NUB/NCB suggestion (in General)


Wraithlin November 18 2009 12:16 PM EST

The problem with the current system is that it makes CB into a 6 month repeatable game rather than a lifetime game. This just angers anyone that plays longer than 6 months with one team because unless they stay at the top, they will get passed by anyone that remakes a character.

The second problem is that people actually want a lifetime team, and other people want a 6 month team, so you have to make both happy. Yes, you guys are doing great at making the 6 month people happy, but here's how to make em both happy.

First: One NUB bonus ever, it's the same theory as it currently is, but build it so that when you finish the NUB bonus, you're designed to be at 1/2 the MPR of the top guy in the game. And that's not designed for a NUB to make it that high, it's designed for the best current players if they made a NUB, they'd get to 1/2 MPR, so most real NUBs should make it to around 1/3 MPR.

Second: Keep the NCB bonus the way it is, however making buying BA free for it, and when the 6 months is over, the character is autoretired.


**For players that want a lifetime team, thier NUB team that won't get autoretired will have still a large bonus for 6 months, putting them hopefully mid pack and can work up from there. And the older guys won't feel like the last 5 years of thier lives was wasted on this game as new NUBs without a clue still fly by them.


**For players looking for 6 month strat attempts and just replay leveling value, the NCB bonus would be perfect, and yes, this would be a way to make alot of money over and over again, but it takes 6 months at a time, if you say instead forged for 6 months you would probably of gotten the same amount of cash.

Wraithlin November 18 2009 12:19 PM EST

Actually now that I think about it, there is no reason with this system to only ever have one NUB bonus, in addition the titles would be misleading, something like:

LCB and RCB would be better: Liftetime Character Bonus and Replayable Character Bonus.

AdminNightStrike November 18 2009 12:21 PM EST

I disagree that the current system makes for a "6 month repeatable game", simply because there are two sets of complaints that are diametrically opposed. One is that people will keep running disposable NCB characters every 6 months. The other is that it's impossible to run an NCB character because of the cost. You can't have it both ways.

Adios Muchachos November 18 2009 12:28 PM EST

It IS too expensive to run a full on NCB... in order to get there you must first run several "part" NCBs.

1. level the tattoo and up gear
2-5. save every ounce of cash you get
6. run a full NCB


makes for disposable and expensive at the same time.

Wraithlin November 18 2009 12:29 PM EST

Under the current system, if you don't play every 5 hours, everyday, for the rest of your life, and you have a good strat, you won't stay at or even close to the top. Some people like Lord BoB for instance has about 1/2 the MPR of the top guy, but he's been here for quite awhile, he's just a more casual player. And he has to deal with NUBs passing him, now at around the 4-5 month mark, or sooner. I'll probably start farming him in about 2-3 months, and he's been playing since Jan of 05. That's just stupid.

I'm in the military, next time i get deployed guess what happens, my character goes to crap, I fall 2 months minimum or even up to a year behind. 18 months for the army guys. And you expect me to just pick up my team when i get back. Or I can just get a NCB, transfer all my gear and start over with the XP bonus and get back up to the front again.

So I guess you're right, it's not designed to be 6 month repeatable, it's designed to be played every 5 hours for the rest of your life....or 6 month repeatable.

QBRanger November 18 2009 12:41 PM EST

"One is that people will keep running disposable NCB characters every 6 months. The other is that it's impossible to run an NCB character because of the cost. You can't have it both ways."

NS,

I believe you are taking points from those 2 discussions instead of the whole discussions themselves.

I will try to enhance the discussions to make things seem more even.

First:

People run NCBs every 6 months. Why? A few reasons. First to grow a tattoo. The second is for the thrill of growing a team very fast.

Second:

The impossibility of the NCB run. People are not saying it is not possible to run a NCB. We are stating it is impossible to run one to the top ranks without MASSIVE CB.

Therefore in the absence of a realistic bonus structure that prevents all but the richest of players to make a run at the top, people are forced to do multiple NCB runs in an attempt to grow their tattoo and have some enjoyment, full well knowing they will never reach the top ranks.

While that may be ok for some, it gives only those with the most massive of funds a chance to make a real run at the top. Unless of course they multi with a NUB, which is one thing we want to avoid.

If we had a better bonus structure like a rolling bonus, there would be people who would do NCB runs every 6 months for the fun of it. There is no denying that.

But there would be less NCB runs as characters would be less disposable and more playable after the N*B ends.

Zenai November 18 2009 12:44 PM EST

1 Wraitlin please watch your language.
2 The NCB most definitely can be expensive just look at my NCB Diary Thread.
3 Several ppl here in CB are in the military and dwal with the same time constraints as you.
4 It is not every 5 hours for 6 monts. As you hit certain MPR areas you hit new BA Regens as well. Have a look at my Thread and click the last link NCB Stats Log. It should give you an idea of where these MPR Checkpoints are.
5 Not a bad idea I would suggest refining it a bit though with tis new input in mind.

Wraithlin November 18 2009 12:46 PM EST

The whole point of the rolling bonus is that you get a larger bonus the farther you are from the top right? New guy starts he gets 500%, when you get to 1/2 the top MPR you're down to 250%, 75% of top mpr you only get 125%, etc.

This would work just as well, since everyone with current teams out there but maybe have fallen back would be able to try to catch up if they want, and it doesn't matter if you take a few days off, it will just let your bonus grow.

Why isn't this system in place yet?

Wraithlin November 18 2009 12:46 PM EST

"Wraitlin please watch your language"

I'm sorry, I didn't mean to.

QBRanger November 18 2009 12:49 PM EST

"Why isn't this system in place yet? "

Because according to Jon, who is the only opinion that matters, it promotes laziness.

I still to this day do not understand how that happens, but it is his decision that only matters.

Yes, the more you do not play, the further behind you get and the bigger bonus you get, however in all other games with a system like this, you overall lose out in growth if you wait.

But even if it promotes laziness, it that worse or better than promoting multiards? I think much better for the game overall.

Wraithlin November 18 2009 12:52 PM EST

But that's just it, it doesn't promote laziness, that's just not logical. With a bonus that grows the larger you are away, it doesn't make you 160 games from the top, just build it so that you're 6 months from the top. So if you're lazy for even 1 week, and the top guys are not, you're now 6 months from getting that 1 week back.

So no matter what your MPR is, if you get the exact same challenge rating and game ratio as the top guy, if you play just as much as the top guy, 6 months later you're tied.

Everytime you take time off, it just puts you farther and farther back, if you're not dedicated, you'll always be 6 months out.

Jon's logic is flawed.

Admindudemus [jabberwocky] November 18 2009 12:56 PM EST

i feel that the promotion of laziness is a house of cards excuse due to the fact that if you stay here and fight every ba, as many of us do, you will be rewarded by having more cash or net worth than anyone who was tempted by laziness and just didn't log in for a year knowing that their bonus would be better when they came back.

yes, they would catch up mpr wise or get close to it, but they would be behind in the net worth game and therefore it is a self-correcting issue in my humble opinion.

Admindudemus [jabberwocky] November 18 2009 1:18 PM EST

my above argument is based on the assumption that the devs would take one of my older suggestions and the rolling bonus would not be tied to any kind of boosted cash rewards for nubs. instead of increased cash the new users to the game would get an increased period of free ba based on how long the game has been in existence.

this would allow new users to plow all of their winnings into gear for the free ba period thus accomplishing the same thing as the current cash bonus but with less "free money" for cashing out.

BHT November 18 2009 1:26 PM EST

A NUB without boosted cash is totally pointless. IT's hard enough running an NCB without more cash. I started with $20mil and Im at 150k MPR and down to $100k, that's just buying BA the past 3 days and upgrading my equipment.

Admindudemus [jabberwocky] November 18 2009 1:42 PM EST

read it again, you get free ba for a longer period of time than now, that will equate to free cash due to the fact that you don't have to start buying ba as soon. ; )

Zenai November 18 2009 1:45 PM EST

That is precisely why I told you to read my NCB Diary GatemaN it was not for my health. Exact costs at a lower Bonus % should have tipped you off to the higher costs of BA alone. Maybe next time you will listen?

Please read in it's entirety the information is priceless:

http://www.carnageblender.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=002uyJ

Kefeck [Demonic Serenity] November 18 2009 1:47 PM EST

Yeah no offense gateman, but that's really bad money management on your part.

BA prices are bad, but not that bad.

lostling November 18 2009 1:48 PM EST

RB ftw :)

AdminNightStrike November 18 2009 2:25 PM EST

One issue I can see right off the bat is that people don't play either 100% of BA or 0% of BA. Further, just because you're at the top doesn't mean you play 100% of BA. So assumptions like "I took a week off, now I'm going to play 6 months at 100%" are unrealistic.

How is that factored in to any of the ideas thus far?

AdminNightStrike November 18 2009 2:28 PM EST

"it's designed to be played every 5 hours for the rest of your life"

CB is a very competitive game. If someone else is playing 100% BA usage and you are not, you will not be able to compete as well.

Moreover, not all BA are created equal. Some people are very good about maximizing their returns. Get to 159 BA right at the beginning of XP time, only fight 6 point clan members, buy BA on Sunday between 0000 and 0400, etc. There are a lot of ways to make a week of BA count for a lot more than other players.

AdminJonathan November 18 2009 2:34 PM EST

The problem with the RB is this: either it lets you catch up to the top no matter how long you have gone on vacation, or it does not.

If it does, then what is the point in being active? There is none. That is what I call "promoting laziness."

If it does not, then it has not solved the disposability problem, just shuffled things around a bit.

