Things dont always change at the pace the players would like, but they are listening and looking at what's going on. It's just never as simple or straightforward as the player base thinks it is.
Again, how do you know this? As far as I'm aware, the only thing they've said about the raid since it's release is that corporate statement Doja posted that said a whole lot of nothing while completely ignoring any of the feedback around the level of coordination required.
I'm willing to give them the benefit of the doubt that a hypothetical change would take time. It's the complete lack of acknowledgement combined with a history of CG only caring about "player engagement" and not player experience that frustrates me.
Remember back when relics were released, and there was an overwhelmingly negative response? But apparently, according to CG, it was all good because we were engaging with relics after they were released. Well obviously we needed to engage with relics, otherwise we'd fall behind everyone else! So I'm fully expecting that nothing will change with this raid because people will continue to "engage" with it to get relic 8 materials and avoid falling behind, and that's good enough for the devs.
Most of my comments on topics like this are a culmination of posts here, conversations with them, and history of what has happened in game.
They will always take time to look at and discuss where things are in soft issues, and that will take more time than hard issues like bugs ( Nikoms565 ). Yes things do not always change, but that doesnt mean it cant and ot doesnt mean they are not weighing things like player experience and feedback when they are discussing points.
Please let us know when it's not a culmination of things, but rather pertains to your conversations with them AND regarding the specific topic at hand. Believe me, you make this rarely clear which confuses many even more.
That's not really the way this works, I cannot really say they told me X. When I talk it is always going to be a culmination of those things, as that is the only way I can represent the knowledge I may have or the feelings I get from conversations with them. Sorry for your confusion.
I didn't ask for directly quoting what they told you. What I'm saying is your opinion and deduction vs. what you actually know gets mixed. If you can seperate what you factually know (they are doing x) and what you think that might result in or why that is (we might expect y out of this) that would be helpful. What's your personal deduction is not clear most of the times and causes an authority where it doesn't exist, it's even misleading at times. You can even allude to something that you know exactly, but can't tell, this is worlds apart from a hinge you have what they might be do as a result of your conversations.
i.e. right now I have no idea through your words if they are actively monitoring something(what?) about this raid which might cause an action.
Maybe you can send me a direct message about what is misleading you in your example.
Because in my mind what you are saying it you want me to tell you exactly what they are doing:
If you can seperate what you factually know (they are doing x)
Which I cant really do, for NDA, or IDK reasons (I may know "things" are coming or changing, but not know exactly what those "things" are or have details on the final outcome).
And not to talk like this:
what you think that might result in or why that is (we might expect y out of this)
Which is the only real way I feel ok representing things, because there may be details that I do know or have figured out that I cannot share and this allows me to plant seeds without directly stating anything.
If this is your issue, we may be at an impasse on that point.
I am unclear where you see an authority, and it doesnt exist, as I said maybe you can message me about this, and where I am being misleading.
I am pretty sure in my words I have said they are monitoring things around the raid, which makes me wonder why "if" is a question. As for "what", if you have feedback, please provide it.
You keep saying guilds break up every time guild content is released. Do you think that is CGs intention or that it's good for the game?
No this is not a direct intention, but they are aware it is going to happen.
It will happen regardless of whether it is good for the game or not, so while I cannot speak to their thoughts on that directly. I would assume they dont try to directly control things they cannot control.
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 break up because players will always want to min/max content. There are also several other examples of why players move out of a guild when something desirable comes around. There is no way to truly stop or predict this, that is not to say they do not try to minimize it, but you cannot stop it.
Things dont always change at the pace the players would like, but they are listening and looking at what's going on. It's just never as simple or straightforward as the player base thinks it is.
Again, how do you know this? As far as I'm aware, the only thing they've said about the raid since it's release is that corporate statement Doja posted that said a whole lot of nothing while completely ignoring any of the feedback around the level of coordination required.
I'm willing to give them the benefit of the doubt that a hypothetical change would take time. It's the complete lack of acknowledgement combined with a history of CG only caring about "player engagement" and not player experience that frustrates me.
Remember back when relics were released, and there was an overwhelmingly negative response? But apparently, according to CG, it was all good because we were engaging with relics after they were released. Well obviously we needed to engage with relics, otherwise we'd fall behind everyone else! So I'm fully expecting that nothing will change with this raid because people will continue to "engage" with it to get relic 8 materials and avoid falling behind, and that's good enough for the devs.
Most of my comments on topics like this are a culmination of posts here, conversations with them, and history of what has happened in game.
They will always take time to look at and discuss where things are in soft issues, and that will take more time than hard issues like bugs ( Nikoms565 ). Yes things do not always change, but that doesnt mean it cant and ot doesnt mean they are not weighing things like player experience and feedback when they are discussing points.
Please let us know when it's not a culmination of things, but rather pertains to your conversations with them AND regarding the specific topic at hand. Believe me, you make this rarely clear which confuses many even more.
That's not really the way this works, I cannot really say they told me X. When I talk it is always going to be a culmination of those things, as that is the only way I can represent the knowledge I may have or the feelings I get from conversations with them. Sorry for your confusion.
I didn't ask for directly quoting what they told you. What I'm saying is your opinion and deduction vs. what you actually know gets mixed. If you can seperate what you factually know (they are doing x) and what you think that might result in or why that is (we might expect y out of this) that would be helpful. What's your personal deduction is not clear most of the times and causes an authority where it doesn't exist, it's even misleading at times. You can even allude to something that you know exactly, but can't tell, this is worlds apart from a hinge you have what they might be do as a result of your conversations.
i.e. right now I have no idea through your words if they are actively monitoring something(what?) about this raid which might cause an action.
Maybe you can send me a direct message about what is misleading you in your example.
Because in my mind what you are saying it you want me to tell you exactly what they are doing:
If you can seperate what you factually know (they are doing x)
Which I cant really do, for NDA, or IDK reasons (I may know "things" are coming or changing, but not know exactly what those "things" are or have details on the final outcome).
And not to talk like this:
what you think that might result in or why that is (we might expect y out of this)
Which is the only real way I feel ok representing things, because there may be details that I do know or have figured out that I cannot share and this allows me to plant seeds without directly stating anything.
If this is your issue, we may be at an impasse on that point.
I am unclear where you see an authority, and it doesnt exist, as I said maybe you can message me about this, and where I am being misleading.
I am pretty sure in my words I have said they are monitoring things around the raid, which makes me wonder why "if" is a question. As for "what", if you have feedback, please provide it.
You keep saying guilds break up every time guild content is released. Do you think that is CGs intention or that it's good for the game?
No this is not a direct intention, but they are aware it is going to happen.
It will happen regardless of whether it is good for the game or not, so while I cannot speak to their thoughts on that directly. I would assume they dont try to directly control things they cannot control.
Wait so just because it will happen regardless, they won't do anything to try to make it happen less often? Or try to make mechanics that don't actively encourage the breaking up of guilds? Saying that they can't control it is a load of nonsense, if they didn't create this "damage ramping up every 20%" mechanic then there wouldn't be all these coordination issues that are making guilds break up. Would guilds still break up for other reasons? Maybe. But this mechanic is directly contributing to the problem.
I never said they dont try to minimize it, just that they do not try to directly control it, as its going to happen no matter what they put in place.
You are answering your own example, will guilds break up due to new guild content is not a maybe, it would happen, we have seen this, even when its achievable by the guild.
Is this a reason, yes, no one is arguing that, but we cant pretend that if this wasnt there or even done differently that some segments of guilds would break up or lose players.
This is not to say they are not looking at this factor and others when they discuss player experience.
Things dont always change at the pace the players would like, but they are listening and looking at what's going on. It's just never as simple or straightforward as the player base thinks it is.
Again, how do you know this? As far as I'm aware, the only thing they've said about the raid since it's release is that corporate statement Doja posted that said a whole lot of nothing while completely ignoring any of the feedback around the level of coordination required.
I'm willing to give them the benefit of the doubt that a hypothetical change would take time. It's the complete lack of acknowledgement combined with a history of CG only caring about "player engagement" and not player experience that frustrates me.
Remember back when relics were released, and there was an overwhelmingly negative response? But apparently, according to CG, it was all good because we were engaging with relics after they were released. Well obviously we needed to engage with relics, otherwise we'd fall behind everyone else! So I'm fully expecting that nothing will change with this raid because people will continue to "engage" with it to get relic 8 materials and avoid falling behind, and that's good enough for the devs.
Most of my comments on topics like this are a culmination of posts here, conversations with them, and history of what has happened in game.
They will always take time to look at and discuss where things are in soft issues, and that will take more time than hard issues like bugs ( Nikoms565 ). Yes things do not always change, but that doesnt mean it cant and ot doesnt mean they are not weighing things like player experience and feedback when they are discussing points.
Please let us know when it's not a culmination of things, but rather pertains to your conversations with them AND regarding the specific topic at hand. Believe me, you make this rarely clear which confuses many even more.
That's not really the way this works, I cannot really say they told me X. When I talk it is always going to be a culmination of those things, as that is the only way I can represent the knowledge I may have or the feelings I get from conversations with them. Sorry for your confusion.
I didn't ask for directly quoting what they told you. What I'm saying is your opinion and deduction vs. what you actually know gets mixed. If you can seperate what you factually know (they are doing x) and what you think that might result in or why that is (we might expect y out of this) that would be helpful. What's your personal deduction is not clear most of the times and causes an authority where it doesn't exist, it's even misleading at times. You can even allude to something that you know exactly, but can't tell, this is worlds apart from a hinge you have what they might be do as a result of your conversations.
i.e. right now I have no idea through your words if they are actively monitoring something(what?) about this raid which might cause an action.
Maybe you can send me a direct message about what is misleading you in your example.
Because in my mind what you are saying it you want me to tell you exactly what they are doing:
If you can seperate what you factually know (they are doing x)
Which I cant really do, for NDA, or IDK reasons (I may know "things" are coming or changing, but not know exactly what those "things" are or have details on the final outcome).
And not to talk like this:
what you think that might result in or why that is (we might expect y out of this)
Which is the only real way I feel ok representing things, because there may be details that I do know or have figured out that I cannot share and this allows me to plant seeds without directly stating anything.
If this is your issue, we may be at an impasse on that point.
I am unclear where you see an authority, and it doesnt exist, as I said maybe you can message me about this, and where I am being misleading.
I am pretty sure in my words I have said they are monitoring things around the raid, which makes me wonder why "if" is a question. As for "what", if you have feedback, please provide it.
You keep saying guilds break up every time guild content is released. Do you think that is CGs intention or that it's good for the game?
No this is not a direct intention, but they are aware it is going to happen.
It will happen regardless of whether it is good for the game or not, so while I cannot speak to their thoughts on that directly. I would assume they dont try to directly control things they cannot control.
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 break up because players will always want to min/max content. There are also several other examples of why players move out of a guild when something desirable comes around. There is no way to truly stop or predict this, that is not to say they do not try to minimize it, but you cannot stop it.
We're losing people in our guild to this. But they aren't going to other guilds. They are quitting the game over this. Is that also intended?
Things that have been given feedback on with no results
Ticket system
LSGTB difficulty
Gear crunch
communication
lack of content
stacking mechanic
fleet squads
"not all toons will need to be relic'd"
sandbox
Mace rework
Officer Tools
removing a placed team in GAC and replacing it
unendly loyalty bug
Q&A's anyone?
matchmaking
cheating
new tiers in daily challenges
GW reboot
Things that have been given feedback with results
Relic'd feat removed from GC's (only to be replaced with paywalled toon feat)
Cant really think of anything else.
But sure, CG loves feedback...
CG does not care about the player base in the slightest. Sometimes I wonder why they don't just shut these forums down entirely as they did the Q&A's. Would save them the headache of having to ignore it for the most part. Just release information through third party websites....they are good at that.
The bottom line is the Stacking mechanic is not going to change, we either have to deal with it or ignore the Cpit entirely. Just look to the LSGTB for your answer.
Wonder if these is a test for a future ship raid concept?
If they want me to go play Marvel Strike Force instead it is.
In game name: Lucas Gregory FORMER PLAYER - - - -"Whale blah grump poooop." - Ouchie
In game guild: TNR Uprising I beat the REAL T7 Yoda (not the nerfed one) and did so before mods were there to help
*This space left intentionally blank*
Things dont always change at the pace the players would like, but they are listening and looking at what's going on. It's just never as simple or straightforward as the player base thinks it is.
Again, how do you know this? As far as I'm aware, the only thing they've said about the raid since it's release is that corporate statement Doja posted that said a whole lot of nothing while completely ignoring any of the feedback around the level of coordination required.
I'm willing to give them the benefit of the doubt that a hypothetical change would take time. It's the complete lack of acknowledgement combined with a history of CG only caring about "player engagement" and not player experience that frustrates me.
Remember back when relics were released, and there was an overwhelmingly negative response? But apparently, according to CG, it was all good because we were engaging with relics after they were released. Well obviously we needed to engage with relics, otherwise we'd fall behind everyone else! So I'm fully expecting that nothing will change with this raid because people will continue to "engage" with it to get relic 8 materials and avoid falling behind, and that's good enough for the devs.
Most of my comments on topics like this are a culmination of posts here, conversations with them, and history of what has happened in game.
They will always take time to look at and discuss where things are in soft issues, and that will take more time than hard issues like bugs ( Nikoms565 ). Yes things do not always change, but that doesnt mean it cant and ot doesnt mean they are not weighing things like player experience and feedback when they are discussing points.
Please let us know when it's not a culmination of things, but rather pertains to your conversations with them AND regarding the specific topic at hand. Believe me, you make this rarely clear which confuses many even more.
That's not really the way this works, I cannot really say they told me X. When I talk it is always going to be a culmination of those things, as that is the only way I can represent the knowledge I may have or the feelings I get from conversations with them. Sorry for your confusion.
I didn't ask for directly quoting what they told you. What I'm saying is your opinion and deduction vs. what you actually know gets mixed. If you can seperate what you factually know (they are doing x) and what you think that might result in or why that is (we might expect y out of this) that would be helpful. What's your personal deduction is not clear most of the times and causes an authority where it doesn't exist, it's even misleading at times. You can even allude to something that you know exactly, but can't tell, this is worlds apart from a hinge you have what they might be do as a result of your conversations.
i.e. right now I have no idea through your words if they are actively monitoring something(what?) about this raid which might cause an action.
Maybe you can send me a direct message about what is misleading you in your example.
Because in my mind what you are saying it you want me to tell you exactly what they are doing:
If you can seperate what you factually know (they are doing x)
Which I cant really do, for NDA, or IDK reasons (I may know "things" are coming or changing, but not know exactly what those "things" are or have details on the final outcome).
And not to talk like this:
what you think that might result in or why that is (we might expect y out of this)
Which is the only real way I feel ok representing things, because there may be details that I do know or have figured out that I cannot share and this allows me to plant seeds without directly stating anything.
If this is your issue, we may be at an impasse on that point.
I am unclear where you see an authority, and it doesnt exist, as I said maybe you can message me about this, and where I am being misleading.
I am pretty sure in my words I have said they are monitoring things around the raid, which makes me wonder why "if" is a question. As for "what", if you have feedback, please provide it.
You keep saying guilds break up every time guild content is released. Do you think that is CGs intention or that it's good for the game?
No this is not a direct intention, but they are aware it is going to happen.
It will happen regardless of whether it is good for the game or not, so while I cannot speak to their thoughts on that directly. I would assume they dont try to directly control things they cannot control.
Wait so just because it will happen regardless, they won't do anything to try to make it happen less often? Or try to make mechanics that don't actively encourage the breaking up of guilds? Saying that they can't control it is a load of nonsense, if they didn't create this "damage ramping up every 20%" mechanic then there wouldn't be all these coordination issues that are making guilds break up. Would guilds still break up for other reasons? Maybe. But this mechanic is directly contributing to the problem.
This is not to say they are not looking at this factor and others when they discuss player experience.
You keep saying this, but they have not given any indication that they are doing this.
Sure they said that they wanted to flatten the rewards in the Challenge Rancor to reduce in-guild friction, but just saying it doesn't make it so, and looking at the reward breakdown as well as the amount of coordination required makes it look like that they didn't mean it.
Things dont always change at the pace the players would like, but they are listening and looking at what's going on. It's just never as simple or straightforward as the player base thinks it is.
Again, how do you know this? As far as I'm aware, the only thing they've said about the raid since it's release is that corporate statement Doja posted that said a whole lot of nothing while completely ignoring any of the feedback around the level of coordination required.
I'm willing to give them the benefit of the doubt that a hypothetical change would take time. It's the complete lack of acknowledgement combined with a history of CG only caring about "player engagement" and not player experience that frustrates me.
Remember back when relics were released, and there was an overwhelmingly negative response? But apparently, according to CG, it was all good because we were engaging with relics after they were released. Well obviously we needed to engage with relics, otherwise we'd fall behind everyone else! So I'm fully expecting that nothing will change with this raid because people will continue to "engage" with it to get relic 8 materials and avoid falling behind, and that's good enough for the devs.
Most of my comments on topics like this are a culmination of posts here, conversations with them, and history of what has happened in game.
They will always take time to look at and discuss where things are in soft issues, and that will take more time than hard issues like bugs ( Nikoms565 ). Yes things do not always change, but that doesnt mean it cant and ot doesnt mean they are not weighing things like player experience and feedback when they are discussing points.
Please let us know when it's not a culmination of things, but rather pertains to your conversations with them AND regarding the specific topic at hand. Believe me, you make this rarely clear which confuses many even more.
That's not really the way this works, I cannot really say they told me X. When I talk it is always going to be a culmination of those things, as that is the only way I can represent the knowledge I may have or the feelings I get from conversations with them. Sorry for your confusion.
I didn't ask for directly quoting what they told you. What I'm saying is your opinion and deduction vs. what you actually know gets mixed. If you can seperate what you factually know (they are doing x) and what you think that might result in or why that is (we might expect y out of this) that would be helpful. What's your personal deduction is not clear most of the times and causes an authority where it doesn't exist, it's even misleading at times. You can even allude to something that you know exactly, but can't tell, this is worlds apart from a hinge you have what they might be do as a result of your conversations.
i.e. right now I have no idea through your words if they are actively monitoring something(what?) about this raid which might cause an action.
Maybe you can send me a direct message about what is misleading you in your example.
Because in my mind what you are saying it you want me to tell you exactly what they are doing:
If you can seperate what you factually know (they are doing x)
Which I cant really do, for NDA, or IDK reasons (I may know "things" are coming or changing, but not know exactly what those "things" are or have details on the final outcome).
And not to talk like this:
what you think that might result in or why that is (we might expect y out of this)
Which is the only real way I feel ok representing things, because there may be details that I do know or have figured out that I cannot share and this allows me to plant seeds without directly stating anything.
If this is your issue, we may be at an impasse on that point.
I am unclear where you see an authority, and it doesnt exist, as I said maybe you can message me about this, and where I am being misleading.
I am pretty sure in my words I have said they are monitoring things around the raid, which makes me wonder why "if" is a question. As for "what", if you have feedback, please provide it.
You keep saying guilds break up every time guild content is released. Do you think that is CGs intention or that it's good for the game?
No this is not a direct intention, but they are aware it is going to happen.
It will happen regardless of whether it is good for the game or not, so while I cannot speak to their thoughts on that directly. I would assume they dont try to directly control things they cannot control.
Wait so just because it will happen regardless, they won't do anything to try to make it happen less often? Or try to make mechanics that don't actively encourage the breaking up of guilds? Saying that they can't control it is a load of nonsense, if they didn't create this "damage ramping up every 20%" mechanic then there wouldn't be all these coordination issues that are making guilds break up. Would guilds still break up for other reasons? Maybe. But this mechanic is directly contributing to the problem.
This is not to say they are not looking at this factor and others when they discuss player experience.
You keep saying this, but they have not given any indication that they are doing this.
Sure they said that they wanted to flatten the rewards in the Challenge Rancor to reduce in-guild friction, but just saying it doesn't make it so, and looking at the reward breakdown as well as the amount of coordination required makes it look like that they didn't mean it.
I understand you may not believe it, but they cant change that.
Can you share an example of a breakdown that shows them to not be flatter? What are you comparing them to, and how are you comparing them?
Things dont always change at the pace the players would like, but they are listening and looking at what's going on. It's just never as simple or straightforward as the player base thinks it is.
Again, how do you know this? As far as I'm aware, the only thing they've said about the raid since it's release is that corporate statement Doja posted that said a whole lot of nothing while completely ignoring any of the feedback around the level of coordination required.
I'm willing to give them the benefit of the doubt that a hypothetical change would take time. It's the complete lack of acknowledgement combined with a history of CG only caring about "player engagement" and not player experience that frustrates me.
Remember back when relics were released, and there was an overwhelmingly negative response? But apparently, according to CG, it was all good because we were engaging with relics after they were released. Well obviously we needed to engage with relics, otherwise we'd fall behind everyone else! So I'm fully expecting that nothing will change with this raid because people will continue to "engage" with it to get relic 8 materials and avoid falling behind, and that's good enough for the devs.
Most of my comments on topics like this are a culmination of posts here, conversations with them, and history of what has happened in game.
They will always take time to look at and discuss where things are in soft issues, and that will take more time than hard issues like bugs ( Nikoms565 ). Yes things do not always change, but that doesnt mean it cant and ot doesnt mean they are not weighing things like player experience and feedback when they are discussing points.
Please let us know when it's not a culmination of things, but rather pertains to your conversations with them AND regarding the specific topic at hand. Believe me, you make this rarely clear which confuses many even more.
That's not really the way this works, I cannot really say they told me X. When I talk it is always going to be a culmination of those things, as that is the only way I can represent the knowledge I may have or the feelings I get from conversations with them. Sorry for your confusion.
I didn't ask for directly quoting what they told you. What I'm saying is your opinion and deduction vs. what you actually know gets mixed. If you can seperate what you factually know (they are doing x) and what you think that might result in or why that is (we might expect y out of this) that would be helpful. What's your personal deduction is not clear most of the times and causes an authority where it doesn't exist, it's even misleading at times. You can even allude to something that you know exactly, but can't tell, this is worlds apart from a hinge you have what they might be do as a result of your conversations.
i.e. right now I have no idea through your words if they are actively monitoring something(what?) about this raid which might cause an action.
Maybe you can send me a direct message about what is misleading you in your example.
Because in my mind what you are saying it you want me to tell you exactly what they are doing:
If you can seperate what you factually know (they are doing x)
Which I cant really do, for NDA, or IDK reasons (I may know "things" are coming or changing, but not know exactly what those "things" are or have details on the final outcome).
And not to talk like this:
what you think that might result in or why that is (we might expect y out of this)
Which is the only real way I feel ok representing things, because there may be details that I do know or have figured out that I cannot share and this allows me to plant seeds without directly stating anything.
If this is your issue, we may be at an impasse on that point.
I am unclear where you see an authority, and it doesnt exist, as I said maybe you can message me about this, and where I am being misleading.
I am pretty sure in my words I have said they are monitoring things around the raid, which makes me wonder why "if" is a question. As for "what", if you have feedback, please provide it.
You keep saying guilds break up every time guild content is released. Do you think that is CGs intention or that it's good for the game?
No this is not a direct intention, but they are aware it is going to happen.
It will happen regardless of whether it is good for the game or not, so while I cannot speak to their thoughts on that directly. I would assume they dont try to directly control things they cannot control.
Wait so just because it will happen regardless, they won't do anything to try to make it happen less often? Or try to make mechanics that don't actively encourage the breaking up of guilds? Saying that they can't control it is a load of nonsense, if they didn't create this "damage ramping up every 20%" mechanic then there wouldn't be all these coordination issues that are making guilds break up. Would guilds still break up for other reasons? Maybe. But this mechanic is directly contributing to the problem.
This is not to say they are not looking at this factor and others when they discuss player experience.
You keep saying this, but they have not given any indication that they are doing this.
Sure they said that they wanted to flatten the rewards in the Challenge Rancor to reduce in-guild friction, but just saying it doesn't make it so, and looking at the reward breakdown as well as the amount of coordination required makes it look like that they didn't mean it.
I understand you may not believe it, but they cant change that.
Can you share an example of a breakdown that shows them to not be flatter? What are you comparing them to, and how are you comparing them?
Surely the community managers are capable of putting out a statement that doesn't ignore the main concerns we've been expressing.
And hey, remember when you asked us to graph the rewards from the Challenge Rancor and Sith raid to compare which one is flatter, and I asked you to give us the data necessary to make said graph, only to be ignored?
Unless you can give us the percentage chances of getting each gear piece in each loot box, we can only compare the non-RNG parts of the rewards, which are the R8 materials from Rancor and the Traya shards from HSTR, and looking at the rewards breakdowns for the two is pretty self-explanatory which one is flatter
Forcing this level of coordination commitment from guilds in order to complete this raid... is, IMO, not what suits this game or games like it.
This. And the part of this that won't show up in CG's "data" - the number of people in my guild and arena shard chat that have new names and new payout times. If I had 5 crystals for everytime I've welcomed a new player to the guild/shard chat in the last couple of weeks, I'd have a vault.
But CG sees a name change or a payout change - not an account "transfer".
In game name: Lucas Gregory FORMER PLAYER - - - -"Whale blah grump poooop." - Ouchie
In game guild: TNR Uprising I beat the REAL T7 Yoda (not the nerfed one) and did so before mods were there to help
*This space left intentionally blank*
If they can't get ALL the data to monitor the situation, HALF of the data they can gather is completely useless. It means completely nothing. WHOLE ZERO.
They can get 80% of the data, and this will still mean COMPLETELY ZERO about the raid.
Moreover it can mean something completely different. It can mean that everyone is enjoying the raid, while the truth is completely opposite.
Measuring half of the parameters is like measuring nothing.
?? First, what data are they not gathering?
And I think 80% of any data set is still 80% of the data, not 0.
Things like this have many aspects and some are hard and others are soft data points. They can more easily set and look at hard data, as it is part of the game and can be collected, and planned for.
Soft feedback takes a different path and may take longer to collect and categorize to make any analysis and comparisons.
Things dont always change at the pace the players would like, but they are listening and looking at what's going on. It's just never as simple or straightforward as the player base thinks it is.
Again, how do you know this? As far as I'm aware, the only thing they've said about the raid since it's release is that corporate statement Doja posted that said a whole lot of nothing while completely ignoring any of the feedback around the level of coordination required.
I'm willing to give them the benefit of the doubt that a hypothetical change would take time. It's the complete lack of acknowledgement combined with a history of CG only caring about "player engagement" and not player experience that frustrates me.
Remember back when relics were released, and there was an overwhelmingly negative response? But apparently, according to CG, it was all good because we were engaging with relics after they were released. Well obviously we needed to engage with relics, otherwise we'd fall behind everyone else! So I'm fully expecting that nothing will change with this raid because people will continue to "engage" with it to get relic 8 materials and avoid falling behind, and that's good enough for the devs.
Most of my comments on topics like this are a culmination of posts here, conversations with them, and history of what has happened in game.
They will always take time to look at and discuss where things are in soft issues, and that will take more time than hard issues like bugs ( Nikoms565 ). Yes things do not always change, but that doesnt mean it cant and ot doesnt mean they are not weighing things like player experience and feedback when they are discussing points.
Please let us know when it's not a culmination of things, but rather pertains to your conversations with them AND regarding the specific topic at hand. Believe me, you make this rarely clear which confuses many even more.
That's not really the way this works, I cannot really say they told me X. When I talk it is always going to be a culmination of those things, as that is the only way I can represent the knowledge I may have or the feelings I get from conversations with them. Sorry for your confusion.
I didn't ask for directly quoting what they told you. What I'm saying is your opinion and deduction vs. what you actually know gets mixed. If you can seperate what you factually know (they are doing x) and what you think that might result in or why that is (we might expect y out of this) that would be helpful. What's your personal deduction is not clear most of the times and causes an authority where it doesn't exist, it's even misleading at times. You can even allude to something that you know exactly, but can't tell, this is worlds apart from a hinge you have what they might be do as a result of your conversations.
i.e. right now I have no idea through your words if they are actively monitoring something(what?) about this raid which might cause an action.
Maybe you can send me a direct message about what is misleading you in your example.
Because in my mind what you are saying it you want me to tell you exactly what they are doing:
If you can seperate what you factually know (they are doing x)
Which I cant really do, for NDA, or IDK reasons (I may know "things" are coming or changing, but not know exactly what those "things" are or have details on the final outcome).
And not to talk like this:
what you think that might result in or why that is (we might expect y out of this)
Which is the only real way I feel ok representing things, because there may be details that I do know or have figured out that I cannot share and this allows me to plant seeds without directly stating anything.
If this is your issue, we may be at an impasse on that point.
I am unclear where you see an authority, and it doesnt exist, as I said maybe you can message me about this, and where I am being misleading.
I am pretty sure in my words I have said they are monitoring things around the raid, which makes me wonder why "if" is a question. As for "what", if you have feedback, please provide it.
You keep saying guilds break up every time guild content is released. Do you think that is CGs intention or that it's good for the game?
No this is not a direct intention, but they are aware it is going to happen.
It will happen regardless of whether it is good for the game or not, so while I cannot speak to their thoughts on that directly. I would assume they dont try to directly control things they cannot control.
Wait so just because it will happen regardless, they won't do anything to try to make it happen less often? Or try to make mechanics that don't actively encourage the breaking up of guilds? Saying that they can't control it is a load of nonsense, if they didn't create this "damage ramping up every 20%" mechanic then there wouldn't be all these coordination issues that are making guilds break up. Would guilds still break up for other reasons? Maybe. But this mechanic is directly contributing to the problem.
This is not to say they are not looking at this factor and others when they discuss player experience.
You keep saying this, but they have not given any indication that they are doing this.
Sure they said that they wanted to flatten the rewards in the Challenge Rancor to reduce in-guild friction, but just saying it doesn't make it so, and looking at the reward breakdown as well as the amount of coordination required makes it look like that they didn't mean it.
I understand you may not believe it, but they cant change that.
Can you share an example of a breakdown that shows them to not be flatter? What are you comparing them to, and how are you comparing them?
Surely the community managers are capable of putting out a statement that doesn't ignore the main concerns we've been expressing.
And hey, remember when you asked us to graph the rewards from the Challenge Rancor and Sith raid to compare which one is flatter, and I asked you to give us the data necessary to make said graph, only to be ignored?
Unless you can give us the percentage chances of getting each gear piece in each loot box, we can only compare the non-RNG parts of the rewards, which are the R8 materials from Rancor and the Traya shards from HSTR, and looking at the rewards breakdowns for the two is pretty self-explanatory which one is flatter
And I am assuming you ignored my later statement that, if you look at the rewards in this fashion then it is inherently flatter, as the rancor rewards are linear, while the distribution for those other Sith rewards are based on a distribution curve.
Data : a multi-national guild of almost 300m gp (294) that just faced Mighty Chloreans 2 in TW just finished going 1/5 in ReRancor.
Honestly if this is how CG wants this raid to work - and this game moving forward, it's been fun while it lasted.
Post edited by Nikoms565 on
In game name: Lucas Gregory FORMER PLAYER - - - -"Whale blah grump poooop." - Ouchie
In game guild: TNR Uprising I beat the REAL T7 Yoda (not the nerfed one) and did so before mods were there to help
*This space left intentionally blank*
I understand you may not believe it, but they cant change that.
They could have made a post any day last week. In this post, they could acknowledge the issues folks have brought up. Say whether they expected the issue. And then whether they like/approve of the status quo.
I understand you may not believe it, but they cant change that.
They could have made a post any day last week. In this post, they could acknowledge the issues folks have brought up. Say whether they expected the issue. And then whether they like/approve of the status quo.
Fair point in the first line, they could have.
The second one is harder without defining the issue to compare it to what was expected. I mean coordination was expected, but saying that doesnt count according to some comment about math classes.
