10,304,366 points means something
The amount of resources and effort (in time and/or cash) to reach 10,304,366 damage against the rancor is substantial. That time and effort is the same for players, regardless of how many other members of a guild also clear that high hurdle. Rewards should be based on the effort and resources, not on the happenstance of the guild a player belongs to.
Current rancor rewards are random for solo ties. This means players with this high strength can end up in the 20s or 30s of rewards, which are far less than rank 1 if they are in a guild with other strong players. On the other hand, players who have made the exact same investment and are part of weaker guilds can gain rank 1 every raid (and with recently launched toons, also clear the HAAT with only 5-6 other strong players again securing high rewards).
It is unethical and wrong that players who all overcome the challenge of achieving that high damage threshold get different reward depending on whether they remain, or abandon a guild with other players who have made the same high effort. Prizes should be based on ability, not on the guild you happen to belong to.
Random rewards are good if players don't completely clear a raid alone, and happen to tie at a lower level. HOWEVER if players do max a raid, the investment of resources and effort should not be penalized based on what guild they belong to instead of the resources and time they put into their actual performance on the raid.
Ties at soloing raid should all receive Rank 1 rewards. Whoever doesn't solo should then get the rewards at the next level. (if 10 players tie at solo, the first player to not solo should receive rank 11 rewards). This recognizes ability, not the happenstance of guild membership.
This is the only right and ethical way to recognize the fact that soloing a raid is not a trivial, and rather a high effort hurdle to clear. This policy should carry forward for all future raids as well.
@CG_Carrie @CG_Kozispoon (huge congrats on the promotion, you rock!)
Current rancor rewards are random for solo ties. This means players with this high strength can end up in the 20s or 30s of rewards, which are far less than rank 1 if they are in a guild with other strong players. On the other hand, players who have made the exact same investment and are part of weaker guilds can gain rank 1 every raid (and with recently launched toons, also clear the HAAT with only 5-6 other strong players again securing high rewards).
It is unethical and wrong that players who all overcome the challenge of achieving that high damage threshold get different reward depending on whether they remain, or abandon a guild with other players who have made the same high effort. Prizes should be based on ability, not on the guild you happen to belong to.
Random rewards are good if players don't completely clear a raid alone, and happen to tie at a lower level. HOWEVER if players do max a raid, the investment of resources and effort should not be penalized based on what guild they belong to instead of the resources and time they put into their actual performance on the raid.
Ties at soloing raid should all receive Rank 1 rewards. Whoever doesn't solo should then get the rewards at the next level. (if 10 players tie at solo, the first player to not solo should receive rank 11 rewards). This recognizes ability, not the happenstance of guild membership.
This is the only right and ethical way to recognize the fact that soloing a raid is not a trivial, and rather a high effort hurdle to clear. This policy should carry forward for all future raids as well.
@CG_Carrie @CG_Kozispoon (huge congrats on the promotion, you rock!)
0
- 60.9K General Discussion
- 9 Developer Q&A Archive
- 2.6K New Players
- 30.5K Arena and Character Strategy
- 4K Individual Events
- 4.6K Guild Events
- 4.6K PVP and Rivalry
- 50.1K Guild Recruitment
- 731 Art and Media
- 4.1K Off Topic
Howdy, Stranger!
Replies
Yes resources that when into solo or getting top rank before CLS was great and you were rewarded with rewards for a long time.
Now anyone with CLS can solo, so no not a big deal anymore, random is ok.
Investments don't pay off forever...
Who cares.
What was the cost of CLS? Did they give out CLS for free? No they did not. CLS was also an effort and time/cash investment. Same for Thrawn. Or Rex. Or any other toon you use in a raid. If you argument is Raid power was given out at no cost, you just gave evidence of the opposite being true.
You have a choice: stay in your "big" guild and take a random shot at 1-30, or find a "smaller" guild that you are only one of a few soloists.
Random is MUCH better then it used to be.
Edit: I'm not asking for the pit rewards to get reworked but I am asking that EA/CG brainstorm a new system that doesn't result in me depending on 4% to get what I need to upgrade my characters. Who knows, maybe the new QoL update soon to come will have something for us.
Unethical is the correct term because the incentive structure CG has created is a (likely unintentional) bait and switch.
The original incentive is to invest resources and effort to gain power and rank higher, meaning players are rewarded higher amounts for higher expenditure of time and resources. This continues until players hit "max power." Resource and effort spend is directly tied to the magnitude of rewards.
At max power, the incentive structure completely decouples from resource spend. Instead it becomes random and can be as low as when no resources were spent at all.
Players are incentivized into one type of behavior which leads to ever increasing rewards, until they achieve max power, and they are switched to far lower rewards. The originally promised rewards, for the originally asked for effort are taken away.
I actually think this was a design mistake and not intentional. But in any case it is still a bait and switch. Bait in switch is de facto unethical.
Even if "randomized" is a slightly less bad system than the old alphabetical ID system, it is still wrong.
Fixing the incentives to keep the original promise and remove the (unintended) bait and switch quite simple as explained in the original post.