BA Maximum Increase suggestion (in General)


Nehemiah January 16 2009 8:45 PM EST

I think it would be a good idea to increase the maximum BA we can store to 340 or even higher, maybe 500, allowing us to save up BA for a few days, if we want, not having to log in multiple times per day would be a good thing i think.

I Hope everything is well.

God Bless you!

Jesus Loves you!

GM January 16 2009 8:48 PM EST

This would completely make CB none competitive. If everyone can slack off and be at the top, what would be so fun about that? 160 is good, and it won't change sorry man.

Number XIII January 16 2009 8:48 PM EST

I wholeheartedly agree with you, I log in as many times as possible a day so more BA would be a welcome change. Possibly a shorter recharge time as well.

DoS [Demon Forging] January 16 2009 8:54 PM EST

No thank you. I believe the rate of regeneration is perfect where it is right now.

Soul Eater January 16 2009 8:58 PM EST

I want the BA to increase too.

Goodfish January 16 2009 9:03 PM EST

Note that non-supporters support the change while supporters don't. ;)

Soul Eater January 16 2009 9:31 PM EST

The only reason you older members don't want this is because you don't want us to catch up to you. Honestly that would probably be the only way for any of us to have a chance.

DoS [Demon Forging] January 16 2009 9:32 PM EST

It isn't very hard to log on once every seven hours.

Goodfish January 16 2009 9:46 PM EST

Capping BA to 500 would basically mean NUBs could sign in once a day and remain competitive. Twice a day and they'd never waste a single BA.

I waste a full BA set a day because of work and sleep.

There have been plenty of devoted people who have proved that you can build a top character, but it takes time and devotion. NUBs have done it, even. Barring that, make a bunch of money and start a new NCB.

It's very possible. CB is hardly a "difficult" game. It's a matter of adapting your team, and mindless clicking. If you spend an hour a day- 20 minutes in the morning, twenty in the afternoon, twenty before bed- you can get in at least 80% of your BA and have a competitive character.

Ancient Anubis January 16 2009 9:46 PM EST

all i can say is how bout accumulation of ba is made = to the amount of ba earn't in 12 hours similar to the amount we can buy so it reduces as u go up in ba regen rate

Zenai January 16 2009 9:48 PM EST

GogetaSS4 9:31 PM EST The only reason you older members don't want this is because you don't want us to catch up to you. Honestly that would probably be the only way for any of us to have a chance.

No it wouldnt. The range would still be the same it would be equal across the board. You would still be in the same boat as you are now. The only way that will help you to catch up is to have a higher perseverance and a better strat than everyone else......and with that a big dose of patience. (Some USD would hurt either)

[P]Mitt January 16 2009 9:54 PM EST

GogetaSS4 9:31 PM EST

The only reason you older members don't want this is because you don't want us to catch up to you. Honestly that would probably be the only way for any of us to have a chance.

If you're going to complain about the system now, then let me put this in perspective. When I joined CB, there was no NUB. There was no buying BA. The system is very good and has been tempered for over 7 years. If you're complaining because the game is too time consuming for your taste or you don't level enough for the amount of time you put into it, it's time to find a new game.
But you're going to have to get used to it some time or another. Hell, I'd like a job where I work 5 hours, get paid a six-figure salary, but just because I don't get one, I'm not going to complain about it. I'd like a NUB in real life too... I put in 3 months hard work and I'll be as rich as Bill Gates!

The system is fine as it is.

Goodfish January 16 2009 10:11 PM EST

The fact that CB1 had no N*B is always what bothers me when people complain about "evening the playing field". The N*B by definition unevens the playing field. It's meant to give an advantage to lower players. I can't say I dislike it, since even with 6 months of 400% experience, I still won't hit 4M MPR. But adding even more ways that discourage significant time investiture in CB I frown upon. If you want a BA cap of 500, fine. But then I say we eliminate N*B's. Fair? ;)

Sickone January 16 2009 10:25 PM EST

<sarcasm mode on>
Yes, yes, let's NOT increase the BA cap at all.
On second though, let's reduce it.
And bring back the x/10min BA regeneration rate.
No, wait, let's reduce the BA cap to 60, and push it to x/6min BA regeneration rate.
<sarcasm mode off>

Right now, a brand spanking new user has to log in every 5 hours and 20 minutes or else he loses some BA (granted, the switch to 6 hours should happen pretty fast), while most users have to schedule a "7 hour 40 minutes maximum break from the internet" timetable, with only a handfull getting the nice and easy 9 hours break.

There's a subtle difference between "a licence for slacking off" and "having to adjust personal and professional life to be even remotely competitive".
Personally, I feel that subtle difference lies somewhere between the "twice a day" at worst to "once a day" at best.

In other words, if the x/20min BA regeneration is maintained, at 10/20 the accumulation should go up to no less than 12h (or, in other words, at minimum 360 BA) with the 6/20 at no more than 24h (or, in other words, no more than 432 BA).

I feel like 400 BA is a reasonable compromise.
But then again, 360 BA would work fine too.
Heck, even 320 BA would be marginally reasonable, just NOT 160 BA.
Yes, I realize that not so long ago, it was the equivalent of 80 BA from now thanks to the x/10 tick, but then again if it was doubled once... why not double it again ?

AdminTitan January 16 2009 10:31 PM EST

Well thanks sickone, it would be nice to only have to log on once a day.... 360/6 = 60/3 per hour = 20 hours....great.

Sickone January 16 2009 10:51 PM EST

That's the whole idea - everybody should get somewhere in between 12 and 24 hours.

360 BA cap would mean 12 hours for the very early starters and 20 hours for the 6/20 crowd.
Probably a bit too generous, but then again why not ?

320 BA cap would mean 10 hours 40 minutes for the starters (but 11 hours 40 minutes after a couple of well-spent days) and 17 hours 40 minutes for the 6/20 crowd (with a manageable 15 hours 20 minutes for most people, those in the 7/20 area).
That sounds reasonably fair for most people involved.

iBananco [Blue Army] January 16 2009 11:15 PM EST

Invert the BA regen rates.

QBOddBird January 16 2009 11:18 PM EST

"If everyone can slack off and be at the top, what would be so fun about that?"

You hit the nail on the head. That is EXACTLY why I so intensely hate this 6/20 BA regen rate crap.

Haloki January 16 2009 11:39 PM EST

No matter what it was it would be not enough/to much for some so deal with it its fine the way it is

TheHatchetman January 16 2009 11:39 PM EST

Wait... To those turning this into a newbie vs. vet thing, you're paranoid.

The reason for disagreement is that many of the new people see it as "I don't wanna miss BA", while vets tend to see it as:

"If nobody is missing BA, then everyone will be growing at the exact same rate. What's more is that everybody would be earning the same ammount of money and therefore be increasing net worth at the same rate. The only way to make any movement what-so-ever over any course of time would either be for someone to quit or to spend USD. Strategy doesn't matter, time doesn't matter, and net worth is only there as a marker of how much money you've spent."

While I never played it, I heard about a game a lot like this one that died for very similar reasons... We are not against you. In fact, the perception that there is a "we" and a "you" greatly disturbs me. If you really looked at the end result, the easier it is for people to not miss BA, the harder it will be for any new people to find their way to the top.

Sickone January 17 2009 12:09 AM EST

So, Hatch, in other words, your argument is to reverse the BA regeneration rate (10/20 for the top, 6/20 for the small characters) and lower the hardcap... that way people on the top would miss out on more while those at the bottom lose less ?
*innocent batting of eyelashes*

AdminNightStrike January 17 2009 12:10 AM EST

The only way you can catch up to people is by spending BA when others do not. So you want to make it as hard as possible for everyone to spend BA, then to spend it all yourself at 100%.

Remember, if it's easier for you, it's easier for everyone else.

Sickone January 17 2009 12:22 AM EST

Why does it have to be about "who's online more to burn BA" ?
Why can't it be about "who has the better strategy" instead ?

Like, for instance, people who can fight higher up, for larger challenge bonuses and higher base rewards ? Or, what if the clan system was revamped so that it becomes slightly more fair in tracking rewards (for instance, instead of a -10/+10% score adjustment from a MPR perspective, make that a -50%/+100% score adjustment, or even a -75%/+400% score adjustment), at the same time decreasing the amount of clans that gain any bonuses or even revamping the score system altogether AND at the same time significantly ramping up the clan bonuses, to, say, +100% for clan ranked #1.

I mean, just off the top of my head, mind you...

three4thsforsaken January 17 2009 12:24 AM EST

We cannot create a system where everyone can burn all their BA all the time without somewhat of a time commitment. Otherwise if we're not careful the game is in danger of becoming too easy.

However, I do like the idea of playing around with the BA cap to accommodate new players though. The game is bit harsh for them, and if we want this game to attract more users we need to give them a little bit of slack. Emphasis of a "little". I'm talking a 180-200 BA as opposed to 160. Or swapping the BA regens to 6/20 BA for low MPR and 10 BA for larger MPR.

Sickone January 17 2009 12:29 AM EST

"We cannot create a system where everyone can burn all their BA all the time without somewhat of a time commitment."

Twice every day, or even just once every day is a time commitment too. We're not talking "once a week" here...
Also, yes we can make it so that even if most users can still burn all BA, it does matter - simply reduce the importance of "just burn them" a lot while massively ramping up the "burn them where it matters" factor.

TheHatchetman January 17 2009 1:29 AM EST

I ran a 2-person list for a couple weeks straight back during my NUB with ten minute refreshes and a 160 BA cap (only stopped cuz i bought a char). wouldn't be hard to shrink a fightlist down to 2-3 people if you can to login a few times a day. So now, not only are we all growing at the same rate, we're all using the same short boring lists to do so and avoid falling behind... Unless, of course, you didn't have the time to maintain a short list... Then those who are able to be on more are given the advantage... Then we're right back where we started. No?

Sickone January 17 2009 2:20 AM EST

The differences would come from very significant clan bonuses instead of straight target selection, and from massive differences in clan bonuses.
For instance, the top clan would get +100% bonus, second clan +80%, third clan +50%, fourth clan +20%, those below bonuses similar to what we have nowadays.

Of course, the whole clan system would have to be revamped, with something like a fixed member count (4, 6, 10, whatever) BUT with the score adjustment (the plus-minus 10% one we have now) radically extended to keep it rather fair as described in my other post above.
Also, you might want to make it so that clan points last more than 24h too... actually, come to think of it, a 48-hour retention would be fine too.


Obviously though, this is all wishful thinking and theorycrafting, as everything described above is unlikely to ever be implemented for lack of developer time even if he would like the idea at all in the first place.

TheHatchetman January 17 2009 3:42 AM EST

wow...

three4thsforsaken January 17 2009 6:06 AM EST

wait, why do we want to completely reamp the clan system with steroid growth?

Wasp [Demon Forging] January 17 2009 6:12 AM EST

160 is a great number.

DERPA [Red Permanent Assurance] January 17 2009 6:34 AM EST

We Blenders have a saying...
"Jon created Carnage to train the faithful."
One cannot go against the word of Jon.

...if you try to rant about that too sickone I'm throwing vodka in your eyes!

Lochnivar January 17 2009 6:51 AM EST

how about we base regen rate on battles as challenger? (due to the log jam of 6/20 chars with less than 100k battles challenged)

BTW... I spent months clawing my way up to 6/20 (no NCB/NUB) and as I work full time and have other commitments I will likely be the first one to sign-up for tar and feather duty if this silly notion of switching 6/20 and 10/20 around comes to pass.

Brakke Bres [Ow man] January 17 2009 6:56 AM EST

People suggest raising the BA cap imho clearly don't understand what CB is about, why raising a BA cap and BA regen rates take out the competitive side of CB.

And why CB favors those players who can spend time on it and why CB gives those players who spend effort and time an advantage.

If you can't see why, then you have no idea what CB is about.

SuperHD January 17 2009 7:53 AM EST

Henk Bres said : People suggest raising the BA cap imho clearly don't understand what CB is about, why raising a BA cap and BA regen rates take out the competitive side of CB.



there are many ways to compete on CB...why not make an Iron men, it would be like a marathon, each player who enlist in the marathon would have to burn their regen BA within the next regen (20 minutes) and for as long as possible. The person who run the marathon the longest would received the title of the greatest cb competitor, who knows maybe someone will run the marathon for 24 h or 48 h or maybe more....hahahaha
silly isnt !

Kliktu January 17 2009 7:57 AM EST

My main goal in CB2 is to reach the 6/20 BA regen rate so I won't have to worry about using BA while I'm at work and when I go to sleep, so I too am against flipping the BA regen rate. Did anyone forget that fight rewards are adjusted according to our BA regen rate? I have absolutely no problem with having to fight less and still get the same Exp. and Money per day that I've always gotten. I think of that as a pretty good reward for fighting my way to the top!

Also, I think the newbies need the extra BA for getting to know the game better.
In reply to the original post I do not think that the BA cap should be raised. Every day I hope that one of my rivals misses out on some BA so that I may get ahead! I lose sleep and I bring my PSP to work so I don't miss any BA. I make many sacrifices such as making CB2 one of only 2 online games that I play, whereas it was 4 two months ago. I made those sacrifices so that I can spend more time with my family and still be a competitive gamer.

Adios Muchachos February 12 2009 9:59 PM EST

Heck im a NUB and i think the regen rate is fine where it is.

Eliteofdelete [Battle Royale] February 12 2009 10:08 PM EST

The top is too stale. I really wish he would changed it. As of now there is no point sitting up there and just keeping the same rank forever so I just keep making NCBs for the fun of actually having change :)

AdminQBnovice [Cult of the Valaraukar] February 12 2009 10:30 PM EST

Why don't people get the top levels of this game aren't static?

QBOddBird February 12 2009 10:38 PM EST

More importantly, why the hell was this thread necro'd?

TheHatchetman February 12 2009 11:01 PM EST

nov, the top 10-15 or so might not be, but when was the last time a char worked it's way to and through the #25 mark? For the most part, the 20-80 rank is entirely dependent on who's spent their BA most recently...

Ernest-Scribbler February 12 2009 11:21 PM EST

I would like to use all my ba whilst sleeping for a normal amount of time, and being able to go for a drink after work without being penalized. 500 is excessive but an increase seems logical. Not everybody has a computer at work, and some people sleep for more than 7 hrs from time to time.

QBOddBird February 12 2009 11:24 PM EST

Growth rate is already all but static due to a low amount of BA missed. If everyone was already equal, that would be a more acceptable idea - but right now if you make opportunities to improve your growth rate even WEAKER, then you eliminate competition altogether.


I REALLY want to go back to */10 regeneration rate. It's a shame we can't see any actual competition because it cuts into lunch break.

Ancient Anubis February 12 2009 11:29 PM EST

no one seems to mention it but currently if u miss out on a exp bonus time u don't miss out too much but if u save up 500 ba it turns from just logging on during the day to who can log in for exp times will gain the mpr advantage. U would have to reconfigure the ncb and nub bonuses so that its worked out based on using 500 ba during exp time every tuesday and saturday and then anyone that can't make both every week end up falling way behind their peers.

kevlar February 12 2009 11:51 PM EST

I can see both sides of this and agree either way, because this game is too dang fun. However, I have to say I don't understand how a time commitment is so sacred for determining how well you do. I'd imagine that a lot of people that play this game are committed, but are constrained during the mid-day often. Just as another example of another CBer's schedule: I run 9-12 hour days, sometimes even more, sometimes less. Some days I can get on my computer early in the morning to wake up, some days I'm out the door before the sun is up. Then sometimes I can log into a computer in the library when I have some time to kill during lunch. The time I always count on is when I get home and am able to unwind and sit for 5 minutes without having to jump. I think it would be cool if the rate was made so you could log in twice a day and not be penalized for missing mid-day regen BA. That would be what another 80-120 BID? So around 240-280? Would imagine this would benefit the players from outside the US as well, I think?

AdminTitan February 12 2009 11:54 PM EST

"I think it would be cool if the rate was made so you could log in twice a day and not be penalized for missing mid-day regen BA."

Work really hard and get to 6BA regen.

kevlar February 12 2009 11:55 PM EST

I think most agree that 500 is a crazy high number. And I think with even the current max it is a big deal if you can make both wacky exp times or not, isn't it? I have missed plenty of the Tuesday early morning ones :) But again, I think having two with that kind of time frame is awesome to balance those in other time zones.

QBOddBird February 12 2009 11:58 PM EST

So look at it from another perspective.


How do you make progress if you and the CBer beside you BOTH hit 100% of your BA every day without fail?

kevlar February 13 2009 12:01 AM EST

"Work really hard and get to 6BA regen."

I'm working really hard, both ways. That wasn't the point of this topic, and I can't wait until I get to that point *huffs and puffs*

kevlar February 13 2009 12:03 AM EST

I think that even if you make it where it's around a twice-a-day affair, plenty will still not make their log ins 100% of the time. It's impossible, for some. I know I won't/can't. But it would help cut the hurt a lot... for a lot of people I imagine.

kevlar February 13 2009 12:04 AM EST

I'm going to bed before this gets turned on just me again for agreeing with a suggestive post. Night >:)

QBOddBird February 13 2009 12:10 AM EST

I see no point in arguing this either, as everyone simply wants the BA regen rate to fit their schedule, whether it is feasible or not.

smallpau1 - Go Blues [Lower My Fees] February 13 2009 12:19 AM EST

Its already been changed from 3 hour maximum BA refresh to a 5 hour 20 minute maximum BA refresh rate, so chill out, its not gonna happen anytime soon. Quitcher griping about how you cant log in every 5-7 hours to use BA, try joining 2 years earlier when you'd have to log on every 3 hours to be competitive.

smallpau1 - Go Blues [Lower My Fees] February 13 2009 12:20 AM EST

Plus, this has been suggested about 1000 times, no joke.

kevlar February 13 2009 12:36 AM EST

Forgot I had bonus to spend. And see this is what I'm talking about. Some of you guys get so ridiculously sensitive to suggestive threads and think people are griping or complaining, when all they are doing is asking for a change. There is nothing wrong with that, and obviously if it was changed 2 years ago, something was said at that time and decided to change it to what it is now. Nothing wrong with people trying to make sense of things and trying to improve the game. It's called progress and maybe it is time for a new perspective on BA accumulation... from what I have heard you really haven't expanded the player base with the current system. There is something to gripe about :P

AdminTitan February 13 2009 12:40 AM EST

Wait are you saying that a free text based game doesn't have a huge player base? Go figure.

kevlar February 13 2009 12:41 AM EST

I don't understand that, Titan?

kevlar February 13 2009 1:01 AM EST

Wait, maybe I see what you might mean, Titan, if so... visit this site and then get back to me, k?

http://www.hattrick.org/

ya I said it.

kevlar February 13 2009 1:10 AM EST

and if anything, take this from that website:

"Hattrick will continue its life as a "grass-roots movement". We will always be sensitive to your opinions on new game features, design, advertising, sponsors, and so on."

I TOTALLY feel Jon feels the same, and so should you with this game.

AdminQBnovice [Cult of the Valaraukar] February 13 2009 1:11 AM EST

kev: do you have any other settings? the obvious switch has been worn down to a stub

kevlar February 13 2009 1:14 AM EST

Settings?

BluBBen February 13 2009 1:16 AM EST

I hate this idea, I would rather have the 10 minutes regen back.

DoS [Demon Forging] February 13 2009 1:18 AM EST

Aye!

Fatil1ty February 13 2009 1:24 AM EST

my opinion is that being that this game is mainly about strategy...I think the best strategies should be the determining factor that controls growth NOT your ability to hit every BA. I'm not the biggest fan of contributing the amount of time it takes to burn 160 BA on a 4 person fightlist only to do it again 7 hours later. I would love to say that my growth in this game is due to my skill at strat making and NCB planning as opposed to time dedicated to a game.

And on a side note I think that the strategy involved in this game is why people stay/come for any lengths of time.

Steve G February 13 2009 4:23 AM EST

terrible idea, completely imbalances the game and would take away any sort of competitiveness that we have here due to the fact you could dissappear all day and make it up

on a secondary note that would make it near impossible for everyone to find targets if there was even 10 ppl with lets say 300-500 BA all trying to fight

kevlar February 13 2009 4:28 AM EST

ummm, disappearing for most of the day is typical for those who make a living.. am I wrong?? goodness

Brakke Bres [Ow man] February 13 2009 4:49 AM EST

well upping the limit to 200 isn't a bad idea. Less BA loss, more competition in the higher ranks.

BluBBen February 13 2009 5:00 AM EST

"Less BA loss, more competition in the higher ranks."

Should be read:

Less BA loss, less competition in the higher ranks.

Brakke Bres [Ow man] February 13 2009 5:09 AM EST

Nope, because people can reach a higher MPR more easily there will be more characters up there thus lead to more competition between a greater number of people instead of a select few. (select few include, USD backed ncbs, nubs, usd backed nubs, etc)

Brakke Bres [Ow man] February 13 2009 5:14 AM EST

Ow and there is nothing wrong with change.
Even if this idea is suggested a thousand times and its rejected a thousand times, tells something about the community.

Keep in mind the fact that the "old" players don't want it and the new players do. Should this suggestion be read as a signal or as a warning?


three4thsforsaken February 13 2009 5:17 AM EST

lots of new players want duel wielding and graphics

Steve G February 13 2009 5:37 AM EST

not to mention this entire suggestion caters for the 9/20, 10/20 BA people, preference should be given to those who have played long enough to have low refresh rates, not some noob who can store up 500 often and easily when a 7/8 can barely use that many in a day

QBJohnnywas February 13 2009 5:51 AM EST

"kevlar 4:28 AM EST

ummm, disappearing for most of the day is typical for those who make a living.. am I wrong?? goodness "


Not really that typical around these parts. Plenty of players work with CB on in the background. Is one of the main reasons a lot of us don't appear in chat. In my own case my work's firewall allows the main site, but not chat.

If the ba refresh got any wider apart than it is then I'd probably stop playing. But that's just me.

Brakke Bres [Ow man] February 13 2009 5:57 AM EST

three4thsforsaken 5:17 AM EST lots of new players want duel wielding and graphics

This is such a none argument that has really, really no place here.

BluBBen February 13 2009 6:00 AM EST

3/4ths argument are actually pretty good. Because new players tend to ask for stuff without thinking things through to 100%.

Brakke Bres [Ow man] February 13 2009 6:10 AM EST

Or they give new insights into a game that is dominated by old ways of thinking. Like I said, without change no progress, without progress this game is pretty much going to die.

QBJohnnywas February 13 2009 6:13 AM EST

Nightstrike gets my vote for the best comment of the thread with: "Remember, if it's easier for you, it's easier for everyone else. "

I miss the sense of urgency there was when the BA refresh was shorter. Knowing you could miss BA gave the game a sense of excitement. Any new players who've fought in tourneys and enjoyed it, wishing that the main game had the same rush? That's what got lost by spreading out BA to make it easier to use all your given BA.

We have a lot less players now than we did when the BA refresh was every ten minutes. You can't help but wonder if the loss is connected to the more relaxed BA system.

chaosal February 13 2009 8:23 AM EST

JW, it's the same with my work firewall- I've never been in chat :P

There are plenty of possible options to modify the current system, but even the smallest would change the balance (granted, the balance of this game changes with every changemonth). The conflict comes in whether you consider someone logging on at various times throughout the day as tactical planning or unfair advantage due to real-life situations.

The question for the latter is where to stop? Maybe no minute-based regen, just set points per day? Or even to the extent of automated fighting, where you determine your fight list and your BA gets automatically spent? Ever play Progress Quest? It's a fun little game, but it's not CB.

Admindudemus [jabberwocky] February 13 2009 9:30 AM EST

i like it the way it is now, but not for any of the reasons posted above. i like it because throughout the range of ba refresh you go from needing to log in every 5 hours 20 minutes to every 8 hours 40 minutes.

getting to the 6/20 range is its own reward and creates a trade off with constantly running ncb's. if it was easier to get all of your daily ba across all refresh ranges, or it stored more, then i think we would actually have much less competition at the top due to everyone always running an ncb, unless they happen to end up in the top ten.

so if you want to worry much less about ba, get over 2.8 something mpr and stay there. if you want to grow your tat or make another run for the top, set your alarm clock!

AdminQBGentlemanLoser [{END}] February 13 2009 10:10 AM EST

I've always been of the opion it should be harder, the higher you get.

Not easier. ;)

If we do like sick (I think it was!) suggested above and reverse the BA regen rates, that makes it easier for lower charcater (and newer players) and harder at the top.

Maybe, this would also encourage newer players to stay. But maybe not.

I know I remember when it was first changed, and as I didn't *have* to log in as much to burn my BA, I found myself not logging in as much.

And logging in less means less interaction, and less drive or desire to log on more...

Admindudemus [jabberwocky] February 13 2009 10:27 AM EST

making it harder at the top and easier at the bottom would definitely encourage back to back ncb runs i would think. after my current one i plan to take it easy for a while and then when i forget what a pain it was to get up in the middle of the night for ba i will likely grow my tat some more.

the tat growth during ncb runs is just too good for that to work unless we want to encourage an even more disposable nature to teams.

"And logging in less means less interaction, and less drive or desire to log on more..." is an opinion though just as mine above is. i certainly haven't been affected the way you describe, i am probably the oddball though as i do not log in to chat at all.

Godpanda February 13 2009 1:31 PM EST

Okay. Time to throw my opinion in and then just leave.

First off, besides simply ease of use, there was another great reason for decreasing the amount of BA gained in a day. Growth rate. If the BA was still on 10 minute regen, we'd probably have tons of people in the 5-6 mil MPR.

People don't like thinking about it, but the larger the characters in the game get, the less well everything is going to scale.

Pretty much, if you went the */10 regen, be prepared to see a rescale in the future.

Secondly, and on the same subject, it would be nice if people stopped going on and on about how GREAT CB used to be. In my opinion, the game itself is not worse, but the attitude of the people playing it has. I feel that some of you need to take the time to evaluate why you still play CB. If you don't enjoy the game itself, how it is now, and the people who play it, maybe you should take a break.

Remembering good times is a great thing. Complaining about and ripping apart the current game because it's not the same as it was, say, five YEARS ago doesn't help anyone.

Third, what is with the hostility in this thread? Let's make something clear. New players will never read every single post ever made before they came to CB. Pointing out nicely that this idea has been given many times before and a solution is never reached because it is an entirely subjective thing. Don't act as if the new player is an idiot for making a completely legitimate suggestion thread.

You're welcome to give your opinion, but ranting on and on about a topic no one is willing to give ground on is silly. Step back, let other voices be heard. Every response in a thread does not need to be your's (Your's being anyone reading this.)

Lastly, the topic at hand.

As I said, it's a subjective view. The fact is, most veteran players have adapted to a sort of lifestyle that involves CB. They're relatively comfortable logging on and using their BA and don't want to see it change. And their point is valid. Logging on once a day is far, far easier than 3, 4 or 5 times a day as it currently stands. So more people will burn all their BA.

This leads to a relatively simple question. Should the standing of best player CB be attributed to their time spent in the game or to the quality of their strategy?

Right now, it's mostly both. There's a few people who spend almost the exact amount of time on CB and the determining factor in who wins is who has the best strategy. But the number of people at that level of play is very slim.

There is no easy solution here. No matter how vehemently you argue a side of the story, there is no -right-.

There are valid argument for longer and shorter and just leaving the BA regen rate the same.

In my opinion though, I think the BA rate is fine as it is. But that's just my opinion. However, I would like to see something change with the beginning of the NUB that gave new players some time to learn the game and see the game in full swing before they're expected to more than match the efforts of 6/20 players. There's NO denying that trying to log in and not miss any BA in the 10/20 and 9/20 regen is rather difficult.

P.S.

Stop moaning and complaining about the NUB. As long as it exists, you just need to get over it. I'm all for seeing discussions about aspects of CB and alternative ideas. But the NUB and assorted other aspects aren't discussed, just complained about constantly. Either be constructive or be quiet. I'll be quite happy with either =)

QBRanger February 13 2009 1:40 PM EST

I do not understand how going back to a */10 min BA regeneration would make MPR skyrocket?

In fact it likely will overall get lower as more people miss BA then they do now.

The rewards were doubled going to a */20 regeneration.

They would be halved if we went back to a */10.

Godpanda February 13 2009 2:07 PM EST

More BA doesn't mean higher MPR?...

It's simple. The more BA you offer players, the more some of them are going to get. You couldn't tell me that anyone would be getting LESS, lol.

Eliteofdelete [Battle Royale] February 13 2009 2:16 PM EST

Ummm, Wretched BA doesn't give MPR, rewards do. So going to */10 and halving the rewards would give the same MPR as of now. However, since people would actually be missing some then we would get less MPR.

Lord Bob February 13 2009 2:19 PM EST

Not only do I not support increasing the BA cap, I also support scrapping the crappy N*B entirely and replacing it with wider gaps in BA regen rates.

QBRanger February 13 2009 2:34 PM EST

Wretched,

Did you not read my post before your last reply.

As Elite stated, it is rewards that make MPR grow.

Rewards were doubled when BA regeneration went in 1/2. Effectively a wash.
This thread is closed to new posts. However, you are welcome to reference it from a new thread; link this with the html <a href="/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=002drR">BA Maximum Increase suggestion</a>