AdminTitan [The Sky Forge] November 18 2009 2:40 PM EST

Jon: I can kindof see your point. But, as it stands right now. I could take 10 years off of CB. Come back when the bonus is 2000% and catch up with an NCB and cash like it was nothing. So.... which one promotes laziness.

QBsutekh137 November 18 2009 2:44 PM EST

Yes, but the shuffling is the point -- it makes the time taken no longer be arbitrarily determined by a hard time-span in the game.

Case in point: the bonus is now 6 months. Is that fair? If I never missed a single BA since 1/1/2005, and someone can get within 5% of my MPR in just six months, is that "fair"? A rolling bonus can be slow or fast, depending on curve, but _it will remain consistent_. In 20 years you aren't going to allow NUBs to catch up in just six months, right? Your own scheme does not meet the limit test. An RB would, by definition.

I am not sure why you think disposability would still be just as prevalent. After an NCB now, I have a choice: start over, or plug away at breathtakingly slow speeds. With an RB, I can pick up _any_ character I have, make it active, and get some bonus to help me reach the top. During thet time, I have to fight as much as the top or else I will never catch up. Yes, I could wait 2 years and catch up faster, but that is the same as NCB.

In other words, I am not seeing the downsides, and am seeing some upsides to some sort of RB.

QBsutekh137 November 18 2009 2:45 PM EST

Titan and I are pretty much saying the same thing -- well stated, T.

Admindudemus [jabberwocky] November 18 2009 2:46 PM EST

"If it does, then what is the point in being active?"

as i stated above jon, the point in being active would be cash rewards if we separate the current nub cash bonus from the xp bonus, make the xp bonus a rolling bonus and give the nub users free ba for a longer period of time than now to make up for the lost cash bonus.

in effect, those not staying active would come back to an xp bonus but would have missed out on all the cash rewards that those dedicated players had gotten in the time they are gone.

kevlar November 18 2009 2:53 PM EST

The question I have is would a RB do anything to thwart multis/sellouts? I believe there should be a competitive edge to the game and I do firmly believe anyone who comes in should have a shot at making it to the top if they put the time in. But as you get a higher and higher bonus, it seems that instead of promoting laziness, it entices people to multi or whatever to gain those amazing rewards. Would a RB encourage people to stick with the characters they have longer? And also, at the end of the NUB run, that's it... if you screwed up you're pretty much toast, so would a RB allow someone new who went through their NUB and learned the game at a slower pace to still have a chance without having to run a NCB instead? And lastly... would a RB allow people to compete for the top? I just read Dudemus's point about allowing free BA for a longer time, but I think if you allow new players to have a competitive edge from the beginning with a RB, that would be a much more effective solution to the game. I would also like to know if we switched to a RB, could already established players be able to start new runs and how would that work (like the NCB's of now).

kevlar November 18 2009 2:56 PM EST

^along with that, with all the selling out and CB$ sales.. it seems like it just saturates the game with everything, which already stated numerous times, effects the games economy in a very negative way.

Zenai November 18 2009 3:02 PM EST

dudemus: True not to mention if there was actually more Changemonths with Strat Altering Items or Systems they would definitely be hurting....

No offense Jon/NS/Verifex but as it stands now I can leave CB for a year and come back full well knowing that minimal if any changes will have happened. That in itself promotes laziness of players add a RB with this in mind then yes you will have an attendance problem. If you change that though an RB will be just what the Dr. ordered. In my mind it should be the community and freshness of gameplay that attracts and retains players not a stagnated and boring daily grind.

Just my opinion....

QBRanger November 18 2009 3:04 PM EST

Jon,

First and foremost, thank you for posting and I hope you are back for good.

Now to your post:

"The problem with the RB is this: either it lets you catch up to the top no matter how long you have gone on vacation, or it does not. "

It will let you catch up to the top. But... The longer you are away, the longer it will take to catch the top.

IE, if you play continuously let us say it will take you 1 year to get to the top ranks. Just a guessimate.

But if you play every 3 months, then take off 3 months, then play 3 months etc.... it may take you 2-3 years to get to the top ranks.

The benefit of playing continuously is a faster progression to the top ranks.

It also solves some of the problem of losing a week or 2 due to RL issues during your N*B run. If you need to take a week or month off, you come back to a slightly higher bonus, but it will take you longer to get back to where you were.

Example:

2 characters starting day 1 with a bonus of 300%.

Both play for 3 months, and get to 2M MPR.

Player 1 continues to play, growing to 3M MPR in 3 more months while player 2 stops at 2M MPR.

Then both play again.

Player 1 is with a less bonus (perhaps 75%), but higher MPR, while player 2 has a higher bonus (perhaps 125%) but less MPR.

So player 2 has to play longer to catch up to player 1, if both play from that point on the same.

So there is a bonus for player 1 to play continuously vs player 2 stopping for a bit.

But both, over the long haul, have a chance to get to the top ranks with a rolling bonus.

The person who plays continuously will get there sooner. But both have characters that are useful and not disposable as the current N*B finished characters are now.

One thing that is very important in this discussion is the RB would only apply to xp rewards and would be factored into bought BA costs as it is now with the N*B.

Only new players would have an increase in money rewards for the first x months.

kevlar November 18 2009 3:13 PM EST

"But if you play every 3 months, then take off 3 months, then play 3 months etc.... it may take you 2-3 years to get to the top ranks."

I think this is something that would need to be worked on. I think 6months (MAYBE 1 year) would be the time frame that would have to be tweaked to make it work. Someone would just want to start over, just like now with an NCB/NUB/Multi if it would take them 2-3 years, lol.

Admindudemus [jabberwocky] November 18 2009 3:29 PM EST

that is kind of the beauty of the rolling bonus system. you can play your old character if you want to keep it and get some bonus or start over and get a better bonus due to your lower mpr.

however, if you are only playing half of the time do you really think that you should be in the top ranks?

we also have to define the top ranks, is that the top 50 or 10? regardless of where you set the bar and what bonus system you have, with 200 people playing the top ranks will be the most active ones and that is as it should be, no?

AdminQBnovice [Cult of the Valaraukar] November 18 2009 3:30 PM EST

The issue I've always had is that it encourages folks NOT to buy BA.

Thus why I said in the other thread that a RB would only apply to bought (read EXPENSIVE) BA.

kevlar November 18 2009 3:45 PM EST

"however, if you are only playing half of the time do you really think that you should be in the top ranks?"

The way the NUB/NCB is set up it is much less than 1/2 the time (6months) compared to some characters that are still around from 2005. So yes, as compared to the 6months it takes for people to get competitive at the top with the current system, there is nothing wrong with that expectation with a RB (as long as people put in the time). It honestly is the same thing Zenai/Titan just said... they could quit come back and in 6 months be right back in it. The question that would have to be addressed as whole, would be what would be a fair time that it would take for someone to regain competitiveness at the top? (whatever the top is defined to be). You can't say if someone plays 10 years, it should take 10 years to get to their level. You just can't do that with an ongoing .. rolling game.

Admindudemus [jabberwocky] November 18 2009 3:47 PM EST

what you quoted from ranger though was stating that it would take 2 to 3 years if someone only played 3 months on and 3 months off though and that is the behavior i was referring to.

QBRanger November 18 2009 4:12 PM EST

If you play 1/2 the time, you could get to the top ranks but it will take you a lot longer.

But the bonus structure and time frames can easily be titrated to what is desired.

To the top ranks I would think is 95% of the current top MPR as that is the goal of the current N*B, no?

AdminQBGentlemanLoser [{END}] November 18 2009 4:16 PM EST

"The issue I've always had is that it encourages folks NOT to buy BA."

Nov, the bonus would still be designed aorund equivalen effort.

Sure, you could not buy any BA, and you'l still increase fatser than someone without any bonus, witout ever buying any BA.

But you can do that with a NCB now.

If you wanted (as all the anti laziness explainations above) to actaully make your way up the ranks, you would have to be spending equivalent BA, every day, or still find yourself slipping down the rankings.

Just like you would taking a lazy weekend/week break.

Plus BA is also a "stay and play" reward. eople would still purchase BA (if they can afford it), as it lets you play the game more every day.

And we all want to play more. ;)

AdminQBnovice [Cult of the Valaraukar] November 18 2009 4:18 PM EST

Person A buys all BA, grows faster and the bonus % goes down

Person B buys no BA, grows slower and keeps a higher bonus and more cash.

That's the scenario I've got a problem with.

QBRanger November 18 2009 4:21 PM EST

"Person A buys all BA, grows faster and the bonus % goes down

Person B buys no BA, grows slower and keeps a higher bonus and more cash. "

Yes, person B gets a higher bonus, but if they are not a new player (for which BA will be free), the bonus ONLY applies to xp, not cash.

Person B would have a higher xp bonus, but overall would show slower growth than person A.

They can choose not to buy BA, just like any current NCB, but they will not grow as fast. It is a choice, and one I think is fair. Like the current choice one has.

kevlar November 18 2009 4:23 PM EST

Right but how is that different from now? Someone doesn't have to play for any amount of time, come back and get right back into it in 6 months with a NUB/NCB. So there should be a fixed time with a RB that allows someone to get back into the thick of things if they choose to come back/ play again and put the time in... the question that would need to be addressed is how long that time should be.

The only thing about the RB that I'm not sure of is that it would allow everyone active to compete at the top.. so what would happen to the middle of the game? You'd have those that are new, and then those who are either inactive in the middle and the rest of everyone competing at the top. As it is now, it feels like the middle of the game are those veterans who feel like they are being punished and either can't afford a NCB or are dedicated to their characters and the rest are inactive.

