The Pit Challenge Tier & Relic 8 [MEGA]

Replies

  • Kyno
    32087 posts Moderator
    MaruMaru wrote: »
    Kyno wrote: »
    MaruMaru wrote: »
    Kyno wrote: »
    Vendi1983 wrote: »
    The direct comparison is Traya shards to Relic 8 ability mats. Raid-exclusive items. Nothing else is directly comparable. Or matters that much in terms of "new content". Comparing RNG raid drops is irrelevant, especially when comparing them to the fixed raid-specific item that ALWAYS drops in those quantities.

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

    To further the comparison:

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

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

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

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

    Now explain how relic mats and gear are not the similar items of a rewards bin?
    Kyno wrote: »
    Kyno wrote: »
    Kyno wrote: »
    Kyno wrote: »
    Kyno wrote: »
    Kyno wrote: »
    Jakdnels wrote: »
    Kyno wrote: »
    MaruMaru wrote: »
    Kyno wrote: »
    MaruMaru wrote: »
    Kyno wrote: »
    Kyno wrote: »
    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?

    https://forums.galaxy-of-heroes.starwars.ea.com/discussion/comment/2213318#Comment_2213318

    Unless you can give us the percentage chances of getting each gear piece in each loot box, we can only compare the non-RNG parts of the rewards, which are the R8 materials from Rancor and the Traya shards from HSTR, and looking at the rewards breakdowns for the two is pretty self-explanatory which one is flatter

    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)

    47tu0hxj1el6.png


    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?
    Vendi1983 wrote: »
    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.

    no matter how you slice it, due to the increased availability, and exclusivity of the top 10 rewards in Sith raid you have a graph that is inherently non linear. you have 2 lines with different slopes, or a complex shape that offers a smooth curve but still not linear.

    v4k7oaiqslba.png

    if at each position you did an averaging of value of all parts offered to a player this shape would still exist.

    or as a single function it would look something like this:
    86cu1faixr5n.png

    for the CPit raid, there is no exclusive section of rewards and therefore there is no second linear section and even if you include the value of all things offered it is a linear distribution.

    ftgrcnpf8ika.png


    but maybe I'm wrong and somehow having exclusive top 10 rewards doesn't distort the rewards in this way.
  • I think you're mistaking linear and flat
  • Kyno
    32087 posts Moderator
    I think you're mistaking linear and flat

    ?? since the Sith rewards distribution is non linear, a linear distribution is flatter (which is what was stated about the rewards distribution):
    we have opted for a flatter prizing structure
  • How are more linear and flatter the same thing?
  • Kyno wrote: »
    I think you're mistaking linear and flat

    ?? since the Sith rewards distribution is non linear, a linear distribution is flatter (which is what was stated about the rewards distribution):
    we have opted for a flatter prizing structure

    No one believes your argument. I don’t think anyone would agree with you on this. You can keep pushing your belief but you are the only one that will be convinced.
  • The only thing flat about the rewards is that they are flat-out crap regardless of rank. This raid is such a dumpster fire of epic proportions. Keep burrowing your head in the sand.
  • One of these distributions is perfectly linear, the other is cubic. Per Kyno, the linear function is "flatter".i8mbrigpahmk.png
  • Haha this argument is comedy gold. I’m bringing popcorn.
  • Kyno wrote: »
    MaruMaru wrote: »
    Kyno wrote: »
    MaruMaru wrote: »
    Kyno wrote: »
    Vendi1983 wrote: »
    The direct comparison is Traya shards to Relic 8 ability mats. Raid-exclusive items. Nothing else is directly comparable. Or matters that much in terms of "new content". Comparing RNG raid drops is irrelevant, especially when comparing them to the fixed raid-specific item that ALWAYS drops in those quantities.

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

    To further the comparison:

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

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

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

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

    Now explain how relic mats and gear are not the similar items of a rewards bin?
    Kyno wrote: »
    Kyno wrote: »
    Kyno wrote: »
    Kyno wrote: »
    Kyno wrote: »
    Kyno wrote: »
    Jakdnels wrote: »
    Kyno wrote: »
    MaruMaru wrote: »
    Kyno wrote: »
    MaruMaru wrote: »
    Kyno wrote: »
    Kyno wrote: »
    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?

    https://forums.galaxy-of-heroes.starwars.ea.com/discussion/comment/2213318#Comment_2213318

    Unless you can give us the percentage chances of getting each gear piece in each loot box, we can only compare the non-RNG parts of the rewards, which are the R8 materials from Rancor and the Traya shards from HSTR, and looking at the rewards breakdowns for the two is pretty self-explanatory which one is flatter

    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)

    47tu0hxj1el6.png


    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?
    Vendi1983 wrote: »
    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.

    no matter how you slice it, due to the increased availability, and exclusivity of the top 10 rewards in Sith raid you have a graph that is inherently non linear. you have 2 lines with different slopes, or a complex shape that offers a smooth curve but still not linear.

    v4k7oaiqslba.png

    if at each position you did an averaging of value of all parts offered to a player this shape would still exist.

    or as a single function it would look something like this:
    86cu1faixr5n.png

    for the CPit raid, there is no exclusive section of rewards and therefore there is no second linear section and even if you include the value of all things offered it is a linear distribution.

    ftgrcnpf8ika.png


    but maybe I'm wrong and somehow having exclusive top 10 rewards doesn't distort the rewards in this way.

    That was a good laugh. I didn't get anything of substance but pure comedy gold. Oki, you don't math, will keep in mind.
  • Kyno
    32087 posts Moderator
    How are more linear and flatter the same thing?

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

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

    First of all, CG said "flatter prizing structure". I think it's a stretch to say that doesn't mean a more equitable prizing structure. That is, the common interpretation (as seen from countless rants in this thread) would lead one to believe that the bottom 10 would get rewards more similar to the top 10 than what we saw in previous raids.

    As to your point, it sounds like you are talking about statistical distribution curves. My statistics is admittedly pretty rusty (been about 13 years), but I'm not sure how you're applying a probability distribution to the rewards structure.
  • Fieldgulls
    419 posts Member
    edited January 2021
    Kyno, you are all alone and on an island on this one. You should have picked a different thread/issue to blindly defend CG and one that maybe they would respond to so you have back up.

    Edit: I couldn’t post the perfect gif...oh well.
  • Kyno wrote: »
    How are more linear and flatter the same thing?

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

    First of all, CG said "flatter prizing structure". I think it's a stretch to say that doesn't mean a more equitable prizing structure. That is, the common interpretation (as seen from countless rants in this thread) would lead one to believe that the bottom 10 would get rewards more similar to the top 10 than what we saw in previous raids.

    As to your point, it sounds like you are talking about statistical distribution curves. My statistics is admittedly pretty rusty (been about 13 years), but I'm not sure how you're applying a probability distribution to the rewards structure.

    There is no variable mapped to y axis and no values assigned to it, thus no calculatable slope, so it can basically be anything. There is no data used in to any of it though, so I'll leave it for the others to make sense.
  • Kyno
    32087 posts Moderator
    Kyno wrote: »
    How are more linear and flatter the same thing?

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

    First of all, CG said "flatter prizing structure". I think it's a stretch to say that doesn't mean a more equitable prizing structure. That is, the common interpretation (as seen from countless rants in this thread) would lead one to believe that the bottom 10 would get rewards more similar to the top 10 than what we saw in previous raids.

    As to your point, it sounds like you are talking about statistical distribution curves. My statistics is admittedly pretty rusty (been about 13 years), but I'm not sure how you're applying a probability distribution to the rewards structure.

    I understand, but that is where this comes into play. the sith reward structure having a "exponential" curve (or a linear curve at a different slope in my above graphs) to it means that over the long run, someone placing in the top 10 all the time, vs someone placing at 11 all the time, the top 10 player will outpace them much more, then that same scenario in CPit. exponential will always outpace linear in the long run. so a linear distribution is more equitable for everyone in the guild.
  • So why aren't you using relic pieces for your non valued graphs @Kyno? You were the one saying they were the item to compare from CRancy merely a few messages ago.
  • So basically kyno is saying that it's not quite as bad as the previous raid structure which was awful. Therefore cg has flattened it, if only ever so slightly.

    So apparently we're arguing semantics and parsing the English language as opposed to a straight forward reading. Look i get it TECHNICALLY cg can say 'look it's been flattened.' But they failed abysmally in regards to the straight forward reading, which is that raids need to be significantly flattened. This means that cg, apparently, has not concluded that the rewards need to be flat.

    SO we can say that cg is doing a demonstrably poor job of taking care of its player base. Cg gets no credit for flat rewards, because they aren't, simply for making an incremental change, in an area that is already awful, resulting in a still terrible design.
  • Kyno wrote: »
    How are more linear and flatter the same thing?

