Viqualy Posted June 20, 2015 Share Posted June 20, 2015 (edited) stop with the unfair rewards on one side. keep both rewards the same and let the tenno choose who they want to win and not the greedyness. PS4 tenno clearly want to see a different outcome, so let THEM decide! CLEM! Edited June 20, 2015 by Viqualy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
(PSN)MakoPriest Posted June 20, 2015 Share Posted June 20, 2015 Indeed. But they wont because it allows de to force the winner they want on people. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
(NSW)BlaineKodos Posted June 20, 2015 Share Posted June 20, 2015 This thread again. The loser offers better rewards. Because they're losing. It's called rubberbanding. This gives them a fighting chance, especially because most Tenno are greedy and shortsighted. No one is putting a gun to your head and forcing you to take a certain side, your personal greed is. If both sides offered the exact same rewards then it would just be a landslide victory, in which case it's not a conflict. Having two rewards becomes meaningless. Play the side you want to win. Jumping ship for a shinier trinket is your own fault. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
(PSN)SteampunkJester Posted June 20, 2015 Share Posted June 20, 2015 This thread again. The loser offers better rewards. Because they're losing. It's called rubberbanding. This gives them a fighting chance, especially because most Tenno are greedy and shortsighted. No one is putting a gun to your head and forcing you to take a certain side, your personal greed is. If both sides offered the exact same rewards then it would just be a landslide victory, in which case it's not a conflict. Having two rewards becomes meaningless. Play the side you want to win. Jumping ship for a shinier trinket is your own fault. ^This, seriously these threads are annoying. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Senketsu_ Posted June 20, 2015 Share Posted June 20, 2015 ^This, seriously these threads are annoying.I agree Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
f3llyn Posted June 20, 2015 Share Posted June 20, 2015 (edited) This thread again. The loser offers better rewards. Because they're losing. It's called rubberbanding. This gives them a fighting chance, especially because most Tenno are greedy and shortsighted. No one is putting a gun to your head and forcing you to take a certain side, your personal greed is. If both sides offered the exact same rewards then it would just be a landslide victory, in which case it's not a conflict. Having two rewards becomes meaningless. Play the side you want to win. Jumping ship for a shinier trinket is your own fault. If that is what the majority of people want why is that a problem? That's a question no one answered when this was happening on the pc version. If both sides are getting the same rewards and one side is winning what difference does it actually make? Absolutely none as far as I can see it. Edited June 20, 2015 by f3llyn Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Knightmare047 Posted June 20, 2015 Share Posted June 20, 2015 I feared these threads would appear once again when the tact alert hits consoles. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
(NSW)BlaineKodos Posted June 20, 2015 Share Posted June 20, 2015 If that is what the majority of people want why is that a problem? That's a question no one answered when this was happening on the pc version. If both sides are getting the same rewards and one side is winning what difference does it actually make? Absolutely none as far as I can see it. The difference is that if the conflict doesn't have ebb and flow to it, it disheartens the people who are on the losing side. When they're disheartened, they do the bare minimum they have to in order to qualify for the global reward and then they go on about their days until it ends. This is not what DE wants with these long style of events. They want players continuing to play until the finishing bell, because more activity in the game is the desire of every single dev in history. The rewards pitching further and further to entice players to jump sides for a conflict ensures that there's much more of a close match. On the player side, this strategy is defeated by simply not changing sides. But human nature, especially now, desires instant gratification. By offering a better reward NOW, it moves the less convicted to a side they don't support which ensures the fight is much more even and exciting. If the match is even and exciting, players keep playing to try and win their side. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
