Rolling Bonus Take Two (in Debates)

We have all gotten emotional from time to time, let's give the RB a fresh start and attack this as a community and try to come up with something workable.

Rolling Bonus Definition:

A rolling bonus means that the farther you are out of first place, the higher your bonus is for battle rewards. Someone who is brand new gets possibly 1000%+ percent bonus, while someone 7% out of first place might be only getting 2-3%. Whether this applies to money is up for debate, but it will definately apply to XP.

Pros:

-The flawed NUB and NCB system will go away.

-Players will be able to pick up any team they ever had and can compete with it at a competitive level without having to start over.

-Casual or non-USD players will be able to get to the top 10%, however top 5% competition is unlikely at best.

-Will allow all players regardless of years played to feel like their characters can grow towards the top.

Cons:

-Promotes not buying BA since you can just take more time and still get there, using your cash for NW instead.

-Promotes lazy play, only signing on once a day, or not even every day, again will take longer but you'll still get up there.

-Can be easily exploited by people who decide to work the system.


For Discussion:

Please if I missed anything with the definition, pros or cons add it. If you have any suggestions on how to fix the cons please add it. Finally, try to keep it civil, not pointing fingers, let's actually try to get a system that works.

I don't think you've got a great handle on the idea. No one has ever seriously suggested (Except you, right now) that a brand new user would have a 1000% bonus. Giving new users that massive of a bonus would be seriously detrimental.

Fix to not buying CB:

What if we had a Rolling Rolling Bonus system.

First calculation that goes into the bonus is what percent of your BA you have bought in your career. So your account would have to keep track of total BA you could of ever bought and how much you did buy. This becomes a percent.

Next, that percent is what percent of the Top MPR is your fast rolling bonus TARGET MPR.

The fast rolling bonus will be designed for you to get to your TARGET MPR in 6 months assuming you use all your BA, and buy all your BA.

After you get to your TARGET MPR, you hit your slow bonus. Which takes 95% of the top MPR in the game to determine the bonus, but instead of 6 months to get there, it will take 1 year.

Examples:
Person A buys all his BA. His percent is therefore 100%, however 95% is the cap, so his TARGET MPR is 95% of the top MPR in the game. His rolling bonus will be generated to get him to within 5% of the top in 6 months as long as he continues to buy at least 95% of his possible BA.

Person B buys no BA. His percent is therefore 0%. He is already at his TARGET MPR so his bonus is calculated at slow bonus right off the bat and it will take him 1 year assuming he buys all BA and uses all BA to get to the top 5%. Since we already said he's not buying any, then it is actually going to take even longer than 1 year, possibly 2-3.

"I don't think you've got a great handle on the idea. No one has ever seriously suggested (Except you, right now) that a brand new user would have a 1000% bonus. Giving new users that massive of a bonus would be seriously detrimental. "

I don't mean right now, right now the new bonus is around 430%, i mean at some time in the future, sorry for the miscommunication.

Actually there is another flaw with the Rolling bonus.

If you don't train your XP, you will keep your bonus artificially high by the fact that it is a MPR/MPR ratio calculation.

And on the other side, the top MPR can keep everyone else's bonus artificially low by not training his XP.

To fix this you'll have to create a modified VPR for RB caluclations only. Which would be your MPR + some % of your untrained XP. You don't want NW taken into account otherwise people with no gear would get really inflated RBs, so it actually needs to be a new calculation instead of just using the current VPR.

There's zero reason to not use VPR in that calculation -- that is, your MPR if you were to train all your XP, not some ad hoc percentage.

VPR uses your NW as well. The top MPR in the game has alot higher NW than almost everyone else. Therefore you'd be getting a bonus that will let you get to probably close to 20% over his MPR in 6 months instead of 5% under it if you kept your NW low.

In any bonus structure system, VPR has to be used/considered so people cannot game the system.

If people do not wish to full train and horde xp, fine. But their rewards will be based upon being fully trained.

Yes, please take untrained XP into account, just at the same time, please don't take NW into account.

The current model does not include PR, only VPR. So NW is not utilized and I believe nobody thinks NW should be used.

I'm sorry, and mistaken, I rechecked the wiki, VPR does not include NW, so yeah, VPR would be perfect.

The rolling bonus should be applied to the BA regen rate, not rewards. This gives all the bonuses listed above, without the drawbacks of promoting "lazy" play or discouraging BA purchase.

"The rolling bonus should be applied to the BA regen rate, not rewards. This gives all the bonuses listed above, without the drawbacks of promoting "lazy" play or discouraging BA purchase."

that would require some kind of clan overhaul as well as the bonus overhaul.

also, how would it negate the lazy play option? if you didn't buy ba your ba rate would go up, no?

"that would require some kind of clan overhaul as well as the bonus overhaul."

And I've already been saying that and providing a solution to it for months now.

"also, how would it negate the lazy play option? if you didn't buy ba your ba rate would go up, no?"

BA still caps at 160. If you want the full advantage of, say a 15/20 BA rate, you'll have to log in often, and fight often.

If you don't, you're still stuck with the same BA as everyone else: 160.

i must not understand your suggestion then lb, i assumed by the bonus applying to ba regen rates that you meant the users further out would get more ba.

rather than just saying you have been explaining for months how this works, perhaps you could explain it here?

I would really not like to see BA regeneration rates at 15 per.

That would mean every 3 hours one has to spend BA. Something I would think Jon is against as well after moving from 10 min to 20 min rates.

especially if that is the variable it would only get larger as the game ages?

"I must not understand your suggestion then lb, i assumed by the bonus applying to ba regen rates that you meant the users further out would get more ba."

Low MPR (VPR) users would get more BA than they do now.

High MPR users would get stuff like we're used to.

Rewards would not depend on BA bracket. We would all get the same rewards, regardless of the regen rate we get.

"rather than just saying you have been explaining for months how this works, perhaps you could explain it here?"

Or you could read these threads:
http://www.carnageblender.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=002WUO
http://www.carnageblender.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=002WZI

"I would really not like to see BA regeneration rates at 15 per."

1.) Did you forget the days of x/10? 15/20, or 7.5/10, isn't anything we haven't seen before.

2.) YOU will never have to worry about getting a BA regen rate that high, with your high MPR. Unless you retire it and start a new team, that is.

3.) 15, like every other number I tossed out on those aforementioned threads, is a sample number. I'll leave the number tweaking to far better number crunchers than I.

"That would mean every 3 hours one has to spend BA."

Correct, if you're at the lower ranks and you want to advance. The idea here is to get new players to WORK to advance, not get handed a spot higher than many vets for free.

"especially if that is the variable it would only get larger as the game ages"

Also correct. It would have to be tweaked periodically, or auto-calculated against the top MPR, like it is now.

well if i was a programmer and the choice was between overhauling one system or two systems i would choose one especially the latter option was "self-maintaining".

"well if i was a programmer and the choice was between overhauling one system or two systems i would choose one especially the latter option was "self-maintaining"."

If you're a game programmer, and you implement whichever feature is "easier," you're a bad, bad game programmer.

Eh. Is should read: and you implement whichever feature is "easier," simply for the sake of making it easier without regards for quality...

i never said easier, i would say self maintenance is also better! ; )

You said changing one is better than two, especially with self-maintenance on the one. Sounds like a matter of "easier and crap" vs. "good but difficult" to me.

Anyway, I already said there is probably a way to auto-readjust the BA rates. I'm just leaving that to better number crunchers.

you are attached to your idea it seems and thus think it is better? what i meant with the two overhauls versus one is that all else being equal. the self-maintenance is another plus.

can you briefly say why your idea is so much better because i am just not seeing it?

LB's rolling bonus way would be better in my opinion because it is not a free ticket.

"you are attached to your idea it seems and thus think it is better?"

Well, duh. Of course I think it's better! Slapping every CB vet in the face with a dead fish would be preferable to the N*B.

"what i meant with the two overhauls versus one is that all else being equal."

It's not equal. The N*B is totally awful, from start to finish.

"can you briefly say why your idea is so much better because i am just not seeing it?"

I already did. It allows new teams to catch up to old teams without the N*B and it's encouragement of disposable teams at the expense of long term teams, and it's bias for new players at the expense of veterans.

See the first post. Look at the pros, subtract the cons. That doesn't mean there are no cons, but most of the ones already brought up are also fixable.

"LB's rolling bonus way would be better in my opinion because it is not a free ticket."

Thank you Nem.

let people earn more or at least break even buying BA that way we solve the BA buy "problem"

What BA buying problem?

i am not sure why you are contrasting your idea with the nub, we are discussing a rolling bonus here.

since nem didn't explain what he meant i am surmising that you guys think people should have to click more to get up top since that is the only difference between the rolling xp bonus and the ba regen bonus?

"i am not sure why you are contrasting your idea with the nub, we are discussing a rolling bonus here."

I'm saying it's preferable to what we have now by a mile, and preferable to a rolling rewards bonus for the reasons I've already stated.

"..you guys think people should have to click more to get up top.."

Um, of course? This is common sense. Play more, pass people who play less. Simple as pie. Mmmm, pie.

ok, now we are getting somewhere...maybe.

forget the nub, we are all trying to replace it with something better so there is really no reason to bring it up.

with your idea, two game systems would need complete overhauls, it is actually no better with regards to the "encourages people to not buy ba" argument and is better mainly because it would favor people who could be on more often throughout the day...or teenagers. is that a pretty good summary?

"with your idea, two game systems would need complete overhauls,"

Correct. This is not a bad thing.

"it is actually no better with regards to the "encourages people to not buy ba" argument"

Incorrect. Since advancing would still be based on BA spent and not waiting until a bigger bonus comes along, BA buying is still encouraged to gain a higher MPR. This is of course, as it is now, at the expense of cash.

And don't forget, because BA still caps at 160, simply waiting a few days doesn't give you the same opportunity to catch up as a reward bonus. If you're not active, the bonus you would have gotten is wasted BA, and wasted opportunity. Logging in once every two days to burn only 160 gives you no more benefit than someone at the top doing the same (ignoring challange bonus).

"and is better mainly because it would favor people who could be on more often throughout the day...or teenagers. is that a pretty good summary?"

Teenagers? What now?

It favors those who WORK for the spot at the top, rather than just handing it to new players like the N*B, or to everybody like the rolling reward bonus.

"Since advancing would still be based on BA spent"

so you get more ba as you move along from one regen zone to another?

okay, i finally went and read the threads...again, you stated lb that the max ba would be around 15/20. if i understand correctly, and we all get the same rewards for each battle, then that is 2.5 times higher than the top spot would get? so the top spot would get his 100% rewards and the lowest would get 250% rewards for a difference of 150%.

if someone started today and fought all of their ba, wouldn't that 150% more rewards than the top guy take them years to catch up and that is only if they can log in every 3.5 hours to burn all their ba? if i understand correctly the ba accrual would go down as they near the top thus slowing things down even more?

if you increase the regen to make it take less time, then people would be needing to log in every hour, or 20 minutes even?

Ok, making a system where you cap out every 3 hrs and then start losing BA is actually a terrible solution.

Unless the goal of the game is to reward you for being out of school and out of work and not sleep at night.

If we want to reward you for having far too much spare time on your hands then I guess we can go with that solution.

5 hours is already rough on anyone with a job. In my job for instance I have work days sometimes with no access to a computer for up to 14 hours, no way to avoid it. So I should be forced to suffer here in this game because I work for a living?

Affecting the regen rate also doesn't promote smart decisions and proper play. There are times that your strat just doesn't have alot of targets, and you would need to retrain over 50% of your XP and buy new gear just to make a difference in your current bracket. If you were now also having to deal with an enormous amount of BA with a small target pool, even if you played 18 hours a day you'd find it hard to spend your BA.

3 hours = 180 minutes = 360 attacks on one person. You get 160 BA to spend every 3 hours means if you're down to 1 100% farm and trying to maximize your points till you can pick up another 100% farm, you'd have to be playing 80 minutes out of every 3 hours all day every day.

Down to 2 100% farms is actually a common occurance i've had, which is still 40 minutes every 3 hours. That's too much to expect in my opinion.

Wraithlin, the idea behind a faster regen rate is so that people WILL miss BA. Nobody seems to understand this because their desire for any given regen rate is based on their own online availability; the idea is that if everyone can hit all of their BA, there is no competition.

If missing BA supports welfare bums, or whatever you were trying to get at there, then why not just have no BA cap and let it accrue so that nobody ever misses any?

Admittedly, there's a balance to be found there; but keep in mind that available time *is* something that games reward, whether it fits with your personal schedule or not.

and the first glimpses of the level below us on the slippery slope we're on appears...

I'll say this once more, easier on CB doesn't really equate to better.

by your tone i assume you think more difficult does equate to better?

I'm just pointing out that we could easily leech the fun out of the game by lowering the bar...

However,

We can just as easily raise the fun by letting more people have a chance to compete towards the top without having to spend massive CB/USD.

if you had the choice though between a game that was difficult to get to the top and meant something to be there, but only had a dozen players or a game where there were 200 people within a certain small range of the top and all fighting all of the time, which one would you choose?

Basing growth on only bought BA would give USD spenders a HUGE advantage, and if they were also (somehow) unemployed even better! That is not a good idea IMO.
I think the bonus could have a low level cap on it so it never rises too high -- like 5o0% max maybe or at present 400% seems fine, by adjusting the slope of the lower level a bit down, it would take a new character longer to reach the top, but I don't see a problem with that, as long as they get to keep a bonus for a while (till 75% of the top perhaps and then slope down) and so continue to advance fairly quickly without having to spend much cash. This bunches more teams 'midway' up the ladder and allows greater battle competition. Perhaps getting past that pack then would be the next big challenge.

I guess I just don't understand the characterizations of reaching the top 25 of the mpr scale. I've see so many people reach it through persistence and good fighting that I keep asking myself how easy do people want it to be?

Should a person who fights half their BA reach the top 50?
If a person starts a char and invests nothing into the char what percentage of the top mpr should they have?

If we want it to be a walk in the park to get to the top 10% of mpr isn't that likely to bore the living crap out of the truly good players?

Isn't the fact that CB is challenging a key component of the game?

What chance do Dude or Hatch have to get to the top without spending tons of USD?

I would call them very persistent players.

There are others who would play if they had a chance to really compete for a top spot.

But right now your options are to play a NCB without USD vs try to multi. Unless you want to spend millions of CB2. And if you do, what items will you have left to equip a top notch character.

I understand you thoughts on the matter, but I think it is better to make things a bit easier than the current NCB system for people without all the USD you and I have.

reaching the top 25 to 50 isn't really all that difficult, staying there is virtually impossible at least without usd input. you then start falling away in the rankings as others pass you by.

doesn't the declining game population say that something is in need of change?

my goal is not to make it harder or easier. i would love for it to be more competitive and i think that can be accomplished by a mechanic that encourages people to keep fighting one team rather than the disposable nature that teams now have.

our population has been hovering around 200 with many of that 200 not even fighting, that says a ton in my book!

Why do so many people say it is impossible to move up? I don't use USD and I am still catching up with the top mpr.

If you create a system where you intend for people to miss BA, it won't work because there are some people that don't have to miss BA. The jobless people that can just set alarms and wake up every 2 hours and just take naps at night, and then no job during the day, and then you're just rewarding jobless, not skilled. And yes, if everyone could spend all of thier BA then it makes it more about skill and less about how much time during the entire day to give to this game.

I'm sure there are people with even worse schedules than me out there, I can only imagine how tough it is on them, forcing someone to be non-competitive due to a career is just one more thing keeping a low player base.

I've always assumed it was because they want it to be easier. It's far more palatable to say "it's impossible to reach the top" than "it's too hard, the only people that reach the top have to work hard and save to get there"

I agree if you don't dedicate to this game you shouldn't be allowed to get closer than 5% or 10% out of first place, but I don't think you should be punishing people who physically can't dedicate that time/effort for real life issues.

A nurse working 12 hour shifts 4 times a week for instance and sleeping 8 hours a day just to stay on her feet, but she happens to love CB. You're going to not let her ever get within 30% of the top with the current and many suggested systems.

We've already cut the BA regen rates in half... anything further would cause serious harm in my opinion. While growing the player base is important, knowing your target audience is key. CB is primarily a game for click addicts and I don't think further limiting fights is going to play well to them.

Not to mention I don't think Poison passes the Poison fairness test. That guy is a legend in my opinion, an orginal character staying near the top is amazing with the system in place.

I don't think it's fair at all to force him to never take a break. He sees all these NCBs or NUBs get up to his level with only 6 months dedication and he's been dedicated for years.

Under a rolling bonus he would be able to take some, in my opinion, very deserved time off, and then come back and dedicate himself again and get right back into the fray.

Why would any game want to let people get close to the top who only play a small amount? Persistent players certainly, Ranger mentions Dude who would appear to be online all the time.

But somebody that only logs in at weekends for instance? No, that I don't buy.

Somebody like Ranger, all differences between us aside, logs in a lot during a 24 hour period. I remember people talking about setting their alarms to wake up and burn ba. Sorry, if you're going to do that kind of stuff then you deserve to be at an advantage over somebody who only logs in every so often.

"We've already cut the BA regen rates in half... anything further would cause serious harm in my opinion. While growing the player base is important, knowing your target audience is key. CB is primarily a game for click addicts and I don't think further limiting fights is going to play well to them."

I agree, the top in this game should be the absolute addicts who find some way to put enough time into the game regardless of career to stay in the top. I think the top 5% should be reserved for those people. However I also believe that everyone that loves CB regardless of how much time they have to put towards it should be allowed to get a character to the top 10%, just to give them some satisfaction.

Nothing anyone has suggested would accomplish that.

The rolling bonus accomplishes that exactly.

Lazy/cheap players that don't play all thier games or buy BA will not be able to break into the top 5%, but they will also be able to get to the top 10%, which means all the people with RL issues, can also get there.

Besides how many lazy non-addicts do you think actually play this game long enough to get to 5 mil MPR?

They don't like it enough to play it everyday and try to compete, but they still play it for over a year?

Unlikely

the mpr difference between 10% of 5% of the top mpr is minimal...

Right now someone can hit 70% of the top mpr with casual play a minimal BA buying, they can compete and clan fight at the end of the NCB as well as anyone else. If they chose to, they can even specialize their strat and fight up, gaining ground on those around them.

This isn't conjecture, this has and is happening.

dude: I'm interested in why you think USD is required to hold a spot in the top 20... if that's the case I think doing something about that would be a place we could actually make a positive difference.

I think what we could do to solve that would be eliminating NW-PR!

Getting rid of this horrible penalty for folks with items would increase rewards drastically, especially for folks lower down.
I can't think of a quicker method of accelerating growth for lower level chars than to make keeping a challenge bonus easier!

Just to put things in perspective 95% of the top mpr right now is 5,159,517 and we only have 3 people other than the top above that. As for at 90% it is 4,887,963 and we only have another 5 more people in that region. That means we only have a total of 9 people including the top in the top 90% mpr level right now. If everyone and their pet can make it to 90% of the top mpr what does this make of the top players hard work? Also what point is there in forcing yourself to try to make it to top mpr when you can cruise perfectly at 90%.

Well you're both right, with the current 300 player base, 5% and 10% is not alot of people, maybe it should 10% and 20% as the numbers until we get some more people playing the game. The actual percentages are not important and can be tweaked, how they get there and the satisfaction level for everyone who plays is what is important.

We want only those who are truly dedicated to be able to compete at the highest levels, but we want to give everyone else a chance to play and a reason to keep coming back.

Also, I already sent in a suggestion on how I think the game could best use tweaking to make it better for people to catch up. I don't believe that a free ticket to the top for everyone is good. Nor to I think it should be forced from pure money or time. You have to make people work for the rewards in some way though.

"so you get more ba as you move along from one regen zone to another?"

No. Less.

Still capping at 160, preventing "lazyness."

"you stated lb that the max ba would be around 15/20."

No, I've stated several times, including on this thread, that those were sample numbers.

I'm just proposing the idea, not the details.

"so the top spot would get his 100% rewards"

Challenge bonus would still apply, so not exactly.

"if someone started today and fought all of their ba,"

Define "all of their BA." Per day? Per 160 limit? Per day plus all BA purchased?

"wouldn't that 150% more rewards than the top guy take them years to catch up"

If so, YES!!! That's the goal here! Catching up should be a long term process, not something handed to them in the short term.

I'd say if a new user fought 100% of their BA, getting to the current 6/20 spot in a year wouldn't be a bad time frame.

"that is only if they can log in every 3.5 hours to burn all their ba?"

Enforcing more competion at the lower ranks, as I've seen several hard-to-disagree-with members advocate for before.

"if i understand correctly the ba accrual would go down as they near the top thus slowing things down even more?"

Correct. This, as mentioned several times in the other threads, is not meant to create competition amongst the top MPR players. This is meant as an N*B replacement. Nothing more.

"if you increase the regen to make it take less time, then people would be needing to log in every hour, or 20 minutes even? "

Decreasing with advancement, not increasing.

Please read correctly.

"Ok, making a system where you cap out every 3 hrs and then start losing BA is actually a terrible solution."

Someone wasn't here two years ago...

And we already lose BA with MPR.

"Unless the goal of the game is to reward you for being out of school and out of work and not sleep at night."

Again, someone wasn't here before the switch from x/10 to x/20.

And I work during the day, and I'm still able to get my BA in over the six (or previously, three) hours. If you can't, you're still not worth the handout to the top spot, like under the current system.

"5 hours is already rough on anyone with a job..."

MPR: 1,105,537 ??
And a crappy NUB????
I doubt you would have much to worry about under my system.

"I have work days sometimes with no access to a computer for up to 14 hours, no way to avoid it."

Then lose. You're not owed a spot in 6/20.

"Affecting the regen rate also doesn't promote smart decisions and proper play."

Uh, yes it does. Because every BA - even when the rates are widened - counts, challenge bonus becomes key, as opposed to a rolling reward bonus, where a low challenge bonus only prolongs the inevitable top-spot handout.

"and you would need to retrain over 50% of your XP and buy new gear just to make a difference in your current bracket"

I've never done so on my current team, and still survived well past you (for years!!) with a positive challenge bonus. I call bull poo on your assumption here.

And if you need to retrain or buy new gear, oh well! That's the price of a bad strategy. Luckily, under my system, you won't be completely screwed though.

"If you were now also having to deal with an enormous amount of BA with a small target pool, even if you played 18 hours a day you'd find it hard to spend your BA. "

Low MPR teams don't necessarily have a small target pool.* If you do, you aren't doing it right. Adapt, and survive because of the higher BA rates.

* I have a low target pool, only because I fight the first 4 - 5 on my fightlist. But I'm picky like that.

"Wraithlin, the idea behind a faster regen rate is so that people WILL miss BA."

And OB gets it right.

"by your tone i assume you think more difficult does equate to better?"

No, I mean BETTER equates to better. If it's easier, fine! If not, buck up and implement the better, more difficult feature.

Read, instead of guessing.

"I'm just pointing out that we could easily leech the fun out of the game by lowering the bar..."

Which is what we do now.

"if you had the choice though between a game that was difficult to get to the top and meant something to be there, but only had a dozen players or a game where there were 200 people within a certain small range of the top and all fighting all of the time, which one would you choose?"

The former.

"Basing growth on only bought BA would give USD spenders a HUGE advantage,"

Nobody is advocating that.

"I guess I just don't understand the characterizations of reaching the top 25 of the mpr scale. I've see so many people reach it through persistence and good fighting.."

You mean the N*B. Not persistence or good fighting.

"If we want it to be a walk in the park to get to the top 10% of mpr isn't that likely to bore the living crap out of the truly good players?"

Doesn't it now?

"What chance do Dude or Hatch have to get to the top without spending tons of USD?"

Add me to that list: no chance!

"reaching the top 25 to 50 isn't really all that difficult,"

With the awful N*B.

"you then start falling away in the rankings as others pass you by."

After losing the awful N*B.

"doesn't the declining game population say that something is in need of change?"

YES! Kill the N*B.

"that can be accomplished by a mechanic that encourages people to keep fighting one team rather than the disposable nature that teams now have."

Funny, I thought you were encouraging the opposite all this time. Oh well, my bad.

"Somebody like Ranger, all differences between us aside, logs in a lot during a 24 hour period."

And Ranger has a big bloody job. And is STILL devoted enough to keep a top spot. The myth that those of us who are employed can't compete is expelled.

"I agree, the top in this game should be the absolute addicts who find some way to put enough time into the game regardless of career to stay in the top. I think the top 5% should be reserved for those people."

I'd say the top 50%.

"I think what we could do to solve that would be eliminating NW-PR!"

Yes!

"dude: I'm interested in why you think USD is required to hold a spot in the top 20... if that's the case I think doing something about that would be a place we could actually make a positive difference."

solely based upon my own experience. the only time that i got near the top and didn't fall away was using pre-nerf robf and evasion with igot noname. he was also the largest single minion in the game. he started falling away after the balance changes despite some strategy changes and using all of my ba.

kwai chang wasn't a bad run but he immediately started falling in ranks as of the end of it.

yes people can still stay up with the top using specialized strategies. many of them are using items that most see as too good though.

if it were that easy to stay at the top, with the amount of truly dedicated players we have, then shouldn't we have more than just say 15 that are really actually competitive players out of 200 users? it is all about scale to me! even with a rolling bonus there will still be the top 15 and they will likely be the same people, give or take a handful swapping out occasionally, but the rest will just be within a range that will make them stay with characters rather than "rerolling".

i don't deserve to be at the top by any means nor does johnnywas or oddbird. i think cb deserves to have more of us up there duking it out though.

furthermore, with the proposed rolling bonus i do think it would take more than a year of fighting before much change would be noticed in the game. the first ones to be getting up there would be the ones who fight all their ba.

those who don't or don't buy ba would likely never even get near the top. if all 200 did finally get up there, the top fifty players would be the best strategies and the ones that fight the most. the only difference i see from now is that we all might be up there fighting instead of rerolling or chatting.

triple play!

i also think that if the rolling bonus was implemented, instead of the 95% target we have now it should be lowered to only 85 to 90 percent of the top mpr or possibly even lower. close enough to compete and then equal footing. ; )

"Someone wasn't here two years ago..."

apparantly you think that the game has been getting worse not better as they change things. There is a reason that it's not like that anymore, my guess, the admins agree with me.

regardless of my experience though, the proof is in the pudding. if the current system fostered a competitive end-game, wouldn't we have one?

i say that the current system fosters disposable teams and a lack of competition near the top mainly because after five years of this system that is exactly what we have.

With the proposed system, anyone with lots of free time is benefited.

As welfare status is considered a sensitive topic when being used in an insulting manner, all posts using such a term in a derogatory fashion have been edited slightly (for the term, but not for the content.)

Please continue your discussion, this is one of my favorite topics!

"apparently you think that the game has been getting worse not better as they change things."

It got worse when they implemented he N*B. I was one who was in favor of the switch from x/10 to x/20, but if it means fixing the problems we have with this game I'm all for a partial return to the old rates.

And note that 15/20 is still less than 10/10, which is what new players used to get.

"There is a reason that it's not like that anymore, my guess, the admins agree with me."

Game developers are not always right.

I agree the game developers are not always right, but they are right in trying to cater to new people. The biggest problem CB faces is a low player pool. Many of the problems we all complain about only really exist because we have <300 active players.

The economy would be much better with an extra 1000 people, competition would improve with an extra 1000 people. Which are mostly what people are trying to fix.

The current system is actually very anti-new people even though it seems like it caters to them. Yes I'm getting a huge bonus and free BA, but there are so so many traps unintentionally, or I guess maybe on purpose put in place that just kill how fast a new person grows because of stupid mistakes.

Combine that with the knowledge that you gain after about a month experience of how it actually works post NUB period and you realize just how tough this game really is. In fact from the average MPR level of the inactive, most people catch on to how hopeless it is to be competitive sometime in the next 3 years for a new person earlier than a month and just leave.

It may be unfair to the old guys, but if you don't make a system that a new person, who is motivated and dedicated, can start to be competitive in around a year, you just won't get a large player base. And all the problems of a low player base game will continue to haunt CB.

"Combine that with the knowledge that you gain after about a month experience of how it actually works post NUB period and you realize just how tough this game really is. In fact from the average MPR level of the inactive, most people catch on to how hopeless it is to be competitive sometime in the next 3 years for a new person earlier than a month and just leave."

This is one issue a rolling bonus fixes; starting a fixed length bonus on the day a player begins immediately sets them at an enormous disadvantage.

Exactly Oddbird, the rolling bonus is a huge incentive for players to stay, because no matter how many mistakes they make, or bad work schedule they might have, or for the military folks like me, the months you have to serve your country, you still can come back to CB and attempt to try to go for the top again.

"but they are right in trying to cater to new people."

No they're not. We should be catering to all players, not holding new ones up on a pedestal. That just encourages old players to leave.

"The biggest problem CB faces is a low player pool."

Because once the NUB is over, there is little incentive for people to stay.

"The current system is actually very anti-new people"

In the long term, correct. It is most certainly anti-veteran player as well.

"It may be unfair to the old guys, but if you don't make a system that a new person, who is motivated and dedicated, can start to be competitive in around a year, you just won't get a large player base."

Correct. We need a system that's fair to everybody, yet competitive. That's why I propose the wider BA rates. There is no "learn quick or you fail forever!" penalty with more BA that there is now with the NUB. If you mess up at the beginning, you can still catch up, just like I was doing way back in CB1. You just have to put in the effort.

Wider BA rates has all the benefits of the rolling rewards bonus and none of the drawbacks of promoting lazy play.

i am still confused lb! in the threads you linked, some were talking of wider ba rates and others were talking about a rolling bonus tied into ba rates. which one are you proposing here? fixed ba regen rates for certain mpr ranges or a rolling bonus model that changes over time depending on top mpr?

He is suggesting instead of getting more rewards for your BA, that you just get more BA if you're far away from the top.

They both do about the same thing, however more BA would really hurt anyone that has RL reasons they can't play every 3 hours. And increasing the rewards of your BA is easily exploitable.

"i am still confused lb!"

I am not sure by what.

"fixed ba regen rates for certain mpr ranges or a rolling bonus model that changes over time depending on top mpr?"

Either or, but for BA regen rates, NOT rewards!

We already have BA rates based on top MPR. This is no different to what we currently have. Again, we already have this. We already have this.

But:
1.) the differences in the rates would be wider. Instead of 10, 9, 8, 7, then 6/20 BA rates, we would have something like 20, 18, 15, 12, 10, 8, 7 then 6/20.

(Again, THESE ARE SAMPLE NUMBERS!!!!! I don't want to read anyone whining "wah, I don't want to see 20/20.." because I'm just pulling these numbers out of my behind. It's the concept I'm proposing, not the exact implementation.)

2.) rewards wouldn't differ per BA rate (this may have been where you were confused, as an early version did differ slightly). 15/20 teams would see the exact same base rewards per fight as someone at 6/20, unlike now, where 6/20's base rewards vastly outnumber 10/10's. Challenge bonus would still create differences, of course.

"They both do about the same thing,"

Partially correct. The big difference between the BA rates and the rolling rewards bonus is that the former doesn't "reward lazyniess" as the developer claims the latter does.

"however more BA would really hurt anyone that has RL reasons they can't play every 3 hours."

For the 1936725148th time, that's the idea.

"And increasing the rewards of your BA is easily exploitable."

If it's based on VPR, how is this?

""however more BA would really hurt anyone that has RL reasons they can't play every 3 hours."

For the 1936725148th time, that's the idea.

"And increasing the rewards of your BA is easily exploitable."

If it's based on VPR, how is this? "

You want to make it impossible for any contributing member of society to have a chance to be competitive, outstanding.

The easily exploitable was a very short summary of the entire arguments against a RB. Being lazy/not buying BA but using your cash on NW etc..

i give up, i was trying to give you the opportunity to actually explain your idea more fully so that the community could judge it. it seems that you are more interested in insulting rather than actually explaining. good luck with that, i probably won't be getting on board because if you don't care enough to explain it and it is much like pulling teeth to get specifics out of ya.

rolling bonus seems to be the best fleshed out idea in my mind still and i still support that for now especially with extended free ba to minimize new players temptation to selling out!

adieu!

that came across more harsh than intended.

the specifics that i need is to know whether it is rolling or fixed and if so what the numbers are and how long it would take someone starting today to get to say 80 percent of the top.

i know you have said you would leave that up to others, but i really can't judge the idea until i know what the basic concept is. do you plan something that people can catch up in half a year, year or decade?

would it require someone fighting the same amount of battles as say poison to catch up to him?

"You want to make it impossible for any contributing member of society to have a chance to be competitive, outstanding."

You just want it so you and everyone else who only pays a passing contribution to this game is ensured a spot in 6/20. I'm advocating a system that would put an end to that awful mentality.

"The easily exploitable was a very short summary of the entire arguments against a RB. Being lazy/not buying BA but using your cash on NW etc.."

Once again, things that would be avoided with wider BA rates instead of a rolling reward bonus.

I'd probably be a little less irritated if people read what was posted and tried to formulate reasonable responses and criticisms rather than just rehashing things that have already been dismissed, and hurling insults like "you're on welfare!" or whatever such tripe. Don't like my attitude? I never much cared for yours on this thread.

"the specifics that i need is to know whether it is rolling or fixed and if so what the numbers are"

I already told you these three things:
1.) It doesn't matter if it is rolling like it already is now or manually tweaked by Jon every few months. It does not matter. The effect is the same. I would assume the same auto-calculated system would suffice, just be tweaked to allow for more rates at different MPR intervals.

2.) I do not have numbers. I had sample numbers, which is why I kept changing them throughout the thread then IMMEDIATELY explaining that they were, in fact, sample numbers.

3.) The specifics, I do not have nor want to even try for. As stated several, SEVERAL times on this thread, I am not interested in the specifics of the implementation. I am simply offering the concept. Do not ask me for specifics. I do not have them, and I told you several times that I did not.

If I'm not answering your question correctly, try phrasing it in a way that makes more sense. But as it was stated, your question implies that you have not read what I have written on the subject at all.

You HAVE the basic concept here. It was always here. Now if something was unclear, let me know and I'll clarify it. But don't stare at the concept then complain I didn't give it to you when all I refused was to give the full implementation.

"do you plan something that people can catch up in half a year, year or decade?"

Ah, finally a question I can work with! Well, kind of.

Short answer: I have no idea. For the 89427th time, I am not implementing this in detail. Depending on the numbers, which I don't have and will not come up with, this could be any of those time frames you provided. However, I'm hoping for a minimum time of at least one year.

"would it require someone fighting the same amount of battles as say poison to catch up to him?"

I don't know Poison, and this question is impossible to answer without the numbers, which again, I will never have unless Jon implements it, comes up with his own numbers, and tells us all about it.

without numbers to go by, or some goal for what your system would accomplish, we cannot even see if it would work. poison's character is here:

http://www.carnageblender.com/inspect_opponent.tcl?opponent_id=241&opponent_name=NWO

he is a january 2005 character that has been active the whole game as far as i know and is often used as the baseline, at least by the community. he has almost 1.5 million battles. if you want new users to have to match that feat, then we do have an idea of how many battles it would take them to get there.

we can then see if your system would even work. i feel that it probably wouldn't but am giving it the benefit of the doubt until i see that.

i suspect that the only way you could have it work is to actually give users unlimited ba with no cap until they reach a certain percentage of the top mpr at which point they switch over to normal ba regens but until we have more specific ideas about the target mpr, ba goals and time frame this all just seems like conjecture.

to be more specific, i have about 80,000 battles on my ncb and have missed very few during the four months. even if you double regen rates (making it to where you need to log on every 2 hours and 4 minutes at the start) then in 4 months you could do around 160k battles.

that is about one ninth of poison's battles. so multiply 4 months times 9 to get 36 months to catch up to him. he would actually move quite a bit during that time though and he's not the top mpr.

i really don't see how a bonus structure can be built on ba alone without any xp bonus other than offering unlimited ba to catch up. i am not sure what that would do the server though.

to catch up to 1.5m battles in a year would take over 4000 fights a day for example. that also does not account for the extra battles in that year that would be fought.

"without numbers to go by, or some goal for what your system would accomplish, we cannot even see if it would work."

Sure we can. It's simple math. If everyone's base rewards are the same (unlike now, where they get bigger as one loses BA) and you are simply given more chances to get those rewards, you can catch up to the top.

Would you rather have:
6/20 * 200, or
15/20 * 200?

And which will grow faster, assuming a proportional amount of error on the part of the players? That's right, 15/20 will grow at a maximum rate of over double the 6/20 team! This gets them to the middle ranks with relative ease (again, assuming an effort is made to keep up), and lets then gradually catch up to 6/20 (not necessarily Poison, as I'm not sure how far into 6/20 he is).

And then there's still challenge bonus. Remember that low MPR teams tend to get very high bonuses, often up to 100%. 6/20 teams? Not so much. This accelerates growth even further.

"if you want new users to have to match that feat, then we do have an idea of how many battles it would take them to get there."