What would make for a better game, the way things are now? Or having it more competitive. Would people lose interest faster / would things become more boring if everyone could catch up to the top tier at a faster pace? Or is it better to make people spend a ton of money to do so, or wait to buy a bigger character that someone lost interest in, or etc.? How about if everyone could compete at the top, how would you balance US spending vs. non-us spending (NW) characters? Would those that spend real money automatically dominate over those that don't? What ultimately is best for the longevity of the game?

I don't know I'm confused again, lol.

I think Jon probably considers all these scenarios + a thousand more. We can suggest what we believe is best, but no matter what, whatever Jon decides is what I feel is best for the game.

AdminQBGentlemanLoser [{END}] November 18 2009 4:31 PM EST

Why is it a problem Nov? As Ranger explains, person B won't cach person A.

Person B won't even get to the top. They need to use equivalent effort, and when they're logged on fighting, they need to spend all thier BA.

Sure you can skip that, and gain a few percent increase on your bonus. But that won't make you leapfromg the growth person A has had from earning more XP by buying all thier BA.

AdminQBGentlemanLoser [{END}] November 18 2009 4:32 PM EST

Kev, allow us to fight retired characters if that's a problem. Have them so they can't be adjusted by thier old owners (unless they unretire them) but they remian viable targets.

Ther'es now a wealth of middling charcaters for everyone to fight up on.

QBRanger November 18 2009 4:44 PM EST

Not everyone fights all the time.

I doubt there will be a dearth of mid ranged characters to fight, at least no more than there are now.

Wraithlin November 18 2009 5:11 PM EST

RB does NOT promote laziness:

RB does NOT promote not buying BA:

You get a RB assigned to you based on your current % of max MPR and you making it to max MPR 6 months from now, if you spend every point of BA and buy all BA.

Therefore, say for simplicity you get 100 BA a day and can buy 100 BA a day.

If you sign on everyday for 6 months and spend all 200 BA, you will get 1 day closer to the top everyday for 6 months, assuming you have the same win records as the top guy.

If you sign on everyday for 6 months and don't buy BA, you get a half day closer everyday, so yes, you will still get to the top never buying BA but it will take you 12 months to get 6 months closer.

So if you mean it encourages you not to buy BA because you can still get to the top, that is true, you just will take twice as long to get there, and once close once you lose the bonus, you won't stay there, you'll still just stay close.

Now as for being lazy, if you only log on every other day and spend all the BA, you're still spending 100 BA a day average, so you're still getting 1/2 day closer everyday, same as if you played reguarly but never bought, again you'll get there in 12 months.

So say you play 1/3 of the days = 18 months till you're near the top.

And why is this a bad thing? Do you not want to have casual players? A person who doesn't buy BA or plays casually will take twice if not longer than you to make it to the top, so you'll be outdistancing people that don't play the same.

Once they get to the top and no longer get a bonus, which you can probably cut off at within 5% or so, then they won't do any better than 5% less than the top, because they are playing fewer games.

Is it just that the top guys feel like there should be only 3 of them fighting each other round robin style and all of them hardcore everyday players with no casuals allowed?

Yes you can make it to the top (almost) without buying BA.
Yes you can make it to the top (almost) by playing casually.
Yes it will take you much much longer.
I don't see this as a bad solution.

AdminQBnovice [Cult of the Valaraukar] November 18 2009 5:25 PM EST

I do think it's an issue, getting a higher xp bonus and spending less seems like rewarding not buying BA. All these ideas seem to fail the fairness test (PoisoN!), no matter how sick certain folks are of hearing about it.

Wraithlin November 18 2009 5:32 PM EST

"I do think it's an issue, getting a higher xp bonus and spending less seems like rewarding not buying BA. All these ideas seem to fail the fairness test (PoisoN!), no matter how sick certain folks are of hearing about it."

Well if the goal of the game is to not allow casual/frugal players to compete, then I guess there's no point in a rolling bonus, but it's that kind of thinking that keeps the player base under 300 people.

QBsutekh137 November 18 2009 5:33 PM EST

How is NWO a fairness test, in particular? Yes, NWO is an original character. But NWO would see MORE growth on an RB, not less. Since NWO has always been just off the top, the RB would have been perpetually providing a slight boost. NWO would be just where NWO is now.

I understand how it might seem that someone slacking would have higher absolute growth for a short spurt. That is true, and is what we have now for the 6-month "spurts" known as the N*B. But as soon as a competitor came to my level, they would no longer grow any faster than me. That is where better BA utilization, better challenge bonus, and buying BA come into play. And yes, the competitor can once again wait and then grow more quickly for a bit, but, again, they could never surpass me if we were fighting at the same current rate. Even better, if _I_ need some time off, or have a bad run, _I_ get to grow back up.

In summary, relatively speaking, it is simply a spread-out, continuous bonus that provides no one-sided boost to anyone, and doesn't reward a smaller character any more than a larger character. Yes, the smaller character will grow more quickly, because they have more ground to cover.

Admindudemus [jabberwocky] November 18 2009 5:35 PM EST

i have to disagree with you as well nov and i do not think it fails the poison test at all.

could poison have gotten to where he is without buying ba? sure, but it would have taken him longer and that is no different than the rolling bonus.

AdminQBGentlemanLoser [{END}] November 18 2009 5:37 PM EST

"I understand how it might seem that someone slacking would have higher absolute growth for a short spurt. That is true, and is what we have now for the 6-month "spurts" known as the N*B. But as soon as a competitor came to my level, they would no longer grow any faster than me. That is where better BA utilization, better challenge bonus, and buying BA come into play. And yes, the competitor can once again wait and then grow more quickly for a bit, but, again, they could never surpass me if we were fighting at the same current rate. Even better, if _I_ need some time off, or have a bad run, _I_ get to grow back up."

This.

Far better than I could ever have explained it.

AdminQBnovice [Cult of the Valaraukar] November 18 2009 5:46 PM EST

The issue is the person not buying BA gaining more money. There has always been a choice with buying BA and adding NW. This would simply make not buying BA more attractive since the penalty to xp would be dampened by the higher bonus.

The fairness test is simple, no one should get to where PoisoN's NWO is without spending at least as much as he has over the life of his char.

Outside of applying a bonus to bought BA I have yet to see an idea that accounts for that. The issue with applying the bonus only to bought BA being that it would leave existing users more crippled than the NCB as is.

Admindudemus [jabberwocky] November 18 2009 5:52 PM EST

"The fairness test is simple, no one should get to where PoisoN's NWO is without spending at least as much as he has over the life of his char."

the current nub already fails that test miserably.

i could also equally say that the fairness test is based on the amount of clicks poison has made. in reality, any bonus that allows people to catch up fails some form of fairness test.

what i think the more important consideration is do we want cb to die, stagnate or grow and is that more important than our individual ideas of "fairness".

Wraithlin November 18 2009 5:56 PM EST

"The issue is the person not buying BA gaining more money. There has always been a choice with buying BA and adding NW. This would simply make not buying BA more attractive since the penalty to xp would be dampened by the higher bonus."

Here is the main flaw in your logic.

It's as if you assume buying BA holds no value while adding NW does. Buying BA can be called buying MPR. Your VPR (which is what determines rewards, both XP and cashflow) is based off MPR + NW.

So if VPR = NW + MPR and VPR = rewards.

Yes you have a choice, but either choice adds to the overall value of your character. Just because player A chooses NW and player B chooses MPR, doesn't mean you should hate player A just because you're player B.

AdminQBnovice [Cult of the Valaraukar] November 18 2009 5:57 PM EST

The NUB passes because the users are on their first chance, the ncb half passes because it costs at least 2/3 of what PoisoN paid. You're right that no catchup method (outside of the CB1 method) really passes the test, but I'm hoping for something as least as fair as the current ones or better. The rolling bonus is too easy as I've seen it described.

AdminQBnovice [Cult of the Valaraukar] November 18 2009 5:59 PM EST

You made my point for me. XP has value, and giving someone a bonus to it because they've forgone buying BA is unfair.

QBRanger November 18 2009 6:05 PM EST

The in your line of thinking novice, the N*B is unfair.

People who use it click far less than PoisoN and even without buying BA make multifold more xp than PoisoN did.

As long as CB has a mechanism for new players to catch up at an accelerated rate and has the same (yet more expensive in some cases) mechanism for older players, nothing will ever be "fair".

What we would like is a mechanism that lets everyone participate and keep their character.

Which I feel is far better than the current disposable character system we currently have. And better than the super bonus we hand to new players right off the bat for 6 months.

AdminQBnovice [Cult of the Valaraukar] November 18 2009 6:06 PM EST

So make the bonus only apply to bought BA (or free BA for new users).

Vicious Cat November 18 2009 6:08 PM EST

Jon: "The problem with the RB is this: either it lets you catch up to the top no matter how long you have gone on vacation, or it does not.

If it does, then what is the point in being active? There is none. That is what I call "promoting laziness."

If it does not, then it has not solved the disposability problem, just shuffled things around a bit."
===================================================================
CB didn't used to be a game of absolutes - when did that change?
Even I can see that you're only going to get to the top by putting in as much effort as the top players - put in 70% of the time, only get 70% of the way - it's not rocket science.

This brings up a disturbing point - in saying this Jon seems to be taking the easy way rather than thinking of ways to fix something that most people regard as being broken. It smacks of someone who has lost a lot of passion for something.

