Rankings - recent changes

Mazzion

This is a bit of a vent, complaint, and hopefully some clarification:

01:51:50 ---[ OOC ANNOUNCEMENT ]-----------------------------( 2021/05/28
05:51:50 )---
01:51:50 I saw some of you guys talking about it and I've decide to remove
RANKINGS TOTAL MOUNTS. It encourages replica bloat which we don't need. RIP total
mounts rankings.
01:51:50 -------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----

01:55:52 ---[ OOC ANNOUNCEMENT ]-----------------------------( 2021/05/28
05:55:52 )---
01:55:52 Total minipets has been dropped too.
01:55:52 -------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----

While I understand this is biased because of my place in rankings. I also understand the bloat that it can/could cause, however it is a big hit to time, gold, and credits. If I remember correctly, I had almost 1002 mounts. I have 62 unique mounts, which means I spent a LOT of gold to establish the ranking. Around 4,700,000 gold if you subtract unique from total. The only reason I had those additional mounts was for that ranking, which makes them now worthless. This is the same for minipets. Those were by time questing, gold, and credits buying them off others.

If the resources were not there to have multiple items, why was it ever instituted as a ranking?

I issued myself, to get clarification specifically on total artifacts, relics, styles, and figures, and if those would go away:

"since both rankings were updated and removed for total mounts (which i spent a lot of gold on just to have it removed) and total minipets (once again a lot of gold, credits and time) pvp and pve deaths should also be removed from rankings. It is the same detriment that was applied in the logic for deathstats, when the names were removed from that. I only put myself in that ranking because it counts toward the ranking total. Remove those two as well please. Rewarding people for dying is a bad metric. How far will this continue, I don't want to work hard to get total styles, total figurines, total artifacts, and total relics if the same trend will continue."

This is a pretty snarky remark from the admin considering from "HELP ISSUES" : "A personal request for clarification or immortal assistance: It is OK to issue in order to ask a question, or to get clarification from an immortal. Just ISSUE ME . This is far better than shouting for an admin or divine."

Reply from admin:
"Issue 22100: No. There are more productive ways to express displeasure than wasting Administration's time in this manner."

So, is the answer a "no" to what? No to the other totals? No to removing pvp and pve death rankings? Clarification would be great.

I am guessing there is no recourse for all the wasted gold, etc. even though that value is way more than an individual high cost artifact. 780 credits just for the mounts, at the current credit rate. This is very similar to changing the use of an artifact, and giving out refunds. My preference would be to delete all those extra mounts and refund back the value, not sure how you quantify minipets though.

Archelaus

Wow. That sucks. I was pretty high up in the total minipet rankings when I was playing (I think like third?). Seemed like a fun way to boost your score that wasn't combat or hunting related. And I could brag about my extensive minipet collection and point people who asked to the rankings, led to some fun rp. It's sad to see all of that just brushed away through an off hand change and announcement. I spent a ton of gold and credits on minipets. Were people having too many pets a major problem?

It also bums me out to see Admin respond to a good faith issue like this. Seems unproductive and just rude. But, oh well.

Legyn

I've issued myself multiple times to ask about credit-related matters or unclear mechanics. Calling a simple request for information, which is what self-issues are for, a waste of time is not acceptable.

Isia

Okay so now I also have the issue of all of these extra mounts and minipets - that I would not have spent gold on if someone in the pools hadn't had the idea to make this a ranking. The gold loss on its own is annoying, but I also have to LOOK at these things every time I go through my minipets and mounts and now I'm what? Just stuck with them unless I start summoning and killing mounts and eat the gold loss? Which is again, gold I wouldn't have spent if the reason hadn't been given. I understand duplicate item bloat - but this is "Oh hey we had a bad idea, sorry guys." without even doing anything to make it right to the people who invested in it and that is not okay.

Eliadon

Best I've got is that entire self issue was unhelpful.

You're using the slippery slope fallacy, and that's never a good way to make people side with you or even want to engage you in conversation. It wasn't a simple information request, @Legyn, it was 'I'm annoyed that you removed my big number, are you going to slippery slope all my other big numbers away too?'

(all that said, showidea 3372)

Rhyot

Speaking as the person with 1st in both PVP deaths and PVE deaths (don't judge), I am completely ok with those stats being removed from RANKINGS, but I'm a variable outlier.

Also, re: 3372. I call your idea and raise it. No offerings. Gladiator arena. Make them fight to the death, only it's a real death and you can win some gold back but also have to spend gold to submit a gladiator. Make a ranking called Gladiator Wins.

Isia

Rhyot said:

Speaking as the person with 1st in both PVP deaths and PVE deaths (don't judge), I am completely ok with those stats being removed from RANKINGS, but I'm a variable outlier.

I'm fine with them being gone, but I still feel there some be some sort of refund for gold/credits spent BECAUSE that ranking existed, that wouldn't have been spent otherwise. I understand the reasons for removing the ranking, I really do, but it sucks that I've got all of this spam in my stable list and minipet list now for NO reason.

