Eliminate differentiated BA regeneration rates (in General)


Sickone April 1 2009 3:00 AM EDT

They really don't make all that much sense anymore anyway.
Just give everybody 5/20 rate and its corresponding rewards (double that of 10/20) regardless of MPR, and it's all good.
Of course, you still keep the differentiated base rewards based on MPR, but they would be no longer modified by BA regeneration rate since everybodyt gets the same regen rate.
And while you're at it, also increase BA cap to 200 instead of 160... that would mean roughly 13 hours between logins for optimal BA usage (twice a day), which is just about right.

BadFish April 1 2009 3:02 AM EDT

Funny joke :D

Sickone April 1 2009 3:12 AM EDT

Even if it's April 1st, it's not a joke.
What's the point of different BA rates ?
Let's hear the arguments...

"People at the top have less people to fight so they shouldn't have to fight so often"

Yeah, because target-finding at lower MPR ranges is so awesome ? Especially when you have to switch targets every DAY if you want to keep challenge bonuses good on any N*B early stages ?
And just look at the battle logs of people at or near the very top - they don't seem to have any trouble finding targets galore, it's those in the MIDDLE that have small fight lists.
And even with a ONE-PERSON fight list, it would still take you less than two hours to kill 13+ hours' worth of BA (at the proposed new regen/cap). And let's be serious, even if in dire straits, your fight list can easily have more than one target.


"But, clan points !"

Yeah, what about clan points ?
You mean, clans full of N*Bs should automatically get better clan standings ?
I don't see that as fair in any way, shape or form.
The ones with big characters are already penalized enough for not being able to have many members, while N*B clans can have insane numbers of people, we don't ALSO need them spending many more BA per person on average.
If anything, it's the clan system that would need a revamp.


"It's just the way we're used to"

That's never a good reason.

QBJohnnywas April 1 2009 3:17 AM EDT

It's a nice goal to aim for. In a game where getting to the top doesn't actually get you anything why not have something to aim for that actually is worth something.

Of course if there were other reasons to be placed up there then I'd probably agree with you. But in the absence of anything else leave the ba regen as it is.

Sickone April 1 2009 3:21 AM EDT

Ok, leave the BA regeneration rate alone.
But then increase the BA accrual cap to 360 or even 400 from 160.
Even at the highest BA rates, people should still be able to stay away 12-13 hours from CB without ANY ill effects whatsoever.

AdminNemesia [Demonic Serenity] April 1 2009 3:24 AM EDT

My main problem with everyone going to 5 ba regen and 200 max ba cap is that it would make even less competition. Even as it is now most of the people at the top grow at just about the same rate. There is very little change. This would make that even more so. And not only that it would make all the chars lower down be able to grow at the same rate as well.

Goodfish April 1 2009 3:30 AM EDT

It appears Sickone believes players of CB have the right to sleep.

lol.

QBJohnnywas April 1 2009 3:42 AM EDT

It may only be coincidence but since we extended the BA refresh times, and cut the amount of BA available everyday we've lost players. It would seem that our old player base liked the competition involved with setting your alarm clock in order to get as much BA as possible.

Sickone April 1 2009 4:10 AM EDT

"My main problem with everyone going to 5 ba regen and 200 max ba cap is that it would make even less competition."

Yeah, because sleep deprivation is a competition \o/


"It may only be coincidence but since we extended the BA refresh times, and cut the amount of BA available everyday we've lost players. It would seem that our old player base liked the competition involved with setting your alarm clock in order to get as much BA as possible."

We've lost players because there's plenty of other free games out there that need less time and/or offer faster/instant gratification. We've lost players because while interesting, the game hasn't evolved much since forever. We've lost players for a lot of reasons, but the fact you could get a breather is certainly not one of the top 10 reasons we lost players.
If anything, that probably saved some players that would have quit. I know *I* wouldn't be around here if the game would have put me through 10/10.
Heck, I wanted to start a fresh NCB and I have been putting it off for MONTHS because I remember with horror just how bad 9/20 and even 8/20 was... let alone 10/20 (phew, at least that was over quick). I might never run a NCB again, and ONLY because of that. And I might end up quitting because I know I have no chance at the top without saving up and attempting to run one. Or I might just accept the mediocrity position I'm in and run with it anyway. Or might just "hope" I restart having the troubles that caused me to take the medication that had me wake up every 6 hours anyway which enabled me to make the best out of this character I'm having... because right now, even at 7/20, I'm still losing quite a bit of BA due to sleep and other obligations.

three4thsforsaken April 1 2009 4:14 AM EDT

I guess the real question is: do we want the game to be easier or harder?

