Reap Complete Discussion, take 2

I had wanted to post this on the original thread but at&t is stupid and the thread closed before I had the chance.
Note: I happen to be a forum mod, and if anyone chooses to make an interpersonal attack on anyone else, like what prompted the other thread to be closed, I will hide the comment and report you to HQ. Fair warning.

Anyway, after taking a couple of days to think on it, and review the comments left I wanted to add my thoughts on this.

First off I think there is a major misunderstanding between players and admins. From the player side of things, I don’t think anyone is marking cubes complete unless they do honestly believe they are complete, which winds up making the multiple statements from admins to the contrary something that feels akin to an accusation. Which, in turn, puts players on the defensive. As far as I know, no one is using the complete function to do anything other than say that a cube is, in their belief, in fact, complete. Now, I cannot speak for errors made on the part of players when things get missed and need to be added into cubes. If any of these were my fault, then you do have my most sincere apologies, and I will endeavor in the future to be more thorough in my completing work.

I think one of the biggest fears involved with the reap complete nuke is that a minor difference of opinion will create a loss of points and unnecessary tensions between scythes. Things that I see players rereap a cube for, that are objective, include; dust, mergery segments, and just because they are in the log. Just because I think a segment is mergery enough to be left out, doesn’t mean I was wrong when another player decided that that same segment should have actually gone in, and it doesn’t mean that player was wrong either. (however imo, the players who rereap every cube in the log just because they are in there are a bit excessive, but I digress.) I think that in general the players try to be very cooperative with each other, which was evidenced by the responses to M’s question on the other thread regarding why players stop completing shortly after hitting 100 sc’s. No one wants unnecessary conflict, and this seems like the perfect setup for it.

I know the release was unintentional, but it was very jarring. Unfortunately it being released late on a Friday with no explanation from HQ then finding it being alluded to in a forum comment made for some hurt feelings, which then festered over an entire weekend and turned into anger. I understand this was going to happen regardless of player feelings about it, what I don’t understand was why hq didn’t go “oops, unintentional beta!” and roll it back until feedback could have been considered and implemented or not implemented. I think it would have made players feel more heard.

Now for action items :slight_smile:

I think that we should seriously consider making it a rule that when a cube is reaped, it is not completed by the same player. Similar to how forts are now. If nothing else it will dispel the misconception that players are completing incomplete cubes. And it guarantees that 2 players look at the cube after it is reaped.

I very much like gala’s idea of getting a notification when cubes that have been sc’d get nuked. That would enable players to go back into a cell and sc more and wouldn’t knock them below a bonus threshold without their knowledge.

I think the idea to have a voxel minimum for a nuking to occur is an excellent idea. That way if a player wishes to reap for dust, they can without fear of negatively impacting their fellow players.

Maybe also consider making the sc color override the reaped and scouted color? Then no one who is inspecting will be possibly biased based on the fact a cube was already reaped.

I am sure that others have more ideas and thoughts than those i’ve listed here and hopefully they will feel secure enough to share them. :slight_smile: I think that if everyone will take a step back and take a breath, and are open with each other we can get through this.



I really had no idea of most of this stuff, sorry it got to the point of emotions. I don’t look at the log much, so I don’t really go through all of them (until I look at the log as see so much stuff, I’m like, I gotta get it all done). I like the idea of not completing after reaping, something I’ve long dreamed of. Also reaping dust without worry is also a dream, as I cannot tell what’s dust and what’s not (something that’s dust can turn into an entire branch without foreseeing). I definitely am not going to try to figure out which is which, takes too long. I just make an entry if it happens :). Idk what a nuke is, and I also haven’t gotten upset and avoid <100 SC’s (I just go on forever till the cell’s done). Hope everything works out.

I agree with everything said by original poster, and I add this.

one more of my probs with reap nuking is this:

2nd (or 3rd 4th etc) scythe may be wrong (in what they added/removed), example:

I reaped this cube in the latest fort, this happens to be a bipolar rod cell which means the borders are shot to pieces, it is rather “what borders?” than “oh well bad borders” lol. then 2nd scythe who may or may not have large exp, with either bp rods or glia came in reaped after and added the yellow thing which is in fact glia (not the dust segs, the big yellow thing, although some of the dust segs are also wrong imo but i digress). Now don’t get me wrong I’m not blaming or accusing, not saying they did this to remove my sc or to influence my reap/sc accu. They reaped what they honestly believed belonged and I had missed. But in this case they were wrong. If I had completed this cube their reap would have removed this sc. I don’t know how much 10% is in terms of volume or amount of segs but I do believe this would have been 10%, at least.

And this either through log or through scythed over heatmap in forts etc (sorry to non mystics, that’s at least for now a mystics only feature afik) is something i’ve seen happen a lot over the years. It’s to be expected as everyone makes mistakes and when that has happened i have rerepeaed and fixed what i considered wrong, in ew cells not zfish cells. But now and part of what made me angry in the whole reap nuke change, even if I didn’t reply further in the other thread past my “original” reply (before HQ’s reply on the premature/accidental release of reap nuke and the convo thereafter), is that exactly ppl can be mistaken/wrong and if their reap can nuke my sc it may very well be they are wrong and I lost one or more scs for no good reason. I think i had add-on’ed this in my original reply as well in the other thread or a version of it.

Perhaps reap not nuking if a certain #% is not “passed” will solve a large portion of it, perhaps all of it, idk.

perhaps atani’s suggestion on original “reaper” not completing may also solve some of it, but my question in this (not specifically to atani, to anyone who wants to comment further) is how does this play in branch completion? I am checking a branch, and I don’t complete if I reap a cube? complete only when not reaped? wait for a 2nd scythe to sc it through log then complete? Especially in vertical relics/bps the reaped cubes may be more than the not reaped cubes which excludes a lot of cubes from being completed and considering those cells are smaller than horizontal artifacts may lead to missing tier(s) for bonuses. I don’t know, i like it as an idea but I see potential issues with it that may need to be addressed if/before it’s implemented by ppl. Just so that everyone’s on the same page, and it doesn’t create tensions.

I also agree with gala’s suggestion of adding a notif or tab in a notif with the ids of the nuked cubes and the reason why, a review of sorts showing what was added/removed that nuked the cube. At least ppl will know why their cube(s)/scs got nuked and it’ll be more educational and less punitive without knowing why.

The voxel minimum for a nuking to occur is indeed an excellent idea, as it’ll also exclude fort corners etc from being nuked, that way those who dont want to reap them but can complete them as per HQ instructions can and those who want to reap them after won’t penilise the 1st ones who completed by nuking their sc from cube. And I think anything more than 1% (lol) will ensure that the nuked reaps from such an action will be diminished to a neglidgable amount.

It’ll also prevent cubes being nuked from “i reaped for my accuracy”, I think most if not all scythes have reaepd bc of this, something/one or more cube(s) is/are throwing one’s accuracy in either lvl from 99% to 80% or 50% etc lol and you reap it, in one reap (or more) your accu is back to 99%. the voxel min. can ensure (since it’ll most likely be reaped as is) that scythe(s) who have completed won’t lose their sc to this.

An idea i have to throw to the table regarding the sc min is this: maybe have a dif #% for lv1 and for lv2.

for example 10% for lv1 is more than enough, there’s little chance that dust or anything that isn’t truly “large”/significant will be more than 10%.

But in lv2 verticals, bps etc 10% may very well still be only dust, I’m giving an example or two of cubes for what I mean: 3229750 or 3216558

In cubes/cells like these with boutons like these (or larger yet) dust may amount to a lot more than 10% which may still lead to ppl losing scs over dust.

So Idk what lv2 #% should be 15%? 20%? idk but imo it should be larger than 10%.

I also agree that sc colour should overwride stuff. I think 1 vote should overwride flag and 2 votes overwride scythe reaped and admin complete overwride admin reap? Something like that.

And plz plz plz plz plz make that in forts flag doesnt overwride reap xP, as is now fort entries dont show in log (bug) but when HQ rolls out their version of the SL, i’m guessing that bug won’t persist so flags don’t have to overwride reaps, scythes’ll be able to see SL entries for it.

That’s it for now if I can think of more to add to the discussion I will :slight_smile:


I got a Q for HQ:

Ok say scythe 1 completes a cube
scythe 2 comes along and reaps the cube with more than the required #% to nuke it, scythe 2 logs the cube with or without scying the cube themselves.

So far scythe 1 has some sc accu “penalty” for missing whatever S2 reaped in/out. And -1 sc

S1 comes in and either knowingly or not (from log etc) recompletes that cube, after it’s been nuked.

What happens in this situation? Is the previous sc accu penalty undone b/c they have now recompleted a cube which probably will not be renuked (assuming S1 and S2 didn’t miss anything more that S3 or admin have to reap for and/or nuke)? Or is the sc accu penalty for this cube stand regardless of the re-sc? What if S1 also reaped the cube after S2 with or without nuking? (add/remove a dust seg etc) then the accu penalty is removed from S1 since they “accepted” all of S2’s changes and made a change S2 didn’t and S2 now has the accu penalty?


Hi, just a note to say I agree that it is our preference that people engage in a friendly, constructive way with each other. I would also like to note that HQ is the final word on whether content should be deleted from a thread and we will make our decision on a case-by-case basis. Dissenting opinions will be allowed if they have merit within the conversation and are not just made with the purpose of insulting or bullying another person.

Not completing after a reap double checks people’s work so mistakes (like the adding glia example) don’t get to admin’s (it’s probably be a lot of work for them) and stay at the scythe level. I agree though that it should be implemented the right away, accounting for all situations it applies to. I also think that people shouldn’t reap/SC cubes that they played (really biased), but maybe that’s for another discussion.

I agree, someone’s 1st complete should stand and count, because it’s valid at that moment and someone worked to place it there (they gave that cube their seal of approval). Removing it causes too much makeup work too. I also agree on the fort flag override stuff too. I’m a little confused on the paragraph with the ‘I reaped for my accuracy’ part though.

A few things:

  1. First off, while I think we’re a ways before the idea ought to be implemented, I agree with the premise of the SC change. If a cube with 2 SCs gets reaped, the current trace ought to be looked over twice again. Likewise, I think the one who reaps should not be the one who completes, leastwise not anymore, because that’s logically consistent. I haven’t been practicing that but herein I will be.

  2. I agree entirely with @galarun that every SC nuke should be paired with a notification, and until such a system is in place I’m going to be tagging everyone either in chat or maybe on the forums if they’re offline. May even leave their names in SL.

  3. I am remarkably ambivalent about people losing credit for SCs. I’m thinking back to times I’ve personally reaped cubes with 1-2 SC’s. Lots of missing overlaps, and arguably some should have been caught if both cubes were at weight when checked. More than a few times where a child has a merger near the edge that is clearly lacking from the parent, and those probably should have been caught if people are paying attention to OV. Much much more than these though are times where there are nubs that get missed, or simple dust reaps. More importantly, I don’t think it’s practical to try and distinguish between these cases, and I think it’s far more likely that I’m gonna lean toward people keeping their SCs or getting some amount of ‘grace period’ (There’s surely a better term but it eludes me) wherein the first 5-10 completes that get reaped over are still fine.

As a result of this, I think my ideal system is probably one where reaps require more completes but don’t punish those who already completed, as detailed at the end of my 3rd point.


  1. I personally am gonna complete to 120 completes in cells for the rest of the month and see how far that number decays. I’ll also keep track of how many SC’s I take off of other people. It could be that the buffers most of us normally keep to prevent from losing bonuses to potential nuttiness may already cover this.
1 Like

Maybe we can have a compromise where if a cube gets reaped after 2 SCs, then there can be a new type of SC, called a ‘review’ SC (I bet we can think of a better name) for the post-2 SC reap.

The ‘review’ SC still counts towards their completes, it would not be a separate category, just a separate color in the inspect panel (for this post, I’ll say it’s green). Also, 2 review SCs would be required to complete the cube if a cube is post-2 SC reaped.

I’m not sure what happens though if a cube gets reaped again after 2 review SCs, so we’ll have to work out something for that. Maybe we can have 2 reviewers accept or decline the reap (reapers will still get credit), but then we’d need a new category and that might get messy.

So if a cube has 2SCs, someone reaps it and either wants to SC it or thinks a new person should SC it, then they can add a ‘review’ SC to it. If there are 2 SCs in a cube, the inspect panel would show the players in white, the 1st 2 SCs in purple, the reap in blue, and the 2 ‘review’ SCs in green.

That’s my idea.

The next version of the Cell Complete notification will have a list of all the cubes a player Reaped or Completed on that cell, as well as their accuracy and a way to jump to review/inspect. We’ll work to get this into notifications. It will be only after we get the SL officially integrated into Eyewire, which will probably be a while.

For now, see this blog update


getting the SL integrated into EW is very exciting!

1 Like