The Pit Challenge Tier & Relic 8 [MEGA]

Replies

  • Ravens1113 wrote: »
    Kyno wrote: »
    Ravens1113 wrote: »
    Kyno wrote: »
    Kyno wrote: »
    Kyno wrote: »
    Kyno wrote: »
    Nikoms565 wrote: »
    Kyno wrote: »
    How are more linear and flatter the same thing?

    I didn't say they are the same thing, a flatter distribution has less deviation from the centerline or common plane when both things being compared are limited to the same scale (in our case 1-50), meaning a more even distribution across the scale vs say having a bump in the top 10.

    Except you just defined "linear" distribution, not "flat" (or "flatter"). "Flat" in regard to wages, prices, etc. is "the same in all cases, not varying with changed conditions or in particular cases." It's clear that CG once again simply used a vague word and their own definition. They said "flatter" but meant "more linear".

    flatter is statistical term used to mean a more even distribution. so it isn't vague or misleading, as it is the correct usage there.

    they didn't say flat, and if they had that would be wrong, as that would define it to the axis.

    flatter requires a comparison, and is therefore linked to another thing, e.g. - prizing structure for the sith raid

    Dude, come on. These are the exact words CG used in their Pit announcement.

    Since the Challenge Tier is designed to require cooperation, we have opted for a flatter prizing structure to reduce some of the friction in-guild while still acknowledging degrees of participation and success.

    You're telling us that they meant a more linear distribution rather than more equitable prizes? If so, and I think that's a colossal "if", that's just an absurdly poor choice of words. In fact, I find this so beyond unbelievable, that unless a CG official comes out and says it, I'll assume you are doing some top notch lawyer gymnastics to make what they said true.

    so you disagree with a "exponential" distribution outpacing a linear one? you believe the reward structure for the Sith raid is more equitable for the whole guild, over the CPit?

    I believe a more linear distribution (within the context of the rewards we see) is more equitable for everyone, isn't it?

    I am not saying I wouldn't' want it to be better, but to say they didn't deliver on a flatter reward structure than the previous example we have, doesn't seem to be accurate. Everyone needs something to call them out on, but in this case trying to say they are not flat , while true, isn't what they said.

    I provided a chart a few pages back demonstrating that the equity of the rewards is not dependent on the classification of the shape (linear, cubic, quadratic, exponential, logarithmic, sinusoidal, whatever). The equity of the rewards is what everyone is up in arms over.

    I will reword, if thats ok:

    do you feel that Sith raid rewards are more fairly distributed to the guild over the Cpit rewards?

    I think this is a much better question. I am going to add a couple qualifiers to your question:

    Do I feel that Sith raid rewards (shards, gear, guild currency, et) when it released were more/less fairly distributed than Cpit today (GET, GET2, Aeros, gear)?

    I feel like the Sith raid rewards were more fair, but I think both were/are terrible. This goes beyond the shape of the rewards distribution. Because of the coordination required for Cpit, we have guys that are forced to run certain teams in phases that yield less damage because P4 damage is more valuable than P1-3 damage. We have guys missing big damage runs because their schedule doesn't align with the majority of the guild's. We have a couple runs get lost due to app crashes while waiting to submit. We don't have a good feel for the gear distribution for Cpit yet (though it seems HIGHLY variable).

    I hate the stacking mechanic, but it definitely makes the Cpit a team effort. As such, the rewards should be reflective of that. The 20 guys that showed up on time to submit their 2-3% P4 runs are just as valuable as the other 20 guys that showed up to do an easier 5% P2/3 run. Due to IRL schedules, not everyone can choose where they contribute.

    TW/TB gives the same rewards to everyone because trying to assign a metric to one's contribution creates friction. The guild officers can do that themselves and replace slackers with those hungry to contribute. We don't need CG doing it for us. But more to the point, everyone in the guild celebrates every TW win and new TB star because we achieved it together and share in the spoils together.

    Thank you for the clarification, I would disagree with the fairness of the distribution due to the top 10 limitation on the Sith raid, but agree with the overall assessment from the perspective of rewards when incorporating all the external factors.

    I have always wanted a different raid style and reward distribution, this is especially evident at the start of a raid when there is so much more coordination and group effort. This raid definitely has more elements to it than others, from the outside at this point.

    MaruMaru this is what we were talking about, which is why this question was in response to the conversation we were having.

    ga9g2jr8mivp.png

    By the way Kyno THIS is what a flat reward structure looks like. In case you were wondering

    Um... no it's not, but thanks.

    Oh I’d love to hear this one. Can you explain to me how that’s not a flat reward structure?

    Because he'd have to admit he is wrong.
  • Kyno
    27450 posts Moderator
    Ravens1113 wrote: »
    Kyno wrote: »
    Ravens1113 wrote: »
    Kyno wrote: »
    Kyno wrote: »
    Kyno wrote: »
    Kyno wrote: »
    Nikoms565 wrote: »
    Kyno wrote: »
    How are more linear and flatter the same thing?

    I didn't say they are the same thing, a flatter distribution has less deviation from the centerline or common plane when both things being compared are limited to the same scale (in our case 1-50), meaning a more even distribution across the scale vs say having a bump in the top 10.

    Except you just defined "linear" distribution, not "flat" (or "flatter"). "Flat" in regard to wages, prices, etc. is "the same in all cases, not varying with changed conditions or in particular cases." It's clear that CG once again simply used a vague word and their own definition. They said "flatter" but meant "more linear".

    flatter is statistical term used to mean a more even distribution. so it isn't vague or misleading, as it is the correct usage there.

    they didn't say flat, and if they had that would be wrong, as that would define it to the axis.

    flatter requires a comparison, and is therefore linked to another thing, e.g. - prizing structure for the sith raid

    Dude, come on. These are the exact words CG used in their Pit announcement.

    Since the Challenge Tier is designed to require cooperation, we have opted for a flatter prizing structure to reduce some of the friction in-guild while still acknowledging degrees of participation and success.

    You're telling us that they meant a more linear distribution rather than more equitable prizes? If so, and I think that's a colossal "if", that's just an absurdly poor choice of words. In fact, I find this so beyond unbelievable, that unless a CG official comes out and says it, I'll assume you are doing some top notch lawyer gymnastics to make what they said true.

    so you disagree with a "exponential" distribution outpacing a linear one? you believe the reward structure for the Sith raid is more equitable for the whole guild, over the CPit?

    I believe a more linear distribution (within the context of the rewards we see) is more equitable for everyone, isn't it?

    I am not saying I wouldn't' want it to be better, but to say they didn't deliver on a flatter reward structure than the previous example we have, doesn't seem to be accurate. Everyone needs something to call them out on, but in this case trying to say they are not flat , while true, isn't what they said.

    I provided a chart a few pages back demonstrating that the equity of the rewards is not dependent on the classification of the shape (linear, cubic, quadratic, exponential, logarithmic, sinusoidal, whatever). The equity of the rewards is what everyone is up in arms over.

    I will reword, if thats ok:

    do you feel that Sith raid rewards are more fairly distributed to the guild over the Cpit rewards?

    I think this is a much better question. I am going to add a couple qualifiers to your question:

    Do I feel that Sith raid rewards (shards, gear, guild currency, et) when it released were more/less fairly distributed than Cpit today (GET, GET2, Aeros, gear)?

    I feel like the Sith raid rewards were more fair, but I think both were/are terrible. This goes beyond the shape of the rewards distribution. Because of the coordination required for Cpit, we have guys that are forced to run certain teams in phases that yield less damage because P4 damage is more valuable than P1-3 damage. We have guys missing big damage runs because their schedule doesn't align with the majority of the guild's. We have a couple runs get lost due to app crashes while waiting to submit. We don't have a good feel for the gear distribution for Cpit yet (though it seems HIGHLY variable).

    I hate the stacking mechanic, but it definitely makes the Cpit a team effort. As such, the rewards should be reflective of that. The 20 guys that showed up on time to submit their 2-3% P4 runs are just as valuable as the other 20 guys that showed up to do an easier 5% P2/3 run. Due to IRL schedules, not everyone can choose where they contribute.

    TW/TB gives the same rewards to everyone because trying to assign a metric to one's contribution creates friction. The guild officers can do that themselves and replace slackers with those hungry to contribute. We don't need CG doing it for us. But more to the point, everyone in the guild celebrates every TW win and new TB star because we achieved it together and share in the spoils together.

    Thank you for the clarification, I would disagree with the fairness of the distribution due to the top 10 limitation on the Sith raid, but agree with the overall assessment from the perspective of rewards when incorporating all the external factors.

    I have always wanted a different raid style and reward distribution, this is especially evident at the start of a raid when there is so much more coordination and group effort. This raid definitely has more elements to it than others, from the outside at this point.

    MaruMaru this is what we were talking about, which is why this question was in response to the conversation we were having.

    ga9g2jr8mivp.png

    By the way Kyno THIS is what a flat reward structure looks like. In case you were wondering

    Um... no it's not, but thanks.

    Oh I’d love to hear this one. Can you explain to me how that’s not a flat reward structure?

    Because if you want to call it flat it has to have 0 slope from one end to the other.

    If you want to call it flatter, then we agree.
  • StarSon
    4803 posts Member
    Kyno wrote: »
    Ravens1113 wrote: »
    Kyno wrote: »
    Ravens1113 wrote: »
    Kyno wrote: »
    Kyno wrote: »
    Kyno wrote: »
    Kyno wrote: »
    Nikoms565 wrote: »
    Kyno wrote: »
    How are more linear and flatter the same thing?

    I didn't say they are the same thing, a flatter distribution has less deviation from the centerline or common plane when both things being compared are limited to the same scale (in our case 1-50), meaning a more even distribution across the scale vs say having a bump in the top 10.

    Except you just defined "linear" distribution, not "flat" (or "flatter"). "Flat" in regard to wages, prices, etc. is "the same in all cases, not varying with changed conditions or in particular cases." It's clear that CG once again simply used a vague word and their own definition. They said "flatter" but meant "more linear".

    flatter is statistical term used to mean a more even distribution. so it isn't vague or misleading, as it is the correct usage there.

    they didn't say flat, and if they had that would be wrong, as that would define it to the axis.

    flatter requires a comparison, and is therefore linked to another thing, e.g. - prizing structure for the sith raid

    Dude, come on. These are the exact words CG used in their Pit announcement.

    Since the Challenge Tier is designed to require cooperation, we have opted for a flatter prizing structure to reduce some of the friction in-guild while still acknowledging degrees of participation and success.

    You're telling us that they meant a more linear distribution rather than more equitable prizes? If so, and I think that's a colossal "if", that's just an absurdly poor choice of words. In fact, I find this so beyond unbelievable, that unless a CG official comes out and says it, I'll assume you are doing some top notch lawyer gymnastics to make what they said true.

    so you disagree with a "exponential" distribution outpacing a linear one? you believe the reward structure for the Sith raid is more equitable for the whole guild, over the CPit?

    I believe a more linear distribution (within the context of the rewards we see) is more equitable for everyone, isn't it?

    I am not saying I wouldn't' want it to be better, but to say they didn't deliver on a flatter reward structure than the previous example we have, doesn't seem to be accurate. Everyone needs something to call them out on, but in this case trying to say they are not flat , while true, isn't what they said.

    I provided a chart a few pages back demonstrating that the equity of the rewards is not dependent on the classification of the shape (linear, cubic, quadratic, exponential, logarithmic, sinusoidal, whatever). The equity of the rewards is what everyone is up in arms over.

    I will reword, if thats ok:

    do you feel that Sith raid rewards are more fairly distributed to the guild over the Cpit rewards?

