(PSN)Gaelic-_-Flame Posted June 20, 2015 Share Posted June 20, 2015 If the event didn't have differing rewards then 90% of the player base would do their 4/4 and forget about the event, So the event would basically be done for 2 days and then be stagnant for the remaining 5, with late comers(last couple of days) likely not being able to get their 4 points because the conflicts took too long. They could both offer something good though. Like Catalyst vs Reactor, or at least 30 R Cores vs Reactor, or something like that, 500,000 credits vs 25 R cores. There are plenty variations to keep it interesting for players, without making it look like a joke. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
(PSN)PillarOfWar Posted June 20, 2015 Share Posted June 20, 2015 I choose greed! 'Cause I'm a scaly Tenni lizard. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dremen_Vex Posted June 20, 2015 Share Posted June 20, 2015 I hope DE never makes an event like this again, it brings out the worst in the community just like in gradivus, people turn into children and forget that this is a co-op game and get way too arrogant and turns the community into a divided pool of hatred. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
(PSN)Sybaris- Posted June 20, 2015 Share Posted June 20, 2015 When the event on PC was running, people complained of the exact same issue. It's working as intended. I mean XB1 people aren't complaining, only ps4 people are Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
(PSN)inuyasha279 Posted June 20, 2015 Share Posted June 20, 2015 It's a few credits in difference doesn't matter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
(XBOX)longliner386 Posted June 20, 2015 Share Posted June 20, 2015 (edited) They could both offer something good though. Like Catalyst vs Reactor, or at least 30 R Cores vs Reactor, or something like that, 500,000 credits vs 25 R cores. There are plenty variations to keep it interesting for players, without making it look like a joke. Each community has a favorite when rewards are even: PC-Alad,Ps4-Nef and XboxOne-Alad. I am under the impression that the Victor is the 1st to win 10 conflicts. If that is the case then even rewards would end this event 3 days ahead of schedule again stopping any late comers from attaing the weapon. Imagine going away for a 3 day weekend leaving you 4 days to get the required 4 points only to come back to the event being over already. Edited June 20, 2015 by (XB1)longliner386 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ragingdeamon Posted June 20, 2015 Share Posted June 20, 2015 sorry, it was my understanding that nef was winning in the PS4 event. nef was rigging the event on pc, we went from 4-0 to 4-4 in one day, and everyone cried foul over it, and now it's the other way around and people still don't understand that the event is adjusting the rewards by itself and not DE? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
(PSN)DesecratedFlame Posted June 20, 2015 Share Posted June 20, 2015 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! They should give better rewards to the losing side. It's the only way to keep the even close. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
(XBOX)longliner386 Posted June 20, 2015 Share Posted June 20, 2015 sorry, it was my understanding that nef was winning in the PS4 event. nef was rigging the event on pc, we went from 4-0 to 4-4 in one day, and everyone cried foul over it, and now it's the other way around and people still don't understand that the event is adjusting the rewards by itself and not DE? Xbox was Alad (3-0) Nef and then it went 3-3 the next day because of rewards, Personally I read the forums so knew what to expect. I'm not sure why people can't/don't understand how the reward system for this event works. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RoboDoge Posted June 20, 2015 Share Posted June 20, 2015 As i already said this before when this kind of thread popped around PC event, DE stated long ago when Corpus were dominating starchart that Grineers will start offering better rewards until starchart is balanced. It is common sense that losing side offers better rewards. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dremen_Vex Posted June 20, 2015 Share Posted June 20, 2015 As i already said this before when this kind of thread popped around PC event, DE stated long ago when Corpus were dominating starchart that Grineers will start offering better rewards until starchart is balanced. It is common sense that losing side offers better rewards. Corpus only started dominating because someone hacked DE. The player was banned (Rightfully so serves them right) and DE took those nodes away from the final score on either team. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
(XBOX)Grihaly Posted June 20, 2015 Share Posted June 20, 2015 Alad winning is a "proper victory", it's just not the victory you want. No, Alad winning is a heretical failure. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
(PSN)Gaelic-_-Flame Posted June 20, 2015 Share Posted June 20, 2015 They should give better rewards to the losing side. It's the only way to keep the even close. I don't understand why they should keep it close if it's about the choice? It's like doing a poll on something to decide what's better, but constantly adjusting the numbers if they get more than 10% appart as the poll is going. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
(PSN)DesecratedFlame Posted June 20, 2015 Share Posted June 20, 2015 I don't understand why they should keep it close if it's about the choice? It's like doing a poll on something to decide what's better, but constantly adjusting the numbers if they get more than 10% appart as the poll is going. Because a one-sided race isn't fun . Giving one side better rewards doesn't remove your choice; it tests your convinction. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
(PSN)Gaelic-_-Flame Posted June 20, 2015 Share Posted June 20, 2015 Because a one-sided race isn't fun . Giving one side better rewards doesn't remove your choice; it tests your convinction. Depends on the difference of rewards really. When it's 50,000 (which is like 2-3 Dark sector runs) versus a Catalyst or Reactor (which are pretty rare to get for free, and pretty much required to build a decent weapon) the majority will always go for Catalyst or Reactor. 10-15% of community might go for what they trully support, but that's clearly not enough. So it's not really a choice anymore, it's more of a manipulation. I wouldn't mind if the reward system was actually fun and made sense. Like each time a side lose, they raise their reward a little. So sooner or later the difference would be enough to sway many people. But as the other side starts losing, they start raising their rewards as well, eventually evening it out. It would make an event rewards better towards the end, encouraging most players to keep playing it, and also would keep a feel of sides actually fighting for people to join them. The current system doesn't make much sense because Nef lost 5 battles in a row and he still didn't raise his rewards. It feels more like a manipulated event rather than a "choice" driven one. And no, I'm not saying the event is rigged, but the algorithm of the rewarding in this event makes the choice pretty much pointless, because people chose to fight for Nef 6 times, and then 5 times Alad was forced to win, because of OP rewards. Now I feel like most people don't even care about the event anymore, so Alad seems to be slowly winning again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
(PSN)DesecratedFlame Posted June 20, 2015 Share Posted June 20, 2015 Depends on the difference of rewards really. When it's 50,000 (which is like 2-3 Dark sector runs) versus a Catalyst or Reactor (which are pretty rare to get for free, and pretty much required to build a decent weapon) the majority will always go for Catalyst or Reactor. 10-15% of community might go for what they trully support, but that's clearly not enough. So it's not really a choice anymore, it's more of a manipulation. I wouldn't mind if the reward system was actually fun and made sense. Like each time a side lose, they raise their reward a little. So sooner or later the difference would be enough to sway many people. But as the other side starts losing, they start raising their rewards as well, eventually evening it out. It would make an event rewards better towards the end, encouraging most players to keep playing it, and also would keep a feel of sides actually fighting for people to join them. The current system doesn't make much sense because Nef lost 5 battles in a row and he still didn't raise his rewards. It feels more like a manipulated event rather than a "choice" driven one. And no, I'm not saying the event is rigged, but the algorithm of the rewarding in this event makes the choice pretty much pointless, because people chose to fight for Nef 6 times, and then 5 times Alad was forced to win, because of OP rewards. Now I feel like most people don't even care about the event anymore, so Alad seems to be slowly winning again. conviction: A firmly held belief or opinion How badly do you want Nef to win? Do you want him to win badly enough that you will sacrifice a reactor to make it happen. That's how it tests your conviction. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
(PSN)Gaelic-_-Flame Posted June 20, 2015 Share Posted June 20, 2015 conviction: A firmly held belief or opinion How badly do you want Nef to win? Do you want him to win badly enough that you will sacrifice a reactor to make it happen. That's how it tests your conviction. Like I said, it's only 10-15% of the community that's going to do that (myself included). But the majority will ALWAYS go for a better reward. It's how the world is working, especially in a game where no repercussions will get to you and your choice actually means nothing serious. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
(PSN)DesecratedFlame Posted June 20, 2015 Share Posted June 20, 2015 (edited) Like I said, it's only 10-15% of the community that's going to do that (myself included). But the majority will ALWAYS go for a better reward. It's how the world is working, especially in a game where no repercussions will get to you and your choice actually means nothing serious. Well, that's their choice, and it's all about choice, right? Edited June 20, 2015 by (PS4)DesecratedFlame Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
(PSN)LiamRising Posted June 20, 2015 Share Posted June 20, 2015 (edited) conviction: A firmly held belief or opinion How badly do you want Nef to win? Do you want him to win badly enough that you will sacrifice a reactor to make it happen. That's how it tests your conviction. conviction is not enough to win this event its a numbers game and alot of players dont want credits they would go for the catalyst/ reactor that are worth 20pl each i can get credits from regular invasions, those of us those chose nef stuck to it as my score is currently 9/4 supporting nef but if he does not offer a good reward soon it will be unfair as he has offered nothing compared to what alad offered. Edited June 20, 2015 by (PS4)LiamRising Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
(PSN)DesecratedFlame Posted June 20, 2015 Share Posted June 20, 2015 conviction is not enough to win this event its a numbers game and alot of players dont want credits they would go for the catalyst/ reactor that are worth 20pl each i can get credits from regular invasions, those of us those chose nef stuck to it as my score is currently 9/4 supporting nef but if he does not offer a good reward soon it will be unfair as he has offered nothing compared to what alad offered. Alad's life is on the line, and we just bankrupted Nef. Of course Alad will offer better rewards. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tricky5hift Posted June 20, 2015 Share Posted June 20, 2015 If they really wanted the weapon on the side they support, they'd disregard imbalance of rewards and just do it for the weapon. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
(PSN)Gaelic-_-Flame Posted June 20, 2015 Share Posted June 20, 2015 Well, that's their choice, and it's all about choice, right? It is technically a choice, but it's a manipulated one. And I don't see a reason why it should be like this in a game, because no one is taking such a choice seriously and just use it to get as much good rewards as they can. If that had some negative impact then fine (something like if you switch sides you don't get a gun in the end) otherwise it's like providing an illusion of choice. It's the same as all the regular invasions where you "choose" to side with Corpus or Grineer, where in fact you don't "choose" anything, you just go for the highest reward and sometimes to get that G3 hunting you down, to get Brakk. If it's "choice" for you, then fine. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gr3vi3R Posted June 20, 2015 Share Posted June 20, 2015 1. Side the with the looser 2. Get all the better rewards 3. Claim the weapon Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
(PSN)DesecratedFlame Posted June 20, 2015 Share Posted June 20, 2015 It is technically a choice, but it's a manipulated one. And I don't see a reason why it should be like this in a game, because no one is taking such a choice seriously and just use it to get as much good rewards as they can. If that had some negative impact then fine (something like if you switch sides you don't get a gun in the end) otherwise it's like providing an illusion of choice. It's the same as all the regular invasions where you "choose" to side with Corpus or Grineer, where in fact you don't "choose" anything, you just go for the highest reward and sometimes to get that G3 hunting you down, to get Brakk. If it's "choice" for you, then fine. They didn't have a gun to their head. It was not a manipulated choice. Going for the best reward is still a choice, and it fits with the concept of Tenno being honorless mercenaries. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheBrsrkr Posted June 20, 2015 Share Posted June 20, 2015 So, from what I understand, Ruk was right about you people. To be swayed from your ideals with these baubles? Where is your so called Tenno honor? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts