The people who participate the most are often whales, who need more credits because they have more toons due to large chromium openings.
The people who participate the less are often people with limited rosters, who probably need less credits since they have less characters.
Competitions between 1st, 2nd and 3rd is pointless: They're already at the top, so they should get good rewards. Creating a podium ladder only creates even more competition between your top members.
Hence a top 5, and not individual prizes.
There is a definite 'Capitalism vs Socialism' debate permeating this thread. Not surprising since what is in question is a core economic principle.
It is easy to think that the high level players should not care if the lower level players receive the same reward since everybody is generally getting fed. The reason it does matter is because the reward is a reflection of the player's contribution. The high level player has put in vastly more time and effort in building up their teams. If others receive the same rewards for doing less, it devalues that time and effort.
It is the same as if the government freely prints money and distributes it out to everyone. Everyone can feel like a millionaire but the money no longer has any value. In the words of Syndrome from 'The Incredibles', "When everybody is Super, no one will be".
The low level player also views the situation from a relative perspective, except that their discontent is fueled by envy. They are receiving a reward, but it just does not seem as valuable because some one else has more than they do. Both claim they are being treated unfairly, but fairness is defined by what it is you place your value upon - achievement or wealth. Many famous and wealthy CEO's will tell you that they were not driven by the money, they simply had a vision and a desire to accomplish something, and the money is just a tool to make it happen. The common laborer sees wealth as simply a way out of their perceived discontent. They simply want to be wealthy for its own sake. Make of it what you will, but that is how I see this argument.
Do you not find it fundamentally different when talking about a game? Why should one person require others to have less than him to be entertained?
No, because 'value' is a fundamental concept that applies to any endeavor. Each individual's concept of value will determine their level of enjoyment. I could care less what the others are getting. I'm getting something for my time, which is more than I got before Raids existed, so I'm happy. If I wasn't happy with what I got then I simply would not participate in the raid. I determine my level of enjoyment, not someone else. It is a choice, not something imposed upon me.
So if you don't care, and you would theoretically still want the rest of your guild (the coat tail riders!) To stay in the guild and collect currency and help open the raid and defeat the rancor, why are you opposed to giving them decent rewards to inventivize them to continue doing so? You aren't going to be getting much value if all the 'coat tail riders' decide they aren't, and quit raiding.
If they just removed the damage based rewards entirely like we've asked for them it wouldn't matter.
Then there would be ZERO reason to raid and get stronger. I mean why level your toons if you can join a raid...do one point of damage and get the same rewards as those that brought the beat down?
This is truly a screwed up generation that thinks that they can just show up and get the same rewards as those that do more.
Have you ever heard of a non-sequitur? There's so much wrong with your comment that it's perfectly acceptable to just throw the towel in right off the bat and move on to someone who can at least construct a good argument to the contrary.
"Why should someone who is in a different time zone, different schedule, or different whatever get bad loot? THEY CONTRIBUTED LESS...thats why. Do you have a job? Do you tell your job that 'hey i know I show up late because I have to line up day care, I know I have to leave early for whatever reason but I expect to be paid exactly the same as the other ten people who work in my office but are here 2 hours earlier and stay three hours later then me. That makes a ton of sense....not."
That's the problem right there. This game gets compared to a job and it's not, it's a game and it should be fun. The developers have done a bad job at making it fun with all the grinding and I have a feeling it's life shelf is limited...
There is a definite 'Capitalism vs Socialism' debate permeating this thread. Not surprising since what is in question is a core economic principle.
It is easy to think that the high level players should not care if the lower level players receive the same reward since everybody is generally getting fed. The reason it does matter is because the reward is a reflection of the player's contribution. The high level player has put in vastly more time and effort in building up their teams. If others receive the same rewards for doing less, it devalues that time and effort.
It is the same as if the government freely prints money and distributes it out to everyone. Everyone can feel like a millionaire but the money no longer has any value. In the words of Syndrome from 'The Incredibles', "When everybody is Super, no one will be".
The low level player also views the situation from a relative perspective, except that their discontent is fueled by envy. They are receiving a reward, but it just does not seem as valuable because some one else has more than they do. Both claim they are being treated unfairly, but fairness is defined by what it is you place your value upon - achievement or wealth. Many famous and wealthy CEO's will tell you that they were not driven by the money, they simply had a vision and a desire to accomplish something, and the money is just a tool to make it happen. The common laborer sees wealth as simply a way out of their perceived discontent. They simply want to be wealthy for its own sake. Make of it what you will, but that is how I see this argument.
Time and effort? Could you elaborate more on this false analogy? No, better yet, let's hear more about your political views. I suspect this thread will be closed soon
Time and effort? Could you elaborate more on this false analogy? No, better yet, let's hear more about your political views. I suspect this thread will be closed soon
Just because you don't understand basic philosophical principles does not make it false.
So if you don't care, and you would theoretically still want the rest of your guild (the coat tail riders!) To stay in the guild and collect currency and help open the raid and defeat the rancor, why are you opposed to giving them decent rewards to inventivize them to continue doing so? You aren't going to be getting much value if all the 'coat tail riders' decide they aren't, and quit raiding.
Giving someone something for nothing is not an incentive to try harder. Its an incentive to do nothing, just like welfare and unemployment handouts. Offering higher rewards for greater contribution is the incentive to try harder. They already get something, but if they want more they should do more. Thats the incentive.
So if you don't care, and you would theoretically still want the rest of your guild (the coat tail riders!) To stay in the guild and collect currency and help open the raid and defeat the rancor, why are you opposed to giving them decent rewards to inventivize them to continue doing so? You aren't going to be getting much value if all the 'coat tail riders' decide they aren't, and quit raiding.
Giving someone something for nothing is not an incentive to try harder. Its an incentive to do nothing, just like welfare and unemployment handouts. Offering higher rewards for greater contribution is the incentive to try harder. They already get something, but if they want more they should do more. Thats the incentive.
We must have a very different definition of nothing if logging on and paying for the raid via guild coins and then taking a shot at the raid with their full eligible roster is nothing to you. Because that's literally everything there is in the raid situation.
My system promotes equal rewards for equal contribution. If someone does not attempt the raid with their full eligible roster, or does not contribute the maximum guild coins, they do receive less. I am having trouble finding the disconnect you are finding.
Is the problem reset time or what time your guild leader or officers start raids? Have you asked for a different start time? If you're not happy, why not leave and join another guild or start your own?
I created a guild and we're doing our second tier 5 raid, while I'm a night person and could have e.g. waited until shortly before reset in my time zone to selfishly optimize my own damage, I consulted in chat before starting. Other players didn't want a late night start, so I started both raids in the middle of the day, announcing ahead of time I'd be doing so, which seems reasonable for those in my own and other time zones.
This is a horrid thread, but I'm going to chime in anyway.
Part of the problem is time and reset constraints, and part is that there's always someone with stronger toons above you.
My suggested solution? Instead of total damage, base the rewards on damage averaged across battles used. In other words, if I can only get in 3x before Rancor is killed, my reward rank is my total damage divided by 3. If someone overseas was able to surf the reset and get in 8x, his total damage is divided by 8. It still rewards higher powered players, but doesn't rely on time zone bias to do it.
My system promotes equal rewards for equal contribution. If someone does not attempt the raid with their full eligible roster, or does not contribute the maximum guild coins, they do receive less. I am having trouble finding the disconnect you are finding.
I'm in full agreement with that. We are just having difficulty understanding each other's definitions of fairness.
One issue is that it isn't thresholds of damage its ranked.
If the top 10 players on a guild run identical teams and identical strategies getting roughly the same damage they get 10 different rewards.
It really depends on the balance of how the guild is constructed if it makes sense. I don't mind it because the guild I'm in I'm about 30-40 and get more rewards by being in the position I'm in then if I were the best player in a weaker guild.
I think that the contribution based rewards have merit but it should be threshold based rather than rank based. Everyone who does 100k gets one reward and everyone who does a million gets another.
It so should be factored by stage with multipliers based on global average damage based tier you are in to balance between the groups.
There is a definite 'Capitalism vs Socialism' debate permeating this thread. Not surprising since what is in question is a core economic principle.
It is easy to think that the high level players should not care if the lower level players receive the same reward since everybody is generally getting fed. The reason it does matter is because the reward is a reflection of the player's contribution. The high level player has put in vastly more time and effort in building up their teams. If others receive the same rewards for doing less, it devalues that time and effort.
It is the same as if the government freely prints money and distributes it out to everyone. Everyone can feel like a millionaire but the money no longer has any value. In the words of Syndrome from 'The Incredibles', "When everybody is Super, no one will be".
The low level player also views the situation from a relative perspective, except that their discontent is fueled by envy. They are receiving a reward, but it just does not seem as valuable because some one else has more than they do. Both claim they are being treated unfairly, but fairness is defined by what it is you place your value upon - achievement or wealth. Many famous and wealthy CEO's will tell you that they were not driven by the money, they simply had a vision and a desire to accomplish something, and the money is just a tool to make it happen. The common laborer sees wealth as simply a way out of their perceived discontent. They simply want to be wealthy for its own sake. Make of it what you will, but that is how I see this argument.
This is a well-worded and intelligent post and I'll give you props for that.
I also like #hhooo 's suggestion in particular the part regarding full 'effort'.
There has to be at least some consideration for the fact that this is a game. It's not supposed to be a mirror of real life. It's an entertainment escape. If the phrase "Life's tough - deal with it" comes up in a game, we can just find a different game that's more entertaining. I don't think we should go to fully equal rewards for everybody 1-50 but some kind of middle ground similar to what *cough* #sikho said.
Nerf the liberals! joking ... kinda
All the claims of not liking in-guild competition seem silly when you read how hard those same people compete.
Yes, it's a curious psychological phenomenon. No one wants to get left behind looking like a chump so everyone plays dirty.
However, that's not a reason to change things. I was watching an interview recently with some b-list celebrity advocating greater regulation of tax havens. It was pointed out it was a little hypocritical considering he himself made use of them. He replied, 'well, I'd look like a fool if I didn't'. Pointless, but possibly pertinent parable. Alliteration aside, the moral of the story? People love the idea of equality. But in the absence of rules and an arbiter, it's every man for himself.
All the claims of not liking in-guild competition seem silly when you read how hard those same people compete.
Yes, it's a curious psychological phenomenon. No one wants to get left behind looking like a chump so everyone plays dirty.
However, that's not a reason to change things. I was watching an interview recently with some b-list celebrity advocating greater regulation of tax havens. It was pointed out it was a little hypocritical considering he himself made use of them. He replied, 'well, I'd look like a fool if I didn't'. Pointless, but possibly pertinent parable. Alliteration aside, the moral of the story? People love the idea of equality. But in the absence of rules and an arbiter, it's every man for himself.
To the OP - it's a game. If it gets in the way of real life, it has to go. If you're waking up at 3 am for guild contributions, it has to go. Priorities dude. Don't get me wrong I've been there & I had to cut it loose. That's why I was skeptical of guilds in the 1st place.
All the claims of not liking in-guild competition seem silly when you read how hard those same people compete.
Yes, it's a curious psychological phenomenon. No one wants to get left behind looking like a chump so everyone plays dirty.
However, that's not a reason to change things. I was watching an interview recently with some b-list celebrity advocating greater regulation of tax havens. It was pointed out it was a little hypocritical considering he himself made use of them. He replied, 'well, I'd look like a fool if I didn't'. Pointless, but possibly pertinent parable. Alliteration aside, the moral of the story? People love the idea of equality. But in the absence of rules and an arbiter, it's every man for himself.
Beautifully put.
Bravo.
Thank you This has given me an idea... Animal Farm, SWGOH style... I need a pun for a title though...
It's not supposed to be equal the stronger you are the better you do and the better you get, cant get anything good? Join a weaker guild and work your way up slower, there has to be parody in the game or else everyone will just have maxed put toons and what fun would that be, have strong and weak players makes the game, if youre a weaker player you will eventually work your way up if you're patient or smart and if not you can pay money to be better.
All the claims of not liking in-guild competition seem silly when you read how hard those same people compete.
Yes, it's a curious psychological phenomenon. No one wants to get left behind looking like a chump so everyone plays dirty.
However, that's not a reason to change things. I was watching an interview recently with some b-list celebrity advocating greater regulation of tax havens. It was pointed out it was a little hypocritical considering he himself made use of them. He replied, 'well, I'd look like a fool if I didn't'. Pointless, but possibly pertinent parable. Alliteration aside, the moral of the story? People love the idea of equality. But in the absence of rules and an arbiter, it's every man for himself.
Beautifully put.
Bravo.
Exactly. When you don't take advantage of something just out of principle even if it is legal and you may need the benefit, it's called what?
All the claims of not liking in-guild competition seem silly when you read how hard those same people compete.
Yes, it's a curious psychological phenomenon. No one wants to get left behind looking like a chump so everyone plays dirty.
However, that's not a reason to change things. I was watching an interview recently with some b-list celebrity advocating greater regulation of tax havens. It was pointed out it was a little hypocritical considering he himself made use of them. He replied, 'well, I'd look like a fool if I didn't'. Pointless, but possibly pertinent parable. Alliteration aside, the moral of the story? People love the idea of equality. But in the absence of rules and an arbiter, it's every man for himself.
Beautifully put.
Bravo.
Exactly. When you don't take advantage of something just out of principle even if it is legal and you may need the benefit, it's called what?
The rich get richer story of the US rears its ugly head again.
You will only get the top rewards of you have the best team. The top rewards increase the gap between you and those you beat before. Nobody below has any chance of competing in this system. The result is they will stop trying, get bored and leave.
This atmosphere is not conducive to a healthy teamwork intended game feature.
All the claims of not liking in-guild competition seem silly when you read how hard those same people compete.
Yes, it's a curious psychological phenomenon. No one wants to get left behind looking like a chump so everyone plays dirty.
However, that's not a reason to change things. I was watching an interview recently with some b-list celebrity advocating greater regulation of tax havens. It was pointed out it was a little hypocritical considering he himself made use of them. He replied, 'well, I'd look like a fool if I didn't'. Pointless, but possibly pertinent parable. Alliteration aside, the moral of the story? People love the idea of equality. But in the absence of rules and an arbiter, it's every man for himself.
Beautifully put.
Bravo.
Exactly. When you don't take advantage of something just out of principle even if it is legal and you may need the benefit, it's called what?
A free country
Wrong. I presume the answer preemo is looking for is 'stupidity' or 'naivety'.
I think you thought the question was 'When you don't take advantage of something just out of principle even when it is legal and you may need the benefit, it's called what?'
In which case you'd still be wrong. The principle of a free country has nothing to do with anything here.
The rich get richer story of the US rears its ugly head again.
You will only get the top rewards of you have the best team. The top rewards increase the gap between you and those you beat before. Nobody below has any chance of competing in this system. The result is they will stop trying, get bored and leave.
This atmosphere is not conducive to a healthy teamwork intended game feature.
You shouldnt be playing a freemium mobile game if you are looking for teamwork.
They need to bring in revenue to pay for server fees, development costs, pay Disney, staff salaries and healthcare etc. Its hard to cater to f2p players in a fremium model.
The rich get richer story of the US rears its ugly head again.
You will only get the top rewards of you have the best team. The top rewards increase the gap between you and those you beat before. Nobody below has any chance of competing in this system. The result is they will stop trying, get bored and leave.
This atmosphere is not conducive to a healthy teamwork intended game feature.
You shouldnt be playing a freemium mobile game if you are looking for teamwork.
They need to bring in revenue to pay for server fees, development costs, pay Disney, staff salaries and healthcare etc. Its hard to cater to f2p players in a fremium model.
Are you seriously saying we shouldn't be looking for teamwork in a feature based around guilds?
the only issue with the social comparison is the game rewards investment not effort
Frankly I WISH I could play the content more and it didn't take crystals to do more stuff. That's me. I get its not economically viable to make time inherently valuable for the game though, otherwise the sim button would t exist.
The rich get richer story of the US rears its ugly head again.
You will only get the top rewards of you have the best team. The top rewards increase the gap between you and those you beat before. Nobody below has any chance of competing in this system. The result is they will stop trying, get bored and leave.
This atmosphere is not conducive to a healthy teamwork intended game feature.
You shouldnt be playing a freemium mobile game if you are looking for teamwork.
They need to bring in revenue to pay for server fees, development costs, pay Disney, staff salaries and healthcare etc. Its hard to cater to f2p players in a fremium model.
Are you seriously saying we shouldn't be looking for teamwork in a feature based around guilds?
Not for mobile games. Theres no real coordination vital to teamwork.
Replies
(...I am awake at 5am currently for unrelated reasons)
So if you don't care, and you would theoretically still want the rest of your guild (the coat tail riders!) To stay in the guild and collect currency and help open the raid and defeat the rancor, why are you opposed to giving them decent rewards to inventivize them to continue doing so? You aren't going to be getting much value if all the 'coat tail riders' decide they aren't, and quit raiding.
Have you ever heard of a non-sequitur? There's so much wrong with your comment that it's perfectly acceptable to just throw the towel in right off the bat and move on to someone who can at least construct a good argument to the contrary.
That's the problem right there. This game gets compared to a job and it's not, it's a game and it should be fun. The developers have done a bad job at making it fun with all the grinding and I have a feeling it's life shelf is limited...
Time and effort? Could you elaborate more on this false analogy? No, better yet, let's hear more about your political views. I suspect this thread will be closed soon
Just because you don't understand basic philosophical principles does not make it false.
Giving someone something for nothing is not an incentive to try harder. Its an incentive to do nothing, just like welfare and unemployment handouts. Offering higher rewards for greater contribution is the incentive to try harder. They already get something, but if they want more they should do more. Thats the incentive.
My system promotes equal rewards for equal contribution. If someone does not attempt the raid with their full eligible roster, or does not contribute the maximum guild coins, they do receive less. I am having trouble finding the disconnect you are finding.
I created a guild and we're doing our second tier 5 raid, while I'm a night person and could have e.g. waited until shortly before reset in my time zone to selfishly optimize my own damage, I consulted in chat before starting. Other players didn't want a late night start, so I started both raids in the middle of the day, announcing ahead of time I'd be doing so, which seems reasonable for those in my own and other time zones.
Part of the problem is time and reset constraints, and part is that there's always someone with stronger toons above you.
My suggested solution? Instead of total damage, base the rewards on damage averaged across battles used. In other words, if I can only get in 3x before Rancor is killed, my reward rank is my total damage divided by 3. If someone overseas was able to surf the reset and get in 8x, his total damage is divided by 8. It still rewards higher powered players, but doesn't rely on time zone bias to do it.
I'm in full agreement with that. We are just having difficulty understanding each other's definitions of fairness.
If the top 10 players on a guild run identical teams and identical strategies getting roughly the same damage they get 10 different rewards.
It really depends on the balance of how the guild is constructed if it makes sense. I don't mind it because the guild I'm in I'm about 30-40 and get more rewards by being in the position I'm in then if I were the best player in a weaker guild.
I think that the contribution based rewards have merit but it should be threshold based rather than rank based. Everyone who does 100k gets one reward and everyone who does a million gets another.
It so should be factored by stage with multipliers based on global average damage based tier you are in to balance between the groups.
This is a well-worded and intelligent post and I'll give you props for that.
I also like #hhooo 's suggestion in particular the part regarding full 'effort'.
There has to be at least some consideration for the fact that this is a game. It's not supposed to be a mirror of real life. It's an entertainment escape. If the phrase "Life's tough - deal with it" comes up in a game, we can just find a different game that's more entertaining. I don't think we should go to fully equal rewards for everybody 1-50 but some kind of middle ground similar to what *cough* #sikho said.
Nerf the liberals!
Yes, it's a curious psychological phenomenon. No one wants to get left behind looking like a chump so everyone plays dirty.
However, that's not a reason to change things. I was watching an interview recently with some b-list celebrity advocating greater regulation of tax havens. It was pointed out it was a little hypocritical considering he himself made use of them. He replied, 'well, I'd look like a fool if I didn't'. Pointless, but possibly pertinent parable. Alliteration aside, the moral of the story? People love the idea of equality. But in the absence of rules and an arbiter, it's every man for himself.
Beautifully put.
Bravo.
Thank you
Exactly. When you don't take advantage of something just out of principle even if it is legal and you may need the benefit, it's called what?
A free country
You will only get the top rewards of you have the best team. The top rewards increase the gap between you and those you beat before. Nobody below has any chance of competing in this system. The result is they will stop trying, get bored and leave.
This atmosphere is not conducive to a healthy teamwork intended game feature.
Wrong. I presume the answer preemo is looking for is 'stupidity' or 'naivety'.
I think you thought the question was 'When you don't take advantage of something just out of principle even when it is legal and you may need the benefit, it's called what?'
In which case you'd still be wrong. The principle of a free country has nothing to do with anything here.
You shouldnt be playing a freemium mobile game if you are looking for teamwork.
They need to bring in revenue to pay for server fees, development costs, pay Disney, staff salaries and healthcare etc. Its hard to cater to f2p players in a fremium model.
Are you seriously saying we shouldn't be looking for teamwork in a feature based around guilds?
Frankly I WISH I could play the content more and it didn't take crystals to do more stuff. That's me. I get its not economically viable to make time inherently valuable for the game though, otherwise the sim button would t exist.
Not for mobile games. Theres no real coordination vital to teamwork.