    I think this is a much better question. I am going to add a couple qualifiers to your question:

    Do I feel that Sith raid rewards (shards, gear, guild currency, et) when it released were more/less fairly distributed than Cpit today (GET, GET2, Aeros, gear)?

    I feel like the Sith raid rewards were more fair, but I think both were/are terrible. This goes beyond the shape of the rewards distribution. Because of the coordination required for Cpit, we have guys that are forced to run certain teams in phases that yield less damage because P4 damage is more valuable than P1-3 damage. We have guys missing big damage runs because their schedule doesn't align with the majority of the guild's. We have a couple runs get lost due to app crashes while waiting to submit. We don't have a good feel for the gear distribution for Cpit yet (though it seems HIGHLY variable).

    I hate the stacking mechanic, but it definitely makes the Cpit a team effort. As such, the rewards should be reflective of that. The 20 guys that showed up on time to submit their 2-3% P4 runs are just as valuable as the other 20 guys that showed up to do an easier 5% P2/3 run. Due to IRL schedules, not everyone can choose where they contribute.

    TW/TB gives the same rewards to everyone because trying to assign a metric to one's contribution creates friction. The guild officers can do that themselves and replace slackers with those hungry to contribute. We don't need CG doing it for us. But more to the point, everyone in the guild celebrates every TW win and new TB star because we achieved it together and share in the spoils together.

    Thank you for the clarification, I would disagree with the fairness of the distribution due to the top 10 limitation on the Sith raid, but agree with the overall assessment from the perspective of rewards when incorporating all the external factors.

    I have always wanted a different raid style and reward distribution, this is especially evident at the start of a raid when there is so much more coordination and group effort. This raid definitely has more elements to it than others, from the outside at this point.

    MaruMaru this is what we were talking about, which is why this question was in response to the conversation we were having.

    ga9g2jr8mivp.png

    By the way Kyno THIS is what a flat reward structure looks like. In case you were wondering

    Um... no it's not, but thanks.

    Oh I’d love to hear this one. Can you explain to me how that’s not a flat reward structure?

    Because if you want to call it flat it has to have 0 slope from one end to the other.

    If you want to call it flatter, then we agree.

    If it has a zero slope it's just the same rewards, not flat rewards, at least in the context of this entire thread.
  • Kyno
    27450 posts Moderator
    StarSon wrote: »
    Kyno wrote: »
    Ravens1113 wrote: »
    Kyno wrote: »
    Ravens1113 wrote: »
    Kyno wrote: »
    Kyno wrote: »
    Kyno wrote: »
    Kyno wrote: »
    Nikoms565 wrote: »
    Kyno wrote: »
    How are more linear and flatter the same thing?

    I didn't say they are the same thing, a flatter distribution has less deviation from the centerline or common plane when both things being compared are limited to the same scale (in our case 1-50), meaning a more even distribution across the scale vs say having a bump in the top 10.

    Except you just defined "linear" distribution, not "flat" (or "flatter"). "Flat" in regard to wages, prices, etc. is "the same in all cases, not varying with changed conditions or in particular cases." It's clear that CG once again simply used a vague word and their own definition. They said "flatter" but meant "more linear".

    flatter is statistical term used to mean a more even distribution. so it isn't vague or misleading, as it is the correct usage there.

    they didn't say flat, and if they had that would be wrong, as that would define it to the axis.

    flatter requires a comparison, and is therefore linked to another thing, e.g. - prizing structure for the sith raid

    Dude, come on. These are the exact words CG used in their Pit announcement.

    Since the Challenge Tier is designed to require cooperation, we have opted for a flatter prizing structure to reduce some of the friction in-guild while still acknowledging degrees of participation and success.

    You're telling us that they meant a more linear distribution rather than more equitable prizes? If so, and I think that's a colossal "if", that's just an absurdly poor choice of words. In fact, I find this so beyond unbelievable, that unless a CG official comes out and says it, I'll assume you are doing some top notch lawyer gymnastics to make what they said true.

    so you disagree with a "exponential" distribution outpacing a linear one? you believe the reward structure for the Sith raid is more equitable for the whole guild, over the CPit?

    I believe a more linear distribution (within the context of the rewards we see) is more equitable for everyone, isn't it?

    I am not saying I wouldn't' want it to be better, but to say they didn't deliver on a flatter reward structure than the previous example we have, doesn't seem to be accurate. Everyone needs something to call them out on, but in this case trying to say they are not flat , while true, isn't what they said.

    I provided a chart a few pages back demonstrating that the equity of the rewards is not dependent on the classification of the shape (linear, cubic, quadratic, exponential, logarithmic, sinusoidal, whatever). The equity of the rewards is what everyone is up in arms over.

    I will reword, if thats ok:

    do you feel that Sith raid rewards are more fairly distributed to the guild over the Cpit rewards?

    I think this is a much better question. I am going to add a couple qualifiers to your question:

    Do I feel that Sith raid rewards (shards, gear, guild currency, et) when it released were more/less fairly distributed than Cpit today (GET, GET2, Aeros, gear)?

    I feel like the Sith raid rewards were more fair, but I think both were/are terrible. This goes beyond the shape of the rewards distribution. Because of the coordination required for Cpit, we have guys that are forced to run certain teams in phases that yield less damage because P4 damage is more valuable than P1-3 damage. We have guys missing big damage runs because their schedule doesn't align with the majority of the guild's. We have a couple runs get lost due to app crashes while waiting to submit. We don't have a good feel for the gear distribution for Cpit yet (though it seems HIGHLY variable).

    I hate the stacking mechanic, but it definitely makes the Cpit a team effort. As such, the rewards should be reflective of that. The 20 guys that showed up on time to submit their 2-3% P4 runs are just as valuable as the other 20 guys that showed up to do an easier 5% P2/3 run. Due to IRL schedules, not everyone can choose where they contribute.

    TW/TB gives the same rewards to everyone because trying to assign a metric to one's contribution creates friction. The guild officers can do that themselves and replace slackers with those hungry to contribute. We don't need CG doing it for us. But more to the point, everyone in the guild celebrates every TW win and new TB star because we achieved it together and share in the spoils together.

    Thank you for the clarification, I would disagree with the fairness of the distribution due to the top 10 limitation on the Sith raid, but agree with the overall assessment from the perspective of rewards when incorporating all the external factors.

    I have always wanted a different raid style and reward distribution, this is especially evident at the start of a raid when there is so much more coordination and group effort. This raid definitely has more elements to it than others, from the outside at this point.

    MaruMaru this is what we were talking about, which is why this question was in response to the conversation we were having.

    ga9g2jr8mivp.png

    By the way Kyno THIS is what a flat reward structure looks like. In case you were wondering

    Um... no it's not, but thanks.

    Oh I’d love to hear this one. Can you explain to me how that’s not a flat reward structure?

    Because if you want to call it flat it has to have 0 slope from one end to the other.

    If you want to call it flatter, then we agree.

    If it has a zero slope it's just the same rewards, not flat rewards, at least in the context of this entire thread.

    Yes, the same rewards across the board would be a flat rewards structure. Anyone talking about flat rewards in this thread is misrepresenting what was said, which was "flatter".

    Those rewards shown in that picture are flatter than anything we see in this game, but it is not a flat reward structure.

    But we can agree to disagree, and discuss it from a point of equity for the players in the guild to help further the conversation. The removal of the top 10 full piece (which was a point of concern at the beginning and later when solos and easier top scores came around), was removed to reduce friction, but seems to not be as effective according to much of this conversation. Do you agree?
  • TW/TB = Flat
    Raid rewards (No Sim) Not Flat
    Raid rewards (Sim) = Flat
    Example from MSF = almost flat

    HSith and CPit = not flat ( by comparing unique main reward)

    CG stating cPit rewards are flatter must be using the total reward pool in their argument. However based on the RNG factor this cannot be proved as much of the rewards are garbage. A word to the wise is to make sure you consider the unique reward in the flatter discussion/calculation.

    Kyno trying to defend all this and hiding behind semantics (along with CG having him languish on the vine) = priceless

  • StarSon
    4803 posts Member
    Kyno wrote: »
    Yes, the same rewards across the board would be a flat rewards structure. Anyone talking about flat rewards in this thread is misrepresenting what was said, which was "flatter".

    Those rewards shown in that picture are flatter than anything we see in this game, but it is not a flat reward structure.

    But we can agree to disagree, and discuss it from a point of equity for the players in the guild to help further the conversation. The removal of the top 10 full piece (which was a point of concern at the beginning and later when solos and easier top scores came around), was removed to reduce friction, but seems to not be as effective according to much of this conversation. Do you agree?

    STR is a false equivalency here. You can get full pieces in the STR outside of top 10, just not the g12 gear. So sure, every place gets the same loot table in their boxes, but the distribution so far is so out of whack you can't say it's flatter or not flatter than any other raid's reward structure. And obviously the "raid exclusive" portion does not resemble anything flat.

    Also, you and they keep saying "to reduce friction" but this raid has caused the most friction of anything yet, so if that was their intent in any way, shape, or form, they have failed MISERABLY. Continuing to defend them does not endear you to anyone.
  • RTS
    178 posts Member
    Jakdnels wrote: »
    I would think they would try to learn from past issues that that they introduced through new guild content which caused guilds to break up. I see a lot of posts that indicate that their guild is the primary reason people keep playing the game. Disrupting that seems counter intuitive to growth and game stability.

    Guilds broke up over Rancor raid, HAAT, and a lot of guilds broke up over HSTR when it was released.

    His point is that it happens regardless of what the content is, if it's challenging enough.
  • Kyno wrote: »
    Ravens1113 wrote: »
    Kyno wrote: »
    Ravens1113 wrote: »
    Kyno wrote: »
    Kyno wrote: »
    Kyno wrote: »
    Kyno wrote: »
    Nikoms565 wrote: »
    Kyno wrote: »
    How are more linear and flatter the same thing?

    I didn't say they are the same thing, a flatter distribution has less deviation from the centerline or common plane when both things being compared are limited to the same scale (in our case 1-50), meaning a more even distribution across the scale vs say having a bump in the top 10.

    Except you just defined "linear" distribution, not "flat" (or "flatter"). "Flat" in regard to wages, prices, etc. is "the same in all cases, not varying with changed conditions or in particular cases." It's clear that CG once again simply used a vague word and their own definition. They said "flatter" but meant "more linear".

    flatter is statistical term used to mean a more even distribution. so it isn't vague or misleading, as it is the correct usage there.

    they didn't say flat, and if they had that would be wrong, as that would define it to the axis.

    flatter requires a comparison, and is therefore linked to another thing, e.g. - prizing structure for the sith raid

    Dude, come on. These are the exact words CG used in their Pit announcement.

    Since the Challenge Tier is designed to require cooperation, we have opted for a flatter prizing structure to reduce some of the friction in-guild while still acknowledging degrees of participation and success.

    You're telling us that they meant a more linear distribution rather than more equitable prizes? If so, and I think that's a colossal "if", that's just an absurdly poor choice of words. In fact, I find this so beyond unbelievable, that unless a CG official comes out and says it, I'll assume you are doing some top notch lawyer gymnastics to make what they said true.

    so you disagree with a "exponential" distribution outpacing a linear one? you believe the reward structure for the Sith raid is more equitable for the whole guild, over the CPit?

    I believe a more linear distribution (within the context of the rewards we see) is more equitable for everyone, isn't it?

    I am not saying I wouldn't' want it to be better, but to say they didn't deliver on a flatter reward structure than the previous example we have, doesn't seem to be accurate. Everyone needs something to call them out on, but in this case trying to say they are not flat , while true, isn't what they said.

    I provided a chart a few pages back demonstrating that the equity of the rewards is not dependent on the classification of the shape (linear, cubic, quadratic, exponential, logarithmic, sinusoidal, whatever). The equity of the rewards is what everyone is up in arms over.

    I will reword, if thats ok:

    do you feel that Sith raid rewards are more fairly distributed to the guild over the Cpit rewards?

    I think this is a much better question. I am going to add a couple qualifiers to your question:

    Do I feel that Sith raid rewards (shards, gear, guild currency, et) when it released were more/less fairly distributed than Cpit today (GET, GET2, Aeros, gear)?

    I feel like the Sith raid rewards were more fair, but I think both were/are terrible. This goes beyond the shape of the rewards distribution. Because of the coordination required for Cpit, we have guys that are forced to run certain teams in phases that yield less damage because P4 damage is more valuable than P1-3 damage. We have guys missing big damage runs because their schedule doesn't align with the majority of the guild's. We have a couple runs get lost due to app crashes while waiting to submit. We don't have a good feel for the gear distribution for Cpit yet (though it seems HIGHLY variable).

    I hate the stacking mechanic, but it definitely makes the Cpit a team effort. As such, the rewards should be reflective of that. The 20 guys that showed up on time to submit their 2-3% P4 runs are just as valuable as the other 20 guys that showed up to do an easier 5% P2/3 run. Due to IRL schedules, not everyone can choose where they contribute.

    TW/TB gives the same rewards to everyone because trying to assign a metric to one's contribution creates friction. The guild officers can do that themselves and replace slackers with those hungry to contribute. We don't need CG doing it for us. But more to the point, everyone in the guild celebrates every TW win and new TB star because we achieved it together and share in the spoils together.

    Thank you for the clarification, I would disagree with the fairness of the distribution due to the top 10 limitation on the Sith raid, but agree with the overall assessment from the perspective of rewards when incorporating all the external factors.

    I have always wanted a different raid style and reward distribution, this is especially evident at the start of a raid when there is so much more coordination and group effort. This raid definitely has more elements to it than others, from the outside at this point.

    MaruMaru this is what we were talking about, which is why this question was in response to the conversation we were having.

    ga9g2jr8mivp.png

    By the way Kyno THIS is what a flat reward structure looks like. In case you were wondering

    Um... no it's not, but thanks.

    Oh I’d love to hear this one. Can you explain to me how that’s not a flat reward structure?

    Because if you want to call it flat it has to have 0 slope from one end to the other.

    If you want to call it flatter, then we agree.

    Lmao ok, so on your arguments flat is ok but when I say it we play semantics. Gotcha.

    Well then, the example I gave, shows zero friction. There’s a slight difference in rewards but not by much. I could take first every single time in that alliance if I wanted. However because others are building their rosters and need the extra rewards, I have no issues sitting back and letting them get the little extra stuff because it doesn’t hinder my progress really. There’s no friction.

    The raids in SWGOH do not even come close to that. The original rancor raid was the closest to frictionless we have. The original structure of HSTR where any rank could get full G12 pieces came close too but you know, CG did CG things and made it worse and terrible outside of rank 10. Also added in tank gear too even though we have plenty of tank gear from the tank raid.

    Bottom line, rewards are not even close to flat. CG has lots to fix in their game.
  • RTS wrote: »
    Jakdnels wrote: »
    I would think they would try to learn from past issues that that they introduced through new guild content which caused guilds to break up. I see a lot of posts that indicate that their guild is the primary reason people keep playing the game. Disrupting that seems counter intuitive to growth and game stability.

    Guilds broke up over Rancor raid, HAAT, and a lot of guilds broke up over HSTR when it was released.

    His point is that it happens regardless of what the content is, if it's challenging enough.

    Maybe they should try harder if their intent is to "reduce in-guild friction."


    Since the Challenge Tier is designed to require cooperation, we have opted for a flatter prizing structure to reduce some of the friction in-guild while still acknowledging degrees of participation and success
  • Kyno
    27450 posts Moderator
    Ravens1113 wrote: »
    Kyno wrote: »
    Ravens1113 wrote: »
    Kyno wrote: »
    Ravens1113 wrote: »
    Kyno wrote: »
    Kyno wrote: »
    Kyno wrote: »
    Kyno wrote: »
    Nikoms565 wrote: »
    Kyno wrote: »
    How are more linear and flatter the same thing?

    I didn't say they are the same thing, a flatter distribution has less deviation from the centerline or common plane when both things being compared are limited to the same scale (in our case 1-50), meaning a more even distribution across the scale vs say having a bump in the top 10.

    Except you just defined "linear" distribution, not "flat" (or "flatter"). "Flat" in regard to wages, prices, etc. is "the same in all cases, not varying with changed conditions or in particular cases." It's clear that CG once again simply used a vague word and their own definition. They said "flatter" but meant "more linear".

    flatter is statistical term used to mean a more even distribution. so it isn't vague or misleading, as it is the correct usage there.

    they didn't say flat, and if they had that would be wrong, as that would define it to the axis.

    flatter requires a comparison, and is therefore linked to another thing, e.g. - prizing structure for the sith raid

    Dude, come on. These are the exact words CG used in their Pit announcement.

    Since the Challenge Tier is designed to require cooperation, we have opted for a flatter prizing structure to reduce some of the friction in-guild while still acknowledging degrees of participation and success.

    You're telling us that they meant a more linear distribution rather than more equitable prizes? If so, and I think that's a colossal "if", that's just an absurdly poor choice of words. In fact, I find this so beyond unbelievable, that unless a CG official comes out and says it, I'll assume you are doing some top notch lawyer gymnastics to make what they said true.

    so you disagree with a "exponential" distribution outpacing a linear one? you believe the reward structure for the Sith raid is more equitable for the whole guild, over the CPit?

    I believe a more linear distribution (within the context of the rewards we see) is more equitable for everyone, isn't it?

    I am not saying I wouldn't' want it to be better, but to say they didn't deliver on a flatter reward structure than the previous example we have, doesn't seem to be accurate. Everyone needs something to call them out on, but in this case trying to say they are not flat , while true, isn't what they said.

    I provided a chart a few pages back demonstrating that the equity of the rewards is not dependent on the classification of the shape (linear, cubic, quadratic, exponential, logarithmic, sinusoidal, whatever). The equity of the rewards is what everyone is up in arms over.

    I will reword, if thats ok:

    do you feel that Sith raid rewards are more fairly distributed to the guild over the Cpit rewards?

    I think this is a much better question. I am going to add a couple qualifiers to your question:

    Do I feel that Sith raid rewards (shards, gear, guild currency, et) when it released were more/less fairly distributed than Cpit today (GET, GET2, Aeros, gear)?

    I feel like the Sith raid rewards were more fair, but I think both were/are terrible. This goes beyond the shape of the rewards distribution. Because of the coordination required for Cpit, we have guys that are forced to run certain teams in phases that yield less damage because P4 damage is more valuable than P1-3 damage. We have guys missing big damage runs because their schedule doesn't align with the majority of the guild's. We have a couple runs get lost due to app crashes while waiting to submit. We don't have a good feel for the gear distribution for Cpit yet (though it seems HIGHLY variable).

    I hate the stacking mechanic, but it definitely makes the Cpit a team effort. As such, the rewards should be reflective of that. The 20 guys that showed up on time to submit their 2-3% P4 runs are just as valuable as the other 20 guys that showed up to do an easier 5% P2/3 run. Due to IRL schedules, not everyone can choose where they contribute.

    TW/TB gives the same rewards to everyone because trying to assign a metric to one's contribution creates friction. The guild officers can do that themselves and replace slackers with those hungry to contribute. We don't need CG doing it for us. But more to the point, everyone in the guild celebrates every TW win and new TB star because we achieved it together and share in the spoils together.

    Thank you for the clarification, I would disagree with the fairness of the distribution due to the top 10 limitation on the Sith raid, but agree with the overall assessment from the perspective of rewards when incorporating all the external factors.

    I have always wanted a different raid style and reward distribution, this is especially evident at the start of a raid when there is so much more coordination and group effort. This raid definitely has more elements to it than others, from the outside at this point.

    MaruMaru this is what we were talking about, which is why this question was in response to the conversation we were having.

    ga9g2jr8mivp.png

    By the way Kyno THIS is what a flat reward structure looks like. In case you were wondering

    Um... no it's not, but thanks.

    Oh I’d love to hear this one. Can you explain to me how that’s not a flat reward structure?

    Because if you want to call it flat it has to have 0 slope from one end to the other.

    If you want to call it flatter, then we agree.

    Lmao ok, so on your arguments flat is ok but when I say it we play semantics. Gotcha.

    Well then, the example I gave, shows zero friction. There’s a slight difference in rewards but not by much. I could take first every single time in that alliance if I wanted. However because others are building their rosters and need the extra rewards, I have no issues sitting back and letting them get the little extra stuff because it doesn’t hinder my progress really. There’s no friction.

    The raids in SWGOH do not even come close to that. The original rancor raid was the closest to frictionless we have. The original structure of HSTR where any rank could get full G12 pieces came close too but you know, CG did CG things and made it worse and terrible outside of rank 10. Also added in tank gear too even though we have plenty of tank gear from the tank raid.

    Bottom line, rewards are not even close to flat. CG has lots to fix in their game.

    Please quote me where I said flat.

    No one said they were flat or close to flat, so I agree with your bottome line.
  • End game guilds with lots of their members having SLKRs and Reys can "easily" clear p1-p3 with about 4-10 members at each phase.

    Although, this is not really fun for a lot of people, given this is a mobile game, there are other key issues:

    1. Auto-posting without confirmation is very poor. People are forced to go to airplane mode and mistakes can much easier happen.
    2. P4 is a nightmare... Requires nearly the whole guild. Which MMO (and SWGOH is not really an MMO in the sense of WoW or SWTOR) requires 50 members to be online?

    My guess is p4 will be addressed down the line in a few months with some new GL and other toons, so a guild with them will not need 50 people online.

    Still, point (1) stands though and needs to be improved asap.
  • Sewpot
    1556 posts Member
    I think once people have r8 teams it won’t even require airplane mode. Will come down in minutes. Won’t require more then 10 members. And will probably have a hold instead like sith road does now. We have a 30 min hold for sith and pit is already coming down in 30+ min.
  • My raid was done over 2 days still
    We manage to get from P1 to P3 in 1 say (abt 3 hrs)

    P4 was on the 2nd day (1hr +++)

    In total the estimated spent time on this was abt 4 hrs. If my guild is not in the same time zone, we would have shattered by now.

    Bottom line - just fix the reward structure. Make players motivated to hit the raid and to coordinate. Also minimize the RNG for the rewards.
  • Kyno
    27450 posts Moderator
    Sewpot wrote: »
    I think once people have r8 teams it won’t even require airplane mode. Will come down in minutes. Won’t require more then 10 members. And will probably have a hold instead like sith road does now. We have a 30 min hold for sith and pit is already coming down in 30+ min.

    R8 will not prevent players from needing to start runs in the 100-80 range (maybe the 80-60 range for 1/2 or 1/3 the score you would get in the 100-80 range). A hold will not help that, you will still need to have a coordinated start and/or wait to post damage or make an airplane mode run.
  • Kyno wrote: »
    Sewpot wrote: »
    I think once people have r8 teams it won’t even require airplane mode. Will come down in minutes. Won’t require more then 10 members. And will probably have a hold instead like sith road does now. We have a 30 min hold for sith and pit is already coming down in 30+ min.

    R8 will not prevent players from needing to start runs in the 100-80 range (maybe the 80-60 range for 1/2 or 1/3 the score you would get in the 100-80 range). A hold will not help that, you will still need to have a coordinated start and/or wait to post damage or make an airplane mode run.