f3llyn Posted June 20, 2015 Share Posted June 20, 2015 (edited) The difference is that if the conflict doesn't have ebb and flow to it, it disheartens the people who are on the losing side. When they're disheartened, they do the bare minimum they have to in order to qualify for the global reward and then they go on about their days until it ends. This is not what DE wants with these long style of events. They want players continuing to play until the finishing bell, because more activity in the game is the desire of every single dev in history. The rewards pitching further and further to entice players to jump sides for a conflict ensures that there's much more of a close match. On the player side, this strategy is defeated by simply not changing sides. But human nature, especially now, desires instant gratification. By offering a better reward NOW, it moves the less convicted to a side they don't support which ensures the fight is much more even and exciting. If the match is even and exciting, players keep playing to try and win their side. False. They couldn't care less how much you play the game. What they care about is how much you spend while playing the game. More people playing less but spending more would be ideal for them. As for the other argument. I don't buy it. Most people do the bare minimum anyways. Get their 3 runs down to have the node complete and go about their business. What's more is you get the battle pay even if the side you support loses so it literally makes no difference at the end of the day. So the only thing it's actually doing is creating an artificial competition and frustrating the players who choose to support a side and stick with it. Edited June 20, 2015 by f3llyn Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darzok Posted June 20, 2015 Share Posted June 20, 2015 (edited) This is getting to be a bad joke Nef is winning and now the rewards rigging is going crazy DE just let the event play out fair. Nef is winning when rewards are balanced and the same need to make sure alad v wins lets start to rig it Nef 50k Alad v 75k oh look alad v still losing lets do more to rig it Nef 20 normal core's alad v 25 RARE core's oh no alad v still losing better do more Nef 50k alad v orokin catalysts bp alad v still losing but now only 1-2% gap There is no choice in this event now the Dev's have made it clear Alad V has to win and to ensure it now the event is been rigged via rewards to force it why not remove the choice to work for Nef since you are making sure he will lose. Don`t do choice events if you have made the choice for us all ready as its pointless. Edited June 20, 2015 by Darzok Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
(PSN)IIIDevoidIII Posted June 20, 2015 Share Posted June 20, 2015 The event isn't rigged. Rewards favor the losing side. If Alad was winning and the rewards were exponentially greater, then you could call foul. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NovusNova Posted June 20, 2015 Share Posted June 20, 2015 Event is not rigged. The losing side offers better rewards so that people will join them and fight for them. Same thing happened with Nef on PC when Alad was winning massively. Nef started offering rare cores to Alad's uncommon, and Nef offered catalyst compared to Alad's credits. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheBrsrkr Posted June 20, 2015 Share Posted June 20, 2015 Ohitsthisthreadagain.jpg Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fabpsi Posted June 20, 2015 Share Posted June 20, 2015 (edited) xD God I "love" those threads....I hoped for some time that people would see and learn from the event-threads that appeared during the pc-event-version...but oh well... like other people already said: It is not rigged, the rewards are (more or less) logical^^ Edited June 20, 2015 by Fabpsi Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
(PSN)SofeSNBR Posted June 20, 2015 Share Posted June 20, 2015 Well it uses broken system, and as PC witnessed, neffy did excatly same thing. Also no one forces players to go for better rewards, oh tenno loyality, so easily broken. Maybe regor was wrong, maybe salad V is lizard and we are jellyfishes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PapaFragolino Posted June 20, 2015 Share Posted June 20, 2015 Oh boy, it's happening again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
(PSN)Gaelic-_-Flame Posted June 20, 2015 Share Posted June 20, 2015 It would be extremely annoying if Alad is going to win that way. At least give us a nice alternative to Reactors and Catalysts, like 500,000 or 1M credit? After all Nef is supposed to be filthy rich. Also I don't undrestand why DE makes an event with "choice" and then completely removes the choice option, providing rewards the majority can't ignore. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
(NSW)BlaineKodos Posted June 20, 2015 Share Posted June 20, 2015 False. They couldn't care less how much you play the game. What they care about is how much you spend while playing the game. More people playing less but spending more would be ideal for them. As for the other argument. I don't buy it. Most people do the bare minimum anyways. Get their 3 runs down to have the node complete and go about their business. What's more is you get the battle pay even if the side you support loses so it literally makes no difference at the end of the day. So the only thing it's actually doing is creating an artificial competition and frustrating the players who choose to support a side and stick with it. The longer and more frequently a person plays a game with in-game purchases, the more likely they are to to actually make a purchase. This logic applies to retail stores and theme parks as well, which is why places with larger floorspace tend to be more profitable. People with hundreds of hours invested in Warframe are statistically more likely to want to either give them money because they enjoyed the game, see something they want that they don't have and fork over the cash to have it, or become tired of looking for an item and just pay to end their waiting and obtain the item they're looking for. When I say bare minimum for the global rewards, I don't mean on a node-by-node basis. I mean in the event as a whole. You only need 4 completed nodes to get the weapon, mods, etc. This was also seen in the Eyes of Blight event, where players near the end of the conflict stopped completing any of the missions because they had already gotten the Imperator Vandal. The ideal is for players to want to do every single mission offered, because it's more time that players are in the game. This loops back to my earlier statement. As for creating frustration among the players, this is ironically what the community wanted. For almost as long as I've been playing, which is since January of last year, the community has been clamoring for another event like the Gradivus Dilemma, which was almost this exact same event. Many people wanted the same polarizing us-vs-them mentality to wash over the forums, and so DE gave it to us. I wasn't active during it so I don't know if the same complaints over reward disparity were happening then, so I can't speak to if this is exactly a repeat. My point on that matter though is that to facilitate the sense of heated competition, both sides need to feel like they have a chance at winning. So by having the rubberbanding rewards, both sides will be closer and more competitive. I'm not implying the rubberbanding rewards are the best course of action. I'm clarifying why they were put in. How you feel about their existence isn't as important as the fact they exist, and complaining that you have to make a decision each time a node comes up on the big picture vs the here-and-now does not change their existence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DiosGX Posted June 20, 2015 Share Posted June 20, 2015 Loyalty isn't bought with fancy rewards and golden cores. That's called a bribe. People will support either who they want to support, or whatever gets them the most goodies. Bear this in mind: There were literally at least a hundred threads of people asking "WHY DIDN'T I GET A REWARD WTF," when they were busy bouncing wherever they could get the most juice like a kleenex at a snot party. They ended up either 1 short or dead neutral and didn't receive any gun at all. Let people do what they want. Some people's greed will blind them of the prize. Drink their delicious tears. DRINK THEM ALL. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Digidyne017 Posted June 20, 2015 Share Posted June 20, 2015 Let people do what they want. Some people's greed will blind them of the prize. Drink their delicious tears. DRINK THEM ALL. *tries to drink* ................ ................... ........................ *drowns* Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
(PSN)SteampunkJester Posted June 20, 2015 Share Posted June 20, 2015 (edited) The event isn't rigged. Rewards favor the losing side. If Alad was winning and the rewards were exponentially greater, then you could call foul. Ohitsthisthreadagain.jpg ^These. Seriously people, these threads are annoying... Edited June 20, 2015 by (PS4)SteampunkJester Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mastikator2 Posted June 20, 2015 Share Posted June 20, 2015 The reward for every event was an inside job! It was rigged by DE for nefarious purposes #insidejob #thetruthaboutevents #hashtagsarestupid #andsoisinsaneconspiracytheories Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
(PSN)MakoPriest Posted June 20, 2015 Share Posted June 20, 2015 Its actually pretty bad tbh alad has had 2 packs of r5's 2 reactors and 1 catalyst when compared to nefs........nothing nef has had nothing of use. All three platforms will miraculously end up with the karak wraith so de can have the dera for a future event. Giving alad super good rewards intill they are tied again is just bad design. If de wanted they could just keep giving alad good rewards even if he is winning. The moment that happens i will call shenanigans like i did with eyes of blight that was way worse then this. Keep in mind this is coming from a person who has sided with alad every time even when he had bad rewards. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nighttide77 Posted June 20, 2015 Share Posted June 20, 2015 Is this what deja vu is? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gr3vi3R Posted June 20, 2015 Share Posted June 20, 2015 Rewards favor the losing side. AKA Rigged Anyway, just fight 4 times for your favorite side and the fight for the better rewards once you're 4/4 with one of the two. The results will be the same but you'll have the better rewards. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts