KhalJJ
Member
|
Appreciate the effort the staff has made with this, and I think the dono contest as a concept is potentially great.
*edit - and the items so far are great, especially the gingerbrute misc!
I'd like to give some feedback on the specific format of the Z-token drive however, both from my own view+experience and speaking to other players. Unsure if this should be its own thread/topic but putting here for the moment.
I've taken part in the past 2 donation events from a donator perspective, and have experienced the "good" (achieving position I wanted) and the "bad" (getting sniped).
The Issues
Regardless of which outcome, I’ve become convinced that the format in its current form is a net negative for the game/players. An oppositional FOMO-drive is inherently predatory, and invokes negative feelings on both sides of the outcome in most cases (anxiety, (possibly even financial stress) even over successfully maintaining a spot, and apathy and/or fomo if not competing/no chance to win). (FOMO - fear of missing out - ie. the unknown item could be excellent/essential for some top builds etc)
I understand the need for strong incentives from a financial perspective but for me personally this current format crosses the line, as well as actually being long-term detrimental for the playerbase; I think the short-term financial gain from this will not offset the longer-term losses from players being demotivated by the contest.
From my own perspective, in my bad outcome dono drive, I feel I did everything “right” (made the decision very early what I was going for, checked previous year’s totals, ensured I had easily enough tokens/planned for, and watched the lists as much as I possibly could, and donated reasonably well above last years total at the last chance when it turned out I couldn’t be present at the exact end.)
Unfortunately, real life occurs and globally a hard cut off is not going to suit everyone, and for me personally in this instance it did not. You can argue that this is “fair” because it would be impossible to get a time that suits everyone, and I actually do agree - the point however is the negative feeling that this evokes in many players, repeatedly in each cycle, and as time goes on, an individual is more likely to be affected by this and hence "burned" and demotivated from future contests.
Side suggestion - an ebay-style “max-bid” mechanic (ie. I set my “max bid” and if someone out-competes me it auto-donates to restore my position) might kind of make sense + partially solve this specific issue, in this format, but I’d argue this may be problematic from another angle (lower-ranked donators thinking they have a chance to take a spot and being immediately one-upped, although arguably this is already very much the case.)
Yes, you could argue I could have completely nailed down a spot, with a massive donation, and this is indeed true. But for me personally, this is where a line is crossed, because you are strongly incentivising a level of expenditure that is (for both the average and even many committed players) ludicrous, and using fomo to do so.
Examples
I'll try to illustrate my argument via some hypothetical examples:
- Player 1, complete newbie: Just joined the game, see the contest, and I've bought an initial package to get going. Also received what seems like a huge amount of tokens form a donation so now I'm looking at the top spots thinking "That's not so high". Get tempted into competing and use all my tokens, missing my desired cut-off because I have zero past knowledge/experience. Sunk costs fallacy kicked in and I tried to keep up when experienced whales snapped up top spots towards the end of the contest, and now I feel I wasted 90% plus of those token. Sentiment: very negative
- player 2, hardcore player, committed top x: Has done the calculations and knows what to aim for/do. Possibly will miss out if unavailable for the final hours. Has to either gamble with whaling or deal with the fomo if unavailable. Even if I wi, this experience may have been largely stressful, and certainly not fun, depending on circumstances. Sentiment: variably negative
- player 3: experienced player, opting out of the contest: Watches the contest go by to conserve/gain tokens, and makes peace with missing out on the items, gambling that the effect isn't something they would really want that will now be perma-rare/inaccessible. Sentiment: Variable, mostly Negative but possibly positive
- player 4: money-no-object: Unloads massive donations early, nails down top spots. However as we saw this summer, still needs to be watchful if going for top 5 (NB I think top 5 is a somewhat different point for discussion, and not included in this scope). Sentiment: positive
As I've tried to highlight here, the experience is variably negative overall, potentially much more punishing for newer players, and even hits experienced players hard in the wrong circumstances. I'd argue by continuing this format, we are pushing these players away from the game, with the resultant long-term negative impact this will have on a) the community and b) the financial health of the game.
You could argue that the top top donators are all that really matter in point (b), and this may be true, but even they less likely to stick around if the rest of the community disappears.
Possible solutions?
This would be different if the player had more information - knowing what they are going for would remove something of the gambling aspect of the drive, and the “fomo” component, alleviating some of the negative sentiment, but not completely solving the issue as it would still be oppositional.
The issue could also largely be addressed by fixed donation values. However, maybe this would “destroy” such contests and the total donated would completely plummet? Reducing both the overall financial gain, and the joy for smaller players in receiving far fewer donations, which is obviously not the aim.
I’m unsure of a universally positive solution for this, and would love to hear other’s views or suggestions.
Tl/dr: the currrent donation format is a largely negative player experience, win or lose, due to the inherently predatory oppositional fomo-driven format, as well as the hard-cut off not suiting all players and possibly creating anxiety based on real world factors out of a player's control. Whilst I can understand the financial incentives for this, I personally would re-iterate suggested changes such as fixed reward brackets, and item info-subs ahead of time, as have been suggested previously, or a new novel solution.
*edited for formatting and clarification
< Message edited by KhalJJ -- 2/3/2025 8:39:23 >
|
Printable Version
Icon Legend
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread
