Arcanaville

On a serious note, I'm going to summarize what I've said and what I know about the system, before Baryonyx post, just for the record. This is everything I think I know, and the level of uncertainty.

I believe the participation algorithm can be manipulated in theory. But I don't think people really are doing so as reliably as they think they are.

I believe profligate use of AoEs - powers that affect multiple foes - helps. But I'm not sure how. I see no direct correlation between damage dealt and drops. I see no direct correlation between the number of targets I *hit* and drops. But I see a moderate correlation between using them at all, and not using them, separate from those factors. I don't know why.

I am certain the system has a measuring metric (participation) and a random element. Which means I believe even if people think they can game the system, if they are getting *exactly* the same thing over and over there has to be at least some element of luck to that. Across tens of thousands of players, such random incidents can occur.

I don't think the system is zero-sum. In the strict technical sense its possible the players are in indirect competition with each other: if one person killed everything and the rest of the league stood around doing nothing, obviously that person would almost certainly have higher participation. So if a player were to do that they could cut other players out of rewards. However, I do not believe the participation bonuses are strong enough to do that under normal playing conditions.

I don't think taking time to lead or talk seriously hurts your participation.

I do believe the trials are broken down into phases, and participation is measured in them separately and somehow combined.

I believe completing objectives in the trials accrues a bonus to all players, or at least all players nominally involved. For example, I believe Master runs will tend to grant everyone statistically higher drops because the player complete more "objectives." But because of the random element, that is not guaranteed, just more likely.

I believe iXP is calculated separately from the reward drop participation system, and obeys different rules. In particular, I believe iXP is *heavily* ruled by damage output and number of targets affected.


I will note that collectively, some of the above statements contradict reports that players can *reliably* game the system, that indiscriminant tagging without other factors in play has a dramatic effect on the drop table, that pets are a penalty (they might not help, but they are unlikely to hurt by a statistically significant amount), that buffing other players is a penalty (if it is, its miniscule), and that the rewards are zero-sum: if you get the good one, it means you took it from someone else that won't get it, or alternatively if you have a high participation score it can only mean someone else has a commensurately bad one.

It may contradict the devs if they believe the system isn't being gamed, or it may contradict the devs if they believe the system is being trivially gamed. We'll know tomorrow. That puts me in the position of saying I don't think I know what it does, but I'm reasonably sure it does not do what forum consensus thinks it does. Which is not unfamiliar territory.

I would expect that the devs cannot completely rewrite the entire system in one day. So don't expect that miracle. They might have been working on changes since release or even before, and some of those might have been expedited which they may be announcing. Beyond that, I would hope what people are expecting tomorrow is a starting point to discuss the future of the system, not a miracle cure for everything people think is wrong with the system.

In principle, I'm all for eliminating minimum team sizes on task forces so long as there is fair warning and an enforcement of literal minimums (if there's a mission with four simultaneous blinkies, the minimum has to be four).

However, as a practical matter there are a lot of players who believe that if the devs allow it they condone it, and if they condone it they should make it accessible. Meaning: if you allow two people to start Numina, people will complain two people can't finish it successfully. They'll say there should be a switch to downscale everything including the AVs to just the right level of difficulty to make their duo able to finish it: that it should be tuned for them, because they represent the "normal" players and not the "power gamers."

I like challenges. I would attempt to solo every task force that was logistically soloable if I could. This is a feature I would make a lot of use of: its been a long time since I've soloed a task force. But not at the expense of having to listen to people complain about the slippery slope surrounding task force difficulty or unlimited content accessibility.