I vote harder.

QBJohnnywas April 1 2009 4:17 AM EDT

I don't miss a BA - well not many, perhaps ten a day due to sleep. I used to miss a hell of a lot more.

You're right that there are other reasons we haven't retained players, and one of those might be that it's not so profitable to be a NUB more than once - ie we may just have lost some multis rather than real players. But the old BA refresh rate gave you the only other advantage you had to get ahead (the other being USD injection). In other words those that were prepared to put in the time got the results.

Personally, I miss that. I know for a fact some players that left purely for that reason.

Sickone April 1 2009 4:18 AM EDT

Apples and Oranges.
Easy is opposed to complex/difficult, Hard is opposed to trivial/simple.
The question is, do we want the game to be easier or simpler ?
I vote easier.

QBJohnnywas April 1 2009 4:21 AM EDT

Simplicity and games generally work far better than making things easier. Easier, in my experience, only leads to boredom.

Sickone April 1 2009 4:23 AM EDT

"In other words those that were prepared to put in the time got the results."

Why does TIME have to be the thing we reward most ?
Why not reward STRATEGY a lot more ?

What if the difference between fighting mediocre opponents would bring you not half, but a quarter or even just a TENTH of the rewards you could get for fighting much more powerful opponents ? What if fighting opponents even 20% below your level would bring you barely half of the rewards for fighting targets at your own level ?

THAT is what should be rewarded, NOT the ability to skip sleep and hold down the ENTER key whenever you login... with the only reason (other than your own sense of fairness) to NOT "bot" it being the botchecks.

AdminNemesia [Demonic Serenity] April 1 2009 4:28 AM EDT

That would work just fine for down lower. But at the top of the game, there are only so many people. Its not like the top person can beat someone above himself.

QBJohnnywas April 1 2009 4:40 AM EDT

"Why not reward STRATEGY a lot more ? "

In the old days I might have agreed with that, but strategy used to involve working out for yourself how things fit together. Wiki put paid to real strategists. Which is why you don't see so many strat posts anymore. Most people know what works and what doesn't these days, unless it involves something Jon changed.

Which leaves the only other ways you can gain ground. Getting all your BA and USD.

Take away the BA option and the game becomes almost entirely a playground for the biggest wallets.

Of course there are those who would suggest that's always been the case....

BadFish April 1 2009 5:04 AM EDT

"I guess the real question is: do we want the game to be easier or harder?

I vote harder."

I agree. Eliminate differentiated BA regeneration rate: Make it all 10/20.

Sickone April 1 2009 6:59 AM EDT

"I agree. Eliminate differentiated BA regeneration rate: Make it all 10/20."

AND make the BA cap 30 :)

Sickone April 1 2009 7:05 AM EDT

"In the old days I might have agreed with that, but strategy used to involve working out for yourself how things fit together. Wiki put paid to real strategists. Which is why you don't see so many strat posts anymore. Most people know what works and what doesn't these days, unless it involves something Jon changed."

Ah, but if rewards were MASSIVELY different (and better) for beating people just a tiny bit higher up the food chain, then EVERYBODY would scramble to find ways to beat somebody even a tiny bit higher up (and then again, and again, as they keep overtaking them), and that would involve CONSTANT shifts in strategy depending on who got better/worse, how to minimize XP loss from retrains, how to minimize CB loss from disenchanting/forging/blacksmithing and so on and so forth.

At the same time, it also provides a NATURAL rewards "rolling bonus" : those at the very top never find people who are stronger (duh), so those below that CAN manage to beat them will get huge rewards. At the same time, if the ones below can only beat them "every now and then" (and one out of two victories at more than double rewards is better than constant victories at normal rewards), this means they also get passive XP even without fighting actively, so depending on how many people below can beat them and how often, they might or might not be overtaken.

