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.
Why not the raid exclusive gear? That seems to be the most comparable items.
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.
Yea I'm not that well-versed in stats and graphs so I fully admit that my graphs are not very well done. But I don't think the scale matters as long as you just compare the slope equations right? Plus the y-axis differing by a few points doesn't exactly break the entire comparison.
I also didn't see another way to compare "flatness" aside from this, so if anyone else has any ideas definitely go for 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?
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.
Why not the raid exclusive gear? That seems to be the most comparable items.
Um no, the primary rewards for both raids are obvious even if what we need out of it changes in time. Cg making them constant also proves this. If you are claiming it's the gear that's to take as important from hstr, as worthless as Traya shards are (for most) now, gear are not exclusive anymore either.
Show us the gear comparison data too by all means if you are attaching flatter to 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?
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.
Why not the raid exclusive gear? That seems to be the most comparable items.
Why don't you go ahead and compare it then? You keep pushing it onto us, but if you have some way of comparing (with data instead of just feeling), then go ahead and do it already.
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.
Why not the raid exclusive gear? That seems to be the most comparable items.
Cause the players don't have the data for it. Unless you are willing to share the PDFs of each item for each 1-4 box? 🙂 Then we can test for flatness 🙂
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.
1 to 11 on the new mats
Sith raid would be low end 5-7ish ( not sure what the low end it), then up to 50 (full piece) at the top, with a steap increase in the top 10.
So the new raid would be flatter when looking at those rewards, mainly due to the steep increase of the top 10.
But you comparing apples to oranges doesn't really put the ball in my court.
They said its flatter, everyone cried out, it's not, but I didnt see any analysis or anything to show what is meant by they are not flatter. This is why I stopped trying to point at what I saw and was asking for someone to show me what "you" mean.
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.
1 to 11 on the new mats
Sith raid would be low end 5-7ish ( not sure what the low end it), then up to 50 (full piece) at the top, with a steap increase in the top 10.
So the new raid would be flatter when looking at those rewards, mainly due to the steep increase of the top 10.
But you comparing apples to oranges doesn't really put the ball in my court.
They said its flatter, everyone cried out, it's not, but I didnt see any analysis or anything to show what is meant by they are not flatter. This is why I stopped trying to point at what I saw and was asking for someone to show me what "you" mean.
I gave my data-driven argument, so it's your turn, isn't that fair? Your comparison is way more apples to oranges than mine, because you can't just say "well you might get a full piece at the top, so let's just use that full piece as a comparison point". Realistically, how often are you going to get that full piece? You don't know that, so your comparison is immediately invalid. So go ahead and show us the data, and if you can prove that it's flatter then I'm happy to shut up. You literally said you're "not sure what the low end is", so I have no clue why you think your comparison is valid when you don't have the correct data.
Also you can't just ignore the Traya shards, so go ahead and add that to your comparison too.
I don't see any analysis to show what is meant by it is flatter either. That's what I'm asking you to show me what "you" mean.
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.
Well while CG is taking their time "analyzing the data" our guild leader decided the extra work for the raid and recruiting to try and fill slots from people quitting because they hate the new raid isn't worth it. So our guild is disbanding.
So while CG is happy taking their time their lack of communication is negatively affecting the player base.
Well while CG is taking their time "analyzing the data" our guild leader decided the extra work for the raid and recruiting to try and fill slots from people quitting because they hate the new raid isn't worth it. So our guild is disbanding.
So while CG is happy taking their time their lack of communication is negatively affecting the player base.
@CG_Doja_Fett can you ask up the tree if this is the intended outcome of the challenge rancor? I know you’re just the middle man, so I don’t hold you accountable for the outcome of this dumpster fire, but can you see if TopCash or Mark “I am too good to speak with the community” **** can finally communicate on if guilds disbanding is their overall intent?
Our guild is not doing the challenge rancor, too much hassle with syncing a global guild . Not doing the raid is ok with me. But whenever not having relic 8 characters makes it impossible for me to enjoy other parts of the game is the day I quit.
Well while CG is taking their time "analyzing the data" our guild leader decided the extra work for the raid and recruiting to try and fill slots from people quitting because they hate the new raid isn't worth it. So our guild is disbanding.
So while CG is happy taking their time their lack of communication is negatively affecting the player base.
@CG_Doja_Fett can you ask up the tree if this is the intended outcome of the challenge rancor? I know you’re just the middle man, so I don’t hold you accountable for the outcome of this dumpster fire, but can you see if TopCash or Mark “I am too good to speak with the community” **** can finally communicate on if guilds disbanding is their overall intent?
The answer to this exists in either one of the old q/a's or announcements after hstr. It was -yes-. This was quoted a lot at that time but I can't find without remembering where it should be.
Didn't want to read through 10 pages of comments to find the answer so lazy posting this. Did something get changed to make PH1 more difficult with the last update on the 6th? Team that was getting me 5% in Ph1 the last two times was barley getting 3% this time. Had to check to make sure i had mods on my Padme team. Same toons, same mods, 40% less results?
edit: i saw they fixed the door TM in the update notes, didn't see anything about the difficulty.
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?
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.
1 to 11 on the new mats
Sith raid would be low end 5-7ish ( not sure what the low end it), then up to 50 (full piece) at the top, with a steap increase in the top 10.
So the new raid would be flatter when looking at those rewards, mainly due to the steep increase of the top 10.
But you comparing apples to oranges doesn't really put the ball in my court.
They said its flatter, everyone cried out, it's not, but I didnt see any analysis or anything to show what is meant by they are not flatter. This is why I stopped trying to point at what I saw and was asking for someone to show me what "you" mean.
I gave my data-driven argument, so it's your turn, isn't that fair? Your comparison is way more apples to oranges than mine, because you can't just say "well you might get a full piece at the top, so let's just use that full piece as a comparison point". Realistically, how often are you going to get that full piece? You don't know that, so your comparison is immediately invalid. So go ahead and show us the data, and if you can prove that it's flatter then I'm happy to shut up. You literally said you're "not sure what the low end is", so I have no clue why you think your comparison is valid when you don't have the correct data.
Also you can't just ignore the Traya shards, so go ahead and add that to your comparison too.
I don't see any analysis to show what is meant by it is flatter either. That's what I'm asking you to show me what "you" mean.
Yes you can ignore Traya shards, they are shards of a character, yes a raid exclusive character but once you have that character done, they all go towards gear.....
But since you are going to declare the absolute base for comparison, then sure what you are saying is accurate to your specifics.
Gear is more comparable to relic mats. And yes you can look at the possible drops in the top 10 as part of the average. This steep increase in rewards for the top 10 makes a hook at the end and a none linear distribution, rancor has linear one, and is therefore flatter. But that is just the way I look at it.
So when you compare what you want to you are right.
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.
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?
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.
1 to 11 on the new mats
Sith raid would be low end 5-7ish ( not sure what the low end it), then up to 50 (full piece) at the top, with a steap increase in the top 10.
So the new raid would be flatter when looking at those rewards, mainly due to the steep increase of the top 10.
But you comparing apples to oranges doesn't really put the ball in my court.
They said its flatter, everyone cried out, it's not, but I didnt see any analysis or anything to show what is meant by they are not flatter. This is why I stopped trying to point at what I saw and was asking for someone to show me what "you" mean.
I gave my data-driven argument, so it's your turn, isn't that fair? Your comparison is way more apples to oranges than mine, because you can't just say "well you might get a full piece at the top, so let's just use that full piece as a comparison point". Realistically, how often are you going to get that full piece? You don't know that, so your comparison is immediately invalid. So go ahead and show us the data, and if you can prove that it's flatter then I'm happy to shut up. You literally said you're "not sure what the low end is", so I have no clue why you think your comparison is valid when you don't have the correct data.
Also you can't just ignore the Traya shards, so go ahead and add that to your comparison too.
I don't see any analysis to show what is meant by it is flatter either. That's what I'm asking you to show me what "you" mean.
Yes you can ignore Traya shards, they are shards of a character, yes a raid exclusive character but once you have that character done, they all go towards gear.....
But since you are going to declare the absolute base for comparison, then sure what you are saying is accurate to your specifics.
Gear is more comparable to relic mats. And yes you can look at the possible drops in the top 10 as part of the average. This steep increase in rewards for the top 10 makes a hook at the end and a none linear distribution, rancor has linear one, and is therefore flatter. But that is just the way I look at it.
So when you compare what you want to you are right.
Traya shards were the premium item of hstr. You are making an arbitrary comparison that suits your argument which is as counterintuitive slice as picking traya shards vs rng gear box on this raid. We are comparing how raids are on release as we don't know anything about the destiny of c.rancy either. i.e. raid exclusive relic mats being released elsewhere in 6 months will devalue that portion on the rewards, making the 284 gear the prime need. Gear compares to gear, premium item compares to premium item.
Or the other reasonable way to compare would be compare the entirety of rewards which is a difficult task you will surely be shooing away since your arguments for some reason doesn't require the same proof you demand of others.
My only issues is the co-ordination required and the reward pool which is unaddressed, and keeps getting dismissed
I wish we had much better tools in-game for co-ordination if they are going to keep the stacking thresholds (like damage isn't posted until X time and you can submit your run whenever you want) rather than using third party apps for management. Doesn't really make sense to require 50 players to attack at the same time without providing the tools to do so within the game
Reward pool is pretty bad for a lot of reasons and we haven't had any response to that
EDIT: My guild completes the raid in 40 minutes, I'm just concerned for the larger playerbase regarding the co-ordination aspect, and future raids. And its pretty annoying to remain active on discord constantly for updates on when its ok to post damage
My only issues is the co-ordination required and the reward pool which is unaddressed, and keeps getting dismissed
I wish we had much better tools in-game for co-ordination if they are going to keep the stacking thresholds (like damage isn't posted until X time and you can submit your run whenever you want) rather than using third party apps for management. Doesn't really make sense to require 50 players to attack at the same time without providing the tools to do so within the game
Reward pool is pretty bad for a lot of reasons and we haven't had any response to that
EDIT: My guild completes the raid in 40 minutes, I'm just concerned for the larger playerbase regarding the co-ordination aspect, and future raids. And its pretty annoying to remain active on discord constantly for updates on when its ok to post damage
CG_Doja_Fett
Would you mind sending this one up the tree? This is what we’ve been saying for several weeks now.
