Lady Cordir, the averages that you were giving, are those lifetime averages or from the month of September? I don't recall seeing scores that high in September, certainly not on average and part of that may have been the fatigue factor. I thought scores were usually more in the 400 to 600 range on the long ones and 68-350 on the shorter ones.

I think if you look at how many players scored over 400 on a scavenger hunt in the last year, my guess is it would be something like 3 to 5 people. (Zhou, Nicholai, Foghair maybe Samiyah or someone I'm not thinking of mixed in)

I think if you looked at any given month, you also wouldn't find many if any months where anyone participated in 15 scavengers, and if you did, it wouldn't be more than 1 or 2 people. It would be great if we could get 10 people participating in every scavenger hunt. (I know sounds a bit lofty, but wouldn't it be fun?)

I think more would participate if they knew they were working towards a total that wouldn't expire. For example if I knew at 2000 scavenger points I would earn a quest point, that would motivate me to participate in a scavenger where two of the top dogs were already running away with it because I'd know that even if I only got 200 points, if i put the time in 10 times, I could still win a point. I know I was calculating the days in the month and scores required and when I did the math, I knew if I went full out I wouldn't be able to qualify for it. I'm guessing there were many others who did the same calculations and liked the idea but realized it wouldn't apply to them.

Whereas the 4,000 points a month is simply not attainable by any but perhaps a couple of players (none of which who came close this month despite the amount of effort put in by you to run so many), it doesn't even factor in as motivation for the moderately skilled and lesser skilled scavengers. It also is a lot of work for you to run that many scavengers to give people any hope of hitting that mark. If it was a lesser number that could carry over it would motivate me and I'm sure others to participate. It also would address the fatigue issue since the points wouldn't expire.

I think it would be good to provide an opportunity to those of average skill (not the average of the best scavengers) but something those of average skill could obtain if they made up with it with a lot of hard work.

I'd suggest either something like: 1,000 quest points in one month by someone who doesn't win more than 2 scavengers in that month earns 1 bonus point. For those who win more than 2 scavengers in the month, they need to hit 2,500 points to earn a bonus point.

You could do the same things for AMMQs 1,000 points in one month by someone who doesn't win more than 2 earns 1 bonus point, and 2,500 for those that win more than 2 to win a bonus point.

This would create incentive for people who know they can score say 150 points in 4 hours and know they won't be able to play in all of them and it also creates incentive for our top players to try to attempt more scavengers than they otherwise might. It also would allow for more balance between the types of quests run but still allowing people to hit monthly targets. I was all for having so many scavengers, but I did miss having ammqs.

Or get rid of the monthly requirements all together and just set it around 2,000.

I think if you ran similar numbers of Ammqs to scavengers, you would need to adjust the Ammqs upwards, but with such a small sample size its hard to know what to set it at to not be too easy and not be out of reach. I'd be happy with a challenge of trying to reach say 5,000 points in Ammqs in a month if there were going to be 12 or so I would participate in, but I think for many something more like 2500 if they had a chance to participate in that many would be in their wheelhouse. (If we are going to have more like 5 in a month then the numbers would have to adjust down substantially). I know it can't really be predicted since there has to be a group of willing participants to even run one.