Ironically, it is Jon that has "gone on vacation". I'm not saying that it is not a natural consequence of having a real life with a family, it is totally understandable. What is not understandable is why, if he can't now spend the time to get the game right, does he not give it over to someone who can.

QBRanger November 18 2009 6:09 PM EST

And while xp has value, does it really have value on a 2M MPR character when the top MPRs are over 5M?

Or is there more overall benefit to the game to give those at 2M, (whether due to inactivity, RL issues, or other reasons) a chance to make it to/near the top. Given enough play, without having to restart a NCB with its almost prohibitive costs.

I realize no system is fair as Jon wants the game to progress, however, we need something to make things as equal as we can for all players.

A Rolling type bonus would be one of the fairest.

Admindudemus [jabberwocky] November 18 2009 6:11 PM EST

"You're right that no catchup method (outside of the CB1 method) really passes the test, but I'm hoping for something as least as fair as the current ones or better. The rolling bonus is too easy as I've seen it described."

there are some compelling reasons favoring the rolling bonus over the current ones though. the current system requires intervention and rescaling whereas the rolling bonus wouldn't. the rolling bonus would likely be a more permanent solution.

at some point it might be useful to trade fairness, as defined by one user, for a more permanent solution or for a mechanic that brings people to the game rather than driving them away. i have no proof that the current system is what drove people away, but it might be time to try something else?

AdminQBnovice [Cult of the Valaraukar] November 18 2009 6:20 PM EST

The bottom line is this, either you think it's ok for someone to match a January 1st chars mpr without having matched the money spent by that char or you don't. Look at it this way, if PoisoN had instead of buying BA, saved every cb on a farm, he'd have enough CB to NCB, match his current mpr and pocket 100m. Making that situation worse with a RB is not ok as far as I'm concerned.

Admindudemus [jabberwocky] November 18 2009 6:24 PM EST

well i really don't want to distract from the dialog arguing over specifics of fairness. i would much rather have a rolling bonus based on either all ba or only bought ba than the disposable-character, in-the-throes-of-death game that we now have. ; )

BHT November 18 2009 6:26 PM EST

Zen- I never once questioned how much it was going to cost me. I was expecting it and knew I could not afford it. That's why I never stated I was going to make a competitive NCB, this is simply a money/tat grow run. I don't understand why you targeted me in your post as I never said it was going to be cheap, nor did I complain at how expensive it was. I simply stated my situation and my opinion on what dudemus posted.

Also, dude, having extended free BA, does not bring anymore income in during their run, when they need it. It wouldn't be effective and we would have poorly equipped teams, making things much less interesting.

QBRanger November 18 2009 6:29 PM EST

All the BA one can buy in a RB situation would be subject to multiplication by the RB %.

If one does not want to buy BA, one will still get a bonus as the NCB does now.

But one would never be able to catch the higher MPR characters that buy BA every day.

So to get to the top, a RB would make people over time have to pay as the NCB currently does if they want to get to the top.

The HUGE difference is that one does not have to buy everyday for 6 months or lose that characters attempt.

One can buy for a month, not buy, then rebuy etc... Making slower progress towards the top and not having that character be expendable.

Agreed, it is not a perfect system, but it is far better than the N*B we currently have.

And I would define top as 95% of the top MPR. As Jon stated he wants N*B characters to get to.

AdminQBnovice [Cult of the Valaraukar] November 18 2009 6:41 PM EST

So you're saying you feel it's ok to get the same mpr for less cash and less effort. That's fine, I just disagree.

Zenai November 18 2009 6:42 PM EST

GatemaN 1:26 PM EST
A NUB without boosted cash is totally pointless. IT's hard enough running an NCB without more cash. I started with $20mil and Im at 150k MPR and down to $100k, that's just buying BA the past 3 days and upgrading my equipment. " <=== Sounds like an Implied complaint to me GatemaN maybe if you had stated it differently?

Anyway I figured that if you had read the Diary(like you told me you had), you would have been better prepared for what was to come and would be well past the point you are now as a result of proper planning and execution due to the extra relevant info.

nov: I would prefer that something better be in place for the betterment of the game not just the ideal fairness to one players hard work nov and honestly that is what Im seeing that you are saying. I agree that PoisoN has done a wonderful job with NWO and it is commendable that it is an original char, but, I think it unfair to base an ENTIRE system on one persons hard work. It is not just one person ,no matter how commendable, that makes CB what it is, it is the Community of Players. The Community of Players at this point is what should be the most relevant in this subject I would think.

Lord Bob November 18 2009 6:52 PM EST

Hopefully Jon will see it this time:
http://www.carnageblender.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=002WZI

AdminQBnovice [Cult of the Valaraukar] November 18 2009 6:53 PM EST

At this point I feel like the last person left who feels the way I do.
I'm good with whatever happens, but I feel that we're selling ourselves short as a game by making it easier to match the top mpr.

QBRanger November 18 2009 6:56 PM EST

The NUB and NCB is selling this game short.

We are just trying to make a better system out of the garbage we currently have.

Lord Bob November 18 2009 6:59 PM EST

"We are just trying to make a better system out of the garbage we currently have."

Well, I'm not going to go that far.

But I will say the N*B is simply a terrible, terrible feature. One of the worst, most unfair systems I've ever, ever seen in an otherwise good game, actually.

AdminNemesia [Demonic Serenity] November 18 2009 7:02 PM EST

This is the best way I can think of to explain one of the reasons why I do not like a rolling bonus. Let us take 2 new characters 1 with the ncb one with rolling bonus and say they can both end up in the same place at the same time with equivalent effort. So if you do a full run with buying ba for the 6 months you end out where zenai/LR are and if you don't buy any ba for the 6 months you end out around 70% mpr. Now if you run a non buying ncb and get to 70% of the top mpr thats a good run and now you can slowly work your way forward by getting a challenge bonus where possible and judicious use of targets and such. But on a rolling bonus you are at 70% of mpr and can now switch over to as if you had been buying ba your whole run and start going as if you were buying the whole time. Now 3 months later on the rolling bonus the person who didn't buy any ba until 6 months in is up with the 6 month full bought ba char and the full bought ba rolling bonus char yet he has not put in near as much money has earned more money during this whole time and is at the same place exp wise.

Zenai November 18 2009 7:05 PM EST

"I feel that we're selling ourselves short as a game by making it easier to match the top mpr."

Making a better competitive environment for player is not selling ourselves r the game short nov. On a side note I do feel the same way as you, that Top MPR spot is an incredible milestone to reach. It should not be easy to get there no, but it should also not be near impossible. With the current system without Mils upon Mils of CBD and possible USD injection and all of the other things involved....it is unfair to everyone. I think that is what is really selling the game short novice, a bad system is in place.....it has served it's time and is now performing terribly. It is time for something new and more fair to ALL involved.

Nem good points and I am glad that you have seen this. Now what would you suggest to circumvent this from happening inside the same system without totally killing it?

AdminNemesia [Demonic Serenity] November 18 2009 7:08 PM EST

Now, I think that we should change a couple things around a bit as well. For one I think that the top region should not be exempt from negative challenge bonus and also that rather than having 1 set time for an ncb run we should have a few options depending on how fast or how focused a person wants to try to run at the top. There should be a 4 month, 6 month, 1 year and maybe even a 2 year bonus. That way a person who wants to could get a bonus very near a rolling bonus and be able to afford to fight their way up with less money without making it a free ride most of the way. People can go with a longer term run or a short term one if they want to.

QBRanger November 18 2009 7:09 PM EST

Nem,

One problem is that the character who you state gets to 70% and then slowly climbs never really climbs.

There is not enough challenge bonus over 3.5M MPR to allow you to catch up to the top characters.

Remember the higher scores you fight, the slightly better rewards you get.

So the top characters currently fighting 7+M score get a slightly better reward than those fighting 6M+ scores.

The minimal challenge bonus you get can just about compensate for the difference, but I do not believe will allow you to significantly catch up.

And when you get to 4M MPR, all challenge bonuses effectly dry up, with no catching up at all.

While changing to a RB would be unfair to those who spent millions of CB on the NCB, it would be best overall for the health of the game and to keep people interested.

Right now the choice is to devote 6 months of pure play, and buy millions of CB of BA to try to get to the top. Missing a day of BA really puts you behind.

The RB, while not perfect, allows for circumstances that occur in RL and still let you have a chance. It will take longer the longer you are away or do not buy BA, but still gives you a chance with enough time.

Opposed to the alternative people have been using which is multis.

AdminNemesia [Demonic Serenity] November 18 2009 7:18 PM EST

Even I am still able to get a challenge bonus. As for rewards I have been testing those and comparing growth as well using our tats as the basis as they are a linear growth based on the amount of experience we get. The different rewards are actually based on PR rather than mpr or score and you only need a very slight challenge bonus as in 2% challenge bonus for a 6 mil char to be getting the same as a 7 mil char. And that doesn't change the fact that if you fight smaller chars you are going to receive smaller base rewards. Also allowing the higher level chars to get a negative challenge bonus will increase this difference.

AdminQBnovice [Cult of the Valaraukar] November 18 2009 8:14 PM EST

I was working under the impression that PR was what set base rewards (based on something you or someone else said) but Jon directly contradicted that at least twice. Any chance you can publish your numbers?

I am of the opinion that negative challenge bonuses for 6/20 will decimate the end game as we know it. I managed to convince at least one person of this the last time I rambled on about it. I'm of the opinion that the justification for the exemption is that the end game is supposed to be about beating everyone all the time, removing the exemption makes that a futile and foolish thing to try for. Without removing NW-PR (which I'd LOVE to see happen, the item econ would be saved) I see no way to keep playing the same game if the exemption was eliminated. I'd DE my stuff so fast it would make the whole of CB spin.