Everything is in line with what they were expecting.
They are keeping an eye on what's going on with a mindset of " Is this the player experience they want".
There are currently no planned changes to the raid or rewards table at this moment.
I skimmed a bunch from the weekend, but let me point out: if they are still monitoring the player experience with no official statement, it means it IS what they want and they have no plans to adjust. They fed us this awful game mode with meh rewards that requires all these external things because they actively hate us. There is no other explanation, because forcing us to use other apps to get this done does not make them money.
My only issues is the co-ordination required and the reward pool which is unaddressed, and keeps getting dismissed
I wish we had much better tools in-game for co-ordination if they are going to keep the stacking thresholds (like damage isn't posted until X time and you can submit your run whenever you want) rather than using third party apps for management. Doesn't really make sense to require 50 players to attack at the same time without providing the tools to do so within the game
Reward pool is pretty bad for a lot of reasons and we haven't had any response to that
EDIT: My guild completes the raid in 40 minutes, I'm just concerned for the larger playerbase regarding the co-ordination aspect, and future raids. And its pretty annoying to remain active on discord constantly for updates on when its ok to post damage
My only issues is the co-ordination required and the reward pool which is unaddressed, and keeps getting dismissed
I wish we had much better tools in-game for co-ordination if they are going to keep the stacking thresholds (like damage isn't posted until X time and you can submit your run whenever you want) rather than using third party apps for management. Doesn't really make sense to require 50 players to attack at the same time without providing the tools to do so within the game
Reward pool is pretty bad for a lot of reasons and we haven't had any response to that
EDIT: My guild completes the raid in 40 minutes, I'm just concerned for the larger playerbase regarding the co-ordination aspect, and future raids. And its pretty annoying to remain active on discord constantly for updates on when its ok to post damage
CG_Doja_Fett
Would you mind sending this one up the tree? This is what we’ve been saying for several weeks now.
Everything is in line with what they were expecting.
They are keeping an eye on what's going on with a mindset of " Is this the player experience they want".
There are currently no planned changes to the raid or rewards table at this moment.
I skimmed a bunch from the weekend, but let me point out: if they are still monitoring the player experience with no official statement, it means it IS what they want and they have no plans to adjust. They fed us this awful game mode with meh rewards that requires all these external things because they actively hate us. There is no other explanation, because forcing us to use other apps to get this done does not make them money.
They don't hate us, that doesn't make sense. It's rather lack of caring about consequences of design choices and not reprimanding or owing upto it.
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. I dont think I have seen a single comparison between the 2 other than to show farming value.
it really doesn't matter how difficult it is. by sheer definition the rewards for Sith have a steep increase when you get into the range of 10-1, its a stated fact about the rewards.
and as I said, if those are the elements they wish to compare, then that is correct they are not flatter. The problem is that if you include the gear in any way, it changes the situation to the other way around. so for example, if you brought everything to a similar base value across all the rewards offered (equating everything to some crystal value perhaps) then it would illustrate that same thing, Rancor is flatter, as it doesn't have the steep increase (that has been a hot topic of discussion) in the reward structure.
My only issues is the co-ordination required and the reward pool which is unaddressed, and keeps getting dismissed
I wish we had much better tools in-game for co-ordination if they are going to keep the stacking thresholds (like damage isn't posted until X time and you can submit your run whenever you want) rather than using third party apps for management. Doesn't really make sense to require 50 players to attack at the same time without providing the tools to do so within the game
Reward pool is pretty bad for a lot of reasons and we haven't had any response to that
EDIT: My guild completes the raid in 40 minutes, I'm just concerned for the larger playerbase regarding the co-ordination aspect, and future raids. And its pretty annoying to remain active on discord constantly for updates on when its ok to post damage
My only issues is the co-ordination required and the reward pool which is unaddressed, and keeps getting dismissed
I wish we had much better tools in-game for co-ordination if they are going to keep the stacking thresholds (like damage isn't posted until X time and you can submit your run whenever you want) rather than using third party apps for management. Doesn't really make sense to require 50 players to attack at the same time without providing the tools to do so within the game
Reward pool is pretty bad for a lot of reasons and we haven't had any response to that
EDIT: My guild completes the raid in 40 minutes, I'm just concerned for the larger playerbase regarding the co-ordination aspect, and future raids. And its pretty annoying to remain active on discord constantly for updates on when its ok to post damage
CG_Doja_Fett
Would you mind sending this one up the tree? This is what we’ve been saying for several weeks now.
Everything is in line with what they were expecting.
They are keeping an eye on what's going on with a mindset of " Is this the player experience they want".
There are currently no planned changes to the raid or rewards table at this moment.
I skimmed a bunch from the weekend, but let me point out: if they are still monitoring the player experience with no official statement, it means it IS what they want and they have no plans to adjust. They fed us this awful game mode with meh rewards that requires all these external things because they actively hate us. There is no other explanation, because forcing us to use other apps to get this done does not make them money.
They don't hate us, that doesn't make sense. It's rather lack of caring about consequences of design choices and not reprimanding or owing upto it.
Active dislike vs indifference. I think the end result is the same, but I suppose you are right.
My only issues is the co-ordination required and the reward pool which is unaddressed, and keeps getting dismissed
I wish we had much better tools in-game for co-ordination if they are going to keep the stacking thresholds (like damage isn't posted until X time and you can submit your run whenever you want) rather than using third party apps for management. Doesn't really make sense to require 50 players to attack at the same time without providing the tools to do so within the game
Reward pool is pretty bad for a lot of reasons and we haven't had any response to that
EDIT: My guild completes the raid in 40 minutes, I'm just concerned for the larger playerbase regarding the co-ordination aspect, and future raids. And its pretty annoying to remain active on discord constantly for updates on when its ok to post damage
My only issues is the co-ordination required and the reward pool which is unaddressed, and keeps getting dismissed
I wish we had much better tools in-game for co-ordination if they are going to keep the stacking thresholds (like damage isn't posted until X time and you can submit your run whenever you want) rather than using third party apps for management. Doesn't really make sense to require 50 players to attack at the same time without providing the tools to do so within the game
Reward pool is pretty bad for a lot of reasons and we haven't had any response to that
EDIT: My guild completes the raid in 40 minutes, I'm just concerned for the larger playerbase regarding the co-ordination aspect, and future raids. And its pretty annoying to remain active on discord constantly for updates on when its ok to post damage
CG_Doja_Fett
Would you mind sending this one up the tree? This is what we’ve been saying for several weeks now.
Everything is in line with what they were expecting.
They are keeping an eye on what's going on with a mindset of " Is this the player experience they want".
There are currently no planned changes to the raid or rewards table at this moment.
I skimmed a bunch from the weekend, but let me point out: if they are still monitoring the player experience with no official statement, it means it IS what they want and they have no plans to adjust. They fed us this awful game mode with meh rewards that requires all these external things because they actively hate us. There is no other explanation, because forcing us to use other apps to get this done does not make them money.
They don't hate us, that doesn't make sense. It's rather lack of caring about consequences of design choices and not reprimanding or owing upto it.
It is possible to be both or a mix. However it would be complete speculation to say either way.
The communication did not address the major concerns brought up by the player base, so not owning up to a negative player experience is fairly accurate. Pointing to other content being disliked (HSTR, LS Geo etc) doesn’t exactly say “hey we like you and care about your experience.” It rather points to a fundamental business model being employed.
The game has intended crunches to create frustrations in players to result in player spending due to a love of Star Wars and competition. The predatory practice (not using this term in a strictly negative context, we live in a capitalist world after all) is psychological in nature. HSTR was “impossible” for a bit; enter new gear, relics and voila...”see it’s fun now that you spent money to get the characters up to beat it right?” There will likely be additions in the future to drive spending to “best the beast” without the coordination being necessary. Until then, it is likely for the nightmare of this “new” raid to go unchanged.
Hard to say that they “like” us with this sort of business model, but also just as unfair to say they hate us.
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?
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.
1 to 11 on the new mats
Sith raid would be low end 5-7ish ( not sure what the low end it), then up to 50 (full piece) at the top, with a steap increase in the top 10.
So the new raid would be flatter when looking at those rewards, mainly due to the steep increase of the top 10.
But you comparing apples to oranges doesn't really put the ball in my court.
They said its flatter, everyone cried out, it's not, but I didnt see any analysis or anything to show what is meant by they are not flatter. This is why I stopped trying to point at what I saw and was asking for someone to show me what "you" mean.
I gave my data-driven argument, so it's your turn, isn't that fair? Your comparison is way more apples to oranges than mine, because you can't just say "well you might get a full piece at the top, so let's just use that full piece as a comparison point". Realistically, how often are you going to get that full piece? You don't know that, so your comparison is immediately invalid. So go ahead and show us the data, and if you can prove that it's flatter then I'm happy to shut up. You literally said you're "not sure what the low end is", so I have no clue why you think your comparison is valid when you don't have the correct data.
Also you can't just ignore the Traya shards, so go ahead and add that to your comparison too.
I don't see any analysis to show what is meant by it is flatter either. That's what I'm asking you to show me what "you" mean.
Yes you can ignore Traya shards, they are shards of a character, yes a raid exclusive character but once you have that character done, they all go towards gear.....
But since you are going to declare the absolute base for comparison, then sure what you are saying is accurate to your specifics.
Gear is more comparable to relic mats. And yes you can look at the possible drops in the top 10 as part of the average. This steep increase in rewards for the top 10 makes a hook at the end and a none linear distribution, rancor has linear one, and is therefore flatter. But that is just the way I look at it.
So when you compare what you want to you are right.
Traya shards were the premium item of hstr. You are making an arbitrary comparison that suits your argument which is as counterintuitive slice as picking traya shards vs rng gear box on this raid. We are comparing how raids are on release as we don't know anything about the destiny of c.rancy either. i.e. raid exclusive relic mats being released elsewhere in 6 months will devalue that portion on the rewards, making the 284 gear the prime need. Gear compares to gear, premium item compares to premium item.
Or the other reasonable way to compare would be compare the entirety of rewards which is a difficult task you will surely be shooing away since your arguments for some reason doesn't require the same proof you demand of others.
I never said they were not a premium item, but they were not the only one. the gear offered there was also raid exclusive. its not arbitrary, but i would appreciate the breakdown of how you justify the comparison of shards to gear. because relic pieces to gear seems much more comparable.
as for the value, the gear keeps its comparable value, yes it may go up or down, but its still equal to other gear at that level, and technically itself as it still serves the same function. shards do not retain any intiial values once you complete the toon, they completely change as they now only have a value as shard shop currency.
as for the future, just like other releases they have stated this is "We wanted Relic 8 to initially have a raid-exclusive aspect in order to give Guilds some new goals to work toward and at the same time, reinforce the core gameplay for Guilds in Galaxy of Heroes." they have said this before and so initially it will exclusive (like the raid gear in the Sith raid) and then move on.
yes it would be difficult to assign it values, but not difficult to generalize its shape which would illustrate the same thing I have said, because a translation wouldn't change the shape of the graph. so the non linear spike in the 10-1 range would remain. adding the linear traya shard distribution just translates (moves its position) the other graph it doesn't change the shape.
My only issues is the co-ordination required and the reward pool which is unaddressed, and keeps getting dismissed
I wish we had much better tools in-game for co-ordination if they are going to keep the stacking thresholds (like damage isn't posted until X time and you can submit your run whenever you want) rather than using third party apps for management. Doesn't really make sense to require 50 players to attack at the same time without providing the tools to do so within the game
Reward pool is pretty bad for a lot of reasons and we haven't had any response to that
EDIT: My guild completes the raid in 40 minutes, I'm just concerned for the larger playerbase regarding the co-ordination aspect, and future raids. And its pretty annoying to remain active on discord constantly for updates on when its ok to post damage
My only issues is the co-ordination required and the reward pool which is unaddressed, and keeps getting dismissed
I wish we had much better tools in-game for co-ordination if they are going to keep the stacking thresholds (like damage isn't posted until X time and you can submit your run whenever you want) rather than using third party apps for management. Doesn't really make sense to require 50 players to attack at the same time without providing the tools to do so within the game
Reward pool is pretty bad for a lot of reasons and we haven't had any response to that
EDIT: My guild completes the raid in 40 minutes, I'm just concerned for the larger playerbase regarding the co-ordination aspect, and future raids. And its pretty annoying to remain active on discord constantly for updates on when its ok to post damage
CG_Doja_Fett
Would you mind sending this one up the tree? This is what we’ve been saying for several weeks now.
Everything is in line with what they were expecting.
They are keeping an eye on what's going on with a mindset of " Is this the player experience they want".
There are currently no planned changes to the raid or rewards table at this moment.
I skimmed a bunch from the weekend, but let me point out: if they are still monitoring the player experience with no official statement, it means it IS what they want and they have no plans to adjust. They fed us this awful game mode with meh rewards that requires all these external things because they actively hate us. There is no other explanation, because forcing us to use other apps to get this done does not make them money.
ignoring other explanations doesn't mean they dont exist.
also surprisingly enough, they can monitor things and even make plans to change them without an official statement. kind of shocking, I know.
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?
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.
1 to 11 on the new mats
Sith raid would be low end 5-7ish ( not sure what the low end it), then up to 50 (full piece) at the top, with a steap increase in the top 10.
So the new raid would be flatter when looking at those rewards, mainly due to the steep increase of the top 10.
But you comparing apples to oranges doesn't really put the ball in my court.
They said its flatter, everyone cried out, it's not, but I didnt see any analysis or anything to show what is meant by they are not flatter. This is why I stopped trying to point at what I saw and was asking for someone to show me what "you" mean.
I gave my data-driven argument, so it's your turn, isn't that fair? Your comparison is way more apples to oranges than mine, because you can't just say "well you might get a full piece at the top, so let's just use that full piece as a comparison point". Realistically, how often are you going to get that full piece? You don't know that, so your comparison is immediately invalid. So go ahead and show us the data, and if you can prove that it's flatter then I'm happy to shut up. You literally said you're "not sure what the low end is", so I have no clue why you think your comparison is valid when you don't have the correct data.
Also you can't just ignore the Traya shards, so go ahead and add that to your comparison too.
I don't see any analysis to show what is meant by it is flatter either. That's what I'm asking you to show me what "you" mean.
Yes you can ignore Traya shards, they are shards of a character, yes a raid exclusive character but once you have that character done, they all go towards gear.....
But since you are going to declare the absolute base for comparison, then sure what you are saying is accurate to your specifics.
Gear is more comparable to relic mats. And yes you can look at the possible drops in the top 10 as part of the average. This steep increase in rewards for the top 10 makes a hook at the end and a none linear distribution, rancor has linear one, and is therefore flatter. But that is just the way I look at it.
So when you compare what you want to you are right.
Traya shards were the premium item of hstr. You are making an arbitrary comparison that suits your argument which is as counterintuitive slice as picking traya shards vs rng gear box on this raid. We are comparing how raids are on release as we don't know anything about the destiny of c.rancy either. i.e. raid exclusive relic mats being released elsewhere in 6 months will devalue that portion on the rewards, making the 284 gear the prime need. Gear compares to gear, premium item compares to premium item.
Or the other reasonable way to compare would be compare the entirety of rewards which is a difficult task you will surely be shooing away since your arguments for some reason doesn't require the same proof you demand of others.
I never said they were not a premium item, but they were not the only one. the gear offered there was also raid exclusive. its not arbitrary, but i would appreciate the breakdown of how you justify the comparison of shards to gear. because relic pieces to gear seems much more comparable.
as for the value, the gear keeps its comparable value, yes it may go up or down, but its still equal to other gear at that level, and technically itself as it still serves the same function. shards do not retain any intiial values once you complete the toon, they completely change as they now only have a value as shard shop currency.
as for the future, just like other releases they have stated this is "We wanted Relic 8 to initially have a raid-exclusive aspect in order to give Guilds some new goals to work toward and at the same time, reinforce the core gameplay for Guilds in Galaxy of Heroes." they have said this before and so initially it will exclusive (like the raid gear in the Sith raid) and then move on.
yes it would be difficult to assign it values, but not difficult to generalize its shape which would illustrate the same thing I have said, because a translation wouldn't change the shape of the graph. so the non linear spike in the 10-1 range would remain. adding the linear traya shard distribution just translates (moves its position) the other graph it doesn't change the shape.
Well, let's see your data then. A counter argument is still an argument which also has the burden of proof. Bear in mind the gear in the boxes in both raids are quite different than each other depending on the pool it's drawing from. Why are we ignoring the gear(that's actually called gear) in this raid again while we are farming -the other raid- for similar gear? Show us that generalized shape of that graph you are talking about.
and as I said, if those are the elements they wish to compare, then that is correct they are not flatter. The problem is that if you include the gear in any way, it changes the situation to the other way around. so for example, if you brought everything to a similar base value across all the rewards offered (equating everything to some crystal value perhaps) then it would illustrate that same thing, Rancor is flatter, as it doesn't have the steep increase (that has been a hot topic of discussion) in the reward structure.
Has there been some data and/or analysis to support this? Honestly, I wouldn't be surprised if the gear drops on a crystal-equivalent basis are flatter in CPit. I've seen folks in the bottom half get better rewards than I've gotten in 4 top 10 finishes. But my sample size is absurdly small.
I'd rather shift the argument away from which is flatter. It seems to me, limited sample size, that the left-side G12 gear drops from CPit are usually pieces used by very few characters (wristbands). They are salvageable for Electrium pieces, but not for the Impulse Detectors. This seems like a poor design choice. Most of the gear drops I get I already have a surplus of. And with the relic salvage and signal data economy, I don't really benefit from a slight surge in Electrium pieces.
In other words, even though the gear drops would equate to a lot of crystals in shipments, they're not pieces I would ever spend crystals on. Thus their value is considerably lower than shipments would imply.
Finally, the variance is too high, or I've gotten really bad RNG. 4 top 10 finishes, no gear of value to show for it. If CG wants to do something really player friendly, just nix the gear loot boxes altogether and give us a bunch more GET and GET2.
My only issues is the co-ordination required and the reward pool which is unaddressed, and keeps getting dismissed
I wish we had much better tools in-game for co-ordination if they are going to keep the stacking thresholds (like damage isn't posted until X time and you can submit your run whenever you want) rather than using third party apps for management. Doesn't really make sense to require 50 players to attack at the same time without providing the tools to do so within the game
Reward pool is pretty bad for a lot of reasons and we haven't had any response to that
EDIT: My guild completes the raid in 40 minutes, I'm just concerned for the larger playerbase regarding the co-ordination aspect, and future raids. And its pretty annoying to remain active on discord constantly for updates on when its ok to post damage
My only issues is the co-ordination required and the reward pool which is unaddressed, and keeps getting dismissed
I wish we had much better tools in-game for co-ordination if they are going to keep the stacking thresholds (like damage isn't posted until X time and you can submit your run whenever you want) rather than using third party apps for management. Doesn't really make sense to require 50 players to attack at the same time without providing the tools to do so within the game
Reward pool is pretty bad for a lot of reasons and we haven't had any response to that
EDIT: My guild completes the raid in 40 minutes, I'm just concerned for the larger playerbase regarding the co-ordination aspect, and future raids. And its pretty annoying to remain active on discord constantly for updates on when its ok to post damage
CG_Doja_Fett
Would you mind sending this one up the tree? This is what we’ve been saying for several weeks now.
Everything is in line with what they were expecting.
They are keeping an eye on what's going on with a mindset of " Is this the player experience they want".
There are currently no planned changes to the raid or rewards table at this moment.
I skimmed a bunch from the weekend, but let me point out: if they are still monitoring the player experience with no official statement, it means it IS what they want and they have no plans to adjust. They fed us this awful game mode with meh rewards that requires all these external things because they actively hate us. There is no other explanation, because forcing us to use other apps to get this done does not make them money.
ignoring other explanations doesn't mean they dont exist.
also surprisingly enough, they can monitor things and even make plans to change them without an official statement. kind of shocking, I know.
If you were CG, do you think it would be a good idea to use your community manager to communicate that they are even “considering” fixes in order to stop the guild-hopping, spending-freezes, and game-quitting sentiments expressed by a number of people here in the forums?
I think I would communicate to that effect if I were looking into fixes to quell the negative sentiments (sentiments expressed by guilds successfully completing the content btw).
and as I said, if those are the elements they wish to compare, then that is correct they are not flatter. The problem is that if you include the gear in any way, it changes the situation to the other way around. so for example, if you brought everything to a similar base value across all the rewards offered (equating everything to some crystal value perhaps) then it would illustrate that same thing, Rancor is flatter, as it doesn't have the steep increase (that has been a hot topic of discussion) in the reward structure.
Has there been some data and/or analysis to support this? Honestly, I wouldn't be surprised if the gear drops on a crystal-equivalent basis are flatter in CPit. I've seen folks in the bottom half get better rewards than I've gotten in 4 top 10 finishes. But my sample size is absurdly small.
I'd rather shift the argument away from which is flatter. It seems to me, limited sample size, that the left-side G12 gear drops from CPit are usually pieces used by very few characters (wristbands). They are salvageable for Electrium pieces, but not for the Impulse Detectors. This seems like a poor design choice. Most of the gear drops I get I already have a surplus of. And with the relic salvage and signal data economy, I don't really benefit from a slight surge in Electrium pieces.
In other words, even though the gear drops would equate to a lot of crystals in shipments, they're not pieces I would ever spend crystals on. Thus their value is considerably lower than shipments would imply.
Finally, the variance is too high, or I've gotten really bad RNG. 4 top 10 finishes, no gear of value to show for it. If CG wants to do something really player friendly, just nix the gear loot boxes altogether and give us a bunch more GET and GET2.
Yup, I'd love -do what you want with the currency- heavy reward structures instead falsely inflated amounts of useless things. I'd prefer it to even %50 buying value of items I have control of.
Replies
Why not the raid exclusive gear? That seems to be the most comparable items.
Yea I'm not that well-versed in stats and graphs so I fully admit that my graphs are not very well done. But I don't think the scale matters as long as you just compare the slope equations right? Plus the y-axis differing by a few points doesn't exactly break the entire comparison.
I also didn't see another way to compare "flatness" aside from this, so if anyone else has any ideas definitely go for it.
Um no, the primary rewards for both raids are obvious even if what we need out of it changes in time. Cg making them constant also proves this. If you are claiming it's the gear that's to take as important from hstr, as worthless as Traya shards are (for most) now, gear are not exclusive anymore either.
Show us the gear comparison data too by all means if you are attaching flatter to it.
Why don't you go ahead and compare it then? You keep pushing it onto us, but if you have some way of comparing (with data instead of just feeling), then go ahead and do it already.
Cause the players don't have the data for it. Unless you are willing to share the PDFs of each item for each 1-4 box? 🙂 Then we can test for flatness 🙂
1 to 11 on the new mats
Sith raid would be low end 5-7ish ( not sure what the low end it), then up to 50 (full piece) at the top, with a steap increase in the top 10.
So the new raid would be flatter when looking at those rewards, mainly due to the steep increase of the top 10.
But you comparing apples to oranges doesn't really put the ball in my court.
They said its flatter, everyone cried out, it's not, but I didnt see any analysis or anything to show what is meant by they are not flatter. This is why I stopped trying to point at what I saw and was asking for someone to show me what "you" mean.
I gave my data-driven argument, so it's your turn, isn't that fair? Your comparison is way more apples to oranges than mine, because you can't just say "well you might get a full piece at the top, so let's just use that full piece as a comparison point". Realistically, how often are you going to get that full piece? You don't know that, so your comparison is immediately invalid. So go ahead and show us the data, and if you can prove that it's flatter then I'm happy to shut up. You literally said you're "not sure what the low end is", so I have no clue why you think your comparison is valid when you don't have the correct data.
Also you can't just ignore the Traya shards, so go ahead and add that to your comparison too.
I don't see any analysis to show what is meant by it is flatter either. That's what I'm asking you to show me what "you" mean.
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.
So while CG is happy taking their time their lack of communication is negatively affecting the player base.
@CG_Doja_Fett can you ask up the tree if this is the intended outcome of the challenge rancor? I know you’re just the middle man, so I don’t hold you accountable for the outcome of this dumpster fire, but can you see if TopCash or Mark “I am too good to speak with the community” **** can finally communicate on if guilds disbanding is their overall intent?
The answer to this exists in either one of the old q/a's or announcements after hstr. It was -yes-. This was quoted a lot at that time but I can't find without remembering where it should be.
edit: i saw they fixed the door TM in the update notes, didn't see anything about the difficulty.
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?
Yes you can ignore Traya shards, they are shards of a character, yes a raid exclusive character but once you have that character done, they all go towards gear.....
But since you are going to declare the absolute base for comparison, then sure what you are saying is accurate to your specifics.
Gear is more comparable to relic mats. And yes you can look at the possible drops in the top 10 as part of the average. This steep increase in rewards for the top 10 makes a hook at the end and a none linear distribution, rancor has linear one, and is therefore flatter. But that is just the way I look at it.
So when you compare what you want to you are right.
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.
Traya shards were the premium item of hstr. You are making an arbitrary comparison that suits your argument which is as counterintuitive slice as picking traya shards vs rng gear box on this raid. We are comparing how raids are on release as we don't know anything about the destiny of c.rancy either. i.e. raid exclusive relic mats being released elsewhere in 6 months will devalue that portion on the rewards, making the 284 gear the prime need. Gear compares to gear, premium item compares to premium item.
Or the other reasonable way to compare would be compare the entirety of rewards which is a difficult task you will surely be shooing away since your arguments for some reason doesn't require the same proof you demand of others.
I skimmed a bunch from the weekend, but let me point out: if they are still monitoring the player experience with no official statement, it means it IS what they want and they have no plans to adjust. They fed us this awful game mode with meh rewards that requires all these external things because they actively hate us. There is no other explanation, because forcing us to use other apps to get this done does not make them money.
They don't hate us, that doesn't make sense. It's rather lack of caring about consequences of design choices and not reprimanding or owing upto it.
we can agree to disagree here, but comparing gear to shards seems to be cherry picking. I dont think I have seen a single comparison between the 2 other than to show farming value.
it really doesn't matter how difficult it is. by sheer definition the rewards for Sith have a steep increase when you get into the range of 10-1, its a stated fact about the rewards.
and as I said, if those are the elements they wish to compare, then that is correct they are not flatter. The problem is that if you include the gear in any way, it changes the situation to the other way around. so for example, if you brought everything to a similar base value across all the rewards offered (equating everything to some crystal value perhaps) then it would illustrate that same thing, Rancor is flatter, as it doesn't have the steep increase (that has been a hot topic of discussion) in the reward structure.
Active dislike vs indifference. I think the end result is the same, but I suppose you are right.
It is possible to be both or a mix. However it would be complete speculation to say either way.
The communication did not address the major concerns brought up by the player base, so not owning up to a negative player experience is fairly accurate. Pointing to other content being disliked (HSTR, LS Geo etc) doesn’t exactly say “hey we like you and care about your experience.” It rather points to a fundamental business model being employed.
The game has intended crunches to create frustrations in players to result in player spending due to a love of Star Wars and competition. The predatory practice (not using this term in a strictly negative context, we live in a capitalist world after all) is psychological in nature. HSTR was “impossible” for a bit; enter new gear, relics and voila...”see it’s fun now that you spent money to get the characters up to beat it right?” There will likely be additions in the future to drive spending to “best the beast” without the coordination being necessary. Until then, it is likely for the nightmare of this “new” raid to go unchanged.
Hard to say that they “like” us with this sort of business model, but also just as unfair to say they hate us.
I never said they were not a premium item, but they were not the only one. the gear offered there was also raid exclusive. its not arbitrary, but i would appreciate the breakdown of how you justify the comparison of shards to gear. because relic pieces to gear seems much more comparable.
as for the value, the gear keeps its comparable value, yes it may go up or down, but its still equal to other gear at that level, and technically itself as it still serves the same function. shards do not retain any intiial values once you complete the toon, they completely change as they now only have a value as shard shop currency.
as for the future, just like other releases they have stated this is "We wanted Relic 8 to initially have a raid-exclusive aspect in order to give Guilds some new goals to work toward and at the same time, reinforce the core gameplay for Guilds in Galaxy of Heroes." they have said this before and so initially it will exclusive (like the raid gear in the Sith raid) and then move on.
yes it would be difficult to assign it values, but not difficult to generalize its shape which would illustrate the same thing I have said, because a translation wouldn't change the shape of the graph. so the non linear spike in the 10-1 range would remain. adding the linear traya shard distribution just translates (moves its position) the other graph it doesn't change the shape.
ignoring other explanations doesn't mean they dont exist.
also surprisingly enough, they can monitor things and even make plans to change them without an official statement. kind of shocking, I know.
Well, let's see your data then. A counter argument is still an argument which also has the burden of proof. Bear in mind the gear in the boxes in both raids are quite different than each other depending on the pool it's drawing from. Why are we ignoring the gear(that's actually called gear) in this raid again while we are farming -the other raid- for similar gear? Show us that generalized shape of that graph you are talking about.
Has there been some data and/or analysis to support this? Honestly, I wouldn't be surprised if the gear drops on a crystal-equivalent basis are flatter in CPit. I've seen folks in the bottom half get better rewards than I've gotten in 4 top 10 finishes. But my sample size is absurdly small.
I'd rather shift the argument away from which is flatter. It seems to me, limited sample size, that the left-side G12 gear drops from CPit are usually pieces used by very few characters (wristbands). They are salvageable for Electrium pieces, but not for the Impulse Detectors. This seems like a poor design choice. Most of the gear drops I get I already have a surplus of. And with the relic salvage and signal data economy, I don't really benefit from a slight surge in Electrium pieces.
In other words, even though the gear drops would equate to a lot of crystals in shipments, they're not pieces I would ever spend crystals on. Thus their value is considerably lower than shipments would imply.
Finally, the variance is too high, or I've gotten really bad RNG. 4 top 10 finishes, no gear of value to show for it. If CG wants to do something really player friendly, just nix the gear loot boxes altogether and give us a bunch more GET and GET2.
If you were CG, do you think it would be a good idea to use your community manager to communicate that they are even “considering” fixes in order to stop the guild-hopping, spending-freezes, and game-quitting sentiments expressed by a number of people here in the forums?
I think I would communicate to that effect if I were looking into fixes to quell the negative sentiments (sentiments expressed by guilds successfully completing the content btw).
Yup, I'd love -do what you want with the currency- heavy reward structures instead falsely inflated amounts of useless things. I'd prefer it to even %50 buying value of items I have control of.