No we don't. All we need to see is more battles at the same rewards = more rewards. How long it takes or how many battles it takes is up to Jon if he goes with it, and his opinion on that would determinhe the individual BA brackets (hence why I've been ranting that my numbers were just sample numbers this whole time).

"i feel that it probably wouldn't"

I'm still interested in knowing why you think this. You have not given your reasons up to this point.

"i suspect that the only way you could have it work is to actually give users unlimited ba with no cap"

NO! *grin*

That would push growth way too fast, and completely negate the importance of strategy. If I can just fight the lowest teams an infinite amount of times, I can catch up to 6/20 rather easily with a crap strat. Also, I'd rather see a much longer climb to the top than the N*B offers, and this provides the opposite.

"..but until we have more specific ideas about the target mpr, .."

This one's easy! Target: the current 6/20 limit. Beyond that, this system has no effect.

"..ba goals and time frame .."

Again (and again, and again, ..) the BA will depend on the desired time frame by the developer, though I'm hoping for nothing less than 12 months, which is double the current NUB period.

Saying that the system can't work unless we know the time frame is illogical. Simple math shows it works! The time frame is variable and can be tweaked as desired, which means changing the BA rates. If Jon chooses six months, the BA will be higher. If longer, lower. It's not conjecture at all. It's all there in the very simple formula, but the exact numbers in the formula will depend on whatever timeframe the guy in charge wants to implement.

Now if there is someone else out there that feels it is impossible to know that more battles at the same rewards = more rewards without knowing the numbers, please speak up and tell me why. But to me this is as simple as the question "would you rather have six dollars, or more than six dollars?"

Or maybe I'm just not understanding Dudemus or whatever. But I just don't get why we need the specific numbers to see if the concept itself works.

"that is about one ninth of poison's battles. so multiply 4 months times 9 to get 36 months to catch up to him."

We're not catching up to Poison. We're catching up to the 6/20 limit. I'm not sure how far into 6/20 he is, but he nor the top MPR is the target here. Remember, this is just a N*B replacement. As stated before, it is not intended to fix the issues within the 6/20 bracket.

And a much larger catch up period is exactly what I'm going for here.

"i really don't see how a bonus structure can be built on ba alone without any xp bonus"

We have an XP bonus. It's called challenge bonus.

"i am not sure what that would do the server though."

Heck, I'm not even sure what my proposal would do to the server! If CB simply can't handle that level of activity, then down the tubes it goes, regardless of how well it would work.

"to catch up to 1.5m battles in a year would take over 4000 fights a day for example."

We're not looking to match the number of battles. We're looking to get to 6/20. The number of battles is 100%, completely irrelevant, especially considering your example got there with no bonus whatsoever (and for that, 10 points to him).

Actually it should take around a little less than half as many battles.

"Actually it should take around a little less than half as many battles."

I'm sure this is right. Remember that currently, lower BA brackets get reduced rewards. This wouldn't be true under this system. 6/20 would get the same base rewards as 15/20 (or whatever) per fight, plus the higher BA rates at low MPR are more likely to get a higher challenge bonus.

"We have an XP bonus. It's called challenge bonus."

Reminds me of my original idea. It was to uncap the Challenge Bonus. So if you could fight up really high, you got a really good bonus for it.

As LB mentions, the Challenge Bonus is already an XP bonus.

"Reminds me of my original idea. It was to uncap the Challenge Bonus. So if you could fight up really high, you got a really good bonus for it."

I would like to see that as well, to a certain extent.

As an added amendment to my existing proposal:
Increase the max Challenge Bonus to 200%.
Remove the Challenge Bonus penalty exemption for the top MPR teams.

Now catching up is that much faster.

I don't think that the limit on challenge bonus should be changed. But the way fighting is setup right now if you are getting 100% challenge bonus and fighting someone with the same amount of PR (or more) as you, you are getting the absolute maximum rewards possible (excluding clan bonus). I sent in a suggestion to change this slightly so you can get higher rewards but not by increasing the challenge bonus.

I'll admit I haven't really thought the Challenge Bonus suggestion through. It was just something I tossed out there to appease those who think the catch up rate is still too slow with just the BA change.

The BA thing, on the other hand is something that has been thought out, discussed, and examined from many angles. I think it is the best option for the game.

Out of curiosity, what is bad about raising the Challenge Bonus?

Its can be abused too easily. You could take a very low level char have someone gimp one of their extra characters and fight continuously at something like 1000% challenge bonus.

I don't think 1000% would be acceptable - we're talking about a bonus that could potentially last the lifespan of a character, and even the N*B is not that high (yet.)

Either way, with the current bonus, we have plenty of people who play NCBs and gimp them so they can remain at 100% - or at least, we did when I was playing previously. The difference is that these people can currently use that gimped money to start a NCB, immediately grab a huge bonus, and go.

In the rolling bonus scenario, that bonus is decreasing as they continue, so as soon as they stop gimping their progress starts slowing down. They can't effectively use that cash to increase their MPR.

I see what you mean though. Perhaps a limitation - for New Users, the bonus works like regular challenge bonus, and this is where they get their NUB money from. For veterans, past 100%, the monetary part goes kaput. Hard cap.

Any obvious flaws there from that off-the-top-of-the-head idea?

I don't think the cap would ever be raised to 1000%...

So no obvious flaws in the suggestion I posted? It's perfect?

...well, _I_ did come up with it. Unsurprising I suppose