I appreciate that the initial data is just that, initial data, and it is good to see that you have this data to hand so quickly. It shows that this is not something new which had not previously been considered. Given that it shows that the numbers online are similar near the start, I am glad to see that you could look at gathering more information rather than dismissing the whole matter just because of initial findings. Thank you, @Orael.
If I might make some additional suggestions regarding things that might be interesting to look at: Players online 5-10 mins after the start of a timequake. This would account both for bored non-coms logging out and people switching to their alts or being batphoned in. Groupings of players entering the rift. This might indicate combat parties as opposed to people trying to survive for a minute and leave. Say side A enters with 5, then comes back with 12, whereas side B is at a consistent 7. This would show that.
Of course, those are just suggestions. Feel free to take them or leave them as you please.
I feel like one of the lines I'm seeing frequently in this thread is something along the lines of "but are the pkers equal on both sides?"
We don't have pker flags we can toggle on and off. We don't have a pk weight that goes up or down based on our skills and battle prowess. As Orael has more or less said, you can come up with any metric you want and dismiss it as quickly depending on whether it fits your narrative.
What does help survive in timequakes, and often helps a side thrive and persevere is a good leader. This is the person with situational awareness, the one who can call out a target list on the fly and alter it just as quickly to explain who to focus. This is the person who goes out of their way (I'm looking at you, Avurekhos) to spam the combat clan with pertinent information like what room you're supposed to be in if you're with him, whether someone is using a timed instakill, and so on. This is a person that you look up to, that can bark out orders and you follow them without hesitation, and will often give praise if a fight goes well.
One side has more of this sort of people than the other side. This side tends to be less discouraged if they lose than the other side. This side is more likely to return to the fight after being beaten down. This side goes out of their way to coordinate their fighting styles and gives directions to the smaller people more than the other side.
Her voice firm and commanding, Terentia, the Even Bladed says to you, "You have kept your oath to Me, Parhelion. You have sworn to maintain Justice in these troubled times."
Yet if a boon be granted me, unworthy as I am, let it be for a steady hand with a clear eye and a fury most inflaming.
What does help survive in timequakes, and often helps a side thrive and persevere is a good leader. This is the person with situational awareness, the one who can call out a target list on the fly and alter it just as quickly to explain who to focus. This is the person who goes out of their way (I'm looking at you, Avurekhos) to spam the combat clan with pertinent information like what room you're supposed to be in if you're with him, whether someone is using a timed instakill, and so on. This is a person that you look up to, that can bark out orders and you follow them without hesitation, and will often give praise if a fight goes well.
One side has more of this sort of people than the other side. This side tends to be less discouraged if they lose than the other side. This side is more likely to return to the fight after being beaten down. This side goes out of their way to coordinate their fighting styles and gives directions to the smaller people more than the other side.
So true. The generals are awesome and one logging on can turn things completely around.
And it might be the times I log on but genuinely I'm not 100% sure which side you're talking about.
We don't have pker flags we can toggle on and off. We don't have a pk weight that goes up or down based on our skills and battle prowess. As Orael has more or less said, you can come up with any metric you want and dismiss it as quickly depending on whether it fits your narrative.
Bolded is where profiling comes in tbh. May not all be trackable atm but the stats for a coms vs non-coms wouldn't really be the same. i.e kills, length of presence in active conflict zones, objective ticks (anomaly claim time, villagers influenced), presence when there's enemy competition, etc.
A "full non-com" wouldn't have kills, they'd only be around long enough for daily credit ticks, wouldn't have objective ticks, etc.
You can likely shift some of those along a bit so like... someone probably still is tagged as a non-com even they are around longer than the tick length or got an objective tick if there wasn't enemies with a combatant profile present.
Similarly, someone who stays around significantly longer than they need to for a tick, who is there when enemies are there, even without kills is starting to shift to a combatant profile.
Then your profile groupings are just another dimension on your tables/charts/etc.
Also the unbolded part isn't entirely accurate, metrics are easier and harder to dismiss depending on how relevant they are to the thing they're tracking.
If the numbers given are potentially inflated by non-combatants just getting ticks then that's less relevant to the point about whether participant numbers are lopsided and doesn't actually prove the point they're being used for (that everything's more even than players experiences say) so they should be dismissed in favour of something more reflective of the reality of the situation.
Similarly, the suggestion that the number shows the potential participants is also not really accurate because for that you'd want to know how many people were logged in during the event, cause anyone is ultimately a potential participant even if they weren't sitting in the quake waiting for a tick.
We don't have pker flags we can toggle on and off. We don't have a pk weight that goes up or down based on our skills and battle prowess. As Orael has more or less said, you can come up with any metric you want and dismiss it as quickly depending on whether it fits your narrative.
Bolded is where profiling comes in tbh. May not all be trackable atm but the stats for a coms vs non-coms wouldn't really be the same. i.e kills, length of presence in active conflict zones, objective ticks (anomaly claim time, villagers influenced), presence when there's enemy competition, etc.
I'm not sure I like the idea of an arbitrary number or flag being assigned based on a set of concepts like "did this person manage to deathsong/decapitate someone because their target was distracted by 20 people hitting them.
