makes no sense (NS look?) (in General)


lostling January 23 2011 1:34 PM EST

why should the top have an easier time then the bottem?

6 ba regen vs 10 ba regen?

even though im at 7 ba regen

i think it should be inverted

cut the new players more slack with 6 regen then slowly ramp it up to the top

YES i think the top is lazy... and that needs to be changed =x i mean like hey... if you are as hardworking as you are you will stay on top even with this change.

Lochnivar January 23 2011 1:37 PM EST

^ makes no sense indeed :-)

FailBoat[SG] January 23 2011 1:50 PM EST

Psh, I'd totally be up for that.

NooneKnows January 23 2011 1:59 PM EST

>>YES i think the top is lazy... and that needs to be changed =x i mean like hey... if you are as hardworking as you are you will stay on top even with this change.


+1

Xenogard [Chaotic Serenity] January 23 2011 2:10 PM EST

I agree even though I'm at 8/20 and it would not change a thing for me currently >_>

AdminNightStrike January 23 2011 2:31 PM EST

It has to do more with availability of characters to fight.

AdminQBnovice [Cult of the Valaraukar] January 23 2011 2:52 PM EST

Nice to know that signing on for years makes us lazy...

I see this change leading to another reduction in BA, and we know how well that went over.

New users getting more BA is a good thing, for the folks who really fiend for it it's great! For those who don't it's a reason to grow and get a little more leeway.

Organ Doughner [Fees Dirt Cheap] January 23 2011 3:03 PM EST

I think lostling is trying to say that once you hit the 6 ba regen bracket, you are able to slack off because with less ba regenerating, you are able to log on less and use all of your ba rather than having to log on more frequently to achieve the highest efficiency. I think he means that if the ba regeneration is inverted, the higher players will have to play more to be as competitive; therefore increasing competition. :).

Shadow Ruler January 23 2011 3:12 PM EST

10 ba regen is needed for the smaller players so they can actualy get up to the top

iBananco [Blue Army] January 23 2011 4:19 PM EST

It has to do more with availability of characters to fight.

You could have different heal times for each MPR bracket.

AdminNightStrike January 23 2011 4:23 PM EST

Yes, that's another way to look at it. I don't recall that ever coming up before, actually.

Unappreciated Misnomer January 23 2011 6:16 PM EST

but most of us worked this hard to get more sleep.

NooneKnows January 23 2011 8:08 PM EST

>>but most of us worked this hard to get more sleep.

if you want to sleep, why would you play vidja games? XP

QBOddBird January 23 2011 9:12 PM EST

I am in complete and total agreement with lostling here.

I see this change leading to another reduction in BA, and we know how well that went over.

I don't see this, because I attribute a certain amount of sense to our game developers

New users getting more BA is a good thing, for the folks who really fiend for it it's great! For those who don't it's a reason to grow and get a little more leeway.

I disagree. Joining up, being told the big picture and then realizing that you are going to have to fight twice as often to burn an equivalent percentage of BA as someone who is in the uppermost competitive range has got to be disheartening. And by "has got to be disheartening," I mean "I've heard this exact same complaint from new players before." It sucks that you have to bust your butt for 6 months to get near the top, while those who are already there can easily maintain their position with a relaxed regeneration rate.

Whoever decided that this game should be "easier to maintain a top position than to compete for one?"

AdminQBnovice [Cult of the Valaraukar] January 23 2011 9:22 PM EST

The solution Nat has proposed is much better

AdminNightStrike January 23 2011 11:57 PM EST

Whoever decided...

heh....

For the record, what you are describing has been something I've railed against for a while. In fact, if you search back, you'll find posts from me talking about how this should be more like King of the Hill, where it's harder to stay on top than to get on top. That ensures stagnation prevention.

AdminNemesia [Demonic Serenity] January 24 2011 12:00 AM EST

It is definitely rather easier to stay on top as the game is now. Not a good thing at all. It is also very boring at the top.

adsill January 24 2011 12:26 AM EST

My opinion on what scares new people (it scared me). Being told you get a near one year period, that you need to play near perfectly, very often, despite being new :P It's your one golden ticket, don't screw it up! Its hard to commit to something for the length of a NUB, especially at the activity levels required by the system :)

Besides, BA already scales right? So giving them more doesn't really get them farther along, I guess it just gives them more fights to see what they are doing right/wrong. Small peanuts compared to all the BA they lose.

Pwned January 24 2011 1:05 AM EST

but wait, why would we want anything to change? We want the top to remain at the top......be afraid of change. Oooooooooobama!

Republican economics.

QBOddBird January 24 2011 1:21 AM EST

Political jabs have been made, this is officially a thread on the internet now

Lochnivar January 24 2011 2:18 AM EST

...nope, I see no evidence of Godwin's Law or Rule 34

(ps. my first post was sarcastic in case anyone missed it)

MonkeyMandate [Wasting Time] January 24 2011 7:32 AM EST

when i started i saw a higher BA regen at the start as good a it meant i could fight more. maybe something needs to be done as it does seem that things are stagnat, however just reversing the ba refen should not be the answer.

my reasoning is this. if you were told that you can play this game, however as you progress were going to make it that you will miss out on your BA. if Ba regen rates are changed they should be changed to everyone having the same rate, which would even the playing field and make the loss of a BA at the start the same as at the end.

to stop stagnation something else apart from BA needs to be done. not great with ideas, however i can probably guarentee that that i at least would probably still play but i would lose interest as since i know i won't be able to get all my BA there will be no motivation to actually use the BA, as i know i have no chance to be competive so why even try.

just my two cents, not really thought out that well, but i see forcing people to miss BA or keep ridiculous schedules (10 BA regen is at most used for a week and 9 for like a month) will eventually have the opposite effect of what was wanted.

Admindudemus [jabberwocky] January 24 2011 8:34 AM EST

what about increasing the ba limit for the lower tiers so that everyone has the same time they need before they have to log in but people just starting out would still have more ba to burn?

i offer this as a suggestion as we did actually have some of the few people who responded to the new user feedback mailings state that they quit because the game didn't give them enough ba, they wanted more.

i do like nat's idea for choosing your own difficulty level but this my work as an interim fix that is easier to implement?

Canibus January 24 2011 9:08 AM EST

I agree with dudemus, pretty nasty even, that was going to be my suggestion :O

AdminQBnovice [Cult of the Valaraukar] January 24 2011 9:18 AM EST

very interesting dude

Admindudemus [jabberwocky] January 24 2011 9:39 AM EST

actually the more i think about it the more i like it! the current system of more ba for lower levels means that each ba is less crucial which helps to counter balance the fact that with n*b bonuses each ba becomes more crucial.

lower levels would also be able to stockpile more ba for bonus times than higher levels. this would give them some help in catching up.

Xenogard [Chaotic Serenity] January 24 2011 9:43 AM EST

Dudemus I like that idea, one thing I never liked about being down in the lower tiers of BA regen is the fact that in order to stay competitive you basically have to miss out on sleep/login while at work in order to burn up all your BA and not get overstocked. At 10/20 you basically can only go a max of 5.5 hours without playing the game, meaning a lot of people (like myself) will be setting alarms and waking themselves up earlier then normal just to make sure they don't miss any BA.

I know I've missed out on lots of BA due to oversleeping some days, BA that I want (and need) to be able to spend but I just couldn't because of physical limitations (somedays you just need to sleep in, amiright?), while the people at the top have a cushy 8+ hours before they even have to worry about anything.

So I like both your idea you just said and Nat's idea of picking you're own difficulty, either would be a welcome change in my opinion..

The basic message I'm trying to get across is... I needs me some more sleep!

BadFish January 24 2011 10:41 AM EST

I think it was Sickone who said, or maybe it was Nat, that you should be able to choose your BA regen and get a corresponding bonus depending on what tier you chose (lower bonus for lower regen). This makes the most sense to me. I think this should come with other changes though, or else it would still be competitive suicide to be at any other regen than maximum.

BadFish January 24 2011 10:47 AM EST

Sorry, I should have read Nat's suggestion page first, it indeed was her that suggested what I said, and she put it much more eloquently than I.

QBOddBird January 24 2011 12:35 PM EST

MM -so we can translate that as "if the game isn't lax enough for me to be competitive, then I won't play." Not really a great argument against reversing ba tiers, when it can be so easily countered with "who cares"

Dudemus, I like that idea, and can see it as a totally valid alternative to this current system.

AdminNightStrike January 24 2011 3:22 PM EST

I had tried to do different BA limits per regen level once before. I couldn't get it to work.

Coheed January 24 2011 3:53 PM EST

Someone definitely needs to figure it out

VsCountStrum [Black Watch] January 24 2011 3:54 PM EST

I think a pure reversal would be a very bad idea. We have enough new players that burn there BA and complain that they have to wait 5 hours. I would hate to see the complaints when they have to over 8 hours.


History:
In CB1, the regen rates were twice what they are now. Even the top players would had only 6 hours and the new players 2 hours and 40 minutes to full BA. However, since you got more BA and there was no N*B, few seemed to be as concerned about missing BA as they are now.

Lord Bob January 24 2011 3:58 PM EST

If all BA rates had the same base rewards, this would be less of a "top players have an easier time maintaining their spot" and more of a "weaker teams have more opportunities to advance!"

And thus we could kill the blasted N*B!

AdminNemesia [Demonic Serenity] January 24 2011 4:03 PM EST

Several different suggestions for the underlying problem that I think a lot of people see. This problem is simply that it shouldn't be easier to maintain oneself at the top than it is to maintain at a lower region. With our current setup this does end up being the case though.

AdminNightStrike January 24 2011 5:36 PM EST

I believe in CB1, it was at one time 5 minute intervals.

AdminQBnovice [Cult of the Valaraukar] January 24 2011 5:40 PM EST

a minute when I joined

AdminQBnovice [Cult of the Valaraukar] January 24 2011 5:40 PM EST

oops I thought we'd gone back to talking about healing
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=0039ik">makes no sense (NS look?)</a>