Bring back the Ultimate Challenge please

123468

Comments

  • JayZJayZ Member Posts: 3,597
    RoadRash said:

    So that nobody is alienated, why not do what you did for the Distance have 2 modes of the weekly challenge, the Guild Leader picks the mode the mode the guild competes in for the week. What if it worked and everybody got what they wanted, would be pretty good times.

    nadecir said:

    I propose this radical redesign. Let players start at any level they want. But weight the stars earned by the difficulty of the level. If you think about it, for an end-game player, stars earned at mission level 15 should be worth significantly less than stars earned at mission level 30. The same is true at any level: missions that are completed successfully at levels greater than the player level should be weighted more, and the weights should increase dramatically as the player completes missions above his survivor level. The round completion bonus adder at the completion of the round with the current challenge is just not good enough with this weighting today.

    Stars earned should have an exponential increase at the highest levels. Stars earned greater than 4 than the highest survivor level (e.g. level 28 for a player with survivors at 23) should be worth A LOT more than stars earned at lower levels.

    As part of this plan, I suggest the removal of the restriction of not allowing players to earn stars by replaying missions at the highest levels. Perhaps allow a player to replay a successfully completed individual mission 5 times at missions greater than +3. Players can play more to earn more stars, but if they do it will be at the most stimulating, hardest levels.

    I appreciate the creative suggestions, but I think it's worth taking a step back and thinking about what's realistic. I don't think NG would opt for either of these methods. The "letting players pick" option creates too much variance in the challenges, requires the creation of separate leaderboards so scores can be comparable, and could potentially break up guilds. The other option proposed would take far too long to code up, implement, and explain, and it would result in wildly inconsistent and different gaming experiences.

    Many people have proposed much more realistic solutions that are easier to understand and easier to implement, such as:
    - Increasing the minimum starting level for end gamers
    - Reducing the number of triple rounds at lower levels (perhaps only starting triple rounds at survivor max level)
    - Decreasing the gap between round passes
    banzai
  • nadecirnadecir Member Posts: 268
    nadecir said:


    Many people have proposed much more realistic solutions that are easier to understand and easier to implement, such as:
    - Increasing the minimum starting level for end gamers
    - Reducing the number of triple rounds at lower levels (perhaps only starting triple rounds at survivor max level)
    - Decreasing the gap between round passes

    The problem with all these solutions is obvious. None of them support the NG objective of getting the players to play more. Any propsed solution needs to support this primary objective, or it doesn't work for NG. This is the primary reason the Ultimate Challenge didn't work for NG: players played this game less with it.

    NG wants players more involved with the game. They want to sell just as many, or even more, gas boosters. They want players more reasons to be happy to buy boosters and bundles.

    The solution to satisfy NG's objectives, and at the same time encouraging players to play more, is to provide incentives for players to play higher levels, and to push as hard to complete even higher levels. From the players perspective, they don't want to play lower level missions. A good solution needs to both eliminate the lower level grind, but at the same time give players better incentives to play more and succeed more at high-level missions.
  • nadecirnadecir Member Posts: 268
    Bill_ZRT said:


    So, what you are saying is people played to where they usually stop at with he game. It just allowed them to quit sooner. Is this correct?



    Thus, it seems you have a problem keeping players interested in playing regardless of how much gas or time they have.



    You hit a wall with the Challenge and The Distance because of the increasing difficulty. The grind for Gear, Supplies, and XP gets boring quickly. Outpost raids are flawed.



    So, to remedy that, let us earn better rewards, more discounted radio calls, better gear drops, some way to craft badges that aren’t below their component level, etc. If you just want people playing for the sake of playing, you need to rethink your business model.



    If you want to make more in-game sales, then give us a better reason to play.

    I have to say that I find this post 100% on point. If the result of the Ultimate Challenge is people not logging on as playing as much, then first understand that was the entire point of the request, to eliminate the time required to complete a weekly challenge, but also understand that this means that other modes of play aren't compelling enough. If a player has a better reason to play another game mode, then they will. Why aren't players interested in running scavenge missions? Why aren't more players playing Outpost? You need to make these other game modes more compelling if you want more participation.

    All this maybe true @Bill_ZRT. Every game mode needs to be as compelling as possible by themselves to get players to play more of those mode's (scavenge, outpost, the distance) missions.

    Let's just talk about the challenge mode in isolation here though. Anything mentioned above does not solve the problem of making the challenge by itself more compelling to get players to play more challenge missions. To get players to play more challenge missions, NG first needs to eliminate the lower level grind. To balance this reduction of play in low-level missions, NG should find more and better incentives for players to play the high-level, player stimulating missions. This also means adding more higher level rounds within those high levels, or allowing players to repeat these high-level missions.
  • MabikiMabiki Member Posts: 1,732
    edited December 2017
    I think NG's comments show clearly where the divide is: lower-level players want to play Challenge at manageable levels for them, and they don't want to reach a difficulty that is too high for them until late in the Challenge. That was the problem they had with UC - the difficulty increased too quickly. They don't want to repeat levels; they want to feel like their advancing in the challenge, but more slowly. Higher-level players want to play levels that are challenging for them much sooner. They think the difficulty increases way too slowly and want to advance more quickly. And NG wants people to play as much as possible.

    So why not just increase the starting difficulty for higher level players?

    Yes, this was considered a problem by many when level 20s where getting more stars than level 22s, but now that everyone level 20 and above starts at the same difficulty, that complaint should be solved. If level 20 survivors and level 23 survivors are all starting at the same point, 23s will inevitably get more stars on average than 20s. So just cut out some of the grind by starting everyone level 20 and up at a higher level than 14. Adjusting triple rounds and round passes could also help - but the bottom line is that higher-end players want to skip lower levels. Allowing players at 20 and above to start higher would still allow players at lower levels to play to their max, but would immediately cut out some of the low level grind for everyone else. I doubt it's the perfect solution, but cutting out some lower level missions for those who don't want them would go a long way toward making the Challenge better for the high-level players without negatively impacting the rest of the player base.

    Players below survivor level 20 that want to stick close to their level as they advance in the challenge won't be alienated since it won't affect them. Meanwhile, players who regularly reach difficulties of 29, 30 and above are right to feel insulted that they have to start at difficulty 14.


    edit: BTW @nadecir
    Great post above. Balancing the needs of the different player goals and NG's goal of more engagement and more profit is the only way something will happen.
    MonsutaDBonesTJSDada
  • TroublemakerTroublemaker Member Posts: 1,430
    > @Muzz said:
    > Here’s a solution NG. I’ll pay £5 each challenge to start at RSL 29/30. I don’t have to waste 24 hours of my life messing about fighting level 23 walkers relentlessly and being bored stupid, you still make money, and we can finally put this horrendously sorry affair behind us!

    This may seem ironic but the situation is so agozining that I consider it awesome.

    2.99 sounds an awesome deal. Would save me the gas booster too.
    ::
    Mavericks Guild Family
  • DonCoquiDonCoqui Member Posts: 584
    Bring back Amazyn and Sekushi!
    Staying plugged in w/ the forum for a good dose of daily entertainment .
    "You wanna impress me? You take the wheel for a little while mofo." --Eddie Murphy, Delirious
    TroublemakerDLichbanzai
  • TroublemakerTroublemaker Member Posts: 1,430
    > @Governator said:
    > > @Shteevie said:
    > > The Ultimate Challenge didn’t change any player behavior, but some were “alienated” (whatever the hell that means). Some people liked it as evidenced on the Forum. But, they didn’t change their behavior either.
    > >
    > >
    > >
    > > Am I getting this right?
    > >
    > > -Almost right. The event did change behavior - people played less. For some, this was less than they wanted to, and so they felt like the game was preventing them from playing more, especially the parts they enjoyed the most.
    > >
    > > We had hoped that players would play more missions at or near their highest-ever difficulty. While some certainly did, most stopped at the same difficulty they usually stop at. We had hoped that the Saturday Distance event would have been played more, but it was actually played about the same. We had hoped that players who use Challenge for resource gathering would switch to Scavenges, but they didn't. were frustrated that they were forced to play less is not a success when the goal was to encourage people to play as much or more of the parts they like the most.
    > >
    >
    > So, what you are saying is people played to where they usually stop at with he game. It just allowed them to quit sooner. Is this correct?
    >
    > Thus, it seems you have a problem keeping players interested in playing regardless of how much gas or time they have.
    >
    > You hit a wall with the Challenge and The Distance because of the increasing difficulty. The grind for Gear, Supplies, and XP gets boring quickly. Outpost raids are flawed.
    >
    > So, to remedy that, let us earn better rewards, more discounted radio calls, better gear drops, some way to craft badges that aren’t below their component level, etc. If you just want people playing for the sake of playing, you need to rethink your business model.
    >
    > If you want to make more in-game sales, then give us a better reason to play.

    SPOT ON!
    ::
    Mavericks Guild Family
    R2runfastDBones
  • DLichDLich Member Posts: 5,541
    Guapo said:

    Business 101... It is much cheaper and easier to maintain customers than to acquire new ones. Even Michael Scott knows that.

    This is 100% true... the issue is that most of the customers of this game aren't end level forum users.

    This website has a whole bunch of stats etc from different sources and advises that -

    "65% of a company’s business comes from existing customers, and it costs five times as much to attract a new customer than to keep an existing one satisfied.” Source quoted as Gartner."

    If 65% of NG's business comes from existing customers then it would be safe to assume that roughly 5% of those 65% are us "end game forum users who love the ultimate challenge". There's 60% of people who play this game and do things like "want more grinding because they miss out on lower level rewards" or "want more grinding because they want more stars" or "vote for jackpot".

    image
    | OG | NOC | USA | UK | CA | CQR | UC | RAD | ZEN |
    Other Leaders | Kick_ass | Pic | abailey362 | GunnerGaz | JMo2127 |
    MAVERICK'S 1 Million Star Club | OG | USA | NOC
    Analyze This with ALF4reals | v1 | v2 | v3 |
    | My YouTube Videos | My 1st Interview | Best Analogy Award!! |

    Freemium... the "mium" is latin for 'not really'
    Troublemaker
  • Bill_ZRTBill_ZRT Member Posts: 1,421
    Guapo said:

    Business 101... It is much cheaper and easier to maintain customers than to acquire new ones. Even Michael Scott knows that.

    This is especially true as ratings for the TV show continue to decline (lowest ratings in 6 years) and by this point in the show, how many new viewers (and potential players) are there really left?

    One of two things must be true. Either the current approach is amazingly short sighted or the larger portion of the player base, the casual players, must throw bucket-loads of money at this game.
    Everyone’s got two wolves inside them. One is anger, envy, pride. The other…truth, kindness. Every day they tear each other apart.
    But it’s not the better wolf that wins. It’s the one you feed.

    Contact [email protected] or send @Bill_ZRT a message to join DTP today!

  • paintbeastpaintbeast Member Posts: 1,188
    The questions I would be asking myself if I were NG are: After over 2 years, why are end gamers such a small percentage of the player base and why aren't we keeping players long enough for them to reach end game?
    GovernatorJadenTroublemakerbigbeano
  • Bill_ZRTBill_ZRT Member Posts: 1,421

    The questions I would be asking myself if I were NG are: After over 2 years, why are end gamers such a small percentage of the player base and why aren't we keeping players long enough for them to reach end game?

    Speculation here, but I assume that they consider this fact a win. End game players get bored. Bored players quit or complain about being bored. A player who you can keep playing casually for a year or more and can keep from being bored or quitting is a win. It doesn't matter if that person is an 'End Game' player or a casual player.
    Everyone’s got two wolves inside them. One is anger, envy, pride. The other…truth, kindness. Every day they tear each other apart.
    But it’s not the better wolf that wins. It’s the one you feed.

    Contact [email protected] or send @Bill_ZRT a message to join DTP today!

    Lightfeet
  • MonsutaMonsuta Member Posts: 1,168

    The questions I would be asking myself if I were NG are: After over 2 years, why are end gamers such a small percentage of the player base and why aren't we keeping players long enough for them to reach end game?

    Because NG alienated those player with every major balance changes. B)
    DBonesJadenR2runfastbigbeano
  • ADPaqADPaq Member Posts: 341
    Realistically end gamers very likely account for a tiny fraction of both the total player base and more importantly the total in game purchases. So while NG will listen to the concerns end gamers raise on the forum, ultimately they aren't where the money's at.
    Baluban
  • DonCoquiDonCoqui Member Posts: 584
    @DLich

    I think attributing 5% of NG's revenue to the end gamers here in the forum is a bit of a stretch. Have you seen their latest financial report? Q3 2017 revenue was $6.4M EUR... yet, they lost money... Q3 net income was -$2.1M EUR and a profit margin of -32.51%.
    Staying plugged in w/ the forum for a good dose of daily entertainment .
    "You wanna impress me? You take the wheel for a little while mofo." --Eddie Murphy, Delirious
    paintbeast
Sign In or Register to comment.