they might look.
I figured that at some point, if people had interest, we could figure out some specific values which might make more sense. I was trying to participate in an iterative process. Certain people tended to miss the point of the ideas being presented and focused to exclusion, on the placeholder variables, while ignoring the fact that I had asked for input and feedback on those prior to doing the work of making the image.
Then some people assumed the image to be some sort of definitive suggestion, and didn't apparently bother reading the bits in the thread about just trying to illustrate concepts. Mostly other people's concepts at that, and using placeholder values to do so. In that context, you accuse-not-accuse me of, "twisting the data for your own purposes, or you are ignorant of the actual numbers".
Yes, I am ignorant of the actual numbers. I have written as much many times and never claimed otherwise. I was just trying to do the best I could with the numbers I had to work with. Yes, I did ask several people on discord about many of the numbers which I used and you're welcome doubt that all you want. I did not make a nice spreadsheet or a graph of the various numbers I got from other sources, so I don't have that to offer as proof.
I plainly and explicitly stated that the participation numbers which I used were based on the arena and that it would be nice to have better numbers. As far as I know, as has been discussed in other threads, everyone other than DB is ignorant of the actual participation numbers. If you have more accurate numbers, it doesn't therefore universally devalue and dismiss everything else I was trying to illustrate the possibility of.
If that was the case, it would have been helpful to have shared those numbers with me, rather than just criticizing me for not having that data, and assuming-not-assuming some malicious intent for working with what I had.
Consider participating in civil discourse, understanding the Tardigrade, and wandering with the Subspace Eddies.
I'm guessing heaps if people start this game and quit after a few months. I do wonder if I've been playing against the same people for the last 10 months, and that I've reached my peak of event scores because of stagnancy.
Anyway, I'm sure there are dozens if different speculations about why the player base isn't increasing, but maybe that's beyond the scope of this conversation.
Check out our website to find out more:
https://wiki.tenforwardloungers.com/
Without trying to derail the thread any more than it already has, I think lack of new player retention is the problem. Our fleet sees so many people join, never change their name from Captain, say nothing, and go inactive after a few weeks...even when we reach out and offer welcoming greetings and hints on how to get started. Between buggy chat/PMs, a steep learning curve, and maybe a little bit of disappointment at how far down the ladder they are during events, I can see why non-Trek people wouldn’t stick around at all and why even some Trek fans may be discouraged to continue.
There is a revolving door for sure on new players. There have been big steps to make it better, the honor system makes trainers much less of an issue than they used to be for one. So I feel like that retention is better than ever.
There is also a lot of burnout churn. It feels like every week there is at least one known long time VIP 14 notifying their fleet of retirement, to say nothing of the churn is lesser known or networked fleets. Some of that has always happened, and 2+ years in folks are going to naturally move on.
There is also quite a large alt population for a game that does not directly benefit alt play. (No trading, which is usually the number one reason for alt play in games) And that compounds both burnout rate, and impact of retired players taking multiple active accounts when they go.
Massive revenue "monsters" in the mobile games market are casual things like Candy Crush or Homescapes.
Games everyone from a lil kiddo to an ancient granny can pick up and play. While veterans like us find everything in here easy over time, casual players could be overwhelmed at first by everything really.
When you just play without a plan and a strategy, you will hit countless roadblocks very soon. Also in general this is a test of patience. Not everyones cup of tea, many people want instant gratification and (could) regard various parts of STT as overly frustrating.
Also in time basically you are doing the same things over and over and over again. A further reason why many could leave the (star-)ship....
You have not presented any evidence, you have presented conjecture and ideas, and when presented with differing opinions placed a demanding burden of proof on anyone who disagrees with you.
You have attempted to prevent any discussion of holes in your work with this burden of proof, multiple point questions, and walls of citations that don't actually match what you say they do. You just try to make it so difficult to disagree with you from the sheer volume of work involved, it makes people give up.
When I tired of watching you bully dissenting opinions, and put in the work to get the actual data you required, you ignore it, claim it was not a major factor anyways, and link to like five threads as proof of that, where the majority of the justification people bring for why rewards should change is because there are so many more people playing, reinforcing the importance of the data I presented. Then, in your reply you describe me finally meeting your standard required for dissenting opinion as "arguing dismissively by verbosity and repetition".
I've done nothing to attack your character. I know nothing of your character, I have pointed out flaws in how you present your facts and stances on issues. Some people get really worked up on certain issues and lose track from their normal behavior, if someone says irregardless in a discussion at work, I can't focus on anything else they say for instance. I think you are so emotionally invested in what you want, you see valid criticism of them as personal attacks.
I have not mocked you for not having the data I had. I've pointed out that requiring a higher standard of data of your dissenters than you hold yourself to is not really a fair method of debate. Please feel free to use the data I provided to inform future revisions to your plan. I've attached the 3 recent events with absolute minimum VP, 1 failed shuttle on Butchers and Rule, and one recipe on Reverie. The Second Act I can't say it's minimum VP, but assuming it's absolute last place gives you a conservative estimate while realistically I would expect a similar VP to the other two would put it in the 73k-75k range.
