Doc Themed Wolf Event

[DanthemanBoone]

What I understand by what T.K. has explained is that...
A.The decision to reduce the population has already been made. The numbers of wolves killed will have no effect on that decision.
B. An event with prizes has been introduced along with that decision and the numbers of wolves killed will effect which prize tier is reached at the end of the event.

A does not depend on the outcome of B.

[SoftShoe]

As a new style of event...

This is where you go wrong. You assume this is actually an event with a real outcome. What EW has done is taken a game decision, wove a story around it & slapped an event on it. As part of the pitch they suggest the players efforts will have a real impact on the games future. What power, what intrigue, what a load of crap...
Dont get me wrong, I love what EW has done with this! It was an artful move but dont be so naive as to believe the results of a single event will have any real impact on the game. This was just skillful marketing.

[SoftShoe]

A does not depend on the outcome of B.

BAM!! He gets it!!!

[xOEDragonx]

A does not depend on the outcome of B.

That's not how I read it at all. The population will be reduced by anywhere from 0-50%, depending on which event tiers are met.

if the highest tier is not met, the population will still change. The only way it does not change is if no tiers are met. The population will only get lowered by half if the top goal gets met, but remember that is the max goal and for every tier that is is achieved, a percentage of the population will get reduced.

Presumably, if no tiers are met, it's reduced by 0% or not at all. At tier 1, 10%. Tier 2, 20%. And so on maxing out at teir 5, 50%. But since the top tier is all but gauranteed at this point, that whole explanation is moot.

That's what SoftShoe is suggesting is entirely a lie. I'm not convinced it's a marketing lie, as what would they gain from that? The better alternative would have been to just reduce the population by a set amount they thought was appropriate at the end of the event, and used the event for a cute backstory as to why it reduced. No need for a lie on top of it, and no need for it to set a lying trend in the future if the event is a "success."

[caledonianblues]

The better alternative would have been to just reduce the population by a set amount they thought was appropriate at the end of the event, and used the event for a cute backstory as to why it reduced. No need for a lie on top of it, and no need for it to set a lying trend in the future if the event is a "success."

Exactly. I'm completely with you on this, and I really don't think it would be wise to make this sort of event the norm. If the information is correct then the players are determining the outcome of a game design decision. One which is already potential skewed by the introduction of a material incentive. A very generous one, don't get me wrong. But an incentive nonetheless.

I also don't agree that the wolf populations need to be altered. The problem is the AI for that species. Treat the problem, not the symptom. It's a massive reserve, and the numbers are reasonably balanced if only the chasing mechanic was dialled down a bit.

I understand that the underlying problem requires a client programmer, and the population change can be done by anyone on the team, but given the amount of effort being put into bugs and quality of life additions right now (which is awesome) I would have much preferred an actual solution to the problem.

I'm all for events and for people getting a chance to win free stuff but my opinion is that these things should be kept separate from important decisions that affect the game for everyone. If the only solution to the wolf problem is to reduce the population then just communicate the decision and do it. By making it a democratic process and dangling a carrot in front of people, you risk players losing faith in your ability to make professional decisions in the best interests of the game.

I'm just sad that not everyone sees the problem. It's very difficult to communicate criticism in this forum, and it's also not always easy to do it without sounding like you just hate everything. There's a lot of good happening right now in the game, but that doesn't mean everything Expansive Worlds does is just fine and dandy.

[DanthemanBoone]

@ x0EDragonx.
That would also seem to make sense.
Hopefully when T.K. wakes up he will clarify further.

[VonStratos]

My 2 cents:

I like the general idea of the event, a community goal where we get prizes if we all row in the same direction. But i think that game changes should be based in feedback, there can be a lot in the forum, but not in a event where there are items as an added incentive, dont get me wrong, i like the free prizes, and thanks for the chance EW, i just think the decisions of what will change must be stated before the event and no matter the outcome, because lets face it, probably many people will go after wolves for the prizes, not because they want the 50% reduction in population. I like the idea of common goal oriented events, but mixing items as incentive and a gameplay change as goal can be deceiving in the outcome.

Is like was said before, the dilemma of "do i want this items even if i dont want the change in TgT?" i for one barely hunt in TgT,other than competitions, but i want the items, so my actions may help to incline the balance in one side, even if i dont really want or care about the outcome, and that may not be fair for others that often hunt there, that is why i think EW should take the decisions and just launch the event and say: Guys here is the event, these are the prizes for every kills mark, but once the event is finished wolves will be reduced by x amount. simple and clear.

Also a survey with no prizes involved may be a better way to know how many players want wolf reduced, and by what amount, make the event for the fun, but please not to measure players intention on a gameplay change.

[TreeKiwi]

Morning all,

I think I might need to go back and read my OP again, as all the information is in there, but either it's not being read, or I have not laid it out very clearly, which is possible!

Like previously explained to David, this event was not developed around a needed outcome at all. In this example we have not thought, '...we need to reduced the wolf numbers, lets create an event'. Instead there was a talk about how we can change the competitions to make them:

A, Themed.
B, Engaging
C, Ones that captured the heart of the game more and had a little realistic story that went along with it.

So I need to stress, this is not us wanting to do something to the game and then putting lipstick on it. It is actually just an honest attempt to create something new and fresh. Pretty much what Ashley said is correct, we do not need to lower or do anything, have a think about how long the wolves have been like they are, why do we need to change them?

Remember the other thing is this is a themed event, so if we do get complaints that there are not enough wolves later down the line, a population will always creep back up over time right?

Also I can confirm that the decrease in wolf population, will mean that other species usually effected by them, will grow in population slightly ... themed event!

Any more questions, I am happy to try and answer them, fire them my way!

TK

[moyal]

Question: Do we also get this blue ribbon medal as a trophy, if we harvest 25 wolves?

[Hynu]

I may be in the minority here but I like the wolf population as it is !

Still, liking the event, good stuff EW.