Sapphire
Member
|
quote:
Donation Rewards II
In my first post, I drew attention to the unfairness surrounding token donations being divided by character. With that said, I don't think I did a particularly good job of emphasising just how dire the situation is.
To illustrate the problem more clearly, imagine a hypothetical scenario in which 100 players are participating in the donation contest, each owning a single character. Notwithstanding Flash's notoriously bad RNG system, you would typically expect each player to receive approximately 1% of the total donated tokens under these assumptions. Now, imagine a second scenario where 10 of these players have 10 characters each, and another 10 have five characters each. The remaining 80 players still have a single character as before. In this scenario, while there are still 100 players, 10 of them contribute a total of 100 characters, and another 10 add a further 50. In total, this means there are 230 characters in the prize pool. Each player with 10 characters can expect to receive 10 / 230 * 100 = ~4.3% of the total share, while a player with five character is likely to receive 5 / 230 * 100 = 2.2%. By contrast, the other 80 players can each expect to receive just 0.4% of the total share; this is, after all, a zero sum game.
Of course, it's impossible for me to know how many characters each player participating in the contest has. However, as you can see, it doesn't take long for the disparity to become extreme. And it shows in the contest outcomes as well. I know of at least three players who received fewer than 10,000 tokens on a character during this contest, despite the record 54,000,000 tokens donated. One barely made it past 5000. By contrast, I also know of at least three experienced players who received more than 200,000 tokens from their characters. One received 270,000, enough to donate for the full Warwolf set and still have 50,000 tokens left over! Some may argue that this is fine because more characters means more spending, but those two things aren't necessarily proportional when those characters belong to the same people!
Some of you may also argue that this is fair—that we should reward players for having more characters because it encourages them the play the game longer and become more invested. To that, I say: "but does it?". Or does it simply just encourage the player to quickly raise nine alts to Level 25 for them to act as token mules? This practice is so prevalent that multiple players actively name their characters to highlight their status as mules or storage accounts. Even if we suppose that the system achieves this goal, aren't we already encouraging them enough anyway? Over a donation contest that typically lasts for two months (60 days), nine Adventurer alts (cap: 25 tokens) could collectively earn 25 * 9 * 60 = 13,500 tokens. That's already easily enough to get them into the top 200! Moreover, encouraging players not just to create alts but to have them actively play the game is far more likely to get them invested.
If one of the main benefits of the Summer Donation Contest is supposed to be that the donated tokens end up in the hands of the more casual players who need them, then I can't help but think this system is utterly failing to deliver. Since the donation system is character-based, you can even donate to yourself! One individual, whom I shall not name, managed to donate 80,000 to themselves during this contest! That's five to 10 times more than the average single character player is likely to receive in total!
The more I see this argument get made, the more I have to agree. Yes, I've changed my mind. If part of the idea here is to help give tokens to the less fortunate..ie those who don't have the means to purchase them...then it's not doing so, especially if a player only has 1 or 2 characters. I also tend to think logging in on 10 characters and winning 1/battle per day is a lot of work that might not be necessary if we had an account-based system. I am unsure if or how this could be implemented, but IMO the best scenario would be to place the tokens directly into the vault. Yes, this would mean purchasing a vault.
I have seen some players mention that maybe it should go on the "oldest character on the account". But what if that character isn't the "main character"? What if that account doesn't have a vault and they'd be forced to purchase one to move the tokens to their main? Either way, you're going to need that vault..whether it's deposited directly on the vault, or it needs to be purchased in this scenario. We still might have players who's main is their oldest. However, winning rewards and picking up copies via ballyhoo still requires a vault to take advantage. So to me, ultimately, that should be the one and only caveat. You *need* a vault. By requiring that, it alone would encourage making multiple characters...
Because Chaotic is right. Players are likely using their alts as token mules anyway, and it does not necessarily mean that these alts are being leveled up. As for very new characters that may not know that a vault exists, well it should be advertised by the Devs if this change happens that one will be needed. If that means a purchase of a low level package or farming for the tokens to obtain it, it may provide some time to get this done.
