Correcting the Bandwagon Effect in Community Goals

DemiserofD · May 9, 2021

A continuous problem in Community Goals is the Bandwagon Effect; Namely, players see that one side of a competitive CG is winning, and therefore pile onto it to get the better rewards, rather than supporting the losing side. This inevitably leads to one side winning by a massive lead, rather than there EVER being a close CG.

With this in mind, I think that CGs should have their rewards linked together. For example, if one CG reaches tier 2, BOTH sides of the CG will get the credit reward for tier 2.

This means that it becomes easier for a player to get rewards by joining the losing side, rather than the winning side, because the losing side will have lower breakpoints for the same rewards. This will drive players to join the losing side, rather than the winning side, and keep these types of CG much more competitive.

Bottom Hat · May 9, 2021

Wouldn't this add more disparity, going by the doubling of reward tiers - as in everyone would dogpile on one and put a token effort into the other. Thereby maximising the rewards of the winning one, and thus the losing one would keep up with it rewards wise.

I totally get your thinking, I just foresee it being gamed too, perhaps even more. Or have I misunderstood what you mean mate?

I think the idea is logical, I just expect people will game it for maximum income. Maybe I have you wrong?

DemiserofD · May 9, 2021

Bottom Hat said:
Wouldn't this add more disparity, going by the doubling of reward tiers - as in everyone would dogpile on one and put a token effort into the other. Thereby maximising the rewards of the winning one, and thus the losing one would keep up with it rewards wise.

I totally get your thinking, I just foresee it being gamed too, perhaps even more. Or have I misunderstood what you mean mate?

I think the idea is logical, I just expect people will game it for maximum income. Maybe I have you wrong?

mmm...fair point.

I suppose you could make it work both ways. Add them together; if one side gets to rank 1 and the other gets to rank 2, they combine to add to rank 3. Given that earlier ranks are usually easier to get to, it would be in the profit-based players best interest to work on the easier one to maximize their income.

Bottom Hat · May 9, 2021

DemiserofD said:
mmm...fair point.

I suppose you could make it work both ways. Add them together; if one side gets to rank 1 and the other gets to rank 2, they combine to add to rank 3. Given that earlier ranks are usually easier to get to, it would be in the profit-based players best interest to work on the easier one to maximize their income.

There is certainly going to be a way to improve the balance, but I guess that is if people want it really? And please understand I am not trying to be disagreeable for the sake of it - I just try to think of how people can exploit things, as it sadly seems to be very fashionable!

m0rl0ck · May 9, 2021

Sounds great. Equal pay for less work. Being the lazy dumbass that i am, im all for it.

You have my total commitment in supporting this, as long as i dont have to do anything.

Florenus · May 9, 2021

Bottom Hat said:
Wouldn't this add more disparity, going by the doubling of reward tiers - as in everyone would dogpile on one and put a token effort into the other. Thereby maximising the rewards of the winning one, and thus the losing one would keep up with it rewards wise.

I totally get your thinking, I just foresee it being gamed too, perhaps even more. Or have I misunderstood what you mean mate?

I think the idea is logical, I just expect people will game it for maximum income. Maybe I have you wrong?

I think the solution could be to allow players to sign up to only one side in competitive CG.

CMDR X · May 10, 2021

What if they tie it to the faction/side you are already allied with. Meaning if you are an Imperial ally you can only join the Imps and vice versa. Otherwise you would have to defect first and join the other side. That should keep more people in their places wouldn't it? I mean what's the point of allegiances if you can just go prostituting to the other side at your whim whenever it suits you?

m0rl0ck · May 10, 2021

Lets all hold our breath while they develop and deploy a betrayal mechanic. FD is never going to put time into power play or power rep changes as you describe.

Flippimonkey · May 12, 2021

Community goals are just focused grind-fests to hide the lack of actual gameplay.

Other than that, yeah. Good stuff.

CMDR Sophie Joanne · May 12, 2021

DemiserofD said:
A continuous problem in Community Goals is the Bandwagon Effect; Namely, players see that one side of a competitive CG is winning, and therefore pile onto it to get the better rewards, rather than supporting the losing side. This inevitably leads to one side winning by a massive lead, rather than there EVER being a close CG.

With this in mind, I think that CGs should have their rewards linked together. For example, if one CG reaches tier 2, BOTH sides of the CG will get the credit reward for tier 2.

This means that it becomes easier for a player to get rewards by joining the losing side, rather than the winning side, because the losing side will have lower breakpoints for the same rewards. This will drive players to join the losing side, rather than the winning side, and keep these types of CG much more competitive.

I think alot of people's decisions to choose one side or the other is the module rewards offered. I think they should be 'unknown module' until the CG has completed

CMDR Sophie Joanne · May 12, 2021

CMDR X said:
What if they tie it to the faction/side you are already allied with. Meaning if you are an Imperial ally you can only join the Imps and vice versa. Otherwise you would have to defect first and join the other side. That should keep more people in their places wouldn't it? I mean what's the point of allegiances if you can just go prostituting to the other side at your whim whenever it suits you?

What about the James Holden's of the Galaxy that aren't on anyone's side?

varonica · May 12, 2021

CMDR Shorty said:
What about the James Holden's of the Galaxy that aren't on anyone's side?

I prefer to think of myself as Han Solo but without all the cool bits thank you very much!

here_it_comes · May 12, 2021

I wouldn't bother being concerned. The "story" in ED is running on Rails with a facade of players effecting it, just like the "economy".

CMDR Sophie Joanne · May 12, 2021

varonica said:
I prefer to think of myself as Han Solo but without all the cool bits thank you very much!

Either way works.

aRJay · May 12, 2021

Florenus said:
I think the solution could be to allow players to sign up to only one side in competitive CG.

But then there would be a lot of people not joining in until it was obvious who would win.

CMDR X said:
What if they tie it to the faction/side you are already allied with. Meaning if you are an Imperial ally you can only join the Imps and vice versa. Otherwise you would have to defect first and join the other side. That should keep more people in their places wouldn't it? I mean what's the point of allegiances if you can just go prostituting to the other side at your whim whenever it suits you?

People actually sign up and pledge allegiance to factions?
I mean other than to get Prismatic shields etc. (Never bothered with that myself)

CMDR Shorty said:
I think alot of people's decisions to choose one side or the other is the module rewards offered. I think they should be 'unknown module' until the CG has completed

A good idea but it could be extended, CGs don’t publish any reward levels until completion and perhaps they shouldn’t show progress as well except to say that the leading side has reached Tier x.
Then if you could only sign for one side you couldn’t pick the winning one except by chance.

The trouble is it feels a little like a game not like a simulation of life.

DemiserofD · May 12, 2021

Honestly, I don't think limiting choices to one side would be helpful, and may actually make the situation worse, especially in cases of unpopular sides.

Just by adding the tiers together and having the lower tiers easier than the higher tiers, you will always create a bias towards the losing side, keeping things more competitive, which would make ensuing competition a bit more meaningful.

Florenus · May 12, 2021

aRJay said:
But then there would be a lot of people not joining in until it was obvious who would win.

I had some doubts about what I wrote, but that was not it - If people would be allowed to choose only one side and tier rewards would be tied together people would still join the side with more active contributors (winning side) to help it achieve higher tier possible. Only those who would join CG much later would be able to choose the loosing side without the fear of loosing better rewards, but they still might want to join the winning side anyway, just in case it helps.
In other words it wouldn't help in solving the bandwagon effect problem.

The only way to solve that, I believe, would be to limit players to choosing one side and make the tiers and personal rewards merged together - meaning that whichever side you choose, your effort is counted in two separate pools - one would be Community Pool, where contributions of all players are counted (that's the "merged" part), and where rewards are personal. Whether you grind for Side A or Side B would not matter - the more players contribute to the CG on whichever side - the better rewards. The second, separate pool would be the one where contributions would be counted towards the chosen side and rewards would be global. People would then either choose sides at random, or according to their preferences and participation rewards would not force them to choose one side over the other.