Again not as quick of an answer without "knowing" what the status quo is right now. Defining that can take a little more effort and time.
Is there another source of feedback full of praise for the stacking damage mechanic? Granted, angry/upset people are the loudest. But unless something is bad enough to get guilds to forego the raid altogether or for people to quit en masse, I don't understand how they can determine player sentiment from raw data.
All this presupposes that player sentiment is a contributing factor to decision making. They could just see daily logins and revenue unaffected and decide that those complaining are too small a faction to cater to. I think that would be shortsighted, but I don't run mobile games for a living.
For those who remembers the initial release of hstr. It was back breaking for guilds without enough jtr, it caused lots of reformations just like the 2 raids coming before it. But for guilds with enough jtrs it was meaningful gameplay challenge. You may have went in a few times until you meet the damage quota required from you so things fly smoothly.
This is not comparable to what challenge rancor takes which requires stupid gymnastics that doesn't add more gameplay, but less of it. And when the timing mistakes happen there is no coming back from that depending of how many more bullets the guilds have. Once it ramps up, you're done. I would love to see a case proving otherwise.
Things dont always change at the pace the players would like, but they are listening and looking at what's going on. It's just never as simple or straightforward as the player base thinks it is.
Again, how do you know this? As far as I'm aware, the only thing they've said about the raid since it's release is that corporate statement Doja posted that said a whole lot of nothing while completely ignoring any of the feedback around the level of coordination required.
I'm willing to give them the benefit of the doubt that a hypothetical change would take time. It's the complete lack of acknowledgement combined with a history of CG only caring about "player engagement" and not player experience that frustrates me.
Remember back when relics were released, and there was an overwhelmingly negative response? But apparently, according to CG, it was all good because we were engaging with relics after they were released. Well obviously we needed to engage with relics, otherwise we'd fall behind everyone else! So I'm fully expecting that nothing will change with this raid because people will continue to "engage" with it to get relic 8 materials and avoid falling behind, and that's good enough for the devs.
Most of my comments on topics like this are a culmination of posts here, conversations with them, and history of what has happened in game.
They will always take time to look at and discuss where things are in soft issues, and that will take more time than hard issues like bugs ( Nikoms565 ). Yes things do not always change, but that doesnt mean it cant and ot doesnt mean they are not weighing things like player experience and feedback when they are discussing points.
Please let us know when it's not a culmination of things, but rather pertains to your conversations with them AND regarding the specific topic at hand. Believe me, you make this rarely clear which confuses many even more.
That's not really the way this works, I cannot really say they told me X. When I talk it is always going to be a culmination of those things, as that is the only way I can represent the knowledge I may have or the feelings I get from conversations with them. Sorry for your confusion.
I didn't ask for directly quoting what they told you. What I'm saying is your opinion and deduction vs. what you actually know gets mixed. If you can seperate what you factually know (they are doing x) and what you think that might result in or why that is (we might expect y out of this) that would be helpful. What's your personal deduction is not clear most of the times and causes an authority where it doesn't exist, it's even misleading at times. You can even allude to something that you know exactly, but can't tell, this is worlds apart from a hinge you have what they might be do as a result of your conversations.
i.e. right now I have no idea through your words if they are actively monitoring something(what?) about this raid which might cause an action.
Maybe you can send me a direct message about what is misleading you in your example.
Because in my mind what you are saying it you want me to tell you exactly what they are doing:
If you can seperate what you factually know (they are doing x)
Which I cant really do, for NDA, or IDK reasons (I may know "things" are coming or changing, but not know exactly what those "things" are or have details on the final outcome).
And not to talk like this:
what you think that might result in or why that is (we might expect y out of this)
Which is the only real way I feel ok representing things, because there may be details that I do know or have figured out that I cannot share and this allows me to plant seeds without directly stating anything.
If this is your issue, we may be at an impasse on that point.
I am unclear where you see an authority, and it doesnt exist, as I said maybe you can message me about this, and where I am being misleading.
I am pretty sure in my words I have said they are monitoring things around the raid, which makes me wonder why "if" is a question. As for "what", if you have feedback, please provide it.
You keep saying guilds break up every time guild content is released. Do you think that is CGs intention or that it's good for the game?
No this is not a direct intention, but they are aware it is going to happen.
It will happen regardless of whether it is good for the game or not, so while I cannot speak to their thoughts on that directly. I would assume they dont try to directly control things they cannot control.
Wait so just because it will happen regardless, they won't do anything to try to make it happen less often? Or try to make mechanics that don't actively encourage the breaking up of guilds? Saying that they can't control it is a load of nonsense, if they didn't create this "damage ramping up every 20%" mechanic then there wouldn't be all these coordination issues that are making guilds break up. Would guilds still break up for other reasons? Maybe. But this mechanic is directly contributing to the problem.
This is not to say they are not looking at this factor and others when they discuss player experience.
You keep saying this, but they have not given any indication that they are doing this.
Sure they said that they wanted to flatten the rewards in the Challenge Rancor to reduce in-guild friction, but just saying it doesn't make it so, and looking at the reward breakdown as well as the amount of coordination required makes it look like that they didn't mean it.
I understand you may not believe it, but they cant change that.
Can you share an example of a breakdown that shows them to not be flatter? What are you comparing them to, and how are you comparing them?
Surely the community managers are capable of putting out a statement that doesn't ignore the main concerns we've been expressing.
And hey, remember when you asked us to graph the rewards from the Challenge Rancor and Sith raid to compare which one is flatter, and I asked you to give us the data necessary to make said graph, only to be ignored?
Unless you can give us the percentage chances of getting each gear piece in each loot box, we can only compare the non-RNG parts of the rewards, which are the R8 materials from Rancor and the Traya shards from HSTR, and looking at the rewards breakdowns for the two is pretty self-explanatory which one is flatter
And I am assuming you ignored my later statement that, if you look at the rewards in this fashion then it is inherently flatter, as the rancor rewards are linear, while the distribution for those other Sith rewards are based on a distribution curve.
I'm confused by your logic here, so correct me if I'm misinterpreting you, but are you saying that the rancor rewards are flatter just because there's more "flat" areas in the graph? That's...not how stats and graphs work at all
I'm defining "flatter" according to the slope of the best fit line for each of the two reward distributions, which I would argue is considerably less arbitrary than your definition (you'll have to excuse my lack of graph making experience)
This is why I say that the HSTR reward distribution is flatter, because the best fit line is flatter. The closer the x-value in the equation is to 0, the flatter it is.
So no, a graph being "linear" (which is a weird term to be throwing around when neither of these are linear aka straight lines), doesn't make it inherently flatter.
EDIT: after re-reading your response a bunch of times I think I understand what you meant a bit better, but I disagree with that argument. Just because there's an RNG component to the Sith raid gear rewards doesn't mean that the challenge Rancor rewards are automatically flatter. We don't have the data to make that judgement, and the only thing we can compare are the distributions of Traya shards and R8 materials, which I've done above.
1. I keep hearing the comment "coordination" is expected... Well, every guild activity requires coordination, but that being **asynchronous**. The issue here and also the million dollar question is do you expect **synchronous** coordination from a mobile game and at this state? And in what form? Cause currently battles last 2-3 mins followed by at least 5-10 times this being idle. And since damage is posted instantly if someone messes up then usually is see you next week.
2. "Flatter" is not equal to linear. Already someone went through the effort explaining... In brief y=50 sure is "flat", y=50-10x is not "flat" on the same coordinate system.
Things dont always change at the pace the players would like, but they are listening and looking at what's going on. It's just never as simple or straightforward as the player base thinks it is.
Again, how do you know this? As far as I'm aware, the only thing they've said about the raid since it's release is that corporate statement Doja posted that said a whole lot of nothing while completely ignoring any of the feedback around the level of coordination required.
I'm willing to give them the benefit of the doubt that a hypothetical change would take time. It's the complete lack of acknowledgement combined with a history of CG only caring about "player engagement" and not player experience that frustrates me.
Remember back when relics were released, and there was an overwhelmingly negative response? But apparently, according to CG, it was all good because we were engaging with relics after they were released. Well obviously we needed to engage with relics, otherwise we'd fall behind everyone else! So I'm fully expecting that nothing will change with this raid because people will continue to "engage" with it to get relic 8 materials and avoid falling behind, and that's good enough for the devs.
Most of my comments on topics like this are a culmination of posts here, conversations with them, and history of what has happened in game.
They will always take time to look at and discuss where things are in soft issues, and that will take more time than hard issues like bugs ( Nikoms565 ). Yes things do not always change, but that doesnt mean it cant and ot doesnt mean they are not weighing things like player experience and feedback when they are discussing points.
Please let us know when it's not a culmination of things, but rather pertains to your conversations with them AND regarding the specific topic at hand. Believe me, you make this rarely clear which confuses many even more.
That's not really the way this works, I cannot really say they told me X. When I talk it is always going to be a culmination of those things, as that is the only way I can represent the knowledge I may have or the feelings I get from conversations with them. Sorry for your confusion.
I didn't ask for directly quoting what they told you. What I'm saying is your opinion and deduction vs. what you actually know gets mixed. If you can seperate what you factually know (they are doing x) and what you think that might result in or why that is (we might expect y out of this) that would be helpful. What's your personal deduction is not clear most of the times and causes an authority where it doesn't exist, it's even misleading at times. You can even allude to something that you know exactly, but can't tell, this is worlds apart from a hinge you have what they might be do as a result of your conversations.
i.e. right now I have no idea through your words if they are actively monitoring something(what?) about this raid which might cause an action.
Maybe you can send me a direct message about what is misleading you in your example.
Because in my mind what you are saying it you want me to tell you exactly what they are doing:
If you can seperate what you factually know (they are doing x)
Which I cant really do, for NDA, or IDK reasons (I may know "things" are coming or changing, but not know exactly what those "things" are or have details on the final outcome).
And not to talk like this:
what you think that might result in or why that is (we might expect y out of this)
Which is the only real way I feel ok representing things, because there may be details that I do know or have figured out that I cannot share and this allows me to plant seeds without directly stating anything.
If this is your issue, we may be at an impasse on that point.
I am unclear where you see an authority, and it doesnt exist, as I said maybe you can message me about this, and where I am being misleading.
I am pretty sure in my words I have said they are monitoring things around the raid, which makes me wonder why "if" is a question. As for "what", if you have feedback, please provide it.
You keep saying guilds break up every time guild content is released. Do you think that is CGs intention or that it's good for the game?
No this is not a direct intention, but they are aware it is going to happen.
It will happen regardless of whether it is good for the game or not, so while I cannot speak to their thoughts on that directly. I would assume they dont try to directly control things they cannot control.
Wait so just because it will happen regardless, they won't do anything to try to make it happen less often? Or try to make mechanics that don't actively encourage the breaking up of guilds? Saying that they can't control it is a load of nonsense, if they didn't create this "damage ramping up every 20%" mechanic then there wouldn't be all these coordination issues that are making guilds break up. Would guilds still break up for other reasons? Maybe. But this mechanic is directly contributing to the problem.
This is not to say they are not looking at this factor and others when they discuss player experience.
You keep saying this, but they have not given any indication that they are doing this.
Sure they said that they wanted to flatten the rewards in the Challenge Rancor to reduce in-guild friction, but just saying it doesn't make it so, and looking at the reward breakdown as well as the amount of coordination required makes it look like that they didn't mean it.
I understand you may not believe it, but they cant change that.
Can you share an example of a breakdown that shows them to not be flatter? What are you comparing them to, and how are you comparing them?
Surely the community managers are capable of putting out a statement that doesn't ignore the main concerns we've been expressing.
And hey, remember when you asked us to graph the rewards from the Challenge Rancor and Sith raid to compare which one is flatter, and I asked you to give us the data necessary to make said graph, only to be ignored?
Unless you can give us the percentage chances of getting each gear piece in each loot box, we can only compare the non-RNG parts of the rewards, which are the R8 materials from Rancor and the Traya shards from HSTR, and looking at the rewards breakdowns for the two is pretty self-explanatory which one is flatter
And I am assuming you ignored my later statement that, if you look at the rewards in this fashion then it is inherently flatter, as the rancor rewards are linear, while the distribution for those other Sith rewards are based on a distribution curve.
I'm confused by your logic here, so correct me if I'm misinterpreting you, but are you saying that the rancor rewards are flatter just because there's more "flat" areas in the graph? That's...not how stats and graphs work at all
I'm defining "flatter" according to the slope of the best fit line for each of the two reward distributions, which I would argue is considerably less arbitrary than your definition (you'll have to excuse my lack of graph making experience)
This is why I say that the HSTR reward distribution is flatter, because the best fit line is flatter. The closer the x-value in the equation is to 0, the flatter it is.
So no, a graph being "linear" (which is a weird term to be throwing around when neither of these are linear aka straight lines), doesn't make it inherently flatter.
EDIT: after re-reading your response a bunch of times I think I understand what you meant a bit better, but I disagree with that argument. Just because there's an RNG component to the Sith raid gear rewards doesn't mean that the challenge Rancor rewards are automatically flatter. We don't have the data to make that judgement, and the only thing we can compare are the distributions of Traya shards and R8 materials, which I've done above.
Things dont always change at the pace the players would like, but they are listening and looking at what's going on. It's just never as simple or straightforward as the player base thinks it is.
Again, how do you know this? As far as I'm aware, the only thing they've said about the raid since it's release is that corporate statement Doja posted that said a whole lot of nothing while completely ignoring any of the feedback around the level of coordination required.
I'm willing to give them the benefit of the doubt that a hypothetical change would take time. It's the complete lack of acknowledgement combined with a history of CG only caring about "player engagement" and not player experience that frustrates me.
Remember back when relics were released, and there was an overwhelmingly negative response? But apparently, according to CG, it was all good because we were engaging with relics after they were released. Well obviously we needed to engage with relics, otherwise we'd fall behind everyone else! So I'm fully expecting that nothing will change with this raid because people will continue to "engage" with it to get relic 8 materials and avoid falling behind, and that's good enough for the devs.
Most of my comments on topics like this are a culmination of posts here, conversations with them, and history of what has happened in game.
They will always take time to look at and discuss where things are in soft issues, and that will take more time than hard issues like bugs ( Nikoms565 ). Yes things do not always change, but that doesnt mean it cant and ot doesnt mean they are not weighing things like player experience and feedback when they are discussing points.
Please let us know when it's not a culmination of things, but rather pertains to your conversations with them AND regarding the specific topic at hand. Believe me, you make this rarely clear which confuses many even more.
That's not really the way this works, I cannot really say they told me X. When I talk it is always going to be a culmination of those things, as that is the only way I can represent the knowledge I may have or the feelings I get from conversations with them. Sorry for your confusion.
I didn't ask for directly quoting what they told you. What I'm saying is your opinion and deduction vs. what you actually know gets mixed. If you can seperate what you factually know (they are doing x) and what you think that might result in or why that is (we might expect y out of this) that would be helpful. What's your personal deduction is not clear most of the times and causes an authority where it doesn't exist, it's even misleading at times. You can even allude to something that you know exactly, but can't tell, this is worlds apart from a hinge you have what they might be do as a result of your conversations.
i.e. right now I have no idea through your words if they are actively monitoring something(what?) about this raid which might cause an action.
Maybe you can send me a direct message about what is misleading you in your example.
Because in my mind what you are saying it you want me to tell you exactly what they are doing:
If you can seperate what you factually know (they are doing x)
Which I cant really do, for NDA, or IDK reasons (I may know "things" are coming or changing, but not know exactly what those "things" are or have details on the final outcome).
And not to talk like this:
what you think that might result in or why that is (we might expect y out of this)
Which is the only real way I feel ok representing things, because there may be details that I do know or have figured out that I cannot share and this allows me to plant seeds without directly stating anything.
If this is your issue, we may be at an impasse on that point.
I am unclear where you see an authority, and it doesnt exist, as I said maybe you can message me about this, and where I am being misleading.
I am pretty sure in my words I have said they are monitoring things around the raid, which makes me wonder why "if" is a question. As for "what", if you have feedback, please provide it.
You keep saying guilds break up every time guild content is released. Do you think that is CGs intention or that it's good for the game?
No this is not a direct intention, but they are aware it is going to happen.
It will happen regardless of whether it is good for the game or not, so while I cannot speak to their thoughts on that directly. I would assume they dont try to directly control things they cannot control.
Wait so just because it will happen regardless, they won't do anything to try to make it happen less often? Or try to make mechanics that don't actively encourage the breaking up of guilds? Saying that they can't control it is a load of nonsense, if they didn't create this "damage ramping up every 20%" mechanic then there wouldn't be all these coordination issues that are making guilds break up. Would guilds still break up for other reasons? Maybe. But this mechanic is directly contributing to the problem.
This is not to say they are not looking at this factor and others when they discuss player experience.
You keep saying this, but they have not given any indication that they are doing this.
Sure they said that they wanted to flatten the rewards in the Challenge Rancor to reduce in-guild friction, but just saying it doesn't make it so, and looking at the reward breakdown as well as the amount of coordination required makes it look like that they didn't mean it.
I understand you may not believe it, but they cant change that.
Can you share an example of a breakdown that shows them to not be flatter? What are you comparing them to, and how are you comparing them?
Surely the community managers are capable of putting out a statement that doesn't ignore the main concerns we've been expressing.
And hey, remember when you asked us to graph the rewards from the Challenge Rancor and Sith raid to compare which one is flatter, and I asked you to give us the data necessary to make said graph, only to be ignored?
Unless you can give us the percentage chances of getting each gear piece in each loot box, we can only compare the non-RNG parts of the rewards, which are the R8 materials from Rancor and the Traya shards from HSTR, and looking at the rewards breakdowns for the two is pretty self-explanatory which one is flatter
And I am assuming you ignored my later statement that, if you look at the rewards in this fashion then it is inherently flatter, as the rancor rewards are linear, while the distribution for those other Sith rewards are based on a distribution curve.
I'm confused by your logic here, so correct me if I'm misinterpreting you, but are you saying that the rancor rewards are flatter just because there's more "flat" areas in the graph? That's...not how stats and graphs work at all
I'm defining "flatter" according to the slope of the best fit line for each of the two reward distributions, which I would argue is considerably less arbitrary than your definition (you'll have to excuse my lack of graph making experience)
This is why I say that the HSTR reward distribution is flatter, because the best fit line is flatter. The closer the x-value in the equation is to 0, the flatter it is.
So no, a graph being "linear" (which is a weird term to be throwing around when neither of these are linear aka straight lines), doesn't make it inherently flatter.
EDIT: after re-reading your response a bunch of times I think I understand what you meant a bit better, but I disagree with that argument. Just because there's an RNG component to the Sith raid gear rewards doesn't mean that the challenge Rancor rewards are automatically flatter. We don't have the data to make that judgement, and the only thing we can compare are the distributions of Traya shards and R8 materials, which I've done above.
What are you graphing for the Sith raid?
Obviously the primary rewards, by your own admission relic mats for this raid and traya shards for the other in the case of the graph. I asked you the question more than once what you were comparing which went unanswered pages ago.
I would safely assume it's the raid-specific rewards:
Traya Shards.
The only apples to apples comparison in terms of "flatness", because all gear drops are RNG based.
Gear boxes can also be compared even if much harder. The full drop percentages are hardest to find out, but besides that amount of things in there are fairly observable depending on the top 50 placement. But the existence of junk in C.Rancy rewards makes things harder too. i.e. see the full mk3 sienar I got for 7th place as the high standing rewards of that box. Useless possibilities in the hstr rewards are much less in comparison even if the amounts you get from placing 20+ is low.
Things dont always change at the pace the players would like, but they are listening and looking at what's going on. It's just never as simple or straightforward as the player base thinks it is.
Again, how do you know this? As far as I'm aware, the only thing they've said about the raid since it's release is that corporate statement Doja posted that said a whole lot of nothing while completely ignoring any of the feedback around the level of coordination required.
I'm willing to give them the benefit of the doubt that a hypothetical change would take time. It's the complete lack of acknowledgement combined with a history of CG only caring about "player engagement" and not player experience that frustrates me.
Remember back when relics were released, and there was an overwhelmingly negative response? But apparently, according to CG, it was all good because we were engaging with relics after they were released. Well obviously we needed to engage with relics, otherwise we'd fall behind everyone else! So I'm fully expecting that nothing will change with this raid because people will continue to "engage" with it to get relic 8 materials and avoid falling behind, and that's good enough for the devs.
Most of my comments on topics like this are a culmination of posts here, conversations with them, and history of what has happened in game.
They will always take time to look at and discuss where things are in soft issues, and that will take more time than hard issues like bugs ( Nikoms565 ). Yes things do not always change, but that doesnt mean it cant and ot doesnt mean they are not weighing things like player experience and feedback when they are discussing points.
Please let us know when it's not a culmination of things, but rather pertains to your conversations with them AND regarding the specific topic at hand. Believe me, you make this rarely clear which confuses many even more.
That's not really the way this works, I cannot really say they told me X. When I talk it is always going to be a culmination of those things, as that is the only way I can represent the knowledge I may have or the feelings I get from conversations with them. Sorry for your confusion.
I didn't ask for directly quoting what they told you. What I'm saying is your opinion and deduction vs. what you actually know gets mixed. If you can seperate what you factually know (they are doing x) and what you think that might result in or why that is (we might expect y out of this) that would be helpful. What's your personal deduction is not clear most of the times and causes an authority where it doesn't exist, it's even misleading at times. You can even allude to something that you know exactly, but can't tell, this is worlds apart from a hinge you have what they might be do as a result of your conversations.
i.e. right now I have no idea through your words if they are actively monitoring something(what?) about this raid which might cause an action.
Maybe you can send me a direct message about what is misleading you in your example.
Because in my mind what you are saying it you want me to tell you exactly what they are doing:
If you can seperate what you factually know (they are doing x)
Which I cant really do, for NDA, or IDK reasons (I may know "things" are coming or changing, but not know exactly what those "things" are or have details on the final outcome).
And not to talk like this:
what you think that might result in or why that is (we might expect y out of this)
Which is the only real way I feel ok representing things, because there may be details that I do know or have figured out that I cannot share and this allows me to plant seeds without directly stating anything.
If this is your issue, we may be at an impasse on that point.
I am unclear where you see an authority, and it doesnt exist, as I said maybe you can message me about this, and where I am being misleading.
I am pretty sure in my words I have said they are monitoring things around the raid, which makes me wonder why "if" is a question. As for "what", if you have feedback, please provide it.
You keep saying guilds break up every time guild content is released. Do you think that is CGs intention or that it's good for the game?
No this is not a direct intention, but they are aware it is going to happen.
It will happen regardless of whether it is good for the game or not, so while I cannot speak to their thoughts on that directly. I would assume they dont try to directly control things they cannot control.
Wait so just because it will happen regardless, they won't do anything to try to make it happen less often? Or try to make mechanics that don't actively encourage the breaking up of guilds? Saying that they can't control it is a load of nonsense, if they didn't create this "damage ramping up every 20%" mechanic then there wouldn't be all these coordination issues that are making guilds break up. Would guilds still break up for other reasons? Maybe. But this mechanic is directly contributing to the problem.
This is not to say they are not looking at this factor and others when they discuss player experience.
You keep saying this, but they have not given any indication that they are doing this.
Sure they said that they wanted to flatten the rewards in the Challenge Rancor to reduce in-guild friction, but just saying it doesn't make it so, and looking at the reward breakdown as well as the amount of coordination required makes it look like that they didn't mean it.
I understand you may not believe it, but they cant change that.
Can you share an example of a breakdown that shows them to not be flatter? What are you comparing them to, and how are you comparing them?
Surely the community managers are capable of putting out a statement that doesn't ignore the main concerns we've been expressing.
And hey, remember when you asked us to graph the rewards from the Challenge Rancor and Sith raid to compare which one is flatter, and I asked you to give us the data necessary to make said graph, only to be ignored?