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

    Except you just defined "linear" distribution, not "flat" (or "flatter"). "Flat" in regard to wages, prices, etc. is "the same in all cases, not varying with changed conditions or in particular cases." It's clear that CG once again simply used a vague word and their own definition. They said "flatter" but meant "more linear".
    In game name: Lucas Gregory FORMER PLAYER - - - -"Whale blah grump poooop." - Ouchie

    In game guild: TNR Uprising
    I beat the REAL T7 Yoda (not the nerfed one) and did so before mods were there to help
    *This space left intentionally blank*
  • Sewpot
    2010 posts Member
    The way it feels and reads to me is bottom rewards have higher value needed gear but less r8. Top has less value gear but more r8. So flatter in that sense. From all the screen shots my guild is putting out it sure looks that way.
  • MaruMaru
    3338 posts Member
    edited January 2021
    So basically kyno is saying that it's not quite as bad as the previous raid structure which was awful. Therefore cg has flattened it, if only ever so slightly.

    So apparently we're arguing semantics and parsing the English language as opposed to a straight forward reading. Look i get it TECHNICALLY cg can say 'look it's been flattened.' But they failed abysmally in regards to the straight forward reading, which is that raids need to be significantly flattened. This means that cg, apparently, has not concluded that the rewards need to be flat.

    SO we can say that cg is doing a demonstrably poor job of taking care of its player base. Cg gets no credit for flat rewards, because they aren't, simply for making an incremental change, in an area that is already awful, resulting in a still terrible design.

    It's not semantics really. They mean to say more equitable as @Ragnarok_COTF has put it or less differing in between placements. For something to be flatter, there should be two things that are a curve where the slope of one is lower. The discussion is where exactly are we seeing this in application in between last raid and this raids rewards.
  • Kyno
    32087 posts Moderator
    MaruMaru wrote: »
    So why aren't you using relic pieces for your non valued graphs Kyno? You were the one saying they were the item to compare from CRancy merely a few messages ago.

    you lost me. when did I say I wasn't "using relic pieces"?

    you asked for me to depict my generalization, so I did. I also tried to remove any side conversation about what counts or what doesn't from the rewards and said to plot each point as a value of all things given. That was done so that we dont need to agree on what things we are comparing, we are just looking at the reward structure as a whole.
  • Sewpot wrote: »
    The way it feels and reads to me is bottom rewards have higher value needed gear but less r8. Top has less value gear but more r8. So flatter in that sense. From all the screen shots my guild is putting out it sure looks that way.

    "From a certain point of view". ;)

    Seriously, if that was their intent (to give better gear but less r8 at lower ranks and higher r8 but less gear at higher ones) - why not just state it clearly? It's simply another example of CG being vague when open, clear and upfront communication would have avoided a lot of confusion and frustration.
    In game name: Lucas Gregory FORMER PLAYER - - - -"Whale blah grump poooop." - Ouchie

    In game guild: TNR Uprising
    I beat the REAL T7 Yoda (not the nerfed one) and did so before mods were there to help
    *This space left intentionally blank*
  • Sewpot wrote: »
    The way it feels and reads to me is bottom rewards have higher value needed gear but less r8. Top has less value gear but more r8. So flatter in that sense. From all the screen shots my guild is putting out it sure looks that way.

    I haven't thought of it like that, but it might be. I'm not seeing it in the outcomes though. All those boxes have the same gear types in them with different full piece percentages and lowering amounts as you go down. So in two cases where both get desirable gear out of the package, lower placement is getting lower amounts. But since there are many junk gear in the pool, higher placement frequently ends up getting a worse reward from the rng box (amounts are still higher). There is not as much junk to possibly get out of the hstr rng boxes.
  • Kyno wrote: »
    MaruMaru wrote: »
    So why aren't you using relic pieces for your non valued graphs Kyno? You were the one saying they were the item to compare from CRancy merely a few messages ago.

    you lost me. when did I say I wasn't "using relic pieces"?

    you asked for me to depict my generalization, so I did. I also tried to remove any side conversation about what counts or what doesn't from the rewards and said to plot each point as a value of all things given. That was done so that we dont need to agree on what things we are comparing, we are just looking at the reward structure as a whole.