The more I think of it, the more sense it makes to just do it.

AbbathorX April 1 2009 8:16 AM EDT

Why does everyone think that sleep is the only reason people miss BA? I find it FAR more difficult to burn BA during the 10ish hours a day I'm out of the house for work. To say nothing of the days I spend even more time at work. . .there are days where I have computer access all day, or just during breaks, and some where I have none at all until I get home.

Having to interrupt sleep to burn BA IS stupid, but it's not the main problem I face in trying to keep up. Any one else?

Sickone April 1 2009 9:00 AM EDT

That's why I said "sleep and other obligations" :)
Be it a job, going out, spending time with family or friends, doesn't really matter.
Heck, ideally, I'd really love it if you'd only need to log in once a day to not miss any BA.

Admindudemus [jabberwocky] April 1 2009 10:17 AM EDT

weren't you the one so concerned about score being drained from the system? less battles means less score coming in, no?

"Heck, I wanted to start a fresh NCB and I have been putting it off for MONTHS because I remember with horror just how bad 9/20 and even 8/20 was... let alone 10/20 (phew, at least that was over quick). I might never run a NCB again, and ONLY because of that."

having to choose when you can run an ncb and not being able to easily get all of your ba is probably the only reason that there is anyone at the top other than the top ten. teams are disposable enough as it is without making ncb's that simple.

why not just ask for automated playing? we have a fightlist, autofight, autotrain, check in once a week/month and spend the money.

Rubberduck[T] [Hell Blenders] April 1 2009 12:04 PM EDT

It would make losing fights whilst searching for targets more costly for N*Bs

AdminShade April 1 2009 12:10 PM EDT

You mean, clans full of N*Bs should automatically get better clan standings ?

No, they should not and would not. because those NUB's just like any low mpr character would not be able to beat a team of high MPR characters of course.

QBOddBird April 1 2009 12:12 PM EDT

I think it would be better if BA regenerated at such a rate that nobody could feasibly burn _ALL_ of it.

Then we see the ability to compete by trading time for MPR; as is, where you are at is where you will stand unless you run a NCB. If your character doesn't hit the top, throw it away and start over.

If the BA regen were reduced further, then that would basically put everyone in a static position: where you are when that change is made is where you will forever be, no matter how good your strategy is.

smallpau1 - Go Blues [Lower My Fees] April 1 2009 12:23 PM EDT

This would not help forgers at all, IMHO.

chaosal April 1 2009 12:26 PM EDT

the extreme of that would be to eliminate BA altogether, allowing unlimited fighting and forging so your reward matches your commitment. to counterbalance this, perhaps the time delay on auto-healing would be increased, and rewards from losses decreased (so someone would gain little by fighting many opponents at random, and the strategy would remain intact). while I personally would enjoy this (I'm the type who spends hours grinding in games to have an advantage) I think most people would feel it undermines the basic balance. whatever your thoughts on this extreme, it may give you insight as to how you would feel about varying degrees of adjustment towards this end.

Marlfox [Cult of the Valaraukar] April 1 2009 12:30 PM EDT

I think it's fine the way it is... but what do I know!

AdminNemesia [Demonic Serenity] April 1 2009 12:30 PM EDT

Those are the extremes of time vs strategy. I think that we actually have a fairly good balance of the 2 with the setup right now. Though personally I would like to see a little more competition.

Admindudemus [jabberwocky] April 1 2009 12:33 PM EDT

i too like it better where it is than really any other time during my six plus years here. ; )

Lord Bob April 1 2009 12:45 PM EDT

"Eliminate differentiated BA regeneration rates"

No.

Make the rates wider, and eliminate the N*B.

6/20
8/20
10/20
12/20
14/20

Marlfox [Cult of the Valaraukar] April 1 2009 12:47 PM EDT

Eliminate the N*B? That would kind of screw things up for you if your new...

AdminNemesia [Demonic Serenity] April 1 2009 1:18 PM EDT

Personally I think the game needs something to spice it up more. Dropping the n*b or adding a rolling bonus aren't going to change basic problem in the game right now. That is that it is too static in the upper regions of the game.

I suggest implementing a new bonus to the game. Not a rolling bonus or anything like that, but a bonus for consecutive wins. Like after you have 100 wins in a row you get a 5% bonus. And another 5% bonus at 200 and so on.

This would bring 2 benefits to the game. It will increase competition as if you are able to get a winning spree you will start getting that extra bonus and also other people will end up actively trying to end peoples winning sprees just to stop them. The other benefit is that it would encourage more strategy at the same time.

Admindudemus [jabberwocky] April 1 2009 1:31 PM EDT

couldn't the top person keep most others in the game from getting that bonus then? furthermore, a clan of top players could pretty much keep anyone else in the game from getting the reward.

also, the 6/20 people would be at an advantage due to no penalty for fighting down, no?

AdminNemesia [Demonic Serenity] April 1 2009 1:43 PM EDT

Yes, a clan of top players could more or less keep everyone from getting the bonus, but only while they are on and actively looking to stop people. This in itself is an increase in competition though. Also there are a lot of other people who could just as easily stop them from getting that bonus themselves. And even if the top person became invincible there are always double taps to stop them.

As for 6 ba getting an advantage for being able to fight down with no penalty that is true, but fighting down has a lower base rewards in the first place so there is the trade off. Also the people in 6 ba regen have more people actively looking to beat them at the same time. If you are fighting up and winning 100% of the time the result is the same either way though.

AdminNemesia [Demonic Serenity] April 1 2009 1:52 PM EDT

One more thing that I forgot to mention. While 6 ba get the advantage of being able to fight down. Those at the higher rates have the advantage of more ba and so the ability to use the bonus more if they can get there. So it balances itself out.

Cube April 1 2009 3:12 PM EDT

I agree with Sickone. I don't really care for sleep deprivation competition, but maybe that's just me and him.

Exact reason I no longer fight, having to come to the site that often is IMO too distracting.

Lord Bob April 1 2009 3:41 PM EDT

"Eliminate the N*B?"

Yes.

"That would kind of screw things up for you if your new..."

That's the idea. It would get rid of the vet penalty, discourage disposable characters, yet still give low MPR characters a chance to catch up to the top ranks, only this time with time and effort instead of a handout.

Flamey April 1 2009 4:44 PM EDT

Oh be quiet fool. Then you'll see the userbase drop...

Goodfish April 1 2009 4:54 PM EDT

Why would people quit? Is the mob mentality on CB really "WAAA WAAA I can't get to the top spot anymore, this game sucks"? I play CB because I enjoy it, and I enjoy the community. Not once (except when I very first started playing) ever think I would be in anything but the "common" ranks. I'm more than happy to weed out people who quit because they can't reach the top, anyways. That's not the point of the game, is it? I mean, once you're the #1 PR/MPR/Score, you don't suddenly get a big flashing sign that says "YOU WIN!" or anything, as far as I know. It's an internet game. Play it because you enjoy it, not because you think you need to take the top spot.

As far as competition goes, current BA rates are fine. I remember 10/10 BA, and that was really hard to get all/most of your BA in, but some people still did it (setting alarms for 3 AM? Crazy...). It's much more comfortable now, even for a casual player like myself. Sure, I "waste" probably a full set of BA every day, but what do I care? I'm not expecting anything out of the game but to have fun. I think everyone should do the same and we'd be done with the incessant whining forever.

Lord Bob April 1 2009 5:08 PM EDT

"Oh be quiet fool. Then you'll see the user base drop..."

First of all, watch your mouth and cut the insults.

Second, new users will STILL HAVE A SHOT AT GETTING TO 6/20!!! The idea is just that they won't skyrocket past all the vets who refuse to throw away perfectly good characters that are still fun to play, but that have been locked in some kind of "dead zone" because of the way the N*B works.

Yes, it means new players will have to compete (yes, compete!) longer and harder to get up to 6/20 instead of just meandering through a short bonus period. Personally, I think this is a much more rewarding way to play the game, instead of just being not-so-subtly shoved up toward the top by a massive bonus that vanishes shortly after.

Eliteofdelete [Battle Royale] April 1 2009 5:24 PM EDT

"Second, new users will STILL HAVE A SHOT AT GETTING TO 6/20!!!"

Um...exactly how do they still have a chance to getting to 6/20?
Also a short period of time?
If I played 6 months of almost any other MMO and put as much effort and time as I have into that MMO as I have in CB; I would be near the top. Playing a game for 6 months straight without getting bored is hard. CB is just special ;)

Sickone April 1 2009 8:16 PM EDT

You know, it's a curve... plot a graph of "number of people who would play" against "times between logins needed to be competitive", and you will find that there's a big SLUMP in the 4-to-8 hours area, and that's basically where we're at...
Having to be online nearly constantly appeals to some... having to be online once a day appeals to a lot... having to be online 3-4 times a day is just annoying for most.

kevlar April 1 2009 8:33 PM EDT

"Playing a game for 6 months straight without getting bored is hard. CB is just special ;)"

*cheers to that*

Lord Bob April 2 2009 12:04 AM EDT

"Um...exactly how do they still have a chance to getting to 6/20?"

Because the plan I posted about long ago (not that I expect everyone to have read it or anything...) didn't include differing rewards for the different BA rates. At 14/20, you wouldn't be sacrificing the reward bonus that 6/20 gets now. You would just get more BA to get more rewards, and thus growth would occur faster at lower rates... provided the effort was made to log in and compete.

"Also a short period of time?"

Are we talking about the current N*B? Then yes. WAY too short.

"If I played 6 months of almost any other MMO and put as much effort and time as I have into that MMO as I have in CB; I would be near the top."

And for those of us vets who have been playing the same character for years? Sorry, but I don't respect the idea that we should just lay down and make way for the new players to pass us with ease. I'd rather give players the -opportunity- to catch up and pass us, not a handout bonus that makes it inevitable with minimal effort.

..and "any other MMO" is not Carnage Blender.

"Playing a game for 6 months straight without getting bored is hard. CB is just special"

It is *grin*. That is why it should require a long term commitment to make it to the top ranks.

Froy April 2 2009 8:18 AM EDT

I'm very new, but after reading so many threads that request poor (usually, according to responses) additions or modifications to the game, I've had a few thoughts: 1) The coder(s) aren't actively playing the game. 2) They are reluctant to spend their time on the many requests of the community. 3) They aren't being paid for their time spent coding. 4) They work most on introducing new things to the community to a) retain players b) make money c) keep interest of veteran players d) please the player-base e) one or more of the previous.
It seems as though you are wasting your time fighting a lost cause; in addition, most of the responses to your (and others) gameplay requests are shot down quickly and the reasons are backed with clear logic and understanding of pros and cons.
You may want to rethink your standing and work on a better argument for your request. This community will not accept poorly thought out ideas that have no statistics or reason to back them. Better luck next time!
If your immediate thought after reading the latter is, "Already knew that." Then excuse me for taking up space in your thread, just seems like you're wasting your time.

Marlfox [Cult of the Valaraukar] April 2 2009 9:13 AM EDT

Well, ye'know Bob, just because you choose not to run an NCB doesn't mean that you should handicap other players who do choose to run one.

QBOddBird April 2 2009 1:35 PM EDT

Some of us just don't like the "throwaway character" system. I _really_ don't like how if you don't hit the top on a bonus character, you are better off throwing it away and starting over completely.

Lord Bob April 2 2009 1:43 PM EDT

"Well, ye'know Bob, just because you choose not to run an NCB doesn't mean that you should handicap other players who do choose to run one."

Dude, for the last time, it's not handicapping you. You still get a bonus. You still get a chance at the top BA rate. You just don't get it handed to you. Want to get to the top? Work for it.

"Some of us just don't like the "throwaway character" system."

Exactly. That's what my proposal tries to address and eliminate.

AdminQBnovice [Cult of the Valaraukar] April 2 2009 1:56 PM EDT

The system you're advocating was tried. cb1 worked exactly like that. The problem was that one a select few were capable of finding the OP methods needed to level faster than the top.

Lord Bob April 2 2009 2:12 PM EDT

The system was not the same as we had in CB1. The system I'm advocating now has wider BA regen rates, so those that log in more often can, and will, advance faster.

We didn't have such wide differences in rates in CB1.

And the numbers I posted earlier I just pulled out of the air. It was explained much better in that old thread that's buried somewhere around here. The rates could be wider than the extra two that I posted here.

Admindudemus [jabberwocky] April 2 2009 2:24 PM EDT

i think it is great to brainstorm new ideas and come up with alternative systems. i also think that it is silly to believe they will ever be implemented though.

jon seems to have a pretty good handle on the direction he wants for the game, what he lacks it seems is time. when bugs are not even getting any attention regardless of a growing list, expecting complete system overhauls or even requesting them is an exercise in futility.

rrowland April 2 2009 2:27 PM EDT

As a new user I'm thoroughly enjoying the New User Bonus.

Thanks!

QBsutekh137 April 2 2009 2:31 PM EDT

Essentially, LB is just exchanging inflated rewards in a specific period of time to having MORE BA over a LONGER period of time, and having to click click click through it. That's the "earning it" to which he refers.

I proposed a more rudimentary idea (a BA pool for bonus usage) at the very outset of the NUB, and Jonathan clearly said, "not interested". Lord Bob has put together a much better idea, but for whatever reason, it doesn't get traction. (And get's him called a "fool"? Seriously?)

But I certainly hope the reason for that isn't ignorance. Please, read what Lord Bob has to say, mull it over, understand it, and then state why you think it wouldn't work. One thing about it that has caused consternation is clan fighting -- some special control or ratio would have to be used when calculating clan points, at least I think it would, to keep things equitable. Or maybe he covered that in his other threads and I have forgotten...

From what I can tell, it sounds like a tight idea. I don't understand why some folks are automatically against it.

rrowland April 2 2009 2:34 PM EDT

Bonuses
Challenge bonus 100%
Clan bonus 12.1%
NUB 383%

Lord Bob April 2 2009 2:48 PM EDT

Thanks for the support Sut.

AdminTitan [The Sky Forge] April 2 2009 2:50 PM EDT

Sut, I think some people just don't like change. But, I'm all for BoB's ideas.

QBsutekh137 April 2 2009 3:13 PM EDT

You're welcome, LB.

I'm actually all about resistance to change (I'm a crotchety old man). But I would prefer any resistance be well thought-out and open for discussion. I can't really think of any downside to LB's idea other than some clan-point tweaking. Then again, I guess it would make sense to build clans having people from all shapes and sizes (like now -- at least I think it does now).

Lord Bob April 2 2009 3:18 PM EDT

"I can't really think of any downside to LB's idea other than some clan-point tweaking."

I think I mentioned something about that on the earlier thread. Something about how clan points should be weighted rather than awarded on a one fight-one point basis.

But I'm no expert on the matter of clans. Heck, I'm not even in a clan.

AdminNemesia [Demonic Serenity] April 2 2009 3:18 PM EDT

I actually have one downfall. What happens when you want to try out a completely new strategy. Namely when you want a strategy with a completely different number of minions. As it is right now you can try a completely new strat by running an ncb.

Lord Bob April 2 2009 3:21 PM EDT

"What happens when you want to try out a completely new strategy."

Untrain, retrain, hire and fire minions.

And you can still start a new character. It will just have a different kind of opportunity to get to the top than an NCB.

Now there is the problem of minion costs, but I think most of us agree there should be a better option for that anyway.

AdminNemesia [Demonic Serenity] April 2 2009 3:25 PM EDT

But if you want to be competitive at all you will never be able to fire any minions. Because if you do so you will fall far far back from catching the top. Especially since it will take far longer than the 6 month run. Hence you will end up with far less ability to change as time goes on.

QBRanger April 2 2009 3:27 PM EDT

LB,

Is your plan simliar to the Rolling Bonus idea proposed a while ago and mostly loved by the community?

That is more rewards for less MPR declining towards the top.

I still cannot understand how a rolling bonus is bad for the game.

I just do not get how a great idea can be ignored.

Lord Bob April 2 2009 3:31 PM EDT

"Is your plan simliar to the Rolling Bonus idea proposed a while ago and mostly loved by the community?"

No. There would be no "reward bonus."

Lower MPR characters would simply get far more BA to use and -earn- their rewards than top players. This eliminates the "lazyness" factor that Jon has said many times he has no intention of supporting. Quite the opposite, it rewards more logins and more fighting.

QBRanger April 2 2009 3:44 PM EDT

I think, like Sut alluded to, the only problem would be clans.

More BA is a lot more clan points.

Perhaps points can be adjusted per the BA regeneration or something like that.

QBRanger April 2 2009 3:45 PM EDT

Also,

Once you hit the top BA regeneration zone, your growth is then parallel to the top players and you can never catch up.

So right now, I am in the 6 BA zone. I would never be able to catch up, unlike now if I still had a NCB.

Demigod April 2 2009 3:58 PM EDT

"Once you hit the top BA regeneration zone, your growth is then parallel to the top players and you can never catch up."

Is that a problem or just a fact of the game? Either new players can catch up to the old players (making old characters disposable), or new players can get remotely close (no dead zone). Personally, I don't care to vie for the top spot. What I want is continued character growth, and I absolutely don't want my growth to come to a grinding halt after the NUB runs out.

Lord Bob April 2 2009 4:24 PM EDT

"More BA is a lot more clan points. Perhaps points can be adjusted per the BA regeneration or something like that."

Yes, which is why a CP weighting system would have to come along with this change.

"Also, Once you hit the top BA regeneration zone, your growth is then parallel to the top players and you can never catch up."

This change isn't intended to solve the problems at the top. It is merely a N*B replacement. My goal here is not to fix 6/20, just to propose a better, fairer way for players to get there to begin with.

Admindudemus [jabberwocky] April 2 2009 4:51 PM EDT

the current system though can get you quite a ways past the 6/20 barrier, depending on how much you invest in it.

QBRanger April 2 2009 4:53 PM EDT

Dude is right.

With the current N*B, one can get quite far into the 6 BA zone before the bonus ends.

I still think the rolling bonus is better and again fail to see how it promotes laziness.

QBsutekh137 April 2 2009 5:00 PM EDT

Ranger, don't forget that under LB's plan, the ranges for BA accrual could be VERY spread out. For example, maybe only the top 5% would be in 6/20, while people just starting would be something massive like 20/20. So, it would be more spread out, so the "top" tier would be thinner, if that makes sense.

Basically, LB's plan is exactly like a reward bonus, except the "reward" is simply having more BA available, and that BA availability could be as stretched out or stringently tiered as Jonathan desires. The curve of the BA accrual would denote the curve of how fast people zero in on the top. It could be as steep or as asymptotic as any equation can be.

Also, in that sense it IS sort of a rolling bonus, since you would get the higher BA rates simply by being smaller -- start time or new characters would have nothing to do with it. Also in that regard, it is perhaps why Jonathan doesn't like the idea. EXCEPT, LB's idea has a critical difference -- it DOESN'T reward the lazy (the reason Jonathan dismissed a reward-based rolling bonus). You'd have to click more, perhaps even setting that wee-hour alarm clock!

QBRanger April 2 2009 5:02 PM EDT

If the current levels of BA regeneration are changed to make it possible, with more clicks, to get closer to the top characters, then I am all for it.

With the current levels of regeneration, no.

QBsutekh137 April 2 2009 5:04 PM EDT

Agreed. The current ranges and cutoffs for the various BA accrual rates wouldn't work. It would all have to be tweaked into a new equation with the "rolling" nature baked in.

AdminTitan [The Sky Forge] April 2 2009 5:06 PM EDT

Yeah, LB's idea is pretty much exactly like a rolling bonus, except the bonus is more BA, instead of a percentage to rewards.

QBRanger April 2 2009 5:06 PM EDT

I would like to see one more variable put into play.

That is a potential VPR one can attain by buying all the rest of ones minions at the higher cost.

True, not everyone does so, but I personally think, from experiencing it thrice, that losing a MPR slot due to someone buying minions is rather bad.

Something has to be done to prevent such a travesty from happening again.

AdminTitan [The Sky Forge] April 2 2009 5:08 PM EDT

We could ask 3/4 how much he can higher his minion for, the use that to calculate his total xp with 4 minions, then compare that to LA to get a rough idea.