Legyn

Eliadon said:

Best I've got is that entire self issue was unhelpful.

You're using the slippery slope fallacy, and that's never a good way to make people side with you or even want to engage you in conversation. It wasn't a simple information request, @Legyn, it was 'I'm annoyed that you removed my big number, are you going to slippery slope all my other big numbers away too?'

(all that said, showidea 3372)

Alright, that's fair. I still think it's a needlessly rude response when "We have no further plans at this time" should have been the standard response.

Tetchta

Allowing folk to sell back mounts for some large fraction of the original value (floor(2/3)?), or even allowing a temporary opportunity for people to return mounts for full price would probably go a long way to soothing some aching balms here.

As for the other stuff, a lot of the rankings like PVE/PVP death-type rankings are actually interesting to me, but mostly because I like knowing the number. Having that tracked somewhere in some sort of PERSONAL STATS would be pretty cool, and I'd be sad to see the ranking go just because I like knowing that kinda stuff. Also I'm pretty sure ranks are weighted in some way when determining overall rank, so they might not even matter all that much for Overall.

Seurimas

I'm not unsympathetic to your situation, but your Issue was mostly not asking a question or for any clarification. By the time you got to some sort of request of clarification about other leaderboards, they might have just stopped reading or already composed their response. I get the need to vent, but I wouldn't fault whoever responded for not being able to give a satisfying response to what was mostly a vent Issue.

That said, it's definitely not fair, and you're probably right to be upset. I think it's easy for the admin to look at rankings as unimportant or just "extra", but climbing leaderboards is a legitimate play style. Eliminating two leaderboards without so much as a "sorry" is not good.

Edit: Also, I think the fairest thing to do would be turn the rankings back on, take a snapshot, delete all but 5 duplicates of each mount or something and call it a day. Never tabulate them again. First place will be first for ever. The gold sunk into this task is well spent on a permanent ranking spot.

Demarcus

Oh boy, there is a lot to unpack here.

I jumped onto the Discord to ask some questions and Keroc was kind enough to engage in helpful dialogue which improved my understanding of why the change was made. So that's good. 

I generally agree with Mazzion. I think, overall, the implementation is where this effort falls short. The announcement read to me as, "I was casually eavesdropping on one of your webs and you made a valid point. Kaboom! I blew up some rankings because replica bloat." I'm not a computer scientist, so replica bloat means very little to me. The game ate some bad replica and now has gas? Oh, I see, each mount is an item that needs to be tracked and the carrot of extra rankings results in a really fat horse (the game is the horse in this metaphor) and now it runs slowly and that sucks for everyone. Makes sense, I can generally be on board with that now that I understand!

Getting buy-in from shareholders can be a huge asset. Or in this case, getting rid of a huge amount of donkeys. Would it have been untenable to send a heads up with an explanation, allow feedback and allow players to help come up with solutions? It takes more time than unilateral decision making, which has a time and place, but also would lead to different outcomes. Potentially better outcomes. Just a thought.

Regarding the issue Mazzion submitted, the first several sentences were probably unhelpful venting. The response, overall, could use some more tact. But he does have a legitimate concern about other rankings that use similar resources getting the axe eventually. If I really wanted to unseat the Total Artifact champion, and set off an arms race to collect the most artifact vials, we're in the same boat as total mounts and minipets. Just a more expensive scale.

I will point out that I am assuming the 'resource cost' to the game for a mount and minipet is the same as an artifact vial. If, for some reason, artifact vials are orders of magnitude less resource intensive, then while the same threat of bloat exists it's just on a much different scale and one we don't have to worry about for quite some time. I have no idea how many bits, bytes, gigaflops or terahertz and of this stuff consumes. I'd be willing to bet I will never know, and I won't lose sleep over it either way.

So I disagree with the assertion that it is a slippery slope fallacy, barring my assumptions on resource use is valid. The stated justification can be applied to other rankings. Either knowing they won't just disappear without a good faith effort to collaborate with players or some sort of compensation/refund would certainly be involved would help. And that is ultimately worth talking about. Maybe more broadly speaking, a discussion on rankings is warranted.

On a closing note, Tiur mentioned his favored philosophy for game design involves adapting the game to incorporate features you as the designer didn't really intend. One example he gave was WEBS. Players were coordinating OOC stuff in chat rooms or something, so why not give them the tool in the game to address that adaptation by the players? (Source: Titans of Text podcast. Tiur's episode is defo worth a listen!) An arms race for total mounts and minipets probably wasn't what was anticipated when they were created. There's gotta be a better, more reasonable, more fair solution to all affected parties than total atomic annihilation.

Gavramel

@Demarcus weird things happen when IRE games run out of numbers to assign to objects. (Saw this from the other side back in my Imperian days and it created some problems for the players). 
Fun fact: this is why we have the cache system instead of every player carrying 250 vials, 400 pocketbelts and a bunch of other itemised junk like we did back in the early 2000s, heh.

Tiur

@Demarcus Oddly enough, I tried this! We briefly had a promotional thing, terrariums, where minipets could permanently die. The thought was that people would take 50/50, 30/70, etc chances to convert a minipet to a better prize. Pets would die, the numbers would drop, woohoo. We also implemented MINIPET MERGE to take two minipets and shoot for a rarer, new, third (it's iffy if this was enjoyed, tell me if people would like this to be used more often). Turns out, VERY few people are willing to risk a cute little pet, even if the rewards are great. I also was of the opinion the mount problem could be solved with pokemon battles. But again, turns out players are hesitant to murder their pets. We have tried for the weird solutions, and it's not been fast enough. My ideas were insufficient!

This got 'fixed' super quickly because an immediate problem arose; it was discovered by SOME CELANI that it was 'hilarious' to send other players or gods to the minipet storage room, because the game had a conniption fit over it. There were so many pets in there that we couldn't actually view all the pets without Rapture screaming "RECURSION ERROR" and cutting connections. So what happens when you try to throw someone into a depth of loop error? Bad things.... so it was fixed ASAP. Quickly eliminate the reason people overpurchase to stop the problem, then we can find a means to fix it... (personally, I was championing a conversion of minipet storage to a cache, currently we just funnel them into another place). When something is fixed in this manner, there's usually not a discussion about it, we just immediately tourniquet the bleeding artery and then go into hospital mode.

You can visit Wilson now for a bit of money back. The minipet problem will persist for a while, but it has a bandaid for the moment.

As to the issue response:

The issue was basically just criticism and didn't have a real question. While yes, you can suss out the real intent of the issue, it's not exactly phrased in a manner that can be placated. So the response could have been less snarky, but I'm not sure how it could have actually been helpful. Real people have to respond to things, and even when the Alecto pants are on, sometimes it's difficult. I've been begging for years to remember that issues aren't for this sort of thing (the angry phrasing, not a question, questions are fine). This forum thread is super helpful though, as it's letting us gauge our consideration of the problem to your input.

Konnorn

I loved merging minipets but it wasn't always easy finding exchange tokens. Also, there were too many frog minipet results.

Demarcus

I second Konnorn's sentiment - I'd trade every single dupe minipet I had if I could just find the tokens. Gating a solution behind a paywall seems... Suboptimal. 

I appreciate the response and transparency, Tiur. 

Tiur

Oh, is that the problem? Well dang, I can fix that easy. I'll just throw some in the milestone wares. Isn't it funny when lack of communication just makes stupid problems? I never asked, I never got told, and a silly problem became larger.

e: The frog results... I dunno. It doesn't seem like amphibians are any more likely than any of the others. There's a formula and all.

Isia

Tiur said:

Oh, is that the problem? Well dang, I can fix that easy. I'll just throw some in the milestone wares. Isn't it funny when lack of communication just makes stupid problems? I never asked, I never got told, and a silly problem became larger.

That would be great. I really liked the minipet tokens myself but with it being hard for me to get iron coins frequently in game for the crucibles - it's expensive, especially for a gamble item that might produce yet another duplicate. Those golden exchange tokens though ... those are swoonworthy.

Alela

Tiur said:

it was discovered by SOME CELANI that it was 'hilarious' to send other players or gods to the minipet storage room

Can I highfive this Celani? Because that is hilarious. Alela Approved TM.

Rhyot

Tiur said:

You can visit Wilson now for a bit of money back.

Aloli

@Tiur Are there any thoughts about making the Golden keystone to purchase minipets take into account pets we already have? It's not an easy keystone to get and it does sell you repeated minipets, can this be made to only give unique one please?

Mazzion

Thank you for the quick change on the mounts. I think that is a rather good compromise. Some still outstanding questions:

1. I have tried at least 10 different types of minipets and none of them were able to cash in, was there a specific purchase route or an easier indicator to find which can be turned in? Going through 700 will be rather tough. Even with item #2 below, my total minipet count won't get smaller any time soon. It doesn't seem like most of mine qualify for cashing in, and the gold minipet tokens are super hard to get.
2. I completely agree with Aloli, if you add a golden keystone, can you please make it similar to the gold minipet exchange token? The chances are so low to get a new minipet unless it tracks for unique, it still has no value to try and get a new one.
3. Can the total pve death rankings be removed? Just doesn't seem like a positive metric. Same reasoning behind deathstat rankings removing names.
4. Can the total pvp death rankings be removed? Just doesn't seem like a positive metric. Same reasoning behind deathstat rankings removing names.
5. Can we assume total artifact ranking will stay?
6. Can we assume total relic ranking will stay?
7. Can we assume total figurine ranking will stay?
8. Can we assume total styles ranking will stay?
9. Minipet merge? I must have missed this one, or do you mean exchange? Even the standard (non golden) token are not in abundance. I bought all I could find and it wasn't even 10 total during that promotion. The chances were just so low to get a unique it was taking your credits and throwing them away and losing two minipets in the process.

Rhine

I can answer one of your questions!

The minipets that you can cash in are ones bought from your city vendor for gold or from Kiki in Three Widows (also for gold).