    You didn't say you weren't using relic pieces. In fact you didn't say anything what you were using as there is no variable or values mapped to y axis rendering the graphs meaningless. Something is changing to other something. That's not how graphs works.
  • Kyno
    32087 posts Moderator
    Nikoms565 wrote: »
    Kyno wrote: »
    How are more linear and flatter the same thing?

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

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

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

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

    flatter requires a comparison, and is therefore linked to another thing, e.g. - prizing structure for the sith raid
  • Flatter means one curve has a lower slope than another (as the slope becomes zero it's linear). Where are we seeing this?
  • Kyno
    32087 posts Moderator
    Cg gets no credit for flat rewards, because they aren't,

    correct. they are not, and they never said they would be.
    So basically kyno is saying that it's not quite as bad as the previous raid structure which was awful. Therefore cg has flattened it, if only ever so slightly.

    So apparently we're arguing semantics and parsing the English language as opposed to a straight forward reading. Look i get it TECHNICALLY cg can say 'look it's been flattened.' But they failed abysmally in regards to the straight forward reading, which is that raids need to be significantly flattened. This means that cg, apparently, has not concluded that the rewards need to be flat.

    SO we can say that cg is doing a demonstrably poor job of taking care of its player base. Cg gets no credit for flat rewards, because they aren't, simply for making an incremental change, in an area that is already awful, resulting in a still terrible design.

    They dont need to be flat, they also dont really need to be significantly flatter. we may all want it to be that way, but this is just a starting location for this level of development that will expand outward to other game modes and farming locations. just like other gear has done in the past.

    I agree they could use a different prize structure in raids, but they dont, they use those elsewhere for guild events.
  • Konju
    1142 posts Member
    Kyno wrote: »
    Cg gets no credit for flat rewards, because they aren't,

    correct. they are not, and they never said they would be.
    So basically kyno is saying that it's not quite as bad as the previous raid structure which was awful. Therefore cg has flattened it, if only ever so slightly.

    So apparently we're arguing semantics and parsing the English language as opposed to a straight forward reading. Look i get it TECHNICALLY cg can say 'look it's been flattened.' But they failed abysmally in regards to the straight forward reading, which is that raids need to be significantly flattened. This means that cg, apparently, has not concluded that the rewards need to be flat.

    SO we can say that cg is doing a demonstrably poor job of taking care of its player base. Cg gets no credit for flat rewards, because they aren't, simply for making an incremental change, in an area that is already awful, resulting in a still terrible design.

    They dont need to be flat, they also dont really need to be significantly flatter. we may all want it to be that way, but this is just a starting location for this level of development that will expand outward to other game modes and farming locations. just like other gear has done in the past.

    I agree they could use a different prize structure in raids, but they dont, they use those elsewhere for guild events.

    So is it known as fact that the exclusive raid R8 materials will be farmable elsewhere eventually? Not talking about packs here, talking about legitimate f2p farming locations (ie nodes, assault battles, GC etc.)
  • Konju wrote: »
    Kyno wrote: »
    Cg gets no credit for flat rewards, because they aren't,

    correct. they are not, and they never said they would be.
    So basically kyno is saying that it's not quite as bad as the previous raid structure which was awful. Therefore cg has flattened it, if only ever so slightly.

    So apparently we're arguing semantics and parsing the English language as opposed to a straight forward reading. Look i get it TECHNICALLY cg can say 'look it's been flattened.' But they failed abysmally in regards to the straight forward reading, which is that raids need to be significantly flattened. This means that cg, apparently, has not concluded that the rewards need to be flat.

    SO we can say that cg is doing a demonstrably poor job of taking care of its player base. Cg gets no credit for flat rewards, because they aren't, simply for making an incremental change, in an area that is already awful, resulting in a still terrible design.

    They dont need to be flat, they also dont really need to be significantly flatter. we may all want it to be that way, but this is just a starting location for this level of development that will expand outward to other game modes and farming locations. just like other gear has done in the past.

    I agree they could use a different prize structure in raids, but they dont, they use those elsewhere for guild events.

    So is it known as fact that the exclusive raid R8 materials will be farmable elsewhere eventually? Not talking about packs here, talking about legitimate f2p farming locations (ie nodes, assault battles, GC etc.)

    August?
    In game name: Lucas Gregory FORMER PLAYER - - - -"Whale blah grump poooop." - Ouchie

    In game guild: TNR Uprising
    I beat the REAL T7 Yoda (not the nerfed one) and did so before mods were there to help
    *This space left intentionally blank*
Sign In or Register to comment.