Additionally, you have historically defended your population assumptions by demanding this data before being willing to address the fact the numbers seemed very high. When someone finally presented the data, you said it wasn't important what the numbers were, even though it is the most often cited justification for the need for changes.
It's not wrong to say "I want more stuff". But when you use incorrect "data" to justify it as being deserved due to population changes, suggest a fundamental change in established pro competition changes by DB with a 5* in thresholds, refuse to listen to anyone with different numbers than you, and then somehow alter your historic stance when actually confronted with the data, you can see where someone might feel you are being disingenuous in that situation, not a dishonest person, or anything about you as a person; but as you have a deep attachment to something you have put a lot of work into, you are willing to ignore facts and figures that disagree with what you want due to your emotional involvement.
As far as dominating the discussion, I can believe that's not your intention, and that is why I'm even bringing it to your attention. Your reputation for unfair standards of proof for criticism, as well as linking back to your work, that many know is based on false numbers and premises, makes it so when you come in and link said flawed work, other feels the constructive conversation is over. If you come into a thread, and keep the discussion specific to that person's idea and that thread, I'm sure you will provide valuable feedback.
You can't argue with dissenters the way you do and then play the victim card when someone finally steps up to the plate with what you asked for.
There is a difference between asking people what they are basing their feedback or ideas on, and if they have considered prior discussion matter (not just mine), and "demanding a burden of proof". This is at best a misunderstanding, though the directionality of it informs of other options.
I have been transparent with my reasoning, and only ever presented my contributions exactly as conjecture and ideas. Several times I've linked to statements acknowledging that I was working with incomplete and inexact numbers in order to illustrate the possibility of an idea.
Here is another string of accusations, based on a misunderstanding. You continue to push your assumption as fact, and then try to hold me accountable for it. When I point out, and demonstrate what I actually wrote, you disregard that information.
I'm not sure where these walls of citations are that don't match, please link. Your implication of purposeful obfuscation and duplicitous intent is noted.
Additionally, I have not attempted to prevent any discussion of those ideas. What I have done, is to ask people to recognize that there may in fact be a difference between what I am actually suggesting, and what they might think I am declaring. Notice the difference here, between suggesting and declaring.
Now I am bullying? You might want to consider the possible influence of projection.
I am not responsible for explaining other peoples reasoning, why don't you ask them? Furthermore, I disagree with your opinion that increased player population isn't a significant factor. Which is to say, something to take into consideration, not that it's the prime mover. However, I agree with your opinion that increased player resources are a factor, also worth taking into consideration. That said, I had taken player resources into consideration already, and I have a different perspective on how that would influence competition if the reward structure was reworked.
As you stated in a previous post, neither of us have numbers on packs sales, so neither of us, know how a change would ultimately play out. Something I have acknowledged previously in other threads. Your view, is that your interpretation of what I had suggested would negatively impact pack sales. My view is different, and the reasons can be found in that thread and elsewhere.
I have acknowledged previously that perhaps I've I misperceived your comments as ad-hominem. If that is the case, then I think perhaps it would be worthwhile to consider the way in which you've expressed things, what you imply, and explore the possibility for how there might be room for misinterpretation.
You have made assumptions about my "stance", and my level of "emotional investment" and then based your feedback on them. Your misunderstanding of what I wrote, does not constitute a flaw in my reasoning. Which is not to say that no flaws exist, many do. Your assumptions of my feelings and motivations, do not constitute a flaw in my efforts on these forums.
If I understand what your referencing, I'm pretty sure that was @eXo | WhiteClifford who was criticizing me for not having data which I had already admitted I didn't have.
This is just spurious and incorrect accusation. This, "higher standard of data", which suggests that I am being duplicitous and holding a double standard. Please outline for me, exactly what criteria I am asking of other people, that you think I am not meeting myself?
You have repeatedly refused to acknowledge that I have openly and transparently shared my reasoning, and the numbers I had, in several places on my thread. It's all there.
In terms of all those other threads I've linked to, I have read every post. At least at the time of my initial linking. Before I participate in any idea oriented threads, and most of the other kinds, I read every post, from the beginning, so I can know what's been discussed already.
Thank you for the data, however, I was already done putting any more effort into that concept after the last Q&A. If you, or any one else, would like to iterate off version_003 or zipf version, and submit those ideas to the forum, feel free and good luck.
You keep making that accusation and framing it as "my reputation", as if that is a universally shared consensus. Easy thing to say. Please link to the threads which I have come into and made it such that the "constructive conversation is over". Also, please explain how it was, that what I contributed, caused that result to occur.
Is that what I've done? That's an interesting read on events. Thank you for once again, choosing to interpret what I've written, aside from all other options, in such a way which furthers this perception of me you are trying to push.
Consider participating in civil discourse, understanding the Tardigrade, and wandering with the Subspace Eddies.