Was the Quivira war a datamining experiment? What can we learn from it?

[Iori]

I wonder if FDEV is using the current CGs as experiments for tuning Powerplay before it is out.

If that is the case, here is what I gather from this event:

.They put one goal in a station close to the sun.

.They put another goal in a station inconveniently far away.
-Can't dock big ships.
-Pays double.

Condition: only the successful side gets paid.

The results were:
-More CMDRS naturally went for the more convenient objective.
-Clippers and Condas are excluded for the Imperials side for the inconvenience, giving extra advantages to the independents.
-The fact that the imperial side pays double wasn't even known until it reached the first tier, and by that time, there was already a much heavier investment in the other side, people who wanted more money were discouraged to switch side because of the exclusion condition (better to get half the money than none at all If I go for the losing side). So the economic incentive is also nullified.
-Only hardcore roleplayers are going to fight despite inconvenience, which is also diminished by the shadow of treachery looming over Patreaus.

With the current conditions, the Empire never had a chance.

 

[aws357]

I've been playing both sides. Because I would have little to do otherwise.

Let's just say that whoever loses, I win

 

[AntiDisco]

I think the majority of CGs in the last weeks were used for testing different conditions. Quivira was the most obvious but with permit restricted, very fast to complete and nearly impossible to complete CGs there was much more testing going on.

 

[Quineloe]

If the empire CG really ends up paying nothing, this is a grim outlook for the game, as such mechanics will massively encourage bandwagoning and punish the underdog for no reason. The masses will flock to the powers that already have large numbers of players, and everything will already be decided before the new goals even start.

 

[GaryII]

-Only hardcore roleplayers are going to fight despite inconvenience

Yes, and those are minority, so Empire had 0 % change to win...FD should learn that must people are lazy and wont fly 28 000 ls to outpost...

 

[huwthomas]

Yes, and those are minority, so Empire had 0 % change to win...FD should learn that must people are lazy and wont fly 28 000 ls to outpost...

If there's an asymmetric conflict then the goals should reflect that. E.g. you can only bring small ships -> your goal is one that is better suited to small ships. Or, if you are disadvantaged, your potential reward is much greater. e.g. Luke is set an almost impossible goal but the reward is that he destroys the Death Star ... the payoff is worth it, he would not have bothered if it was just a few million credits

 

[AntiDisco]

The main problem with Quivira was, that Tier 1 was too hard to reach. If it would have been known earlier that the empire pays double, we could be looking at a very different outcome.
But at least they are testing it know, before Powerplay launches. With Quivira you had an important person disliked by many against a minor faction nobody will care about once the CG is done. If all the problems of this CG had happened in a fight between two Powers with people beeing much more invested and a serious and lasting impact on the political landscape, there would be serious (and legitimate) complaining from the playerbase.

 

[Iori]

Yes, and those are minority, so Empire had 0 % change to win...FD should learn that must people are lazy and wont fly 28 000 ls to outpost...

There are also hardcore roleplayers of anti-empire CMDRS.

One big problem was that the double pay incentive wasn't even known until it was already too late to compensate, and people don't fight wars that are lost, and the profit is not an incentive if the losing condition negates that profit. (might as well go to Diso CG event and trade some machinery, or to the more profitable and safe bounty hunting CG)

 

[BorakRed]

I've been playing both sides. Because I would have little to do otherwise.

Let's just say that whoever loses, I win

I did the same. One day I fight for the empire, the next I fight for the feds. Currently I was in top 40% for both missions. I haven't gone on in two days though to check where I stand now.

 

[Cmdr. Numa]

Lots of people are just simply too stupid and/or lazy. I cringed at every "damn, it's an outpost, I can't dock there" post. Storing your big bad battleship at Godel, buying a Sidey, taking the mission should be a no-brainer, but apparently it isn't. EVERYONE considering to join a combat goal should have those 32k for the Sidey readily available.

 

[Don_Von_Hulio]

I did the same. One day I fight for the empire, the next I fight for the feds. Currently I was in top 40% for both missions. I haven't gone on in two days though to check where I stand now.

Im at 6mil and im sure ill still be in top 15% when i get home. I cashed in 2mil yesterday when i was still at 4mil (and top 40%.

If im not, the change is do to the weekend grinders shifting the leaderbords. But considering i started late and have only been getting about 1-2 hours a day ingame since, it wont be hard to get back in.

Im kind of curious to onow what the top 5 bracket starts at. But im sure its full of Condas and Pythons anyways semi afk farming.

 

[Privata]

I war happened there due to background sim and player interaction and like in real life the two sides had to work with what they had.
this is not some childs game were every one is equel and everything including planets get moved so that some dont get bored , its ment to be a life sim

 

[Coyote]

No, it's not. In fact the term "sim" is pretty hilarious here if it means anything else than "first person view".
.
I think it was biased on purpose, so that the outcome is predictable and they wouldn't have to re-write all those GalNet news.

 

[Dan Dority]

Well, the 'Wages of War' CG has now finished as well. And it payed out thank god!

 

[Adept]

I did the same. One day I fight for the empire, the next I fight for the feds. Currently I was in top 40% for both missions. I haven't gone on in two days though to check where I stand now.

This should be effectively impossible, and get you to untrusted / hated status on both sides. Nobody likes a turncoat.

 

[huwthomas]

Lots of people are just simply too stupid and/or lazy. I cringed at every "damn, it's an outpost, I can't dock there" post. Storing your big bad battleship at Godel, buying a Sidey, taking the mission should be a no-brainer, but apparently it isn't. EVERYONE considering to join a combat goal should have those 32k for the Sidey readily available.

Trouble is that CZs make for quite a grindy CG already, adding another bit of grind probably made it that much less attractive. Maybe if the extra leg had been made interesting as gameplay in itself, with incentives/NPCs to intercept/protect the sidewinders.

 

[Sandmann]

Out of curiosity, were the goals mutually exclusive, ie: if you took one did it restrict you from the other? Or could you have signed up to both and had an "each way bet"?

 

[Agarthan]

Lots of people are just simply too stupid and/or lazy. I cringed at every "damn, it's an outpost, I can't dock there" post. Storing your big bad battleship at Godel, buying a Sidey, taking the mission should be a no-brainer, but apparently it isn't. EVERYONE considering to join a combat goal should have those 32k for the Sidey readily available.

Totally OT, but it seems to me that ships above a certain size should be able to store a sidewinder or other class 1 or 2 ships in them at the cost of some internal modular space.

 

[KiraNerys]

i learnt that the yellow-painted fer-de-lance owner's club wings made it impossible to actually fight for patreus

 

[AntiDisco]

Out of curiosity, were the goals mutually exclusive, ie: if you took one did it restrict you from the other? Or could you have signed up to both and had an "each way bet"?

Sadly still no. You could fight for both sides, as in every other opposing CG so far. I just hope this changes with Powerplay...