Her voice firm and commanding, Terentia, the Even Bladed says to you, "You have kept your oath to Me, Parhelion. You have sworn to maintain Justice in these troubled times."
Yet if a boon be granted me, unworthy as I am, let it be for a steady hand with a clear eye and a fury most inflaming.
I can say that for Serenwilde there is only one person going in purely for tics. Every TQ I have been involved in that has involved fighting has had every Seren there, barring the one who comes for a tic, fighting.
This isn’t to say that sometimes people just jump in for a tic because they know fighting is pointless, just that when we do contest all but one fight.
@Choros, I rarely see you present on our side as it is, and I don't see this happening myself, in most cases where it would have mattered at all. You called out one situation on another thread where we were outnumbered 15 to 5. How exactly does criticizing us in that situation help morale or make people trust their leaders? As for the other side... it's very easy to lead when there is an advantage. You name Avurekhos as a good leader, which I agree with, but as far as I know, he's been busy in real life, as have several other people who can normally be counted on to lead well. Is that our fault too? Helpful!
And Drastrath, if you're still following this: I don't know anymore if you're arguing in good faith. You don't want to play anymore, fine, but don't try to bring everyone else down just because you, personally, can't make us win every time.
Disagree. There are people with bad attitudes on any given team. This 'back and forth arguing' is not going on in-game, at least nowhere where I've seen it. But I do have a problem with the one or two who blame others without stepping up themselves, or of those who try to make the problem seem worse than it is. If all you're basing this statement on is my comment, and the 'one or two' - you don't know the context. Don't make assumptions or leap to conclusions about a side you don't play on.
And it's not just "a couple people" who have been absent lately, and I would not say we are any more dependent on them than the other side is on those like Snald. So again, don't make assumptions.
To my knowledge, and it may be limited, CGG has plenty of people willing to take lead so that they are never depending on one person to show up. I know Celest has Mink and Kreon for callouts, and Glom has Aurik, Steingrim, and Snald for callouts, not sure if Gaudi has picked up in the combat scene recently or not though. But that is again, reminiscent of numbers and the availability, but also has a small variable of willingness too.
This is not blaming anybody, this is not faulting someone, I am purely trying to make a simple statement: If someone who was more actively logged in started taking up a leadership role and could rally people, there would be a swing in things. While Avu is a good leader, or Maligorn, there needs to be more willing people to say, "I'll call out targets, stay on my focus." etc.
And Drastrath, if you're still following this: I don't know anymore if you're arguing in good faith. You don't want to play anymore, fine, but don't try to bring everyone else down just because you, personally, can't make us win every time.
Anyway, if the playerbase and admin wants a game that is a single button and the tactics is movement, positioning, numbers, etc. then I have taken my "elitist" attitude and gameplay elsewhere.
I'm just going to throw out some more names in that too, like Pysynne, Aramel, Feyr, Elarin - these people call targets and lead us as well. And do a good job of it, too.
We have people, we have numbers sometimes, but it's not going to work out all the time, either - on both sides of this side-war that's been going on for ages. Real-life gets busy, it's summer time, and usually this time of year is a lull for people online anyway - except we've been pretty good with numbers around on the game in a long time, which is great to see!!
People need to get down off whatever platform they're on and work together, not keep pointing fingers and arguing back and forth - this argument has gone on long enough and is detrimental to the game and its population. On both sides. Instead of running around with the attitude of "git gud", "be more positive", "practice more", "they have too many", "they killed us all, wah", "they're bad people" and all the other excuses etc., why not encourage everyone to get into Wargames / FFAs / Spars in between Timequakes? See your "enemy" not tumble away when they could have or something else that they could have done? Say something, give constructive criticism. We need to foster a better community than what we have currently, so instead of going "I'm not the problem", "they are the problem", "they're toxic", "they have too many people", "Bob smells", and whatever else excuse is on your tongue, hush up and be the person of change. I'm not saying to hold hands and go dancing across rainbows with your enemy orgs, but there's a better way to act towards each other than this BS.
Make AC fully functional. I know it's a big project, but if combat is a focus (which it may or may not be, dunno), man, a proper AC would go a long way to getting people to try out combat.
Alright - closing this down, I think it's getting a little too far there.
At this juncture, I'm not really sure what to say. I am sorry that some people feel like they are always outnumbered all the time and they can never make any headway. I'll note that people on both sides are saying there are times they are fighting against the odds. From what I've observed, this is true, there are times where one side dominates, there are times when things are pretty even.
I do think there are good combatants and good leaders in every org. There are people that step up and there are people that take that role. Some people don't want to though and that's ok. We each play the game for different reasons and to get different things from it. I'm personally glad that we're getting people who are not PK-focused getting involved in timequakes and enjoying themselves overall.
I'll look into some better data-gathering (though I can tell you it's going to be basic, I'm not going to be profiling or making a big to-do of it).
I'll look into setting up some more incentives (such as the 'participate X times to get an anomaly' idea).
I'll even possibly look at shortening the timequake length and making them fire more often for some time. Part of the goal of them being so often is that they don't feel necessary to attend. I think making them less often puts more weight on attending each of them.
Comments
Given that it shows that the numbers online are similar near the start, I am glad to see that you could look at gathering more information rather than dismissing the whole matter just because of initial findings.
Thank you, @Orael.
If I might make some additional suggestions regarding things that might be interesting to look at:
Players online 5-10 mins after the start of a timequake. This would account both for bored non-coms logging out and people switching to their alts or being batphoned in.
Groupings of players entering the rift. This might indicate combat parties as opposed to people trying to survive for a minute and leave. Say side A enters with 5, then comes back with 12, whereas side B is at a consistent 7. This would show that.
Of course, those are just suggestions. Feel free to take them or leave them as you please.
We don't have pker flags we can toggle on and off. We don't have a pk weight that goes up or down based on our skills and battle prowess. As Orael has more or less said, you can come up with any metric you want and dismiss it as quickly depending on whether it fits your narrative.
What does help survive in timequakes, and often helps a side thrive and persevere is a good leader. This is the person with situational awareness, the one who can call out a target list on the fly and alter it just as quickly to explain who to focus. This is the person who goes out of their way (I'm looking at you, Avurekhos) to spam the combat clan with pertinent information like what room you're supposed to be in if you're with him, whether someone is using a timed instakill, and so on. This is a person that you look up to, that can bark out orders and you follow them without hesitation, and will often give praise if a fight goes well.
One side has more of this sort of people than the other side. This side tends to be less discouraged if they lose than the other side. This side is more likely to return to the fight after being beaten down. This side goes out of their way to coordinate their fighting styles and gives directions to the smaller people more than the other side.
And it might be the times I log on but genuinely I'm not 100% sure which side you're talking about.
May not all be trackable atm but the stats for a coms vs non-coms wouldn't really be the same. i.e kills, length of presence in active conflict zones, objective ticks (anomaly claim time, villagers influenced), presence when there's enemy competition, etc.
A "full non-com" wouldn't have kills, they'd only be around long enough for daily credit ticks, wouldn't have objective ticks, etc.
You can likely shift some of those along a bit so like... someone probably still is tagged as a non-com even they are around longer than the tick length or got an objective tick if there wasn't enemies with a combatant profile present.
Similarly, someone who stays around significantly longer than they need to for a tick, who is there when enemies are there, even without kills is starting to shift to a combatant profile.
Then your profile groupings are just another dimension on your tables/charts/etc.
Also the unbolded part isn't entirely accurate, metrics are easier and harder to dismiss depending on how relevant they are to the thing they're tracking.
If the numbers given are potentially inflated by non-combatants just getting ticks then that's less relevant to the point about whether participant numbers are lopsided and doesn't actually prove the point they're being used for (that everything's more even than players experiences say) so they should be dismissed in favour of something more reflective of the reality of the situation.
Similarly, the suggestion that the number shows the potential participants is also not really accurate because for that you'd want to know how many people were logged in during the event, cause anyone is ultimately a potential participant even if they weren't sitting in the quake waiting for a tick.
Accountability is necessary.
I'm not sure I like the idea of an arbitrary number or flag being assigned based on a set of concepts like "did this person manage to deathsong/decapitate someone because their target was distracted by 20 people hitting them.
This isn’t to say that sometimes people just jump in for a tic because they know fighting is pointless, just that when we do contest all but one fight.
And Drastrath, if you're still following this: I don't know anymore if you're arguing in good faith. You don't want to play anymore, fine, but don't try to bring everyone else down just because you, personally, can't make us win every time.
And it's not just "a couple people" who have been absent lately, and I would not say we are any more dependent on them than the other side is on those like Snald. So again, don't make assumptions.
This is not blaming anybody, this is not faulting someone, I am purely trying to make a simple statement: If someone who was more actively logged in started taking up a leadership role and could rally people, there would be a swing in things. While Avu is a good leader, or Maligorn, there needs to be more willing people to say, "I'll call out targets, stay on my focus." etc.
Anyway, if the playerbase and admin wants a game that is a single button and the tactics is movement, positioning, numbers, etc. then I have taken my "elitist" attitude and gameplay elsewhere.
Here is a good start for those struggling to understand data and numbers: https://www.edx.org/learn/statistics
At this juncture, I'm not really sure what to say. I am sorry that some people feel like they are always outnumbered all the time and they can never make any headway. I'll note that people on both sides are saying there are times they are fighting against the odds. From what I've observed, this is true, there are times where one side dominates, there are times when things are pretty even.
I do think there are good combatants and good leaders in every org. There are people that step up and there are people that take that role. Some people don't want to though and that's ok. We each play the game for different reasons and to get different things from it. I'm personally glad that we're getting people who are not PK-focused getting involved in timequakes and enjoying themselves overall.
I'll look into some better data-gathering (though I can tell you it's going to be basic, I'm not going to be profiling or making a big to-do of it).
I'll look into setting up some more incentives (such as the 'participate X times to get an anomaly' idea).
I'll even possibly look at shortening the timequake length and making them fire more often for some time. Part of the goal of them being so often is that they don't feel necessary to attend. I think making them less often puts more weight on attending each of them.