CG predictions...
- Thread starter CMDR Serra
- Start date
I'd love it to be some sort of message, that as you decode it makes you go...."ah".
Something like
O // RE // A_LL // G_I_NG // T // D_E
Something like
O // RE // A_LL // G_I_NG // T // D_E
I predict I will be waiting for new CG's on Thursday. Maybe. 
So, according to INARA both CGs combined only gathered 5% of resources asked for by either party... is it fair to say that this might be the least supported CG ever (at least since their return)?
Like I said earlier, this ones not exactly thrilling.
I'd love to see tiers like time gates- for example set tiers equally but you must clear each tier within a set time (say, like 36 hours) otherwise the CG fails. Couple that with a decent lore reason you'd then have a setup for action- search for bombs, fight terrorists etc.
Nah, just this CG had silly tier thresholds.... It was quite obvious from day one that it would never hit max. And it didn't.
That was a fail on FDev's side. They should have never set a goal so high with such crappy rewards. Yay lore stuff. I don't even know what Utopia is TBH and I've been playingon and off since launch. Unless they set it so high on purpose to avoid to declare a winner and write some extra lore. Lazy as always.
Last edited:
But whats the point? Its yet another A v B collect em up, which is not dynamic or interesting. The amount, speed and duration should be taken into account with CGs just to squeeze more interest out of it, because its just the same low stakes over and over.
Because the rewards are also set high so we are still going to get about as much as a normal CG so why bother.
The winner according to the CG text is the one with the most handed in so they can only avoid declaring a winner if tier one was too high to reach.
The other pointer (for 'lore based' winners) is to give a brief synopsis of how that winner would affect the outcome. I joked about quiche v sandwiches but its exactly that: why or what exactly would each side do differently? Its not spilling plot beans to give some falvour as to what their 'vision' is to fight for.
I'm assuming the point of those pay outs was to better compensate the god awful act of getting those mats in the 1st place, if that's the case why set them so high that it negates the potential higher pay outs? might as well have set the rewards as per any other CG and give more achievable goals, at least that way there's a sense of completion.
But not as lazy as someone who's been playing 'since launch' and still doesn't understood how CGs work, eh
I can understand them not changing the tier levels, since they'd set them up at such intervals that it was neither going to finish early nor fail to complete. For a "calibration" of the research CG type, having that sort of wide range is understandable.
(I think they're probably also less willing to change targets after it starts for competitive CGs, since there are plenty of ways that could be seen as unfair)
I thought with the Marlinist evacuation one that they were heading in that direction - different tier thresholds, different tier patterns, asymmetric effects, and what ended up being an incredibly close fight on % completion, which would have been even more exciting if they'd scaled the T5 targets about 30% lower (but that's only with the benefit of hindsight, not a criticism of what they did) so the Marlinists were fighting to get their first evacuation out just ahead of the Empire completing their goal.
...but while they've had some interesting new individual CG types since then, nothing similar on the competitive side.
I really hope all the complaints about "not numerically equal therefore unfair" didn't put them off doing anything interesting in future: the lack of such complaints of bias here is pretty clearly because no-one actually cares about the outcome.
(I think they're probably also less willing to change targets after it starts for competitive CGs, since there are plenty of ways that could be seen as unfair)
This is something that they definitely need to get to grips with on the competitive CG side especially, since the default setup means that the end result is generally pretty clear maybe four hours in at best.
I thought with the Marlinist evacuation one that they were heading in that direction - different tier thresholds, different tier patterns, asymmetric effects, and what ended up being an incredibly close fight on % completion, which would have been even more exciting if they'd scaled the T5 targets about 30% lower (but that's only with the benefit of hindsight, not a criticism of what they did) so the Marlinists were fighting to get their first evacuation out just ahead of the Empire completing their goal.
...but while they've had some interesting new individual CG types since then, nothing similar on the competitive side.
I really hope all the complaints about "not numerically equal therefore unfair" didn't put them off doing anything interesting in future: the lack of such complaints of bias here is pretty clearly because no-one actually cares about the outcome.
Unless the stakes are really high, I think FD need to stop competitive CGs entirely and keep them for real battles / events.
For example this CG, it could be Sirius racing to prove security is not up to scratch, while Utopia prepares via some other means (maybe security passenger missions). Both can 'win' but its for different aims. If Sirius did not win here, it would set up a future event for example.-
Yeah - we didn't learn a lot here other than how to tier a data mat collection CG with no real reward. Hopefully that's something we shouldn't really need to use again any time soon because the gameplay is dull. It could have been more interesting if they'd differentiated the different outcomes at least, but nope. It seemed like a "Pick A or B. We don't really care which." CG.
I'm hoping that the devs see this as the failure it was and learn from it. After it was clear that Sirius would win, there wasn't even a competitive element to hold the interest.
I've been a big fan of the new CGs - yes, even the cargo hauling ones - when they've been accompanied by some nuggets of lore, but this one was the first one I gave up on.
I'm hoping that the devs see this as the failure it was and learn from it. After it was clear that Sirius would win, there wasn't even a competitive element to hold the interest.
I've been a big fan of the new CGs - yes, even the cargo hauling ones - when they've been accompanied by some nuggets of lore, but this one was the first one I gave up on.
Yes. Where there were good lore reasons for imbalance (Imperial Navy vs Players) it makes sense. The outcome of that one - players got more "stuff" but Imperials still won a Pyrrhic victory was pretty much spot on. Both sides should have been happy with the outcome, I felt. It was immersive, it was (more) competitive (than the Liz Ryder debacle) and (unlike most other CGs) went down to the wire by remaining competitive right up to the end.