Would it be possible to lower the number of agreements for an upgrade to 50?
Aquablast64-PGO
Posts: 229 ✭✭✭✭
A common complaint that I hear from my local community about Wayfarer is that it requires 100 agreements to earn an upgrade. I think it would be good to lower the number of agreements to 50, which I feel would be less intimidating for players.
Post edited by NianticTintino-ING on
Comments
I agree with you. 100 agreements for an upgrade can be a real grind for players.
Thank you!
I agree. In less populated areas, that’s actually hard to get. But those communities matter too! I really think they should be able to fully participate in the games and nominate relevant community spots too, even if their community is smaller. :)
I agree. This would definitely be a positive for change for players submitting and reviewing in less populated areas, since they would get upgrades faster compared to now.
If they were going to do this, they'd have to fix the major bot issues that are affecting places like Germany first. Otherwise you're just encouraging the bots to reject stuff to earn twice as many upgrades for fake and/or poor nominations.
Not saying I disagree with the idea, but it's definitely not something I'd want implementing before those problems are fixed.
I agree the bot issue needs fixed first before any change like this can occur.
Having to cycle through what nominations to involuntarily upgrade every 50 agreements is going to be a nightmare.
I would appreciate any of these to be dealt with first before considering lowering the upgrade threshold. It's not that I don't appreciate upgrades, it's just that even when you are diligent in trying to upgrade great candidates, they are occasionally rejected unfairly. Even when looking at the upgrade meter almost full, it will usually throw a curveball.
I agree with you. The auto-upgrade problem needs to be addressed first.
Before that can happen, we will need to make the upgrades really work.
The current upgrade, even if shortened to 50, will have little effect.
It would be better to do it after all these improvements are made.
I agree with HaramDingo that the auto-upgrade curse needs to end. Other than that, what do you mean by "make the upgrades really work"? I am just a little confused.
100 is fine, if we didn’t have the awfully high levels of Coal.
but we do have the high levels of coal and that's probably not going to change anytime soon
They mentioned they are planning to clean up the coal, but they have not explained their game plan or anything. I will say that I have noticed a lot less coal since they required the Wayfarer test. It is definitely not perfect, but it is a noticeable improvement compared to prior to 2020 & the majority of 2021.
I’d rather that Niantic dealt with the high levels of Coal, instead of lowering the amount of reviews/accepts needed for an Upgrade as that just makes it easier for those who 1 star everything to get their own stuff through.
Niantic already said that they are going to be addressing the coal issue. Not everyone 1 star everyone. I have a Great rating and the vast majority of my reviews are not 1 stars.
Oh yes, I know it’s not everyone and don’t think I implied that but there are certainly some sects of users doing that, or using bots/scripts to do it.
The bot issue needs address in general.
I'm for this. Especially in areas like mine where upgrades are needed to not have to wait a year
Thank you for the support!
There are several problems.
First, nominations are currently reviewed by a wider range of Wayfinders (possibly expanded by the language used) when upgraded. If not upgraded, only players in that vicinity. We currently do not get to choose the rank of the reviewer we want reviewed. So there are cases where we encounter a wider range of POOR reviewers, who in turn encounter cases that are rejected for odd reasons.
Conversely, the current review system also allows abusers to conspire in the local community to generate unqualified, low-quality wayspot by not upgrading. It is clear from this forum that this is a major problem around the world.
Therefore, expanding the current scope of what is reviewed to the equivalent of an upgrade, while ensuring that upgraded nominations are reviewed only by GREAT reviewers, will make upgrades more meaningful.
We tend to look for the meaning of an upgrade to be reviewed more quickly, but the ultimate goal we want for nominations is to get people to "approve" nominations that we think are good.
Therefore, we need to change the system so that good nominations are approved more quickly and at a higher rate.
Next, the current system of automatically awarding upgrades must be replaced with a system that allows people to choose whether or not to upgrade, and to have their nominations reviewed at the time they want.
Currently, the Wayfarer system is undergoing modification, with the ability to upload later.
However, at this time it is a bit of a problem because it is picked up for review based on the month and date it was created, not the month and date it was submitted.
Therefore, receiving upgrades earlier will be meaningless if the series of systems are not completed.
Finally, we need to build a system that will keep Wayfarer's abuse in check. Not a day goes by that we do not see reports on this forum against abuse. That is how much is at stake.
Even if you submit a good wayspot, if there is abuse around you, the very survival of the system is at stake.
I am sure these are currently being discussed between the Wayfarer team and the ambassadors, but we need to move forward quickly.
I think your proposal is a good one.
But it won't be good until we remove the things that will ruin the proposal.
I think that we need to proceed from both sides to create a situation where it is normal to have good quality wayspot in the field.
I guess if you believe that they will fix the amount of coal then it might make sense to plan on it happening. Honestly though, I don't believe it's something they will be able or willing to fix. I don't even have a strong opinion on upgrades being 50 agreements, I just think them changing a variable from 100 to 50 is much more likely than them implementing a major successful overhaul.
I am hopefully they will actually fix the coal issue, but who knows for sure. The coal problem is something that would need to be fixed prior to the amount of agreements being changed.
I agree with what you write and of course it's better to get upgrades reviewed by good/great reviewers, but the "meaning of an upgrade to be reviewed more quickly" is in many places the most important meaning if the alternative is NEVER.