The Hunt - demand for compensation petition - sign here

KidInsomnia

DumDumDugn wrote:

KidInsomnia wrote:

Purty Hawkeye wrote:

Each sub-mission was worth a finite amount of points to each player. Rubberbanding affected that total but there was only so much avaialble from each sub-mission. All players had ten days and multiple iterations of each sub-mission to figure this out.
The other aspect of this thread is the complaint that I was top 3 after I had used up all the points and was unfairly robbed of covers. That is a false premise akin to stopping an auto race short of the end as soon as one driver gets into the lead and decides the race is over. Or a golfer who has the lead telling the other golfers still playing the tournament is over I won my score is better than yours.
What happened in The Hunt was all of you had hich placements because there were other players still working on exhausting their points in the Savage sub-mission. When you rose to top 3 that was not a true ranking anymore than a driver who leads on lap 50 or a golfer who sits in the clubhouse with the lowest score is declared the winner. The competition has an end time for every player to exhaust their point totals. When the timer hit zero your point total wasn't as high as others.
The huge fallacy in this thread is the thought that because I was top 3 at some point after doing everything that is where it should've ended and I get my covers.

This is patently untrue.

How could have "figured this out" over the ten days when

(A) It's never explicitly stated in the game (minus the suggested attached 40gigs of forum posts I guess)
(B) I never had to exhaust any challenges in any of the EIGHT previous Subevents to maintain a top 50 spot?

I don't want a top 3 position, I don't deserve a top 3 position, I never EXPECTED a top three position. But I held a top 50 position at the end of every Sub-event without exhausting a single mission. It's not crazy to have expected that to be sustained in the final subevent.

The huge fallacy in this thread is actually that people expected everyone to know that missions could be exhausted when the game itself (or my bracket at least) never showed me any evidence that I would eventually run out of enough points to stay above 50.

And let me be clear. I am not a hater, I am not bashing the game. I love this game. It's pretty much my GOTY, which is hugely surprising to me. But I can't just sit idly by when people are claiming that dedicated players like myself, who have happily invested time and money in this game, should have known better or are somehow to blame for expecting the game to behave the way it had for the previous 9 days, 10 hours, and 59 minutes.

That's just not building or engendering a strong or fair community.

Plenty of people figured out the scoring algorithm. Yes it was transparent, but if lots of people could figure it out, it really wasn't THAT transparent.

I'm not sure what you mean by transparent. If it was transparent everyone would have figured it out.

Regardless of whether or not some people "figured it out", the game itself did not display any evidence of it until the very last minute. If this was working effectively, I should have had to do the same push at the end of EVERY subevent to maintain my top 50 spot.

Unknown

KidInsomnia wrote:

DumDumDugn wrote:

KidInsomnia wrote:

Purty Hawkeye wrote:

Each sub-mission was worth a finite amount of points to each player. Rubberbanding affected that total but there was only so much avaialble from each sub-mission. All players had ten days and multiple iterations of each sub-mission to figure this out.
The other aspect of this thread is the complaint that I was top 3 after I had used up all the points and was unfairly robbed of covers. That is a false premise akin to stopping an auto race short of the end as soon as one driver gets into the lead and decides the race is over. Or a golfer who has the lead telling the other golfers still playing the tournament is over I won my score is better than yours.
What happened in The Hunt was all of you had hich placements because there were other players still working on exhausting their points in the Savage sub-mission. When you rose to top 3 that was not a true ranking anymore than a driver who leads on lap 50 or a golfer who sits in the clubhouse with the lowest score is declared the winner. The competition has an end time for every player to exhaust their point totals. When the timer hit zero your point total wasn't as high as others.
The huge fallacy in this thread is the thought that because I was top 3 at some point after doing everything that is where it should've ended and I get my covers.

This is patently untrue.

How could have "figured this out" over the ten days when

(A) It's never explicitly stated in the game (minus the suggested attached 40gigs of forum posts I guess)
(B) I never had to exhaust any challenges in any of the EIGHT previous Subevents to maintain a top 50 spot?

I don't want a top 3 position, I don't deserve a top 3 position, I never EXPECTED a top three position. But I held a top 50 position at the end of every Sub-event without exhausting a single mission. It's not crazy to have expected that to be sustained in the final subevent.

The huge fallacy in this thread is actually that people expected everyone to know that missions could be exhausted when the game itself (or my bracket at least) never showed me any evidence that I would eventually run out of enough points to stay above 50.

And let me be clear. I am not a hater, I am not bashing the game. I love this game. It's pretty much my GOTY, which is hugely surprising to me. But I can't just sit idly by when people are claiming that dedicated players like myself, who have happily invested time and money in this game, should have known better or are somehow to blame for expecting the game to behave the way it had for the previous 9 days, 10 hours, and 59 minutes.

That's just not building or engendering a strong or fair community.

Plenty of people figured out the scoring algorithm. Yes it was transparent, but if lots of people could figure it out, it really wasn't THAT transparent.

I'm not sure what you mean by transparent. If it was transparent everyone would have figured it out.

Regardless of whether or not some people "figured it out", the game itself did not display any evidence of it until the very last minute. If this was working effectively, I should have had to do the same push at the end of EVERY subevent to maintain my top 50 spot.

What you're not factoring in is that some people skipped some events, but nobody was skipping the last savage land event.

Unknown

KidInsomnia wrote:

Regardless of whether or not some people "figured it out", the game itself did not display any evidence of it until the very last minute. If this was working effectively, I should have had to do the same push at the end of EVERY subevent to maintain my top 50 spot.

Unless other people played differently the last day. You keep leaving out the people factor out. If the people in your bracket behaved different the last day, the results you see are going to be different than the other 9 days.

Unknown

DumDumDugn wrote:

KidInsomnia wrote:

Purty Hawkeye wrote:

Each sub-mission was worth a finite amount of points to each player. Rubberbanding affected that total but there was only so much avaialble from each sub-mission. All players had ten days and multiple iterations of each sub-mission to figure this out.
The other aspect of this thread is the complaint that I was top 3 after I had used up all the points and was unfairly robbed of covers. That is a false premise akin to stopping an auto race short of the end as soon as one driver gets into the lead and decides the race is over. Or a golfer who has the lead telling the other golfers still playing the tournament is over I won my score is better than yours.
What happened in The Hunt was all of you had hich placements because there were other players still working on exhausting their points in the Savage sub-mission. When you rose to top 3 that was not a true ranking anymore than a driver who leads on lap 50 or a golfer who sits in the clubhouse with the lowest score is declared the winner. The competition has an end time for every player to exhaust their point totals. When the timer hit zero your point total wasn't as high as others.
The huge fallacy in this thread is the thought that because I was top 3 at some point after doing everything that is where it should've ended and I get my covers.

This is patently untrue.

How could have "figured this out" over the ten days when

(A) It's never explicitly stated in the game (minus the suggested attached 40gigs of forum posts I guess)
(B) I never had to exhaust any challenges in any of the EIGHT previous Subevents to maintain a top 50 spot?

I don't want a top 3 position, I don't deserve a top 3 position, I never EXPECTED a top three position. But I held a top 50 position at the end of every Sub-event without exhausting a single mission. It's not crazy to have expected that to be sustained in the final subevent.

The huge fallacy in this thread is actually that people expected everyone to know that missions could be exhausted when the game itself (or my bracket at least) never showed me any evidence that I would eventually run out of enough points to stay above 50.

And let me be clear. I am not a hater, I am not bashing the game. I love this game. It's pretty much my GOTY, which is hugely surprising to me. But I can't just sit idly by when people are claiming that dedicated players like myself, who have happily invested time and money in this game, should have known better or are somehow to blame for expecting the game to behave the way it had for the previous 9 days, 10 hours, and 59 minutes.

That's just not building or engendering a strong or fair community.

Plenty of people figured out the scoring algorithm. Yes it was transparent, but if lots of people could figure it out, it really wasn't THAT transparent.

Pretty much this(although I think transparent in this case should mean that it was easy to figure out).

I think the problem is in either or both of two things. One is that some people's brackets were much more competitive than they thought with many more people who had figured out how to play with the system(perhaps earlier).

The other sounds like the points rubberbanding algorithm broke down at extremely high main bracket totals. In that the thresholds set up were not capable of accounting for those higher point gaps in the same way as a lower scoring bracket. But this relies on what other forum members have reported as being at least somewhat accurate, which I think the various reports have a fair amount of inaccurate assumptions but enough truth to lead me to believe this is a strong possibility.

Nemek

DumDumDugn wrote:

Purty Hawkeye wrote:

Each sub-mission was worth a finite amount of points to each player. Rubberbanding affected that total but there was only so much avaialble from each sub-mission. All players had ten days and multiple iterations of each sub-mission to figure this out.
The other aspect of this thread is the complaint that I was top 3 after I had used up all the points and was unfairly robbed of covers. That is a false premise akin to stopping an auto race short of the end as soon as one driver gets into the lead and decides the race is over. Or a golfer who has the lead telling the other golfers still playing the tournament is over I won my score is better than yours.
What happened in The Hunt was all of you had hich placements because there were other players still working on exhausting their points in the Savage sub-mission. When you rose to top 3 that was not a true ranking anymore than a driver who leads on lap 50 or a golfer who sits in the clubhouse with the lowest score is declared the winner. The competition has an end time for every player to exhaust their point totals. When the timer hit zero your point total wasn't as high as others.
The huge fallacy in this thread is the thought that because I was top 3 at some point after doing everything that is where it should've ended and I get my covers.

Great post. Everybody should read this.

Yes, great post, very much agree.

Unknown

Kyosokun wrote:

KidInsomnia wrote:

Regardless of whether or not some people "figured it out", the game itself did not display any evidence of it until the very last minute. If this was working effectively, I should have had to do the same push at the end of EVERY subevent to maintain my top 50 spot.

Unless other people played differently the last day. You keep leaving out the people factor out. If the people in your bracket behaved different the last day, the results you see are going to be different than the other 9 days.

I still think the biggest factor was that there were no other events ending at some point in the future. Once people completed / zeroed out Savage Land they couldn't jump into another sub-mission causing the rubber banding to kick in and increase the point values in Savage Land. So once you exhausted Savage Land... that was it.

Kavel

I thought the event was fantastic. No complaints here. I think everyone should just calm down about 1000%

Unknown

Kyosokun wrote:

KidInsomnia wrote:

Regardless of whether or not some people "figured it out", the game itself did not display any evidence of it until the very last minute. If this was working effectively, I should have had to do the same push at the end of EVERY subevent to maintain my top 50 spot.

Unless other people played differently the last day. You keep leaving out the people factor out. If the people in your bracket behaved different the last day, the results you see are going to be different than the other 9 days.

I really think Kyosokun has nailed it on the head here. The difference in the last event was that it was...last. No one who wanted to compete for the top spots was going to skip it, and I firmly believe there were a lot of people playing right at the end, just as there is at the end of any event. I think those factors made it appear as though the rubberbanding had changed. But that's just a guess, mind you.