    Which is still a huge problem that the devs continue to ignore. But hey, they fixed the background music today!
  • So....are they finally going to fix this raid? Having to coordinate a game that has traditionally had no real-time strategy requirement has gotten old. Also, why is it that raids have different reward levels? TW and TB don’t, so why raids? Just make it the same reward structure as everything else done as a guild...dunno why this never crossed anyone’s mind.
  • Sewpot
    1556 posts Member
    madhader wrote: »
    So....are they finally going to fix this raid? Having to coordinate a game that has traditionally had no real-time strategy requirement has gotten old. Also, why is it that raids have different reward levels? TW and TB don’t, so why raids? Just make it the same reward structure as everything else done as a guild...dunno why this never crossed anyone’s mind.

    It gets that way once you can sim it. Until then people place in different ranks.
  • Sewpot wrote: »
    madhader wrote: »
    So....are they finally going to fix this raid? Having to coordinate a game that has traditionally had no real-time strategy requirement has gotten old. Also, why is it that raids have different reward levels? TW and TB don’t, so why raids? Just make it the same reward structure as everything else done as a guild...dunno why this never crossed anyone’s mind.

    It gets that way once you can sim it. Until then people place in different ranks.

    Missing the point as always
  • Kyno wrote: »
    Kyno wrote: »
    Kyno wrote: »
    Vendi1983 wrote: »
    The direct comparison is Traya shards to Relic 8 ability mats. Raid-exclusive items. Nothing else is directly comparable. Or matters that much in terms of "new content". Comparing RNG raid drops is irrelevant, especially when comparing them to the fixed raid-specific item that ALWAYS drops in those quantities.

    The top ten finishers in Challenge Rancor are able to take, on average, 9 toons to R8 in the time it takes the bottom ten to take one to R8.

    To further the comparison:

    Challenge Rancor - top ten averages 9.1 relic mats, bottom ten fixed at 1. Almost 10-1.

    Sith Raid - top ten averages 7.9 Traya shards, bottom ten fixed at 5. Not even 2-1.

    At the time of release they are raid exclusive (except for possible purchase, I dont directly recall). They retain the same value as a farmed resource over time. They offer development across your full roster. They will eventually be accessible in more locations for farming.

    Pick 2 that fall into the same categories above:
    Shards
    Gear
    Relic mats

    Now explain how relic mats and gear are not the similar items of a rewards bin?

    Uh, that's great and all, except the R8 mats and shards don't come from the rewards bin?? They're independent of the "reward crate", so I'd say they have more in common with each other than with the gear from those crates, since they're only dependent on your position in the raid and not any RNG.
    Kyno wrote: »
    Konju wrote: »
    Kyno: you have stated yourself that the relic mats are what you care about in the rewards. Is 11:1 ratio a flat ratio? No.

    All other gear is perhaps flatter, but it is difficult to compare as RNG affects what gear drops are awarded. Unless there is data shared on drop rates for these gear raid rewards (I could easily be ignorant on the existence of such data), then there is virtually no comparison to possibly be made for gear rewards.

    I don’t think anyone is cherry picking here, it’s just that the gear rewards drop at unknown levels and thus cannot be compared by the community to judge the flatness of drops through the various placements earned/available.

    we can agree to disagree here, but comparing gear to shards seems to be cherry picking.

    If anything, using the 50 gear drop from Sith raids as the standard for comparison because you might get it every once in a while is more cherry picking

    again, if thats the only point that matters, then sure you are right, but you seem to ignore any other comparison as far as usefulness and longevity.

    which is why I went away from using numbers and went with a more generalization. yes the 50 is not as accurate, but it certainly does raise the average that would be gained at that position.

    Aaaaaaand this is exactly why you can’t e generalizations like this. Obviously the average would rise, but by how much? A 95% drop rate for 25 pieces and a 5% drop rate for 50 pieces would average out to 26.25 pieces, while a 70/30 drop rate would average 32.5 pieces. Hardly an inconsequential difference. Do you know what the drop rates are? If not, how are you calculating how much the average rises by?

    And no I’m not ignoring other comparisons, you just haven’t presented any valid evidence to show how you’re making those comparisons without resorting to “feeling” or generalizing. Is it because you don’t have the data and can’t? Why did you ask us to make those comparisons then?

    Your discounting its value which is just as if not more effective to the rise than the drop rate. You do ignore it when you say that gear and relics are not relatable, but shards and relics are, just due to location in the reward structure. The bin of rewards for a player incorporates all the things at one position, not just the stuff in or out of the box.

    That's not what I said, so stop putting words in my mouth. I said that the relic mats and shards are more comparable because of their consistent drop rate as a function of position in the raid. I never said that relic mats and gear are not relatable.

    Sure you can critique my methods all you want, I fully admit that there are flaws. But I've been consistent from the start. I compared relic mats and shards because that's the only data we have. I've asked you so many times for the HSTR gear drop rates now, but again and again you ignore that point. Because we don't know what the drop rates are, so how are we supposed to compare something that we don't have all the data for?

    If you have some magic method of comparing that doesn't rely on generalizing and assuming the 50 piece as the regular drop for top 10 in HSTR, then go ahead and show us. Go and make that graph you asked us to make; surely you weren't asking the impossible :smile:

    You keep asking us to prove that the Rancor rewards aren't flatter, yet you put no effort into proving that they are.
  • StarSon
    4803 posts Member
    StarSon wrote: »
    Nikoms565 wrote: »
    RTS wrote: »
    Jakdnels wrote: »
    I would think they would try to learn from past issues that that they introduced through new guild content which caused guilds to break up. I see a lot of posts that indicate that their guild is the primary reason people keep playing the game. Disrupting that seems counter intuitive to growth and game stability.

    Guilds broke up over Rancor raid, HAAT, and a lot of guilds broke up over HSTR when it was released.

    His point is that it happens regardless of what the content is, if it's challenging enough.

    Rancor and HAAT predate TW/TB. As such, the guild community wasn't as tight as I would argue it is now. So I don't think that's a fair comparison.

    HSR broke guilds up because guilds decided whether they wanted to be more casual or more competitive.

    cPit is breaking guilds up because some folks have to pick up their kids or be at work or whatever IRL during the only windows where the rest of the guild is doing a coordinated push. That is unprecedented. That is why people are upset.

    This. People are quitting the game or leaving guilds not because of "challenge" but because of schedules. For most of those posting their frustrations, the "difficulty" of this raid has little to do with content and everything to do with coordination of 50 peoples' schedule. Not only is such a trash move by CG unprecedented, for a mobile game, it's simply ridiculous.

    And their continued silence on the matter only solidifies the fact that they are completely indifferent to us and our enjoyment of their game.

    Yet another day of nothing from CG on this. Continued indifference and ninja post deletion.
  • Iy4oy4s
    2063 posts Member
    StarSon wrote: »
    StarSon wrote: »
    Nikoms565 wrote: »
    RTS wrote: »
    Jakdnels wrote: »
    I would think they would try to learn from past issues that that they introduced through new guild content which caused guilds to break up. I see a lot of posts that indicate that their guild is the primary reason people keep playing the game. Disrupting that seems counter intuitive to growth and game stability.

    Guilds broke up over Rancor raid, HAAT, and a lot of guilds broke up over HSTR when it was released.

    His point is that it happens regardless of what the content is, if it's challenging enough.

    Rancor and HAAT predate TW/TB. As such, the guild community wasn't as tight as I would argue it is now. So I don't think that's a fair comparison.

    HSR broke guilds up because guilds decided whether they wanted to be more casual or more competitive.

    cPit is breaking guilds up because some folks have to pick up their kids or be at work or whatever IRL during the only windows where the rest of the guild is doing a coordinated push. That is unprecedented. That is why people are upset.

    This. People are quitting the game or leaving guilds not because of "challenge" but because of schedules. For most of those posting their frustrations, the "difficulty" of this raid has little to do with content and everything to do with coordination of 50 peoples' schedule. Not only is such a trash move by CG unprecedented, for a mobile game, it's simply ridiculous.

    And their continued silence on the matter only solidifies the fact that they are completely indifferent to us and our enjoyment of their game.

    Yet another day of nothing from CG on this. Continued indifference and ninja post deletion.

    Well, to be fair, they usually post during the later part of the day.....but I have a feeling that today will be just like every other day of silence....I would love to be wrong here...CG....prove me wrong please.
  • Still waiting for some kind of response. Is this ever getting changed? I really don’t understand the logic behind this mechanic. My guild that’s been around since launch is seriously really frustrated over this. We have members from all over the world we all can’t be on at the same time to do this. Very frustrating.
  • Cstone812 wrote: »
    Still waiting for some kind of response. Is this ever getting changed? I really don’t understand the logic behind this mechanic. My guild that’s been around since launch is seriously really frustrated over this. We have members from all over the world we all can’t be on at the same time to do this. Very frustrating.

    Yep, it is totally ridiculous they have taken this long to say nothing. They are completely ignorant of their player base.
  • Kyno
    27450 posts Moderator
    IronCross wrote: »
    Cstone812 wrote: »
    Still waiting for some kind of response. Is this ever getting changed? I really don’t understand the logic behind this mechanic. My guild that’s been around since launch is seriously really frustrated over this. We have members from all over the world we all can’t be on at the same time to do this. Very frustrating.

    Yep, it is totally ridiculous they have taken this long to say nothing. They are completely ignorant of their player base.

    They have commented, it was too corporate and therefore dismissed.

    Unfortunately them discussing things doesnt always mean they can say anything until they have a more firm answer or idea of an answer.
  • Kyno wrote: »
    IronCross wrote: »
    Cstone812 wrote: »
    Still waiting for some kind of response. Is this ever getting changed? I really don’t understand the logic behind this mechanic. My guild that’s been around since launch is seriously really frustrated over this. We have members from all over the world we all can’t be on at the same time to do this. Very frustrating.

    Yep, it is totally ridiculous they have taken this long to say nothing. They are completely ignorant of their player base.

    They have commented, it was too corporate and therefore dismissed.

    Unfortunately them discussing things doesnt always mean they can say anything until they have a more firm answer or idea of an answer.

    They commented on the difficulty, not the coordination required and specifically the 20% threshold mechanic. There's a huge difference, as many people have continued to note throughout the entire thread just to continue to be ignored.
  • Kyno
    27450 posts Moderator
    Kyno wrote: »
    IronCross wrote: »
    Cstone812 wrote: »
    Still waiting for some kind of response. Is this ever getting changed? I really don’t understand the logic behind this mechanic. My guild that’s been around since launch is seriously really frustrated over this. We have members from all over the world we all can’t be on at the same time to do this. Very frustrating.

    Yep, it is totally ridiculous they have taken this long to say nothing. They are completely ignorant of their player base.

    They have commented, it was too corporate and therefore dismissed.

    Unfortunately them discussing things doesnt always mean they can say anything until they have a more firm answer or idea of an answer.

    They commented on the difficulty, not the coordination required and specifically the 20% threshold mechanic. There's a huge difference, as many people have continued to note throughout the entire thread just to continue to be ignored.

    I was commenting on being completely ignorant of the community, which by acknowledging the community, is not accurate.

    Also there is this comment also:
    I understand tagging me in your posts on this thread, but trust I'm keeping an eye on it already. I will do my part to report community sentiment to the devs.

    Which if those are the community sentiment, they are being brought up by him, and me, but I dont count so dont worry about that.

    Not ignored, but we dont need to argue about that. They may not be able to comment on discussions going on until they have anything more firm to go on.
Sign In or Register to comment.