The Pit Challenge Tier & Relic 8 [MEGA]

Replies

  • Kyno
    32087 posts Moderator
    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.)

    based on the verbiage they used, and have used previously for raid exclusive gear. yes. not sure where it will end up, but events and things are the most likely avenues, and i'm sure there will be packs too.
  • StarSon
    7411 posts Member
    Kyno wrote: »
    Sarbitar wrote: »
    I will say this.

    If they can't get ALL the data to monitor the situation, HALF of the data they can gather is completely useless. It means completely nothing. WHOLE ZERO.

    They can get 80% of the data, and this will still mean COMPLETELY ZERO about the raid.

    Moreover it can mean something completely different. It can mean that everyone is enjoying the raid, while the truth is completely opposite.

    Measuring half of the parameters is like measuring nothing.

    ?? First, what data are they not gathering?

    For one, they have no concept of how many abandoned runs are "sorry, we've hit the threshold, so you don't get to post your damage, please dump your run" vs restarts or crashes or any variation thereof.

    Basically, they definitely know when we start a run, but they never know anything else if we don't finish it.
  • Konju
    1142 posts Member
    Kyno wrote: »
    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.)

    based on the verbiage they used, and have used previously for raid exclusive gear. yes. not sure where it will end up, but events and things are the most likely avenues, and i'm sure there will be packs too.

    So it’s still “maybe” territory it seems. “Based upon the verbiage”...they can weasel out of that easily. Good to know that it’s something to hope for, though. Thanks.
    Nikoms565 wrote: »
    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?

    😂 if August is the plan and I knew it, I would likely still be happier than I am now not knowing.
  • @crzydroid this is hot garbage. how do you guys sleep at night?
  • Kyno
    32087 posts Moderator
    StarSon wrote: »
    Kyno wrote: »
    Sarbitar wrote: »
    I will say this.

    If they can't get ALL the data to monitor the situation, HALF of the data they can gather is completely useless. It means completely nothing. WHOLE ZERO.

    They can get 80% of the data, and this will still mean COMPLETELY ZERO about the raid.

    Moreover it can mean something completely different. It can mean that everyone is enjoying the raid, while the truth is completely opposite.

    Measuring half of the parameters is like measuring nothing.

    ?? First, what data are they not gathering?

    For one, they have no concept of how many abandoned runs are "sorry, we've hit the threshold, so you don't get to post your damage, please dump your run" vs restarts or crashes or any variation thereof.

    Basically, they definitely know when we start a run, but they never know anything else if we don't finish it.

    I dont know when the data is collected so you may be right, but if they collect the data of what team you use at the start of the battle, then they could absolutely have get some bearing on this (maybe not 100% directly, but that will always be the case with soft issues like this). if you started the raid either in the same phase or multiple phases with the same team they would have that data.
  • Nikoms565
    14242 posts Member
    edited January 2021
    Debuff wrote: »
    crzydroid this is hot garbage. how do you guys sleep at night?

    Most of them, in a bed, I would guess. Maybe some of them are the more "outdoorsy" type and prefer a sleeping bag in a tent/cabin or some such occasionally.

    I don't understand why you are asking volunteer forum moderators, that have no say whatsoever in the decision making process. Maybe direct your question/vitriol where the blame for bad decisions clearly rests? Mark.

    I mean, let's be honest - he won't answer. He prefers to make poor decisions and then leave Crumb, Doja, Kyno and others feel the heat and deal with the fallout.
    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*
  • Kyno wrote: »
    Nikoms565 wrote: »
    Kyno wrote: »
    How are more linear and flatter the same thing?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    You're telling us that they meant a more linear distribution rather than more equitable prizes? If so, and I think that's a colossal "if", that's just an absurdly poor choice of words. In fact, I find this so beyond unbelievable, that unless a CG official comes out and says it, I'll assume you are doing some top notch lawyer gymnastics to make what they said true.
  • Kyno
    32087 posts Moderator
    Kyno wrote: »
    Nikoms565 wrote: »
    Kyno wrote: »
    How are more linear and flatter the same thing?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    I am not saying I wouldn't' want it to be better, but to say they didn't deliver on a flatter reward structure than the previous example we have, doesn't seem to be accurate. Everyone needs something to call them out on, but in this case trying to say they are not flat , while true, isn't what they said.
  • Kyno wrote: »
    Kyno wrote: »
    Nikoms565 wrote: »
    Kyno wrote: »
    How are more linear and flatter the same thing?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    I provided a chart a few pages back demonstrating that the equity of the rewards is not dependent on the classification of the shape (linear, cubic, quadratic, exponential, logarithmic, sinusoidal, whatever). The equity of the rewards is what everyone is up in arms over.
  • Konju
    1142 posts Member
    While the overall gear rewards may be flatter (still not sure on the accuracy of the data there), 11:1 on the exclusive mats certainly does not “reduce some of the friction in-guild.”
  • Kyno wrote: »
    Kyno wrote: »
    Nikoms565 wrote: »
    Kyno wrote: »
    How are more linear and flatter the same thing?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    You have yet to show us the data where the linearity exists. In what way is CRancy rewards linear? Data please, your feelings are meaningless.
  • first, when comparing the sith raid and the CPit, I'm of the opinion that the r8 materials should be compared with Traya shards, but if you want to also include gear in the CPit as where the rewards are flattened, why does the C1-01 box for placing first through fifth say it's the 'best chance to receive fully crafted items' and the C1-04 box say "a small chance to receive fully crafted items"?
  • 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.

    Here's the part of the data perfectly put in scale and indicating variables that it's not linear. It's an example of a decreasing curve which asymptotes to 1. No rough estimation will make it linear.


    Only thing that can trump is a complete set of data where the value of items in it are done with one assumption or another.
  • Kyno wrote: »
    Vendi1983 wrote: »
    The direct comparison is Traya shards to Relic 8 ability mats. Raid-exclusive items. Nothing else is directly comparable. Or matters that much in terms of "new content". Comparing RNG raid drops is irrelevant, especially when comparing them to the fixed raid-specific item that ALWAYS drops in those quantities.

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

    To further the comparison:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    If anything, using the 50 gear drop from Sith raids as the standard for comparison because you might get it every once in a while is more cherry picking
  • Kyno wrote: »
    Vendi1983 wrote: »
    The direct comparison is Traya shards to Relic 8 ability mats. Raid-exclusive items. Nothing else is directly comparable. Or matters that much in terms of "new content". Comparing RNG raid drops is irrelevant, especially when comparing them to the fixed raid-specific item that ALWAYS drops in those quantities.

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

    To further the comparison:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Full item percantages could be used...if only we at least had a rough number of their drop chances across the board. Besides the possible fulls, the amount of items in the boxes (for each segment) looks constant. Though the actual value of those items are not the same as everyone has abundance of some of them.

    We also don't know which part of the drop table server accesses in hstr while determining what to give with rng. Like each item you get won't be picked randomly but there are segments of it. You always get something out of these yellows in little quantities (if you don't get a full) and you always get something from the lower portion. If it was fully random, there would be times you don't even get any yellow g12+s pieces etc. This doesn't look to be the case in CRancy as I got a mk3 sienar as the topmost full item which makes it more reliant on rng.

    xbigko0do4ul.png

    Since a raid is a low frequency event, I doubt anyone will ever undertake a full study to come up with rough numbers.
  • Still no meaningful communication on thos garbage stacking mechanic. Maybe they should use some of their billion from the players on some ot to fix it
  • Still no meaningful communication on thos garbage stacking mechanic. Maybe they should use some of their billion from the players on some ot to fix it

    They can’t even be bothered to communicate with us. Heck they won’t even fix the music in the game that’s been broken for a week now. CG, the company that cares <3
  • 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?

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

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

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

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

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

    Full item percantages could be used...if only we at least had a rough number of their drop chances across the board. Besides the possible fulls, the amount of items in the boxes (for each segment) looks constant. Though the actual value of those items are not the same as everyone has abundance of some of them.

    We also don't know which part of the drop table server accesses in hstr while determining what to give with rng. Like each item you get won't be picked randomly but there are segments of it. You always get something out of these yellows in little quantities (if you don't get a full) and you always get something from the lower portion. If it was fully random, there would be times you don't even get any yellow g12+s pieces etc. This doesn't look to be the case in CRancy as I got a mk3 sienar as the topmost full item which makes it more reliant on rng.

    xbigko0do4ul.png

    Since a raid is a low frequency event, I doubt anyone will ever undertake a full study to come up with rough numbers.

    For sure, which is why it's completely disingenuous for Kyno to be asking us to graph the rewards when we literally have no way of doing so unless, again, he has all the drop chances and would like to share with us.

    I'm just saying that unless we know what the chances of getting a full piece are, you can't just use that as the basis for comparison because as far as I can tell, it's not a common drop.
  • 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?

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

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

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

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

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

    Full item percantages could be used...if only we at least had a rough number of their drop chances across the board. Besides the possible fulls, the amount of items in the boxes (for each segment) looks constant. Though the actual value of those items are not the same as everyone has abundance of some of them.

    We also don't know which part of the drop table server accesses in hstr while determining what to give with rng. Like each item you get won't be picked randomly but there are segments of it. You always get something out of these yellows in little quantities (if you don't get a full) and you always get something from the lower portion. If it was fully random, there would be times you don't even get any yellow g12+s pieces etc. This doesn't look to be the case in CRancy as I got a mk3 sienar as the topmost full item which makes it more reliant on rng.

    xbigko0do4ul.png

    Since a raid is a low frequency event, I doubt anyone will ever undertake a full study to come up with rough numbers.

    For sure, which is why it's completely disingenuous for Kyno to be asking us to graph the rewards when we literally have no way of doing so unless, again, he has all the drop chances and would like to share with us.

    I'm just saying that unless we know what the chances of getting a full piece are, you can't just use that as the basis for comparison because as far as I can tell, it's not a common drop.

    Through the cryptic mess he's presenting, I'm not even sure what he means is linear, he doesn't even say close to linear, he says something is perfectly linear in CRancy and it should also be obvious to us, but it isn't.
  • Kyno
    32087 posts Moderator
    Kyno wrote: »
    Kyno wrote: »
    Nikoms565 wrote: »
    Kyno wrote: »
    How are more linear and flatter the same thing?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    I will reword, if thats ok:

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

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

    To further the comparison:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    which is why I went away from using numbers and went with a more generalization. yes the 50 is not as accurate, but it certainly does raise the average that would be gained at that position.
  • Konju
    1142 posts Member
    Kyno wrote: »
    Kyno wrote: »
    Kyno wrote: »
    Nikoms565 wrote: »
    Kyno wrote: »
    How are more linear and flatter the same thing?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    I will reword, if thats ok:

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

    I think they are on par with each other. Neither is very flat. Both cause friction in-guild with the poor ratio. Data could show me differently, but nothing presented has convinced me the Rancor is flatter rewards so far.
  • Kyno wrote: »
    Kyno wrote: »
    Kyno wrote: »
    Nikoms565 wrote: »
    Kyno wrote: »
    How are more linear and flatter the same thing?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    I will reword, if thats ok:

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

    What's feelings got to do with it? You either see or not, we presented pages upon pages of outcomes. In terms of premium rewards of both raids, hstr is far more fairly distributed as presented 2 pages ago. You were arguing, but seem to have abondoned that new relic mats is what matters for CRancy. Why is that? I bet this has nothing to do with the slope of relic mats being impossible to argue as fairer or linear or flatter.
  • Kyno wrote: »
    Kyno wrote: »
    Kyno wrote: »
    Nikoms565 wrote: »
    Kyno wrote: »
    How are more linear and flatter the same thing?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    I will reword, if thats ok:

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

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

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

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

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

    TW/TB gives the same rewards to everyone because trying to assign a metric to one's contribution creates friction. The guild officers can do that themselves and replace slackers with those hungry to contribute. We don't need CG doing it for us. But more to the point, everyone in the guild celebrates every TW win and new TB star because we achieved it together and share in the spoils together.
  • Kyno wrote: »
    Kyno wrote: »
    Vendi1983 wrote: »
    The direct comparison is Traya shards to Relic 8 ability mats. Raid-exclusive items. Nothing else is directly comparable. Or matters that much in terms of "new content". Comparing RNG raid drops is irrelevant, especially when comparing them to the fixed raid-specific item that ALWAYS drops in those quantities.

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

    To further the comparison:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    And no I’m not ignoring other comparisons, you just haven’t presented any valid evidence to show how you’re making those comparisons without resorting to “feeling” or generalizing. Is it because you don’t have the data and can’t? Why did you ask us to make those comparisons then?
  • Konju wrote: »
    Kyno wrote: »
    Kyno wrote: »
    Kyno wrote: »
    Nikoms565 wrote: »
    Kyno wrote: »
    How are more linear and flatter the same thing?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    I will reword, if thats ok:

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

    I think they are on par with each other. Neither is very flat. Both cause friction in-guild with the poor ratio. Data could show me differently, but nothing presented has convinced me the Rancor is flatter rewards so far.

    This. Both are poorly structured. Both cause guild friction (combined with the horrid mechanic, the new raid actually causes more guild friction - not less). So the statement that the "flatter" rewards are designed "reduce some of the friction in-guild" is either intentionally misleading or flat out wrong (no pun intended), as the reward structure increases guild friction. The awful stacking mechanic, only moreso.

    Perhaps moving forward CG should try one of two things:

    1) Seeing things from a player perspective.
    2) Being clear, honest and upfront in their communication.

    Either would reduce frustration. Doing both might actually result in a happier player base that is more likely to financially support the game AND encourage others to try it (either directly or by positive reviews in the respective app stores). There's a reason SWGOH's player ratings and income numbers have been dropping over time - and it's largely tied to the above 2 points.
    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*
  • Kyno wrote: »
    Kyno wrote: »
    Kyno wrote: »
    Nikoms565 wrote: »
    Kyno wrote: »
    How are more linear and flatter the same thing?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    I will reword, if thats ok:

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

    The HSith rewards as they currently are, or the way they were when they were first released (and were, ironically, "flatter")? ;)
    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*
  • StarSon
    7411 posts Member
    I hate the stacking mechanic, but it definitely makes the Cpit a team effort. As such, the rewards should be reflective of that. The 20 guys that showed up on time to submit their 2-3% P4 runs are just as valuable as the other 20 guys that showed up to do an easier 5% P2/3 run. Due to IRL schedules, not everyone can choose where they contribute.

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

    When it comes to rewards, this right here hits the nail on the head. Just because I got 35th doesn't mean I put in any less effort or have any less of a roster than the guy at 1st. It just means I had to be the one to drop runs to save the damage for p4. But instead of 11 r8 thingies I get 3? Ridiculous.
  • 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.

    I hear you. We just had another guildmate quit the game this morning. The more CG tightens it's grip, the more players slip through their fingers.
    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.