yea- would be a good thing to know where to aim at and how many left
Alas it wont happen- if they publish the numbers needed by server, hey will reveal the number of active players- which probably is deemed sensitive business information
yea- would be a good thing to know where to aim at and how many left
Alas it wont happen- if they publish the numbers needed by server, hey will reveal the number of active players- which probably is deemed sensitive business information
I'm currently playing my 10th eotw, and I know my guild is raking them in too. Point is, our server sucks and we still only have 30% completion. Many people are quitting the event because it is hopeless.
I sincerely hope BB will make a correction on the target of adventures played after the event is over, because this is hardly stimulating.
I have to agree that while this event was a nice idea in theory, in practice we don't have enough information. The difference between the 'worlds' seems ridiculously high and there seems no explanation for it other than that the event was unfair right from the start in some way. I don't know how it is that some servers are so much more active, but it's plain to see that the event is messed up one way or another - but they obviously will not tell us how come.
definition of actives is my bet
Newer servers just have less stable population aka more newer players testing the waters and of course a percentage trying only a few log ons or maybe a week or 2 of play and then move on- The servers on top apparently do not have this issue as they are either old or locked for new players which makes for a far more stable active player level
Most likely 30 days active (meaning 1 log on in that period would be enough to be labeled as active, seems to have led to big differences in numbers and hence unfair goalposts for some servers. We are now on the 15 th and euro server and many new servers are all at around 25% of the percentage or less compared to the top 8 or so servers. This can not only be because of activity of people on the servers and if not adressed at the end with some recalculations and maybe a grace period for a final push, will lead to many people just deciding this is not for them as a game which would be a shame as the idea of the competition was a great one
And many players now seem to be looking at the stat tables, seeing that their server will not even make 100% based on what has happened so far and therefore stop doing the EOTW adventure. Really poorly thought out event from that point of view - we can see very quickly that all 3 Euro servers will fail to hit 100% even. So what's the point? There needed to be some encouragement for individual players to keep trying, other than the relatively low rewards for the adventure itself. It's a real shame, they so nearly came up with something great, but it has quickly been revealed as a big disappointment as far as I'm concerned.
our guild has played a lot eotws now. i just finished my 8th one. nr 9 start tonight. the guild is VOC on northisle server.
Does anyone need to complete more than one "End of the World" ?
Does 100% mean each active player completing the adventure once ?
13 done so far, but the adventure is very expensive for low level players and does take alot of time. for ppl with vets, bh generals and xbows it can be done a couple of hours incl. transportation time.
Another thing, why launch 2 events simultanious, i find that annoying, and that is draining resources from low level players, as there is no resource rewards from that croaker dude, just 10 presents, and the loot from eotw are not that high either. just my 2 cents.
Most events Bluebyte run are lame. This just happens to be the lamest.
Trying to be happy in a sad world
Posting Permissions