Speaking of not knowing.... there are still many, many, many players who do not even know about the L25+ character rule. This is not stated anywhere. LK let some of us know in discord last year finally, and even this year there were those trying to remember what those specifics were. By making this a vault-based, account based system, you remove this "you need to make 10 chars all L25+" work and you also remove the need to login on all 10 chars, everyday, to beat the shower monster. It's a bit of a chore.
Now, this likely WILL reduce the chances of those who are diligently playing on 10 characters per day, but it really wont be by that much. Remember, those with 1 char were likely only getting 5k, 20k TOTAL over the entirety of the event whereas others with 10 chars were getting upwards of 200k+. So maybe instead you get 180k....but those with 1 char are not also getting that chance at 180k.
So that's specifically how I'd personally implement it...via the vault. The vault *is* tied to the account, after all. To me, it'd be simpler than basing it on figuring out what character to do it on.
quote:
Consolation Prizes
Just as I thought the contest had finally begun to settle down, we were treated to a new thread highlighting the problems running with a 'Top [x]' format. As I noted in my response on that thread, the fight for the top five Dev tickets became quite the battle. Together, the top seven donated 33,539,100 tokens during the contest, a truly astounding display of both generosity and competitive spirit. An amount that made it particularly disappointing for me to see that, despite several calls for a consolation prize for positions six and seven, others were against any leniancy, even given these completely unprecedented and unforeseeable circumstances. And, what's more, I can completely understand why they'd be upset. While I disagree with the way that the argument was phrased, they are, ultimately, correct. Awarding consolation prizes to these positions would be deliberately making an exception to the rule. As I said in my response post, I think these unique circumstances warranted such an exception, but that doesn’t necessarily mean it’s fair to everyone else. That applies even though, as noted by @Branl, every member of the top five agreed to it. Making exceptions has the potential to open the floodgates. While I don’t believe the argument is strong enough, one could easily argue that exceptions should be made further down the leaderboard due to how close those positions were. You could even make a case based on last year’s events: when the staff openly announced that the suggestion system was based on popularity, they compensated those affected with the release of Wishweaver. However, what about those affected in previous years? What about players who made suggestions without knowing this (and therefore didn't stand a chance of having their ideas accepted)? Should they be compensated as well?
My point here isn’t to argue whether they should be compensated. Rather, it’s to demonstrate that if the goal of the Dev Tickets and the 'Top [x]' Giftmaster format is to reward generosity, then this year’s system failed to achieve that purpose effectively. The fact that consolation prizes might have been warranted underscores the problem with how the current format is executed. It failed to adequately reward the generous, and it even exacerbated the already stark ideological divides within the community at a time when that is the last thing we need.
So, what do we do? II
Somehow, despite the mountain of existing issues with the Summer Donation contest, new problems keep being piled on. This only reinforces my belief that sweeping changes are needed. For those arguing that more power should be handed to the top 50 donators, I find that hard to accept when certain players can apparently receive enough tokens from the contest to reach that marker without spending anything themselves. Don't get me wrong; redonating those tokens is still a generous thing to do, but the situation is different when (i) you aren't buying them yourself and (ii) the token distribution system is severely biased against certain individuals. Two players might donate 250,000 tokens, but depending on their individual circumstances, one could have received all of those tokens from the contest!
I want to raise an idea suggested by @Dreiko Shadrack elsewhere: Perhaps the Summer contest should be more like the Winter Gold donation contest. For example, there could be fixed community benchmarks, similar to the current community set, with the top 100 donators receiving a recoloured, elementally distinct version of the same set. The top 100 restriction could address many of the claims for needing consolation prizes (since it's much lower than top five), while the rest of the set remains benchmarked as before. This runs the risk of reducing the total amount of tokens contributed to the contest, but has already been raised by some donators but, as long as the tokens are distributed more evenly, could still be a net benefit to the players that really need those tokens. If that isn't enough of an incentive for large donators, we could retain the 'Top five' Dev ticket system, but with the added explicit qualifications that (i) the item will be made public, and (ii) the staff can provide additional rewards (both collectively and to individual players) depending on the circumstances. This approach would ensure that top donators still receive a degree of special treatment while also benefiting the wider community. Additionally, reducing the contest to one set rather than two would lessen the staff's workload, and their time could instead be spent on something else.
Some of this I agree with, some I differ on.
Here's what I'd do. But first, considering that the majority of the donations come from the very, very top, we need to keep the dev ticket. It's literally carrying us to the stretch goals. So what I would do, is expand the fight.
Here's what I mean.
First, the top 5 still need to be a Dev Ticket. The definition of a dev ticket is : The players can choose any item (category subject to staff) that will be a mechanical clone, but unique art chosen by the player. This item also gets a unique name based on what the player wants. You get both the functionality of something they desire as well as the fashionquest aspect along with the cool name.
Next, I would expand a reward offered to #6 through #10. Here, it would not be a dev ticket. It would be more akin to a war reward. It's a slight reskin of an existing item, with the functional clone. The reskin is entirely up to staff, but the name can be up to the player. This shouldn't be a huge burden considering the lion's share of the work is copy/paste. I wouldn't be opposed to the player being in evolved in the color scheme, but I don't think there should be this constant back and forth via email with ideas, pictures, and "how does this look to you?" process that would slow this down. That's my point. This will allow an expansion of some rewards beyond the 5th spot. Also, no more special considerations between 5/6 and 10/11. You get what you get.
Next, because the top 5 spots (and possibly top 10 if they do what I suggest) will likely carry the entirety of the stretch goal, I think we should move away from the "Top 100 get this, top 50 get this, top 25 get this ..but only in-part.
Right now 4k tokens gets you the misc, 2k gets you the shield, and 1k gets you the elite face, and all donators get the basic face.
Because we can possibly move to an account-based, vault-deposited specific system, more players will be getting higher donations.
So this means the tiers to guarantee all of the basic items need to be implemented, and raised.
For example, I would scrap elite faces. Just make 1 face. All donators get that face. Second, 5k donators get the shield instead of 2k. From there, instead of the misc being obtained at 4k, make this 15k. Instead of the weapon set being for top 200, make this 25k. Instead of the top 100 getting the pet, make it 50k. Oddly enough, top 100 this year was 50,500+. To get the armor, make it 150k. (This year was north of 200k)
What will actually happen, I think, is we will get lower amounts gifted from those who currently sit between 100 and 50, but we will have more players gift that 150k (This year we had 63) I suspect that we might see this number double or higher, making up for the difference)
This means more players get the items, and the total donated may be pretty equal. I suspect, that we are actually losing donations from those who wish to not gamble. There are many, many players who are waiting to see where these current Top X thresholds are and once they see it go past their amount that they have, or are willing to donate, they bow out and keep their tokens altogether. If we guaranteed the items based on the specific amount, and we are able to increase the number of players with more donations (like those with lower number of characters on the account), then I think the overall effect will actually be MORE donations.
Finally, I would like to make the top 25 retain the color custom variant but make all items CCustom for them. I think a good mix of some competitive stuff on the top end, for those who are actually carrying the contests total amounts, with some guaranteed benchmarks is the best way to go moving forward. Oh, and we can still login to each character and donate to obtain the daily prize (crown, moontide bracer, etc) so that multiple of our characters can get a copy.
However, IMO, I think it would be healthier if the item changed halfway through. What happens now, is the 25 token donations stop once so many characters get the item. (Notwithstanding those who were donating a million tokens via 25's...wow) So change the item to a new item halfway through, to continue pushing a number of 25 donos. This will add up over the course of the contest.
This is all separate from the process of suggestions, how we go about deciding what sets to utilize etc, which I think still need to happen as it drives engagement up. I highly doubt Daddiel donates 3.7 million tokens if his suggestion wasn't chosen. The nuts and bolts of that can be fleshed out better, but the suggestion part needs to stay somehow. And I think a community set is still in need to be kept.
< Message edited by Sapphire -- 9/1/2024 16:28:14 >
|
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