Zenai April 2 2009 8:38 PM EDT

"Also, in that sense it IS sort of a rolling bonus, since you would get the higher BA rates simply by being smaller -- start time or new characters would have nothing to do with it. Also in that regard, it is perhaps why Jonathan doesn't like the idea. EXCEPT, LB's idea has a critical difference -- it DOESN'T reward the lazy (the reason Jonathan dismissed a reward-based rolling bonus). You'd have to click more, perhaps even setting that wee-hour alarm clock! "

Just my Opinion

Personally Im not into Sleep deprivation and this idea caters to it imho which is not a good thing for everyone. I fight a lot due to a nice phone which has been the only way I have been able to stay competitive not everyone has this option. This would also cut out others that have the drive but not the time to throw into this, like people who have jobs, go to school, have higher obligations or have limited internet access intervals. Those who don't have jobs, don't go to school, have limited obligations or are always able to access the internet will be rewarded for what BEING there? How fair is that to those who have real dedication? People who actually make this game interesting once the Clicking is done? Maybe an addition to this idea would be a good thing, some tweaking to include all parties or as close to all angles as possible. Don't get me wrong I think overall it is a good idea, BUT, I also believe that it is in some ways unfair to some parties that make this game worth staying in the first place. Cut out the heart and CB will die.

QBRanger April 2 2009 8:46 PM EDT

Well Z,

In JS's scenario, you can fight as much as someone at the top but will not gain any ground on them.

Fight more, get a bit less sleep, get home from work an hour earlier, play a bit more on your phone and you can gain on them.

Also, I suspect the amount of BA you can buy during the day will increase as well, giving you a bit more growth there compared to the top if you use that.

IF the BA regeneration zones are changed, and the top zone is truly for the top 5-10%, then I like this idea. If the regeneration zones stay the same, that is the top 40% get the same, then this idea is not so good.

QBRanger April 2 2009 8:47 PM EDT

Sorry, very sorry.

I need to give credit to Lord Bob who came up with the idea.

JS comes up with so many others I got confused in my old age.

Zenai April 2 2009 9:03 PM EDT

I didn't say it was a bad idea, with a few tweaks it would be a great idea. I just think that as long as it is an educated idea that is what matters most. I dropped an angle for thought is all, nothing gets better without people pointing out the discrepancies. :)

Cube April 3 2009 12:24 AM EDT

A rolling bonus can work, but I've already explained a while ago how if you do it with BA rate, you get either ridiculously high or low BA rates on the extremes; or it literally takes years to get to the top.

It promotes laziness in that once you get near the top, as you put more work into it, you get less out of it, which isn't that bad imo.

If you use the 6 months ideal that exists now, you'd have a minimum BA rate of 6 and a maximum of 24. Would you wake up every two hours to compete? As I said in Sickone's thread I don't like the idea of sleep deprivation competition, but maybe that's just me. Not to mention it has to constantly increase and BA regen rate is very stepwise.

It's so much easier to make it by xp bonus.

QBRanger April 3 2009 12:37 AM EDT

One could also raise the BA storage cap for those in the very fast BA regeneration zones.

Giving more BA that way as well. If they do well, they would quickly move and get to slower BA regen zones and less BA storage ability.

TheHatchetman April 3 2009 12:41 AM EDT

"or it literally takes years to get to the top. "

This is a good thing... I believe the idea behind the NUB is to retain new players by giving them a fair chance at competing when they begin, so that they aren't discouraged by huge characters they will never ever catch up to, not to get a NUB to the top by 6 months.

I agree with the the thought of the rolling bonus as most commonly proposed promoting laziness. But what if the rolling bonus was set to stay at a rate that would cause you to be at 90% of the top MPR in say, 4 months with equal effort. That doesn't mean you'll be there in four months, as your bonus will shrink as your MPR increases (perhaps based on BA cost?)... Seeing as it can take days/weeks/months for BA cost to change at certain levels, if you miss 3 days, you missed 3 days (byebye laziness factor?)... i don't know, i'm just spit-balling :P

Cube April 3 2009 12:52 AM EDT

Doing it by regen rate overcomplicates it, is there a reason to do it that way?

Froy April 3 2009 3:34 PM EDT

"jon seems to have a pretty good handle on the direction he wants for the game, what he lacks it seems is time. when bugs are not even getting any attention regardless of a growing list, expecting complete system overhauls or even requesting them is an exercise in futility."

dudemus knows what's up
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=002hvG">Eliminate differentiated BA regeneration rates</a>