{CB1}Sparticus [Screwed Justice] November 18 2009 8:17 PM EST

Again I say, Death to NUB.

QBRanger November 18 2009 8:20 PM EST

Nem,

How many people give you a challenge bonus? And how high is that bonus?

But we need a system that lets people enjoy their characters and not have to hastily build one and if they do not they get rid of it.

AdminNemesia [Demonic Serenity] November 18 2009 8:28 PM EST

Right now I can get a challenge bonus off of KoP, Konoha and Incompetent Duo with it being about a 5-6% bonus most of the time. I was getting a 13% challenge bonus during exp time last Saturday though.

QBRanger November 18 2009 8:29 PM EST

Nov,

What I know or remember is that rewards are chiefly based upon their score. Jon stated as such in a forum post.

Your PR vs their score the basis of a challenge bonus. Which at 6 per regeneration cannot be less than 0.

AdminNightStrike November 18 2009 10:35 PM EST

Your PR vs their Score just determines challenge bonus. I'm fairly certain (I can check to make sure) that base rewards are based purely on their PR, combined with some heuristic on how difficult it is for you to win (damage dealt, maybe). The latter is why double tapping yields paltry rewards compared to an all out win.

Wraithlin November 18 2009 11:04 PM EST

"I am of the opinion that negative challenge bonuses for 6/20 will decimate the end game as we know it. I managed to convince at least one person of this the last time I rambled on about it. I'm of the opinion that the justification for the exemption is that the end game is supposed to be about beating everyone all the time, removing the exemption makes that a futile and foolish thing to try for. Without removing NW-PR (which I'd LOVE to see happen, the item econ would be saved) I see no way to keep playing the same game if the exemption was eliminated. I'd DE my stuff so fast it would make the whole of CB spin."

Let me get this straight..

1. You want your 4 billion USD worth of items to not count towards your character's power rating.

2. You want to make sure you can beat everyone all the time.

3. You don't want a system of letting people catch you so that you can continue to win all the time.

4. If the above 3 don't happen, then you'd stop playing.

...what makes this game enjoyable now?

Gee I win against everyone in the game, wonder what's gonna happen when i click this attack button today? Oh I WIN! Amazing! I can't wait to play tomorrow.

QBRanger November 19 2009 12:53 AM EST

NS,

I thought it was their score as when I have attacked a very low score but high PR character, I get crappy rewards.

kevlar November 19 2009 12:58 AM EST

I think both factor in some way. I fight lower score people with higher MPR and consistently yield higher numbers than going after high scores with low MPRs.

QBRanger November 19 2009 1:00 AM EST

Then should one sort their fightlist and choose opponents via Power instead of via Score?

All this time I sorted and choose via score. Was I wrong all this time?

AdminQBnovice [Cult of the Valaraukar] November 19 2009 1:21 AM EST

Hate to correct you, but I don't remember saying i'd quit.
As to 1-3, I think nw-pr punishes people for having and upgrading items, crippling the economy. I believe that having the top tier fighting to beat everyone is a core component of the game. I think that it should require equal expenditure to achieve equal mpr, if not equal labor.

Wraithlin November 19 2009 1:36 AM EST

"I think nw-pr punishes people for having and upgrading items, crippling the economy."

No, it keeps the game balanced because you can't spend $5000 and automatically be the best team without any drawbacks. The right equipment more than makes up for the PR change, so it rewards smart play not a big pocketbook.

"I believe that having the top tier fighting to beat everyone is a core component of the game."

I agree, but if you're only there because you've been here the longest and no longer have competition is it still a game for you?

"I think that it should require equal expenditure to achieve equal mpr, if not equal labor. "

The only component in this game should be time spent playing it? Skill has no bearing here, just how many times you pressed the fight button and won. That's not a game, you might as well go join a game where every 2 minutes you can click a button, keeps track of who has pressed the button the most ever. Woot you're at the top of the list of "I can press this button"

I agree that time should play a factor, which 6 months in order to be competitive is more than enough time dedicated to a game. After that, it is skill to stay competitive. The current system is actually near perfect, it just hurts the casuals and frugal players.

Demigod November 19 2009 1:40 AM EST

"The current system is actually near perfect, it just hurts the casuals and frugal players."

Let me know how it goes when you hit the 0% bonus wall after your NUB ends. I will actually pay to convert it to rolling bonus.

Wraithlin November 19 2009 1:44 AM EST

"Let me know how it goes when you hit the 0% bonus wall after your NUB ends. I will actually pay to convert it to rolling bonus."

Well I plan on, if I land near the top, which I doubt, I'll continue to play this team competitivly. More likely I'll end up 10-15% from the top, so i'll just roll a few NCBs to save up some money for a big NCB push with a perfected strat and shoot for getting in the top 5% and then staying competitive from there.

kevlar November 19 2009 1:58 AM EST

I do have to agree with people saying how much money they spent and how they should be the top based on that. It's ridiculous and I'd much rather see real money removed (for upgrading.. not for supporting the game through Jon with supportership, items...donations??)

But Wraithlin, your comment is out of line "I agree, but if you're only there because you've been here the longest and no longer have competition is it still a game for you?"

How can you question if it's still a game for him. Do you even know him? He has had to change his strat multiple times to keep an edge. You've been here since October...if I got that right. Chillax with the attitude and keep it factual?

AdminNemesia [Demonic Serenity] November 19 2009 1:59 AM EST

Just because you get 0 bonus doesn't mean that you can't fight better than the other people. There is still clan bonus as well as choosing better targets, making sure that you don't lose any offensive battles and also shifting things around on your strat to try to get defensive wins against your farmers.

Wraithlin November 19 2009 2:03 AM EST

It's not a slight against him specifically, I'm saying it rhetorically. Although it is coincidental because he does have pretty much the #1 team in the game. But if anyone gets to a position where they never lose, ever, I personally would find it no motivation at all to log on everyday and just click a button with no cares to strat or studying my opponents or evaluating my build.

And if this game is only based on who has been here the longest, then eventually, anyone as long as they are persistent, no matter how skilled you are, can be that person. I don't have any interest in playing a game that only requires dedication, not skill.

kevlar November 19 2009 2:16 AM EST

Well I only commented because it sounded like the opposite. I do agree, I think most do that you shouldn't have someone at the top that wins anyone all the time and that's it gg to the rest of ya. But Nov does lose, occasionally. Someone said, forgive me if I'm wrong, but Ranger had something like 15,000 wins in a row as a record in the original CB game before going to CB2 (I think Zenai was collecting CB records)? Some say that's awesome, but to me if that point ever came to this game, I would probably quit. I have seen run-a-way scenarios before and that is just dumb. I like this game because it takes a lot of skill to maintain where you are and even though Nov does have some nice win streaks, he isn't impenetrable.

AdminQBnovice [Cult of the Valaraukar] November 19 2009 2:46 AM EST

I'm in no state to reply, but Ranger's record of 15k wins was on CB2. He never held the top on CB1. On CB1, someone making comments like those that have been made here would have been given the textual equivalent of tarring and feathering, on CB1 if someone got within spitting distance of the top it was because they had dedicated themselves to this game with a fervor and disciplined themselves to a mindset of perseverance. The mockery we play now is a pale shadow ripping itself to shreds over petty crap and politicking.

This message was designed to give Todd an unfair advantage.

kevlar November 19 2009 2:53 AM EST

So you're basically saying I should be tar'd and feather'd? I had no clue that was on CB2. You think that is the way CB should be? Seriously?

kevlar November 19 2009 2:57 AM EST

That's pretty ... coming from you Nov... so you're basically saying that anyone coming within "spitting distance of you" (since you are the top) that they have not "dedicated themselves to this game with a fervor and disciplined themselves to a mindset of perseverance." ?? Ummmmm

AdminQBnovice [Cult of the Valaraukar] November 19 2009 3:29 AM EST

Sorry for the confusion, I wasn't talking to you kev, I realize you like participating in these sorts of things but alas I'm not really up for your kind of mock warfare.

I don't think of myself as "the top". My score is where it is because of a "feature" I consider a bug. I've stated as much. Yes right now no one beats me 100% of the time, but that's a far cry from what Todd, Moto, Freed, Jayuu, DAWG and Ranger had going. At least three of those were at some point unbeatable in any number of fights (maybe two). I'm someone who at a waning point borrowed a huge tat and ran with it as far as I could.

There are people here on CB2 whose efforts I respect at least as much as anyone on CB1. There are also selfish useless twits with no talent or intelligence who got where they are through back handed dealing and fast track passing lane pedal to the metal play. In suggesting that getting near the top here wasn't the same as CB1, I was comparing the difference in the attitude of newer players between the two games. If someone wants to make claims that I bought my way to where I am exclusively and am clinging to that spot only through raw force of will to keep back the hoard of talent just waiting for a "fair" chance I'm going to respond. This game deserves better than we're giving it, the people who came before us had the guts to tell
this sort of rabble off... we're just standing in the after glow.

AdminQBGentlemanLoser [{END}] November 19 2009 3:39 AM EST

Problem is Nov, it was the main reason CB1 ended.

Jon wanted to give all players an even field for taking the Top.

Back in CB1 you really couldn't, unless you did something like, utilising, the broken nature of an ELBow when you finally got it to x25.

The current Bonuses sort of give the level playing field Jon was aiming for.

But they do it in a disposable way no one really likes.

I would prefer to brush off my (current no minion) 1st Jan 2005 team, and actually be able to use them to try and fight to the top. I won't get there, as if I'm honest, I'm just not really that good at CB.

But at least I'll be able to pick my team, and have the ability to play them competitively, for as long as I wish to play CB2.

Unlike now, where I have to restart after 6 months, with a new team.

A rolling bonus wouldn't be any more unfair than *any* bonus (required for the level playing field) or penalty levied to make CB2 the level playing field it was designed to be, wouldn't promote any more laziness (I've become so much more lazy with the NCB. It just doesn't motivate me enough), or negate purchasing BA.

It would just change the emphasis from short term disposable 'bursts' to long term sustained growth.

Which I feel can only help CB as a whole.

We need every reason to discard the disposable nature of CB, and encourage players to stay.

AdminQBnovice [Cult of the Valaraukar] November 19 2009 3:53 AM EST

and I'm all for it GL... assuming that at the very least it's not done in such a fashion as to make a joke out of CB...

What the hell is wrong with having to save up for a few months to pay for a bonus?

AdminQBGentlemanLoser [{END}] November 19 2009 3:56 AM EST

It ain't a few months though mate. Take a look at how much Zen's NCB cost.

That's more wealth than I'll probably ever see in game! ;)

AdminQBnovice [Cult of the Valaraukar] November 19 2009 4:00 AM EST

GL: take a look at the NW JS has generated since his return, a person who set out to do so could generate that kind of money.

For those arguing for an easier path... how easy do you want it?
What do you think is an appropriate amount of effort?

AdminQBGentlemanLoser [{END}] November 19 2009 4:05 AM EST

Equivalent effort mate. ;)

Getting up early and burning your BA. Not missing days. Fighting clever and using a good strategy.

The current bonuses do this (and heavily penalise you if you don't) and a RB would do the same. With the added bonus that you don't have to scrap your character after 6 months.

Everyone would have to Buy BA. And if you run a NW heavy team, you'll still need a lot of NW.

I'm still of the opinion New Users should get a cash break (as the RB would only cover XP), and that can be made into a 6 month (or extending) time length of free purchasable BA.

so existing users migh talready have the cash and items, but they continue to pay for equivalent growth.

New users would get that extra (equivalent) growth for free, leavign them the ability to have more dispoable cash for Upgrades/Purchases.

But no massive cash bonus, that encourages playing just to sell out. Which I think we can all agree is a bad thing. ;)

AdminNemesia [Demonic Serenity] November 19 2009 4:06 AM EST

With proper effort you can make over 6 mil a week without ever using USD.

AdminNemesia [Demonic Serenity] November 19 2009 4:12 AM EST

GL with a rolling bonus unless it is done in a special fashion will not perpetuate equivalent effort. The smaller characters will just cruise most of the way up until they reach the point where they have equivalent growth then they can switch over to an improved growth to catch up the last bit. That is don't buy any ba until they get to around 70% where the lack of bought ba catches up with the increased bonus offset. All that saved up money that they get from not buying ba can then be used to have way higher nw, then they can buy ba normally and finish catching up. They get to the same point with far less expenditure and effort. That is what novice is trying to say.

AdminQBGentlemanLoser [{END}] November 19 2009 4:14 AM EST

If the RB can't have equivalent effort built in (which is what Sutekh among others were explaining), then by definition the current N*B can't either.

Which as per it's design, it requires equivalent effort.

Even with a RB annd slakcing, there would be *no way* to pass a peer (let along reach the top spot) without at least equivalent effort.

AdminQBnovice [Cult of the Valaraukar] November 19 2009 4:28 AM EST

Nem: I've been trying to explain my opinion for at least a year now, I've never been able to get anyone who was already on board for RB to get it.

AdminNemesia [Demonic Serenity] November 19 2009 4:30 AM EST

The difference between the ncb and a RB is that the ncb doesn't give any free rides. You can do a no buying ncb but you will end out in a lower spot and if you want to make a better run you have to do the whole start all over again. With a rolling bonus you can take the free ride all the way up until the bonus is no longer enough to get you higher towards the top without buying ba.

let me put effort as a number for you. lets say full effort is a 9 and no buying is a 6.

When you run a no buying ncb you end out after 6 months at say 60 effort. The bonus allows this person to reach 70% of the top mpr. The top mpr put in 90 effort during this time. Now, after the bonus, when you put out 9 effort and he puts in 9 effort you both get the same amount of rewards. In order for this char to catch up they must put in more effort than that other person. In order to catch the top the player must put in enough extra effort that he didn't put in while using the ncb. So the total effort would come out the same. The average effort is 9 to 9.

With a rolling bonus after 6 months playing with 6 effort this person also reaches 70% of the top mpr. Except now with 9 effort put in against the 9 effort put in by the top he still catches up after 3 months or so. In this case the person has put in less effort most of the time and then equivalent effort part of the time and caught up. The average effort for this would be more like 7 to 9.

AdminQBGentlemanLoser [{END}] November 19 2009 4:34 AM EST

Nem, I can't explain it any better than Sute already has.

:(

AdminQBnovice [Cult of the Valaraukar] November 19 2009 4:37 AM EST

Like I said Nem... don't bother.

AdminQBGentlemanLoser [{END}] November 19 2009 4:42 AM EST

"The difference between the ncb and a RB is that the ncb doesn't give any free rides. You can do a no buying ncb but you will end out in a lower spot and if you want to make a better run you have to do the whole start all over again. With a rolling bonus you can take the free ride all the way up until the bonus is no longer enough to get you higher towards the top without buying ba."

You can do exactly this with the NCB currently.

all it entaails thought is multiple free (no BA) NCB runs.

You contineu to grow your items and tattoo. For free.

Each time your NCB ends, you start another one, with a larger bonus than your previous, and gorw larger anyway.

What's the difference between doing this over multiple teams, to doign it over one?

That's the change the RB would provide. You wouldn't need to scrap your charcater and restart (and grind thorugh the low levels again and again). But the outcome is still the same.

AdminQBGentlemanLoser [{END}] November 19 2009 4:42 AM EST

Good god rushing to type and post at work makes my typing suck. Sorry.. :(

AdminQBnovice [Cult of the Valaraukar] November 19 2009 4:46 AM EST

I won't try and change your opinion GL, but I will point out that my version of the RB (admittedly a hateful attempt to eliminate any competition) where the bonus would only be applied to bought BA would at least solve part of the issue...

Multiple NCB runs are hard work, require constant fighting, and won't get you to 95% of the top mpr without buying BA.

kevlar November 19 2009 4:51 AM EST

With all due respect Nov, the post following mine you started referring to me. How else should one take it if you then lead into "someone making comments like those that have been made here would have been given the textual equivalent of tarring and feathering, on CB1" without even clarifying what comments you mean if indeed it wasn't mine. Please don't try and say I am using mock warefare... please come out of the clouds and be more specific with your comments then. Mock warfare??? .... good God

AdminQBGentlemanLoser [{END}] November 19 2009 4:53 AM EST

Why not mate? I'm not a stubborn die hard. I readily accept I'm never 100% correct (I'd be my Dad then, and I swore I wasn't going down that route...), and more than happy to be corrected when I'm wrong. Or haven't seen the whole picture (like the Fight Feed).

I just haven't been pursuaded yet by any current Arguement against a RB (or the NW-PR link for that matter!).

But that's not to say I won't be. ;)

kevlar November 19 2009 4:53 AM EST

"ultiple NCB runs are hard work, require constant fighting, and won't get you to 95% of the top mpr without buying BA."

Then why not make the NCB BA more affordable? Instead of something that noone in their right mind could buy everyone of as it is now?

kevlar November 19 2009 4:53 AM EST

"multiple NCB runs are hard work, require constant fighting, and won't get you to 95% of the top mpr without buying BA."

Then why not make the NCB BA more affordable? Instead of something that noone in their right mind could buy everyone of as it is now?

AdminQBGentlemanLoser [{END}] November 19 2009 4:58 AM EST

Kev, Nov wasn't refering to you. Well the first sentence was (about the 15K fights).

The rest was about accusations the Nov's dismissal of a RB is to protect his top spot.

Which I totally disagree with. ;)

kevlar November 19 2009 5:01 AM EST

Well then that's my bad, but give me the benefit of the doubt? Maybe I should have asked prior to ranting... but for someone to come back and say something as arrogant as "I know you like to participate in these kinds of things"... seriously ?? I could say some more but I will refrain, assuming he was meaning something else?

AdminQBGentlemanLoser [{END}] November 19 2009 5:27 AM EST

Just to go back to;

"With proper effort you can make over 6 mil a week without ever using USD."

Zen spent $1,660 on his NCB run. What's the CBD to USD rate atm? $3 per mil?

Using that, if I earned 6 Mil a week, it would take me around 90 weeks or nearly two years of fighting, just to get that much cash to run my NCB.

It's still more in game wealth than I'll probably ever see! ;)

Zenai November 19 2009 6:58 AM EST

Just remember that I bought most of my CBD when it was $5 per Mil you would have to translate that over to the new rate to have an accurate count.

AdminQBGentlemanLoser [{END}] November 19 2009 7:13 AM EST

At $5 a Mil, that's still just over a year's worth of fighting just to run a 6 Month NCB.

Wraithlin November 19 2009 9:52 AM EST

Nem,

Yes, with a RB you can cruise to 70% without buying BA, however it's still fair.

You're assuming that everyone in CB can play at the top 5% level of play. Which is just not true, maybe at most 10% of CB can play at thier level. The other 90% is too lazy or just not skilled enough with building a team.

Given the downfalls that most people have, just because they have a RB, doesn't mean they will ever be competitive, but it will allow them to grow and get within maybe 10-15% of the top, which for most people would be a sense of accomplishment.

For that other 5% that do play well and have the dedication as the top, but just aren't there for one reason or another, why would you want to keep them from being able to compete with those guys? Wouldn't the game be more fun if the top guys had twice as much competition?

Yes I agree it shouldn't be cakewalk getting there, but it also shouldn't be nigh impossible. I like to use Lord Bob as an example again, he's been here for around 4-5 years, he would benefit alot from an RB, and he can arguably compete up with thier level. For reasons I don't know though he's not in the top 5%, and under the current system he is years away from getting there still. I don't think it should take 2 years for someone with 4-5 years of playing the game to be competitive.

If everyone who played CB, played with Nov's skill and dedication, the RB would be unfair to everyone at the top. 90% of CB does not play like him, so even with an RB they won't be competing to knock him off the top, or whoever is at the top, but they will get to see what near the top competition is like, even if it takes them alot longer to get there.

Wraithlin November 19 2009 9:57 AM EST

Also to address the "fairness" for the other 5% that would now benefit from the RB.

New players: under the RB would still get free BA for six months, so there is virtually no change to the current system, if they are really top 5% capable, they will end up near there after 6 months with all free BA, and the arguement about a free cruise is N/A.

Old players: have already invested a large amount of time and money, it's not giving them a free cruise, it's just allowing them the opportunity to make up for past mistakes and giving them a second chance to compete.

AdminNightStrike November 19 2009 10:05 AM EST

"Then should one sort their fightlist and choose opponents via Power instead of via Score?"

Well, it is a supporter option, after all.

Wraithlin November 19 2009 10:16 AM EST

Nov,

You have 1.1 mil more PR than the next guy in the game. That's due to NW of items not your time/effort/skill. Time/effort/skill may have gotten you that much money to afford the items, or USD may have done it. Which you used is really unimportant to the argument because someone with USD can just spend more than you already have.

What you have done however is proven that if you can beat out the next guy by over 16% of his PR, you're a very solid first place.

If you don't think you beat most of your opponents because of your huge NW, you're just deluding yourself. You have 4.5 mil PR, the next closest guy uses 3.5 mil PR. Which another way to look at it is 220 mil NW more than the next guy.

I applaud you if you used skill/dedication to get where you are, but it by no means precludes someone with a large pocketbook from doing the exact same thing without skill and beating you out.

QBsutekh137 November 19 2009 10:28 AM EST

Nem, you lost me. For one, I don't understand how comparing an NCB run to a RB run helps. Of course things will look skewed or strange or just damned odd if you compare a current system to a new system. I don't see the point of that.

So, I'll talk pure RB, and run some scenarios:

-- Two folks starting from scratch at the same time. They will both grow fast, because they are so small. They will grow at the same rate, assuming they fight the same. Yes, small advantages such as finding better targets and good clan fighting will be rewarded less with the RB (because quicker growth means quicker loss of bonus), but it will still cost you TIME if you do not maximize fight by fight. That's what this whole bonus discussion is about -- trying to allow growth for new players that doesn't take the four years CB2 has been open. If one person maximizes challenge bonus on top of the rolling bonus, that person will get ahead quicker. That's a fact. Yes, if that person stops playing, the other person will catch them more quickly, but that is true now, definitely if both are NUBs.

-- One person starting from scratch, vs an old vet who returns and dusts off a 90%-top-MPR character. The new character will grow amazingly fast compared to the old character, but at least the old character will close on the top MPR a bit more quickly, and not feel as if he/she is swinging a tulwar through cold molasses. As the new character approaches the old, comparative growth will match up. And it will have taken TIME for the new character to get there, but not five years. How much time? That is up to how the RB curve is created. But I trust the real number line -- it can make absolutely any shape it needs to, and can approach limits at whatever rate the creator deems appropriate. Math rocks.

-- Two people dusting off old characters at the same level. Funny, this scenario will be EXACTLY like the first one. Two characters at the same level will grow at the same pace, with small nuances affecting them (challenge bonus, keeping farmers at bay, clans, etc.) Again, it is all about time. If one characters buys all BA, and keeps at it, they will approach the top before the other. It's just that simple. If one stops, they will be matched and then overtaken by the other, just like now.

Folks, the RB isn't going to be some kind of extremely fast Newton-Raphson convergence or four-point Runge-Kutta. I am not going to go from 50% of the top to 75% to 100% in three battles. It's not even going to converge as fast as score does when you find yourself able to beat someone higher up (but would be more akin to that, I suppose). It will be slow. How slow? Well, the bounds are six months on the low end (N*B) and five years on the high end (the life of CB2). Better yet, whatever time-frame is put to the growth function can have dynamic variables worked in, such as how long CB has been up. That is one area the current NUB _definitely_ fails. If CB2 is open in ten years from now, the NUB is going to be like riding a firecracker. Every loss will result in noticeable growth loss, meaning experimentation will become tentative and full of trepidation. A NUB that DOES find good targets will grow TOO much. Either that, or the NUB will have to be spread out to 12, 18, 24 months, thereby defeating the whole purpose of a "quick" start for new players. In short, the NUB system cannot stand the test of time on basic mathematics. It falls apart at the high end-point.

A rolling bonus cannot, by definition, ever succumb to such mathematical imbalance. Because it rolls. That's a given. It rolls like life, like aging, like maturity, like learning, like art. Sounds like a perfect match for a game like CB, and sounds like a perfect match for the community.

Admindudemus [jabberwocky] November 19 2009 10:38 AM EST

sut stated the case beautifully!

one aspect he didn't touch on though that i have always found intriguing regarding a rolling bonus is the ability to stay competitive.

what happens now, from 3 runs on ncb's over the past four years, is that if you can make it to the top ten and have a good strategy, you can likely stay there for some time.

if you only make it to the top 25 though you will soon find yourself being slowly nudged down in the rankings. this is even if you are fighting an equal number of fights as the top dogs and in an active clan, and fighting intelligently.

this fosters the disposable teams we have now. i see how high i can get, up my gear a bit as i slowly fall down in the rankings all the while watching the bonus and my tattoo to see when i can try once again and get some good tat growth out of a new run.

my strategies aren't bad, but i refuse to put in usd other than namings and that is likely the difference between me and the top players.

with a rolling bonus we will all be able to stay up near the top and not feel quite so much like we are always falling out or being replaced.

think of it this way, we now have around 200 active players and about fifty really active at the top (probably an overestimate). wouldn't it be more fun for everyone if the majority of the 200 were all above 4m mpr and fighting constantly? ; )

QBsutekh137 November 19 2009 10:41 AM EST

Nov, my "dedication" on CB1 (as I did reach the top), was pretty paltry, even compared to a NUB here in CB2. I started in May 2003, and by the end of that year was poised near the top. Then came some USD to hammer it home, since there was NO WAY I was going to catch Strum or Todd without that. Strum sold out, and Todd hit the wall on how much pure gear could do (until he maxed out AC so far that high AC plus VA made him unstoppable if he could hit). I took the top by playing the dex game and using some Decay (thanks to peter and Myonax), but it didn't last long.

In any case, my "dedication" was really only about 8 months long. That's because it was possible to catch up in that time. Here, the doors have been open for almost five years. No one is going to be able to start without a bonus and even reach 6/20.

So then, the logical questions are: Should we have a bonus? That is not negotiable. The game creator has decided he wants one, and my illustration above at least somewhat supports that ideal.

Next, how long should the bonus be? Currently it is six months, while the game is five years old. It is already possible to see this will not be sustainable. Either the bonus period will have to get longer and longer (defeating its purpose), or it will become so massive so as to be practically binary. In fifty years, the NUB would simply be a big red "WIN" button in comparison to what a veteran will potentially have done. (I fully realize CB will probably not be around in 50 years, but taking schemes to their limit is a highly effective tool in seeing how sustainable they are).

Finally, how step-wise should the bonus be? Currently, it is on or off, and when it turns off, it breaks hearts. It leads to discontent, sell-outs, and character disposability. It also forces various NW/PR linkages to HAVE to be in effect, because large gear doesn't play well in that sandbox. Characters and MPR are disposable while items get bigger and bigger. So we have people playing tattoo musical chairs and folks squeaking out every bit of weapon allowance they can, etc. I'm not saying that isn't an interesting aspect of the game for some (I find it droll, tedious, and the very absence of "fun"), but is it as fun as really devoting yourself, long-term, to a single, viable character?

The Rolling Bonus passes these tests, in my opinion:

Is it a bonus? Check.
Does it pass the test of time-span and future feasibility? Check. Is it gentle in its implementation so that folks might be more prone to holding onto characters, even if they do need to take a break? Check.

Sounds like a decent idea to me.

QBsutekh137 November 19 2009 10:42 AM EST

Hopefully my additional response to novice fleshes out my previous post a bit more (as dudemus has already eloquently stated in his).

AdminQBnovice [Cult of the Valaraukar] November 19 2009 11:24 AM EST

I'm not ignoring the opinions of folks in favor the bonus. I'm trying to get across what I see as a serious flaw in the system as it's being suggested. I've offered a work around that I think might solve it... I've spent hours defending myself. I'm as aware of the issues with the current system as anyone. No one has of yet actually answered Nem's explanation of my issue with it, "you lost me" is hardly a response.
The reason for comparison is simple, the existing "broken" system is at face value more "fair" than the one being suggested.

I'm deadly serious about my previous question... How easy do you all want it to be?

QBsutekh137 November 19 2009 11:34 AM EST

Then you are going to have to re-summarize what you and Nem are saying. I was lost on length, not on substance, but I can't pinpoint what you think is wrong with the RB, or how you would fix it, without reading everything (including personal jabs, off-topic rants, and simply unrelated stuff).

I'm not going to do that.

That's why I re-summarized what I, GL, and dudemus have been saying, for a one-stop-shop on how I (and some other folks) see it. No animosity, no ultra-intensity.

Can you redux it for me so we can talk? I'm sorry I can't keep up with threads like this, but I just...can't. I have a life, and I am not on as much since I don't play. But I still want to help if I can.

QBRanger November 19 2009 11:36 AM EST

"How easy do you all want it to be?"

At least harder than the NUB. But a bit easier than the NCB.

Right now with the NUB you grow without any money restraints. In fact you get tons of money. Which of course is needed to compete with players with years of playing. A rolling bonus would give them the same beginning growth that slows down but never stops.

However the NCB, to make a run at the top is prohibitively expensive. That can be subjective and one can say "you have to earn it". However, as others have shown, the cost is so prohibitive that those with USD backing are the only ones that can do a serious run at the top.

A rolling bonus would let more players have a chance at the top who are already in the game and have not played full bore for years.

Yes, of course that may be unfair to PoisoN or others who have played for years continuously. But we need to look at the overall picture and make the game better for everyone, and not just those who are addicted.

QBsutekh137 November 19 2009 11:38 AM EST

For the record, I have no problem with the RB being applied to purchased B, in theory. I don't really care how an RB is physically implemented. What I'm not sure I understand is why you think that is so much better/necessary? If everyone just buys BA, and the RB then works as GL, dude, Ranger, and I have been discussing, what is the difference? The only one as I see it would be that the RB would help mages more, since they would be using cash directly for their offense, while tanks would be that much poorer to upgrade gear. Why would that be a good thing?

QBsutekh137 November 19 2009 11:40 AM EST

Ranger nailed it:

"At least harder than the NUB. But a bit easier than the NCB. "

That is a more succinct way of saying my version of it, "So that it takes less time than the life of CB2, but more time than six months, because it is all about TIME, and the current mathematical construct for bonuses is simply not sustainable in the long-term."

nov, if possible, can you summarize your points in a similar fashion, as I am extremely interested in what you have to say on the issue. Nem too.

AdminQBnovice [Cult of the Valaraukar] November 19 2009 12:08 PM EST

I'm posting this in spite of the fact I don't believe it will do anything other than make me sound like a parrot repeating what Nem has already said.

A person to whom the rolling bonus applies (assuming it's not based on bought BA) can simply forgo buying BA, grow more slowly (thereby maintaining a higher bonus because of that slower growth) and save money. Upon reaching a point where they are within arms length of the top (Nem used 70% as an example) they take the cash they would have spent on BA and begin buying BA.

Wraithlin November 19 2009 12:37 PM EST

Yes that is a flaw, but there is a very very minor percent of the population that will do that. Also, unless they are actually good at the game, it doesn't even matter if they do it. They will break into the upper 5% for a month, and then fall back down and stay there.

The only people in CB that will take that route are people with the same knowledge as the top players and the patience to take twice as long to reach the top knowing full well they could of made it there in half the time, just so they can spend more money on gear.

Most people in CB are not top 5% material and therefore will never be competive no matter what bonus you give them. Heck 50% of the community you could get a 1000% bonus for the rest of thier lives and they won't see the top 10%.

QBsutekh137 November 19 2009 12:43 PM EST

novice, I appreciate you taking the time to summarize for me, and I don't think you sound like a parrot. You and Nem are just really, really smart, and great minds think alike. *smile*

You are 100% correct on the scenario you lay out. Not to speak TOO far out of turn, but I believe Ranger, GL, dudemus, and I would not find any factual fault with what you are saying. It is correct.

But as you say yourself, it would take the non-BA person longer to move up. Yes, such a player would be saving cash during the higher-bonus fights (because of the wider disparity between them and the top). I understand you loud and clear. BUT, they would be growing THAT MUCH SLOWER, because they would be squandering the chance to utilize that growth (buy fighting more) while being smaller.

Add to that the fact that BA gets more expensive as you grow, right? Amortize that scenario out, and would it really pay to delay BA expenditures?

I think of it like this: like a 30-year mortgage. Yes, I _could_ take the following course when buying a house:

-- Save money, investing it on non-real-estate so it grows (hopefully) so that I can pay cash on the barrel in a few years.
-- At that time, I put my money on the house, so my down-payment is lower (or even non-existent).
-- With the money I save then on house payments, I can invest more.

Sounds smart, right? But it isn't actually all that clear-cut. You see, it only matters if the growth you are getting pre-house is better than the very low interest rate you can usually get a house for (comparatively, anyway). Debt is not always a bad thing. Plus, a house's value generally grows over time (we could debate that ad infinitum -- I've seen good and bad in that regard, real estate can be risky), further muddling the overall financial landscape. Sure, you might be growing money quicker pre-house, but you're without a house during that time. How long do you play that out? Forever? Many experts (well, perceived experts) range their opinions on house buying from the investment side (buy as soon as you can afford it) to the lifestyle side (buy one when you need it, because that's what it is for).

Maybe it's a bad analogy, but deciding when to "invest" along the Rolling Bonus curve would be similar to what I mention above. Do you strike hot and continuous? Or save and strike later when bonuses are less? Or, save money for gear vs being a mage? These are all the CLASSIC CB questions you already answer every day, rising to the challenge. Maybe you WOULD by BA, even at a lower level, if you found a nice soft target for a while or were feeling clan heat. Alternately, maybe you WOULDN'T by BA when higher, because you would realize you need to up your DBs to compete.

Does that make sense? Let me reiterate -- I COMPLETELY see your point, because it is smart and well made. And I find the point INTRIGUING. But to me it isn't biased, unfair, or skewed -- it is a new dimension. It just _feels_ weird because of that newness.

That's why I said don't compare to the current bonus structure... because it makes the newness seem even more off-putting. No, think of the Rolling Bonus on its own merits, and play out scenarios that way. I don't think the BA-buying angle of it makes it worse or more unfair. On the contrary, it could make it more spicy, or at least as spicy as the soup we have now!

QBRanger November 19 2009 12:45 PM EST

"A person to whom the rolling bonus applies (assuming it's not based on bought BA) can simply forgo buying BA, grow more slowly (thereby maintaining a higher bonus because of that slower growth) and save money. Upon reaching a point where they are within arms length of the top (Nem used 70% as an example) they take the cash they would have spent on BA and begin buying BA. "

Possible but not likely.

Right now the bought BA accounts for 1/4th of the total BA you can get in one day. So if someone forgos buying they will simply fall further behind those buying BA with the Rolling Bonus and those already at the top buying their BA with little or no RB.

If you want to get to the top ranks, one has to essentially buy BA. That is a know fact with the way things are now, with or without the N*B. So nothing really changes in that regard.

But even if you do not fall behind not buying BA, and manage to slowly catch up to 70% (as in Nem's example) it would take a lot longer than if you did buy BA. So you are spending more time to catch up vs money to catch up if you buy BA.

That is a balance I can live with. Especially given the current system.

QBJohnnywas November 19 2009 12:57 PM EST

I'm not sure what I think about the N*B or rolling bonuses.

But it says a lot about the current system how many of the players near the top have characters that they have bought. There are a lot of us in the top 25 with a char that is bought. And it's not about a lack of commitment to the game, or inability to run an NCB properly or laziness. It gave people better chars than they would have gotten by running an NCB. Without spending huge chunks of cash on BA.

(Just for the record the people with bought chars have since worked damn hard on them and are all pretty much without exception players who have been here for years)

lostling November 19 2009 12:59 PM EST

actually... its kinda easy to solve the buying BA problem... let people EARN money when buying BA... or at least break even... and adjust the bonus accordingly...

lostling November 19 2009 1:06 PM EST

another suggestion... remove score and base challenge bonus off PR to PR ratios

Admindudemus [jabberwocky] November 19 2009 1:23 PM EST

"A person to whom the rolling bonus applies (assuming it's not based on bought BA) can simply forgo buying BA, grow more slowly (thereby maintaining a higher bonus because of that slower growth) and save money. Upon reaching a point where they are within arms length of the top (Nem used 70% as an example) they take the cash they would have spent on BA and begin buying BA. "

adding to what sut and ranger already said, wouldn't this all even out in the long run? in the above example, the one that is buying ba is doing so with a larger bonus to that cheaper bought ba as he is further away from the top whereas a player not buying ba and slowly getting to the top would then be buying more expensive ba and with a much smaller bonus because he waited until he was closer to start buying ba.

i have no idea what the break-even point would ever be, but i would tend to think that the cost averaging would likely take care of itself given the very high increases in cost of ba as you progress in the game.

i hope that is as clear for you as it seems in my head! ; )

AdminQBGentlemanLoser [{END}] November 19 2009 1:28 PM EST

Add to the fact that the more BA you buy, the larger you get, so the more rewards you get.

It's never going to be in anyone best interest to not purchase BA, if you're able.

bensonp November 19 2009 1:51 PM EST

i haven't read this whole post cause i can't be bothered but if there ever is a 6-month one time bonus then character is retired, have a leaderboard to see how u went so next time u can try and improve.....say like the top 50 best ncb's (after they are retired of course.
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=002vge">NUB/NCB suggestion</a>