Unless you can give us the percentage chances of getting each gear piece in each loot box, we can only compare the non-RNG parts of the rewards, which are the R8 materials from Rancor and the Traya shards from HSTR, and looking at the rewards breakdowns for the two is pretty self-explanatory which one is flatter
And I am assuming you ignored my later statement that, if you look at the rewards in this fashion then it is inherently flatter, as the rancor rewards are linear, while the distribution for those other Sith rewards are based on a distribution curve.
I'm confused by your logic here, so correct me if I'm misinterpreting you, but are you saying that the rancor rewards are flatter just because there's more "flat" areas in the graph? That's...not how stats and graphs work at all
I'm defining "flatter" according to the slope of the best fit line for each of the two reward distributions, which I would argue is considerably less arbitrary than your definition (you'll have to excuse my lack of graph making experience)
This is why I say that the HSTR reward distribution is flatter, because the best fit line is flatter. The closer the x-value in the equation is to 0, the flatter it is.
So no, a graph being "linear" (which is a weird term to be throwing around when neither of these are linear aka straight lines), doesn't make it inherently flatter.
EDIT: after re-reading your response a bunch of times I think I understand what you meant a bit better, but I disagree with that argument. Just because there's an RNG component to the Sith raid gear rewards doesn't mean that the challenge Rancor rewards are automatically flatter. We don't have the data to make that judgement, and the only thing we can compare are the distributions of Traya shards and R8 materials, which I've done above.
I would safely assume it's the raid-specific rewards:
Traya Shards.
The only apples to apples comparison in terms of "flatness", because all gear drops are RNG based.
Yep.
If Kyno you have some way of comparing the gear drops too, then I'm all ears. Otherwise it's your turn to justify how you see the Rancor drops as flatter. With data please.
Although I understand what he is trying to do and I agree, at the same time the scales (looking at you y-axis) must be the same. Also, when you have the complete population of 50 distinct points you don't really need any kind of predictive modeling. 🙂 But as I said I get it.
Replies
Guilds break up because players will always want to min/max content. There are also several other examples of why players move out of a guild when something desirable comes around. There is no way to truly stop or predict this, that is not to say they do not try to minimize it, but you cannot stop it.
I never said they dont try to minimize it, just that they do not try to directly control it, as its going to happen no matter what they put in place.
You are answering your own example, will guilds break up due to new guild content is not a maybe, it would happen, we have seen this, even when its achievable by the guild.
Is this a reason, yes, no one is arguing that, but we cant pretend that if this wasnt there or even done differently that some segments of guilds would break up or lose players.
This is not to say they are not looking at this factor and others when they discuss player experience.
We're losing people in our guild to this. But they aren't going to other guilds. They are quitting the game over this. Is that also intended?
SEE says “hey what am I chopped liver!!!” lol
If they want me to go play Marvel Strike Force instead it is.
In game guild: TNR Uprising
I beat the REAL T7 Yoda (not the nerfed one) and did so before mods were there to help
*This space left intentionally blank*
You keep saying this, but they have not given any indication that they are doing this.
Sure they said that they wanted to flatten the rewards in the Challenge Rancor to reduce in-guild friction, but just saying it doesn't make it so, and looking at the reward breakdown as well as the amount of coordination required makes it look like that they didn't mean it.
I understand you may not believe it, but they cant change that.
Can you share an example of a breakdown that shows them to not be flatter? What are you comparing them to, and how are you comparing them?
Surely the community managers are capable of putting out a statement that doesn't ignore the main concerns we've been expressing.
And hey, remember when you asked us to graph the rewards from the Challenge Rancor and Sith raid to compare which one is flatter, and I asked you to give us the data necessary to make said graph, only to be ignored?
https://forums.galaxy-of-heroes.starwars.ea.com/discussion/comment/2213318#Comment_2213318
Unless you can give us the percentage chances of getting each gear piece in each loot box, we can only compare the non-RNG parts of the rewards, which are the R8 materials from Rancor and the Traya shards from HSTR, and looking at the rewards breakdowns for the two is pretty self-explanatory which one is flatter
This. And the part of this that won't show up in CG's "data" - the number of people in my guild and arena shard chat that have new names and new payout times. If I had 5 crystals for everytime I've welcomed a new player to the guild/shard chat in the last couple of weeks, I'd have a vault.
But CG sees a name change or a payout change - not an account "transfer".
In game guild: TNR Uprising
I beat the REAL T7 Yoda (not the nerfed one) and did so before mods were there to help
*This space left intentionally blank*
?? First, what data are they not gathering?
And I think 80% of any data set is still 80% of the data, not 0.
Things like this have many aspects and some are hard and others are soft data points. They can more easily set and look at hard data, as it is part of the game and can be collected, and planned for.
Soft feedback takes a different path and may take longer to collect and categorize to make any analysis and comparisons.
And I am assuming you ignored my later statement that, if you look at the rewards in this fashion then it is inherently flatter, as the rancor rewards are linear, while the distribution for those other Sith rewards are based on a distribution curve.
Honestly if this is how CG wants this raid to work - and this game moving forward, it's been fun while it lasted.
In game guild: TNR Uprising
I beat the REAL T7 Yoda (not the nerfed one) and did so before mods were there to help
*This space left intentionally blank*
They could have made a post any day last week. In this post, they could acknowledge the issues folks have brought up. Say whether they expected the issue. And then whether they like/approve of the status quo.
Fair point in the first line, they could have.
The second one is harder without defining the issue to compare it to what was expected. I mean coordination was expected, but saying that doesnt count according to some comment about math classes.
Again not as quick of an answer without "knowing" what the status quo is right now. Defining that can take a little more effort and time.
All this presupposes that player sentiment is a contributing factor to decision making. They could just see daily logins and revenue unaffected and decide that those complaining are too small a faction to cater to. I think that would be shortsighted, but I don't run mobile games for a living.
This is not comparable to what challenge rancor takes which requires stupid gymnastics that doesn't add more gameplay, but less of it. And when the timing mistakes happen there is no coming back from that depending of how many more bullets the guilds have. Once it ramps up, you're done. I would love to see a case proving otherwise.
I'm confused by your logic here, so correct me if I'm misinterpreting you, but are you saying that the rancor rewards are flatter just because there's more "flat" areas in the graph? That's...not how stats and graphs work at all
I'm defining "flatter" according to the slope of the best fit line for each of the two reward distributions, which I would argue is considerably less arbitrary than your definition (you'll have to excuse my lack of graph making experience)
This is why I say that the HSTR reward distribution is flatter, because the best fit line is flatter. The closer the x-value in the equation is to 0, the flatter it is.
So no, a graph being "linear" (which is a weird term to be throwing around when neither of these are linear aka straight lines), doesn't make it inherently flatter.
EDIT: after re-reading your response a bunch of times I think I understand what you meant a bit better, but I disagree with that argument. Just because there's an RNG component to the Sith raid gear rewards doesn't mean that the challenge Rancor rewards are automatically flatter. We don't have the data to make that judgement, and the only thing we can compare are the distributions of Traya shards and R8 materials, which I've done above.
2. "Flatter" is not equal to linear. Already someone went through the effort explaining... In brief y=50 sure is "flat", y=50-10x is not "flat" on the same coordinate system.
What are you graphing for the Sith raid?
Traya Shards.
The only apples to apples comparison in terms of "flatness", because all gear drops are RNG based.
Obviously the primary rewards, by your own admission relic mats for this raid and traya shards for the other in the case of the graph. I asked you the question more than once what you were comparing which went unanswered pages ago.
Gear boxes can also be compared even if much harder. The full drop percentages are hardest to find out, but besides that amount of things in there are fairly observable depending on the top 50 placement. But the existence of junk in C.Rancy rewards makes things harder too. i.e. see the full mk3 sienar I got for 7th place as the high standing rewards of that box. Useless possibilities in the hstr rewards are much less in comparison even if the amounts you get from placing 20+ is low.
Yep.
If Kyno you have some way of comparing the gear drops too, then I'm all ears. Otherwise it's your turn to justify how you see the Rancor drops as flatter. With data please.