CG Participation - That Ended Rather Quickly

XiphiqiX

XiphiqiX
It would be nice if Fdev would launch CG's around the weekend so the gainfully employed could get a chance to partake in these events.

It would also be nice if all the Fed progression could be reset as well.... at least three times or four. :D

I just sat down in my ship and signed up for the community goal when Ferris came on screen and said, "Your still here? It's over, go home."

Bow bow chicka chicka.
 

BluWolve

BluWolve
+1 For the Bueller reference :cool:

giphy.gif
 
Last edited:

Kamicosmos

Kamicosmos
Did go fast. I'm glad I hopped on a couple nights ago and did a couple runs so I got a bit of cash. Both of these went fairly quick.

I do remember the Old Days when they launched on Thurs or Fri mornings, and would often been done within 24-48 hours. Those were some crazy "Sorry, honey, I gotta fly my butt off this weekend!!" days.
 

GraphiteGB

GraphiteGB
Feds hate to lose if it had been a non Rival event with nothing to gain they would have been way slower and many would have skipped it completely...

II events were made by Fdev to cause CGs to be run different than the 7 days every thursday CGs... That is what the whiners wanted, things done different.. and it has been Different..

This is what the whiners wanted and moaned for to shake up the CGs used and why they are being used...
 

Berpol

B
I liked it then they started on Thursday, if there was a problem it could be fixed on Friday and the weekend was not far away.
But on the other hand it looked a bit stupid that they were happening so regularly - especially those based on some kind of catastrophe.
 

Jmanis

Jmanis
XiphiqiX said:
It would be nice if Fdev would launch CG's around the weekend so the gainfully employed could get a chance to partake in these events.
Click to expand...
Because those who work weekends aren't gainfully employed?

I get what you're saying, but you're just switching the problem from one group to another. The issue really is the cg should've been designed to last longer.
 

aRJay

aRJay
Jmanis said:
Because those who work weekends aren't gainfully employed?

I get what you're saying, but you're just switching the problem from one group to another. The issue really is the cg should've been designed to last longer.
Click to expand...
The only ways to make a competitive CG last longer is to either have a mechanism to enforce roughly equal numbers on each side or set unachievable totals.
 

Jmanis

Jmanis
aRJay said:
The only ways to make a competitive CG last longer is to either have a mechanism to enforce roughly equal numbers on each side or set unachievable totals.
Click to expand...
For a mundane-designed CG like this, sure, I guess? Personally, I'm pretty surprised a straightforward trade CG was done as a "competitive" thing. There's plenty of more options that could be done though, but that never happens.

(Also, kinda irrelevant to my point that moving them to a weekend just blindly screws over a different section of the player base in cases like this)
 

aRJay

aRJay
Jmanis said:
....

(Also, kinda irrelevant to my point that moving them to a weekend just blindly screws over a different section of the player base in cases like this)
Click to expand...
True it is always going to be difficult to schedule so everyone has a fair crack at at least taking part unless the timescale is long enough, that what was so good about the Enclave there was something related going on almost all the time.
 

Kietrax

Volunteer Moderator
Kietrax
Jmanis said:
Because those who work weekends aren't gainfully employed?

I get what you're saying, but you're just switching the problem from one group to another. The issue really is the cg should've been designed to last longer.
Click to expand...
Problem with that is predicting participation levels and time people will spend right? The number of commanders taking part has been pretty variable these last few CG so I do think they are still trying to recalibrate the right totals to set but that's just a guess on my part.
 

Jmanis

Jmanis
Kietrax said:
Problem with that is predicting participation levels and time people will spend right?
Click to expand...
If that's core to the delivery of your headline act (which I consider the II's to be) then that should be mapped and anticipated. Planning for outcomes such as low, expected and high turnout/participation should absolutely be in place. By this stage, such considerations should be second-nature to the planning process for an II, with predictive participation at least within 25% accuracy.

Anticipating the reactions of your player base to the mechanics you offer via events, and identifying what's going to draw people in is critical to designing a successful CG. Frankly, given the history of CGs, I don't believe this planning process actually happens, or at least not in any effectual form, but I'm getting off-topic.

Once again though, the point of my post was that "moving the time" that a CG starts is not the problem here. All it will do is screw over a different portion of the player base, and remains totally ignorant of the core problem.

Notwithstanding the things I've heard around CG's starting during the week being better "... for retirees, or people who aren't gainfully employed" to be utterly ignorant and offensive remarks.
 

gorankar

gorankar
For a competitive cargo delivery CG like Galconda, just whichever faction delivers the most inside a given time period rather than a set limit. It would keep the CG active through the weekend. It would not have changed the outcome, but would have lasted long enough for the weekend warriors to get a shot at it.
 

Kietrax

Volunteer Moderator
Kietrax
gorankar said:
For a competitive cargo delivery CG like Galconda, just whichever faction delivers the most inside a given time period rather than a set limit. It would keep the CG active through the weekend. It would not have changed the outcome, but would have lasted long enough for the weekend warriors to get a shot at it.
Click to expand...
Agreed, but in the current system, the only way to do this would have been to set really high targets to ensure they would not be reached. If you do that, another group then complains about the tiers being stupidly high and therefore the payouts being low and requests to change the totals as the CGs won't achieve the higher tiers. So whilst you make things better for some, you still get more complaints from others ... (all assuming no fundamental changes to CG system are made obviously)
 

Grumpy181155

Grumpy181155
I'm a bit disappointed as well it ended so soon. I was a couple of thousand LYs out when I saw the CG so hurried back but by the time I got back it was already over.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom