Final Plea

2

Comments

  • XenthosXenthos Shadow Lord Member Posts: 6,930 Transcendent
    Is there a way to get a report of "which org harvested the anomalies"?  Because Glom's logs, especially during bloodcoin month, were full of "showed up and tried, outnumbered" or "gave it a shot, got one/two before being pushed out".  We have had quite a few even / close to even fights.  Of the last two of them, we lost the first and won the second.

    I am just not sure what you're looking for.  From my side I see your side winning fairly regularly (less so during the 5-10pm est window, but outside that block it seems like more often than not you get it).

    I will say that looking at average participation numbers does not tell the whole story though.  If at 8 pm est it is 12 of one side vs. 9 of another, but at 10 am it is 3 of that first side vs 6 of the other... neither combat is really even (the 12 to 9 is closer and doable depending on people) but the numbers average out to even on a raw basis.

    I think that seeing anomaly distribution would give a better sense of things though, rather than gut feelings.  I know I have seen a bunch of people who are not into combat generally showing up (on all sides!), and this seems far better to me than what we had pre-Timequakes.  I am not sure what else can really be done.  Most of the things referenced here are giant steps backwards (limiting participation is against the entire concept of trying to encourage more participation, for example).

    Here is another question.  If Lusternia gave a flat reward for timequake attendance (such as making the bloodcoin promo permanent), do you think that would be good or bad?  I can see thoughts both ways on that.  Good: Incentivizing participation!  Bad: Increasing the sense of "gotta go join in and drop whatever else I am doing."
    image
  • ParhelionParhelion Member Posts: 238 Gifted
    daww, you can So force me to stop real lifing..oh wait *checks self for pulse* realtalk, Someone powerful make bardoons easier to pull off! 3; (please? ..*sniffle*)
    what
    Her voice firm and commanding, Terentia, the Even Bladed says to you, "You have kept your oath to Me, Parhelion. You have sworn to maintain Justice in these troubled times."
  • ParhelionParhelion Member Posts: 238 Gifted
    Besides occasional number differences, the only difference I've seen in who wins timequakes is which side is willing to keep trying to establish a foothold and  win no matter the odds. 
    Her voice firm and commanding, Terentia, the Even Bladed says to you, "You have kept your oath to Me, Parhelion. You have sworn to maintain Justice in these troubled times."
  • KistanKistan Member Posts: 417 Expert
    Drastrath said:
     let's discuss mechanics that will make 4v10 feasible and possible that both sides have a chance. 

    This promotes PvP for the elite. Players 7-10 of the 10 will be told to make themselves scarce as they were bringing too much benefit to the 4. Then it would be 4 vs 6 - and at a stroke you have reduced PvP interest by 30%.
  • DrastrathDrastrath Member Posts: 47 Novice
    Kistan said:
    Drastrath said:
     let's discuss mechanics that will make 4v10 feasible and possible that both sides have a chance. 

    This promotes PvP for the elite. Players 7-10 of the 10 will be told to make themselves scarce as they were bringing too much benefit to the 4. Then it would be 4 vs 6 - and at a stroke you have reduced PvP interest by 30%.

    This is a valid concern. However, it does not solve the problem. Any solutions on solving the problem or are you disagreeing the problem even exists? 


  • NyanaNyana Member Posts: 138 Capable
    Kistan said:
    Drastrath said:
     let's discuss mechanics that will make 4v10 feasible and possible that both sides have a chance. 

    This promotes PvP for the elite. Players 7-10 of the 10 will be told to make themselves scarce as they were bringing too much benefit to the 4. Then it would be 4 vs 6 - and at a stroke you have reduced PvP interest by 30%.
    It should never be the case that having more numbers is not a benefit, more that having numbers is not the only viable winning strategy. 
    Xenthos said:
    I am just not sure what you're looking for.  From my side I see your side winning fairly regularly (less so during the 5-10pm est window, but outside that block it seems like more often than not you get it).
    It's variable. We go through periods of having more numbers, then people get tired of combat and stop logging in. That's why I say the timequakes come too frequently, and why I'd rather address the uneven distribution at any given time - rather than say that people need to be forced to stop playing on a given side. There was a time when we were winning repeatedly that I was tempted to play a character in Glom instead, but numbers fluctuate too much to even know when this will be an issue. Thus my suggestion for forcing a limit on who can participate from all sides. I know there's problems with that too, but I think it's more fair than just telling people they need to keep doing things they don't want to do and will fail at.

    @Choros, no, I don't think so. The few notable times when the numbers have been relatively even and one side or the other gives up anyway, it's usually because there's < 15 minutes left on the timequake. And I don't think there's any problem with that.
    I think that seeing anomaly distribution would give a better sense of things though, rather than gut feelings.  I know I have seen a bunch of people who are not into combat generally showing up (on all sides!), and this seems far better to me than what we had pre-Timequakes.  I am not sure what else can really be done.  Most of the things referenced here are giant steps backwards (limiting participation is against the entire concept of trying to encourage more participation, for example).
    I mean, I don't love the idea either, and I would very much like to hear other suggestions that don't limit participation but still let people think they can make a difference. As it is, the tiny population, lack of skill balance, and variable real-world reasons why people don't show up mean that combat is, more often than not, frustrating and feels not worth participating in. But I agree, I think there has been an improvement, probably in large part because of the lack of xp loss on death. I would like to know the anomaly distribution, myself.

    Here is another question.  If Lusternia gave a flat reward for timequake attendance (such as making the bloodcoin promo permanent), do you think that would be good or bad?  I can see thoughts both ways on that.  Good: Incentivizing participation!  Bad: Increasing the sense of "gotta go join in and drop whatever else I am doing."

    The bloodcoins worked for some people because both timequakes and the promotion were a novelty. I for one don't need "stuff" as a reason to show up, I just want to feel like my being there will matter.
  • DrastrathDrastrath Member Posts: 47 Novice
    edited July 2019
    Orael said:
    The reason for the averages is that it shows that one side isn't always dominating, which is something that's being touted in this thread quite a bit.

    If you want to look at specific timequake numbers, I can play with that too.

    Since 6/25 - Glom/Gaudi/Celest has had more people in 37 timequakes, Mag/Seren/Halli has had more people in 35 timequakes. 

    In the last week, it's been GGC - 15, MSH - 11.

    The average difference between sides is 3.9 players since 6/25 and 3.3 players in the last week.

    Since 6/25 - 40 timequakes have had a difference in pop of 0-3, 32 have been 4 or more (maxes out at one time when one side had 18 more than the other). 

    The last week has been 15 and 11, with the max difference being 10 people.
    Are these participants or just players logged in at the time? Again, we can't assume active players are active pkers. If so then the numbers are flawed from the start. 
  • LiefLief Member Posts: 447 Mythical
    edited July 2019
    Drastrath said:
    Orael said:
    The reason for the averages is that it shows that one side isn't always dominating, which is something that's being touted in this thread quite a bit.

    If you want to look at specific timequake numbers, I can play with that too.

    Since 6/25 - Glom/Gaudi/Celest has had more people in 37 timequakes, Mag/Seren/Halli has had more people in 35 timequakes. 

    In the last week, it's been GGC - 15, MSH - 11.

    The average difference between sides is 3.9 players since 6/25 and 3.3 players in the last week.

    Since 6/25 - 40 timequakes have had a difference in pop of 0-3, 32 have been 4 or more (maxes out at one time when one side had 18 more than the other). 

    The last week has been 15 and 11, with the max difference being 10 people.
    Are these participants or just players logged in at the time? Again, we can't assume active players are active pkers. If so then the numbers are flawed from the start. 
    I think it's implied in your post but to drive it home too, we can't assume active Timequake participants are all equally good at the PvP scene (and qualify themselves as PKers).

    For my part, I'm happy and don't really know how to fix it besides waiting for classes on the whole to be rebalanced a bit, but my primary reason for playing isn't PK. I can definitely see how other people would be frustrated on my side of the game.
    Amazing beautiful stunning avatar by Gurashi!
    ~
    A gentle breeze ruffles your wings and whispers in your ears, as if for you alone, "Dragonfly's words shine... seeds, sown and tended, inspire... a forest harvest."
    ~
    Maylea reaches out, Her fingers poised in midair. "Now you are of Me, even more than you were before." Her golden and azure eyes glitter. "Walk well, Eldin. Shed glory in My name, and bring life to the lifeless."
  • MakaiMakai Member Posts: 413 Adept
    edited July 2019
    Had a long post, most of what I wanted to say has already been covered, moving on! What about as a suggestion that when you would earn your participation tick, you also received a random anomaly? It is small, but could be significant enough to boost even short bursts of attendance to at least give it a single go and nope out if they feel it can't be done.

    Edit: Also Drastrath, he stated those are the people in timequakes, so participants for any length of time.
  • NyanaNyana Member Posts: 138 Capable
    Lief said:

    I think it's implied in your post but to drive it home too, we can't assume active Timequake participants are all equally good at the PvP scene (and qualify themselves as PKers).
    It is something that won't be reflected by pure numbers and averages, but the same is true on the other side. As it is... 3 to 4 people do make a huge difference when the total number I've ever seen on the winning side is 12-15 people, whether or not they can all pk well.
  • NyanaNyana Member Posts: 138 Capable
    Xenthos said:
    Or even credit towards an anomaly (attend 4 quakes, get a nom for your own use)?  If there is a concern about flooding the game with noms, at least.  I will point out that the gnome traders do provide a lot of nom generation outside of quakes, so giving people another way to generate a bit for themselves does not seem like a bad thing to me; spreads it around instead of to just those people who can gnomechase the best.
    This is not a bad incentive, but stop calling them noms. It makes me giggle trying to read your post.
  • OraelOrael Member, Administrator, Moderator, Gods Posts: 413 Creator
    edited July 2019
    Drastrath said:
    Orael said:
    The reason for the averages is that it shows that one side isn't always dominating, which is something that's being touted in this thread quite a bit.

    If you want to look at specific timequake numbers, I can play with that too.

    Since 6/25 - Glom/Gaudi/Celest has had more people in 37 timequakes, Mag/Seren/Halli has had more people in 35 timequakes. 

    In the last week, it's been GGC - 15, MSH - 11.

    The average difference between sides is 3.9 players since 6/25 and 3.3 players in the last week.

    Since 6/25 - 40 timequakes have had a difference in pop of 0-3, 32 have been 4 or more (maxes out at one time when one side had 18 more than the other). 

    The last week has been 15 and 11, with the max difference being 10 people.
    Are these participants or just players logged in at the time? Again, we can't assume active players are active pkers. If so then the numbers are flawed from the start. 
    The numbers will never be perfect, but they are something and we need to start somewhere. You can dismiss pretty much any metric you want because there will always be flaws. As I noted to begin with, this is a tool and not the end-all say-all of the situation.  We need to use this tool, and use it combined with our observations (which I also mentioned that it lines up with what I've personally observed) to make judgments and calls. 

    What these numbers do assume is that there is likely a distributed amount of non-pk players among every org, meaning that even if these numbers include players that wouldn't participate to begin with, it includes those numbers for all sides. If we assume an equal distribution of those players (which I think is a fair assumption), then the numbers may very well be accurate.  Are there likely times where one side had mostly non-pkers but the numbers appear more even - absolutely. But it's as likely that the reverse is true as well.

    As Lief pointed out, this goes both ways, basing things strictly off participation doesn't really tell you if the other side had the players to compete and just chose not to for whatever reason. I think Xenthos suggestion about who has the anomalies also falls under this umbrella, it again, only tells you who participated, not if the other side could participate.

    And isn't that the point of this thread? To determine if it is a population issue or if it's something else? I've been pretty forward in that I want to incentive participation by making people feel like they can compete. I think that's the best path forward at this point of time (which is what the melder revamp will hopefully help accomplish).
  • KistanKistan Member Posts: 417 Expert
    Drastrath said:
    This is a valid concern. However, it does not solve the problem. Any solutions on solving the problem or are you disagreeing the problem even exists? 


    I do love a bit of data and the data is showing it is much more even than you are making it out to be. Honours appear fairly even among timequakes. 


  • DaraiusDaraius Shevat The juror's taco spotMember Posts: 4,774 Transcendent
    edited July 2019
    +1 for each participant accruing points towards a personal anomaly for time spent in the rift. Awarding an anomaly just in that first participation tick seems like a bit much, but if instead you could consistently generate them by spending time in the rift, that seems like a nice way to encourage people to jump in and keep coming back.
    I used to make cakes.

    Estarra the Eternal says, "Give Shevat the floor please."
  • DrastrathDrastrath Member Posts: 47 Novice
    Orael said:
    Drastrath said:
    Orael said:
    The reason for the averages is that it shows that one side isn't always dominating, which is something that's being touted in this thread quite a bit.

    If you want to look at specific timequake numbers, I can play with that too.

    Since 6/25 - Glom/Gaudi/Celest has had more people in 37 timequakes, Mag/Seren/Halli has had more people in 35 timequakes. 

    In the last week, it's been GGC - 15, MSH - 11.

    The average difference between sides is 3.9 players since 6/25 and 3.3 players in the last week.

    Since 6/25 - 40 timequakes have had a difference in pop of 0-3, 32 have been 4 or more (maxes out at one time when one side had 18 more than the other). 

    The last week has been 15 and 11, with the max difference being 10 people.
    Are these participants or just players logged in at the time? Again, we can't assume active players are active pkers. If so then the numbers are flawed from the start. 
    The numbers will never be perfect, but they are something and we need to start somewhere. You can dismiss pretty much any metric you want because there will always be flaws. As I noted to begin with, this is a tool and not the end-all say-all of the situation.  We need to use this tool, and use it combined with our observations (which I also mentioned that it lines up with what I've personally observed) to make judgments and calls. 

    What these numbers do assume is that there is likely a distributed amount of non-pk players among every org, meaning that even if these numbers include players that wouldn't participate to begin with, it includes those numbers for all sides. If we assume an equal distribution of those players (which I think is a fair assumption), then the numbers may very well be accurate.  Are there likely times where one side had mostly non-pkers but the numbers appear more even - absolutely. But it's as likely that the reverse is true as well.

    As Lief pointed out, this goes both ways, basing things strictly off participation doesn't really tell you if the other side had the players to compete and just chose not to for whatever reason. I think Xenthos suggestion about who has the anomalies also falls under this umbrella, it again, only tells you who participated, not if the other side could participate.

    And isn't that the point of this thread? To determine if it is a population issue or if it's something else? I've been pretty forward in that I want to incentive participation by making people feel like they can compete. I think that's the best path forward at this point of time (which is what the melder revamp will hopefully help accomplish).
    I disagree that the spread of pkers or people showing up is evenly spread. This assumption and the numbers are falsely showing that the Timequakes are even as evident by the TQ last night or pk events in general like Wild Nodes on Sunday. Even if each side has its own TQ where it outnumbered the other (no meaningful ok happens). In other words, in an example of a 8 AM EST CGG had a 4:1 advantage TQ and 5 PM MSH had a 4:1 advantage TQ still no competitive PK happened, but the average would look perfect.

    The point of this thread was a final plea for some action or address of the issue. Not another thread about how it's not really an issue, it is all in my minds, and here are the numbers to prove that. 

    As a consumer, my power is to move on from Lusternia to other games. This was my "final plea" before doing just that. It seems clear the issue will not even gain recognition as an issue let alone have steps taken to resolve it.



  • XenthosXenthos Shadow Lord Member Posts: 6,930 Transcendent
    2 wildnodes ago Magnagora defeated us, though.  Basing everything off a single rare event is one of the things that fueled the perception of imbalance for so long.  Timequakes have amply demonstrated that both sides can (and do) win.  You can't look at one or two data points in isolation and use them to claim a problem.

    That's why Orael is trying to provide data so that people can parse it.  It's actually a really useful addition to have in the discussion.
    image
  • DrastrathDrastrath Member Posts: 47 Novice
    Xenthos said:
    2 wildnodes ago Magnagora defeated us, though.  Basing everything off a single rare event is one of the things that fueled the perception of imbalance for so long.  Timequakes have amply demonstrated that both sides can (and do) win.  You can't look at one or two data points in isolation and use them to claim a problem.

    That's why Orael is trying to provide data so that people can parse it.  It's actually a really useful addition to have in the discussion.
    How many times have MSH won wild nodes in the last year? As you stated, you should not base things on a single rare event. 
  • XenthosXenthos Shadow Lord Member Posts: 6,930 Transcendent
    Drastrath said:
    Xenthos said:
    2 wildnodes ago Magnagora defeated us, though.  Basing everything off a single rare event is one of the things that fueled the perception of imbalance for so long.  Timequakes have amply demonstrated that both sides can (and do) win.  You can't look at one or two data points in isolation and use them to claim a problem.

    That's why Orael is trying to provide data so that people can parse it.  It's actually a really useful addition to have in the discussion.
    How many times have MSH won wild nodes in the last year? As you stated, you should not base things on a single rare event. 
    More than once (there's no way to actually go back and count though, for me at least).  Part of the issue with nodes is how they're coded to fire.  They almost always happen at the end of the weave, which happens to be Glomdoring's strong time.  Whenever the nodes don't happen at that time though, it usually seems to end up in MSH's favour.

    You're misinterpreting my point, however.  I'm talking rarity in terms of frequency.  If something only fires once every two weeks and you base everything on that, well... things are skewed.  Especially if that something is coded to almost always occur at a specific time of day that favours one group of people over another.  You really can't use wildnodes winners as indicators of... well... anything, except that one side is more heavily US time zone based than the other.
    image
  • DrastrathDrastrath Member Posts: 47 Novice
    Xenthos said:
    Drastrath said:
    Xenthos said:
    2 wildnodes ago Magnagora defeated us, though.  Basing everything off a single rare event is one of the things that fueled the perception of imbalance for so long.  Timequakes have amply demonstrated that both sides can (and do) win.  You can't look at one or two data points in isolation and use them to claim a problem.

    That's why Orael is trying to provide data so that people can parse it.  It's actually a really useful addition to have in the discussion.
    How many times have MSH won wild nodes in the last year? As you stated, you should not base things on a single rare event. 
    More than once (there's no way to actually go back and count though, for me at least).  Part of the issue with nodes is how they're coded to fire.  They almost always happen at the end of the weave, which happens to be Glomdoring's strong time.  Whenever the nodes don't happen at that time though, it usually seems to end up in MSH's favour.

    You're misinterpreting my point, however.  I'm talking rarity in terms of frequency.  If something only fires once every two weeks and you base everything on that, well... things are skewed.  Especially if that something is coded to almost always occur at a specific time of day that favours one group of people over another.  You really can't use wildnodes winners as indicators of... well... anything, except that one side is more heavily US time zone based than the other.
    You missed my point. 

    6 TQs happen in 2 days:

    TQ 1, 3, 4  have a ratio of 3.8:1 CGG
    TQ 2, 5, 6 have a ratio of 3.9:1 MSH 

    The numbers say everything is okay? However, the majority of the TQs are likely to have uncompetitive numbers. Hence, the numbers are flawed,  and new data would need to be mined prior to assertations that no issue exists.
  • NelrasNelras Member Posts: 182 Expert
    What I would like to see, if it is at all feasible, is information on how long people spend involved in timequakes, depending on numbers. While it is alright to say that one side had one person more or less than the other side who got their daily credits from the quake, it means little if one side is there for most of the quake when the other side died after a couple of minutes and then had stragglers run in for a minute near the end to get their credits.

    The reason I would like to see this is that, to my mind, a 'good' timequake, or a good fight, is one where both sides maintain their interest in what is happening. Even if the numbers end up being 8 vs 5, to pick some random numbers, then if both the 8 and the 5 feel like they have a chance to win the numbers matter little. What matters is that both sides are engaged. 
  • XenthosXenthos Shadow Lord Member Posts: 6,930 Transcendent
    Orael already provided data that says the majority of timequakes do not have uncompetitive numbers though... he parsed it down to a per-timequake differential.
    image
  • OraelOrael Member, Administrator, Moderator, Gods Posts: 413 Creator
    The numbers don't say that though.

    The numbers say that over half the timequakes have a 0-3 player difference. That means that over half the timequakes aren't egregiously outnumbered. It isn't 10:1 one day and 1:10 the next day.

    When the average player count is 9 per side, that means most timequakes are starting with at least a 10-7 (11-8?) count or closer
  • DrastrathDrastrath Member Posts: 47 Novice
    edited July 2019
    Orael said:
    The numbers don't say that though.

    The numbers say that over half the timequakes have a 0-3 player difference. That means that over half the timequakes aren't egregiously outnumbered. It isn't 10:1 one day and 1:10 the next day.

    When the average player count is 9 per side, that means most timequakes are starting with at least a 10-7 (11-8?) count or closer

    Xenthos said:
    Orael already provided data that says the majority of timequakes do not have uncompetitive numbers though... he parsed it down to a per-timequake differential.
    Players logged in right? 

    Edit: This was meant for Orael about numbers. 
  • NelrasNelras Member Posts: 182 Expert
    edited July 2019
    No, the data shows how many people were active at the start and how many were involved for one minute. There is nothing in there which speaks to the involvement of those players beyond that one minute mark.
    The other data has shown that the number of times where each side has the greater numbers are not too dissimilar. Again, this does not relate to the involvement of players. It could be that it flips between one side dominating and the other depending on time zones or other factors, with one side being ahead more often than the other.

    I agree with Orael that it is possible to dismiss any set of data due to its flaws. I am not attacking the data that has been gathered, simply suggesting a possible area to look at moving forward which might give a different perspective.

    *edit* several posts while I was writing this. This post was aimed primarily at Xenthos.
  • XenthosXenthos Shadow Lord Member Posts: 6,930 Transcendent
    Orael said:
    The numbers don't say that though.

    The numbers say that over half the timequakes have a 0-3 player difference. That means that over half the timequakes aren't egregiously outnumbered. It isn't 10:1 one day and 1:10 the next day.

    When the average player count is 9 per side, that means most timequakes are starting with at least a 10-7 (11-8?) count or closer

    image
  • OraelOrael Member, Administrator, Moderator, Gods Posts: 413 Creator
    I don't have any data for how long players stay in the timequake, the metric I added was just something quick I could put in to gather basic info.

    I could look to putting something in for that though.
  • DrastrathDrastrath Member Posts: 47 Novice
    Nevermind, I am sorry for wasting everyone's time. 

    Obviously, PK is even in Lusternia. Wild Nodes wins are evenly distributed, and most TQ are even numbered. 

    I will remove myself from the playerbase as this most certainly must be an issue with my perception. 
This discussion has been closed.