Leaderboards in Community Goals are detrimental to the community aspect of the goal?

[Ziggy Stardust]

and Powerplay too, perhaps to a lesser extend.

The CG in Lembava is the first CG I signed up for, so maybe this has been noted before. Apologies if I'm rehashing old arguments.

The CG has 2 motivators which work against each other. On the one hand, it benefits all participants to have as many reports as possible handed in. On the other hand, the leaderboard makes it a contest to get into the top 5%. Because of this, it makes a big difference who is handing in the data. Me, or another explorer. While the community aspect suggests motivators to work together.

The same principle applies to powerplay. Because of the structure, players are grinding to compete against each other rather than working together to compete against rival factions.

This may be a conscious decision on the developers part, since this rat race does create a powerful incentive to grind towards the top of the leaderboard, but I feel it goes against a lot of what I have heard David Braben go on about months ago. He talked about creating incentives to co-operate.

How would people feel if the leaderboard was removed from the CGs (and possibly PP, not involved in PP, so not that outspoken about that) and the rewards were determined in a linear fashion, but would increase by reaching new tiers.

Example CG Lembava:
Tier 1: 1 report = 50 credits
Tier 2: 1 report = 100 credits
Tier 3: 1 report = 200 credits
etc

Lets say I have 1000 reports handed in. At the moment this means I am in the top 15%. So the only way to increase this pay-out is grind more and compete against the community.
If the leaderboard is removed, helping other CMDRs handing in their data by patrolling Lembava for instance would mean money for me as well, since the more data is handed in, the higher the Tier, the more I get paid out.

This isn't as strong an incentive as the Leaderboard, since we are all hardwired for the rat race, but if this game aims to reward co-operation, shouldn't co-operation be rewarded?

 

[VR Dextrovix]

Overall, I think co-operation is something a lot of people want but doesn't seem to have been Frontier's focus, despite DB's comments over the various month pre and post release. I'm not sure why- my perception is the design at the start was a single player experience, which has had to be change later to include more co-op aspects e.g. Wings.

Specifically regarding CGs, I agree with you that your idea would encourage more collaboration, as I feel despite the fact that everyone taking part (e.g. "the community") helps achieve the goal, as an individual you get more by being ultimately selfish!

 

[Deleted member 38366]

--- Deleted ---

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

Is above fun?
Nah.... but it gets you those 5% if that's your sole goal and if you can stand doing it that way...

That's what I realised yesterday. Stopped me right in my tracks.

I was heading towards the Blinking Nebula in economic mode, just for the CG. then after 30 jumps I realised in fast mode I'd already be gawking at the pretty colours.

Which is why this is the last CG I'll ever partake in. It just takes over your playing style if you're a spineless worm like me.

 

[SpitTheDog]

That's what I realised yesterday. Stopped me right in my tracks.

I was heading towards the Blinking Nebula in economic mode, just for the CG. then after 30 jumps I realised in fast mode I'd already be gawking at the pretty colours.

Which is why this is the last CG I'll ever partake in. It just takes over your playing style if you're a spineless worm like me.

You could consider it this way. If you aren't in the top tiers but you are a reasonable contributor, then the amount you receive increases as each Tier is met. Top 70% rewards will increase off the back of the extreme efforts put in by the top 5%. So everyone benefits from everyone contributing but those that contribute more to the CG get proportionately more out of it.

Sure it would be nice if there were some additional ways to contribute to the CG, but in a way everyone is helping everyone to earn more out of it. I'm top 70% in Lembava and was forward to the reward bump if those hard-core explorers help to push it to the next tier.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

You could consider it this way. If you aren't in the top tiers but you are a reasonable contributor, then the amount you receive increases as each Tier is met. Top 70% rewards will increase off the back of the extreme efforts put in by the top 5%. So everyone benefits from everyone contributing but those that contribute more to the CG get proportionately more out of it.

Yeah, I did consider it that way, and it's the non-proportional progression that I think is detrimental.

And not everyone benefits, when you hand in your data, you push other people down on the leaderboard.

 

[Whiterose]

I dumped my lot in Lembava, and to be honest couldnt give a monkeys if I drop a percent bracket. But thats just me, Mr lethargic, I can see some people constantly grinding to maintain their position, which defeats the object for me.

 

[[VR] Deggial]

... Example CG Lembava:
Tier 1: 1 report = 50 credits
Tier 2: 1 report = 100 credits
Tier 3: 1 report = 200 credits
etc
... but if this game aims to reward co-operation, shouldn't co-operation be rewarded?

First of all, I have to say that I am not totally opposed to the current implementation of CGs; it fits the idea.
It all boils down to the underlying philosophy of ED: It is supposed to be a "cut-throat" galaxy where - while working together to achieve a certain goal - each commander is on his own in the end, trying to maximize his personal profit while leaving others behind. In his effort to reach the best for himself, the player adds to the common goal - just as a 'side effect", so to say.

However - and I agree completely with your conclusion - it fails miserably, if a real feeling of co-operation is the goal!
I thought about this issue myself a while ago and came to exactly the same solution you did: Simply increase the value of each contribution (be it reports, ship destructions in CZs or material delivered) based on tiers reached.

I don't know, which solution I prefer. Both have their merits. The co-operative version would definitely add a more pleasant overall feeling to this game aspect!

--

Edit: And please stop making decent posts. I can't add to your reputation any more as I have to spread my love, the forum tells me. So here: some "virtual" +1 REP!

 

[Lupin]

The exploring CG in Lembava has not been done very well. And just encourages jump and scan, which is NOT what exploring is about.

CG need more of a reason to take part, apart from money and reward. Something a little more long term maybe?

 

[Cosmos]

Overall, I think co-operation is something a lot of people want but doesn't seem to have been Frontier's focus, despite DB's comments over the various month pre and post release. I'm not sure why- my perception is the design at the start was a single player experience, which has had to be change later to include more co-op aspects e.g. Wings.

Specifically regarding CGs, I agree with you that your idea would encourage more collaboration, as I feel despite the fact that everyone taking part (e.g. "the community") helps achieve the goal, as an individual you get more by being ultimately selfish!

You can't really force co-operation - it needs to happen dynamically in game as the players decide. I think the community goals system is quite poor as a game mechanic and the only real incentive is to earn more credits. It seemed to be implemented as a quick patch to gloss over flaws in the game, or more accurately its lack of depth and content. Each one requires a certain level of grinding. There is only so much scanning, space trucking and RES farming one can do before it gets very old.

The only one that was engaging was when it pitted players against one another.

We really need some sandbox tools so we can create our own fun and content. If the only content the game delivers is that which Frontier make, I can see lots of people losing interest.. Its a reason many I know go the pvp direction (because its just a more fun and interesting experience than the PvE game) When it comes to new game content we haven't seen much of it since Beta in which the scenarios were the , space trucking, scanning systems, asteroid field and conflict zones.

Theres also little apprent progression with the mission system - its all very generic and repetitive and appears to have no impact upon the game whatsoever.

 

[Jacob Marshall]

Well... CGs aren't called CGs for no reason. Community Grind...

So IMHO 40% is the sweet spot if you're serious about a CG (for Tier Reward purposes), 70% the easy-to-reach litte bonus if you're tight on time or don't have a big ship to participate...

Absolutely, realised this when I did my 1st CG (the mini-explore). Unless it's tied into something you do or focus on, the time I'd spend hitting the top 15/5% is wasted (from a purely Creds PoV), it's diminishing returns. Atm, iirc, Lembava is tier 6 and I'm at 40%, there's only something like a 2 million(?) creds difference. I can make that in an hour or two trading in an Asp...hell, I could do that in my Scout running smuggling missions...possibly.

 

[who?]

I kind of like the cooperation & competitive elements of CGs & their leaderboards. There is an element of "clash" between the two sides. On the one hand, if I have a good trade route I would share it with other CG Cmdrs to boost our progress, but on the competitive side I don't want them to exhaust the route and hurt my chances of going up another % tier.

But I do think month-long CGs are a bit weird. It takes an enormous amount of time and effort to stay in the top 5% of a month-long CG. It's not really rewarding good/clever/strategic play (that I'm aware of), just many, many hours of play.

 

[VR Dextrovix]

You can't really force co-operation - it needs to happen dynamically in game as the players decide. I think the community goals system is quite poor as a game mechanic and the only real incentive is to earn more credits. It seemed to be implemented as a quick patch to gloss over flaws in the game, or more accurately its lack of depth and content. Each one requires a certain level of grinding. There is only so much scanning, space trucking and RES farming one can do before it gets very old.

The only one that was engaging was when it pitted players against one another.

We really need some sandbox tools so we can create our own fun and content. If the only content the game delivers is that which Frontier make, I can see lots of people losing interest.. Its a reason many I know go the pvp direction (because its just a more fun and interesting experience than the PvE game) When it comes to new game content we haven't seen much of it since Beta in which the scenarios were the , space trucking, scanning systems, asteroid field and conflict zones.

Theres also little apprent progression with the mission system - its all very generic and repetitive and appears to have no impact upon the game whatsoever.

Regarding sandbox tools, that's exactly what we need and I couldn't agree more- Frontier haven't put in any more changes since Beta, and they'd be plenty of creative people around who could give it a go. Here's hoping though! :/

I've just posted on another thread too about missions, and I too think they lack any depth and are in dire need of an overhaul... collaborative missions would be even better!