idea inspired by zen's ncb effect post (in General)


Admindudemus [jabberwocky] June 23 2011 11:42 AM EDT

i thought this worthy of its own thread:

this does bring up a good point, separate ba pools/cost for separate characters would give people the option to play more.

the one comment, when we were tracking new user feedback, was that they were bored once out of ba and never logged back in. under the current system, we can have multiple characters but they end up just being mules due to the fact that you have to share ba across the account apart from tournaments.

this would tie in with the idea of paid for upgrades in that you could charge for each separate ba account a person wanted, after maybe starting with 2 or so. it would also maybe encourage people to actually play more on the game, get more invested and stick around.

now there would need to be some method of guaranteeing that people don't trade around their tats for max growth or blacksmith their uber weapon on ten different characters ba. what about having a primary character, alt characters and mule characters.

primary cannot be changed, only retired and a new one started. only the primary one can get or make transfers of items or cbd. alternate characters can be played, with separate ba and can do everything but transfer. mule characters don't get their ba but can be used for storage.

you could in effect then run a primary character and an alt ncb or even an ncb primary and alt primary at once. this would create bragging rights for those taking an alt character to the top!

i am sure other issues would need to be addressed but for purposes of discusstion, let's focus on the concept.

ResistanZ June 23 2011 11:44 AM EDT

I really like this idea, but I disagree with the part of not allowing the non-primary characters to make transfers. If people are paying for their BA, they should use it how they want to, that includes forging and stuff.

Admindudemus [jabberwocky] June 23 2011 11:49 AM EDT

one problem i see with that though is running a cheap ncb strategy or regular one for that matter and then putting all that money into my mains gear. if we charge for each character with no upper limit on characters, i would run ten and put all the proceeds into my armor for my main, or a big weapon or transfer my tat around to get the extra growth.

Admindudemus [jabberwocky] June 23 2011 11:50 AM EDT

basically i see it as a way to allow people to play more and be on cb more rather than a way to get better gear.

AdminNemesia [Demonic Serenity] June 23 2011 11:56 AM EDT

2 words: multiple tourneys. Much simpler and will avoid most of the problems.

Kefeck [Demonic Serenity] June 23 2011 11:57 AM EDT

Kind of relevant to the topic. I'd really like something like this :).

http://www.carnageblender.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=0033DL

Admindudemus [jabberwocky] June 23 2011 11:58 AM EDT

i still like multiple tournament capabilities but they wouldn't really bring in extra money like the character slots would. why not do both?

it would seem that much of the work was already done in order to separate out t characters now.

AdminNemesia [Demonic Serenity] June 23 2011 11:59 AM EDT

i still like multiple tournament capabilities but they wouldn't really bring in extra money like the character slots would. why not do both?

That is exactly why not.

Kefeck [Demonic Serenity] June 23 2011 12:00 PM EDT

2 words: multiple tourneys. Much simpler and will avoid most of the problems.

Only problem I have with this is CB needs more targets in just about every zone. Allowing people to really run multiple teams would go along way to helping this. (it'd also make the clan game a lot more interesting)

Quyen June 23 2011 12:03 PM EDT

hmm :) it sounds interesting, i wouldnt mind if it happened :)

ResistanZ June 23 2011 12:04 PM EDT

I dunno, but it would take a decent amount of time to get a character high enough to the point of even being worthy of forging. But I do see your point. Hmm.

Lord Bob June 23 2011 12:05 PM EDT

2 words: multiple tourneys.
Yep.

Admindudemus [jabberwocky] June 23 2011 12:08 PM EDT

i mean extra money for the devs by charging for the character slots.

Warchild June 23 2011 12:26 PM EDT

why not have it where alt characters can transfer just not to other characters from the same user..that way they could still do the extras such as forging but the extra transfer costs that would be needed (going to a different user then back to the original) would make it cost prohibitive to forge for personal growth?

alternately you could increase the transfer fees to/from primary & alt characters for the same effect

just a couple of ideas to be able to have extra characters with there own BA but stop the exploitation

~WC~

AdminNightStrike June 23 2011 2:22 PM EDT

When I wanted to make defensive wins give rewards, Jon nixed the idea because it forces all players to have 5 teams going. Obviously, players would take the other 4 teams and have them fuel their main team.

This does the same thing.

QBJohnnywas June 23 2011 2:26 PM EDT

I can't remember, have we had defensive win rewards in CB2 or was the ability to run farms only in CB1?

AdminNightStrike June 23 2011 2:31 PM EDT

It might have been in cb2, but only for a short time.

AdminNemesia [Demonic Serenity] June 23 2011 2:44 PM EDT

I think you guys both mean defensive losses.

Admindudemus [jabberwocky] June 23 2011 3:19 PM EDT

surely it could be coded so that you couldn't attack your own characters.

when people set up characters for an ncb run or have others do it for them the reasoning has always been that it is ok because everyone can take advantage of it. i am wondering why this is different?

QBJohnnywas June 23 2011 4:11 PM EDT

I'm talking about defensive wins, when you used to set up a team simply to be attacked and get some decent rewards. Back in the days of the Cloak Of Balrog Flame I had 4 of them that I used to keep on a farm. That farm used to make me a couple of hundred grand a week.

AdminNightStrike June 23 2011 4:38 PM EDT

dude - it doesn't have to do with attacking yourself. It has to do with what JW just described doing in CB1. It's different than passing an NCB around in that there is no real tangible cost to it. You just have to have 5 teams playing, all generating wealth for your main team via defensive wins.

The idea in this thread takes it one step further. Now, you can have 5 teams all generating everything for your main team, including drops and tattoo levels.

I see it as a way that people in CB will exploit it to the detriment of others.

QBRanger June 23 2011 4:44 PM EDT

Unless every new NCB is cut off from the rest of the game, that is no transfers, I would be against such a feature.

Zenai June 23 2011 4:49 PM EDT

Meh indeed why not do both? Honestly if a person wants to put that much time into CB why stop them? Seriously wouldn't this be a good thing considering it would be charged for? Why not have perks for said Super or Elite Supportership? Other games do stuff like this all of the time and you know what they are doing just fine. I know I know CB is not other games but does that mean the same guidelines wont work? Even NS said it in a recent thread that it sure would be great if CB paid, as it is he's putting his 100% into RL, same thing with Jon. Wouldn't it be great if both were able to come back as a result of something like this?


Just saying..............

Admindudemus [jabberwocky] June 23 2011 5:01 PM EDT

as stated above, the new characters would have no ability to transfer items or cbd, just like t chars now.

Xenogard [Chaotic Serenity] June 23 2011 5:10 PM EDT

I'm down for whatever if it doesn't help super boost a persons main char.

Seriously I'd probably have a few running just cause I get bored sometimes.

Admindudemus [jabberwocky] June 23 2011 5:39 PM EDT

from above:

"primary cannot be changed, only retired and a new one started. only the primary one can get or make transfers of items or cbd. alternate characters can be played, with separate ba and can do everything but transfer. mule characters don't get their ba but can be used for storage."

Xenogard [Chaotic Serenity] June 23 2011 5:51 PM EDT

Oh I know what was said above dudemus, I meant to imply that I agreed with that.

Admindudemus [jabberwocky] June 23 2011 6:08 PM EDT

np xeno, that was more for nat, ns and ranger who seem to have missed it! ; )

AdminQBGentlemanLoser [{END}] June 23 2011 6:34 PM EDT

separate ba pools/cost for separate characters would give people the option to play more

Unless it's a no transfer tournament, this is a bad idea. An opinion Jon used to share as well.

It would force everyone to all run the maximum number of teams, all for maximum BA expenditure, to be competitive.

If not, those that do earn 2, 3, 4+ times as much CBD as you.

And if they are 'alt' characters that cannot transfer anything, then why not just make a tourny character?

In addition, you have the ability to set up a team you can purposely 'gimp' for your 'main' to farm.

Unless you can't fight your own characters. But then you do this round robin for your Clan mates.

The shared BA pool among all characters stops this sort of shenanigan dead.

Admindudemus [jabberwocky] June 23 2011 6:47 PM EDT

gl, people do that now for tournaments as well as ncb, or nub runs. as stated above, it is accepted because everyone can use those characters so how would this be different?

also, i am unsure how this would make it so that you need to play many characters to be competitive as i suggested it. could you explain that for me?

AdminQBGentlemanLoser [{END}] June 23 2011 7:05 PM EDT

Only if you can transfer.

If you can't then there's no point and you might as well make a Tourny character.

As for making characters to gimp, sure. But now, you'd have to use your mians BA (unless you'r enot playing a main at the time). With seperate BA, you get to do it for free. Multiple times. As often as you wanted.

There is no positive move to giving you separate BA pools.

If people want to play more by having more characters to play, then a permanent tournament is the way to go.

Admindudemus [jabberwocky] June 23 2011 7:18 PM EDT

the idea is to bring in money for the devs by finding things to sell for usd. again, let us hash out the details but the goal is to find an extra revenue stream that allows more playability while giving no other advantage strategically.

AdminQBGentlemanLoser [{END}] June 23 2011 7:24 PM EDT

New Supporter item.

Hell, there was even a contest back when I used to play to get the ideas rolling in.

No one won that contest though. :(

AdminQBGentlemanLoser [{END}] June 23 2011 7:25 PM EDT

Oh, if you don't want to effect strategy at all (which I feel is a bad idea. CB strategy desperately needs a shake up), then go for the extra inventory slots.

Doesn't effect gameplay, mearly quality of life.

Admindudemus [jabberwocky] June 23 2011 7:29 PM EDT

yeah, the more items to sell though means more income which would hopefully mean more changes. many of the games i spend cash on have a couple dozen items for sale. titles, inventory slots, characters, etc.

the more, the better.

Admindudemus [jabberwocky] June 23 2011 7:31 PM EDT

also, the inventory slots are great but they do nothing to help with the feedback from new users stating they quit after the first time they ran out of ba.

permanent tournaments would help but if we can increase playability and revenue simultaneously then why not do so?

AdminQBGentlemanLoser [{END}] June 23 2011 7:39 PM EDT

I've always thought a permanent Tourny was an awesome idea. The purist in me thinks it's the 'real' way to play CB. ;)

Add that, and i'm sure we'll see more players and more playing.

The extra slots, titles (like the old green 'Sir' or 'Lord'), etc would be gravy.

But separate BA pools for normal play? That's a bad idea. :(

Admindudemus [jabberwocky] June 23 2011 8:09 PM EDT

that is one thing that i really like about the alternate character slot idea with no transfers but getting an ncb. i would likely start one of those just to see how i could do with just the proceeds from the character itself. if it could compete at the top that would be extra bragging rights as stated above, kinda like cb on difficult mode.

Xenogard [Chaotic Serenity] June 23 2011 9:47 PM EDT

^
CB's version of Hardcore Mode.

AdminNemesia [Demonic Serenity] June 23 2011 10:11 PM EDT

No transfers means no items except for drops.

Zenai June 23 2011 10:22 PM EDT

New Supporter item.
Hell, there was even a contest back when I used to play to get the ideas rolling in.
No one won that contest though. :(


I did everything I could to make it move faster, truth is no one had the time. Everything else being worked on was too important in-game.
In some cases RL was making it hard to do anything gamewise at all.


if it could compete at the top that would be extra bragging rights as stated above, kinda like cb on difficult mode.

I have advocated for a Hardcore Mode before. As a matter of a fact I have advocated for several Modes of difficulty as well as a Vacation Mode.

Honestly this is a game built on the premise of competition. It is held to the highest level of intense competition yet is speckled with moderation and even ease of use features. I think it's time to actually break CB into Modes of Play via dudes idea. The only thing I would change is that only transfers between modes of play(Easy to Easy etc). I bet if things were separated in this way we would definitely see more game activity. Not only that but more retention from our Vets but from NPs as well.


Just my thoughts on this subject.

AdminNemesia [Demonic Serenity] June 23 2011 11:08 PM EDT

My idea for different modes of difficulty was to have different ba regen rates. The more ba you get the harder your difficulty level and this gives you a slight difficulty bonus. Truthfully I think this whole no xfer ncb would work far better as a tourney, of course that won't happen until we have the capability to run multiple tourneys at once which is a feature I want.

Admindudemus [jabberwocky] June 24 2011 12:37 AM EDT

i still want concurrent tournaments as well. i just don't see how they can bring in money or keep people who get bored once their first 160 ba is gone. i don't know that my idea would fix this either, but i do know that personally i would buy an alt character today and run an ncb on it for hardcore mode.

i do think that auctions would need to work for these characters and i realize that there could be some manipulation there but since auctions are public there is some risk there for anyone trying to manipulate the system especially with mr. chairman. i do think it is worth trying to figure out how to make it work!

AdminNemesia [Demonic Serenity] June 24 2011 2:02 AM EDT

Very very easily manipulated. And again you result in a situation where either they are not worth spending anything for, or else they become absolutely required to keep up.

Fishead June 24 2011 5:28 AM EDT

How about running multiple teams with reduced rewards for anything that can be transfered or of benefit to the other team? You get full BA and EXP for your minions, but reduced money, forging efficency, etc... If you run more than one tat, the EXP going to them would be reduced, no transfering of tats among your own teams. Or if you transfer the tat, rewards to it are reduced?

Zenai June 24 2011 7:52 AM EDT

Very very easily manipulated. And again you result in a situation where either they are not worth spending anything for, or else they become absolutely required to keep up.


Just an observation that I have seen as a running theme here for a couple years now. Every time something is brought up it is shot down due to the ability of being manipulated in some way. Honestly that is a part of strategy, just minimize it as much as you can then go from there. If you are always afraid of some kind of manipulation or whatever change will never happen. No change and you get stagnation which is what we have now and a LOT of this is from the simple fact people simply do not want to agree/settle on anything, no compromise it is a 1/0 equation not good for a game you love to play.

Personally I think, like I posed previously, Separate the modes and then only transfers between like modes. This could be done for auctions as well, a tag that says well this is from a Hardcore char and you are Easy char sorry but you cannot bid......or something of the like.

Admindudemus [jabberwocky] June 24 2011 9:39 AM EDT

nat, the goal in my mind is to make it worth it only for those who want more ba, more cb time and more challenge. so let's find a way to make that happen without the easily manipulated side of things?

Fishead June 24 2011 10:23 AM EDT

a LOT of this is from the simple fact people simply do not want to agree/settle on anything

I don't think our opinions have much to do with the lack of change.

Zenai June 24 2011 10:40 AM EDT

Hey we as a community have gotten some changes because of us banding together at times. So our combined opinions do count maybe not for as much as we may like but they do still count.

AdminNemesia [Demonic Serenity] June 24 2011 12:07 PM EDT

nat, the goal in my mind is to make it worth it only for those who want more ba, more cb time and more challenge. so let's find a way to make that happen without the easily manipulated side of things?

This would be a tourney character. Just to show you what I mean by easily manipulated, if you have 4 alt characters who only have access to auctions I am quite certain I could still make an average of an extra 10+ mil a week for my main. Most likely it would be 12-13 mil a week on top what I normally get.

Kefeck [Demonic Serenity] June 24 2011 12:19 PM EDT

I am quite certain I could still make an average of an extra 10+ mil a week for my main. Most likely it would be 12-13 mil a week on top what I normally get

So could everyone else though lol. Not really an exploit but most likely not the type of CB we want.

Zenai June 24 2011 12:23 PM EDT

The chars would be separated and could only transfer to like types Nat. Furthermore if this auction manipulation could be nixed with a tag that flags and keeps you from bidding on different modes how could it happen Nat?

I'm not saying this would be easy but honestly if they can separate T-Chars in everything including the store and auctions then why not with alternate modes of regular gameplay? Could the T-Char set up not be a prototype for the advent of multiple player modes?

AdminNemesia [Demonic Serenity] June 24 2011 12:34 PM EDT

There is more than just using auctions. That was just 1 example. There is everything from score manipulation to drawing and double tapping to give growth. Not all the methods of manipulating the system are even taken from tournaments yet but these are usually very limited in time and have set goals to reach so it is unlikely to happen.

Phaete June 24 2011 12:36 PM EDT

even though i don't even have the time to use up all BA of 1 char, i do see some nice possibilities.

A kind of hardcore mode a 2nd char with seperate BA pool
Transfers being one direction, from main to 2nd and not other way.
You have option to 'end' (not retire as that is non permanent) the 2nd char and transfer all possesions to primairy char. This will also permanently retire the hardcore char.

I think this would plug most abuse.
Sorry if i repeat/disregard someone, i had to choose between reading it all and spending even less BA today, i choose life xD

Zenai June 24 2011 2:17 PM EDT

There is more than just using auctions. That was just 1 example. There is everything from score manipulation to drawing and double tapping to give growth. Not all the methods of manipulating the system are even taken from tournaments yet but these are usually very limited in time and have set goals to reach so it is unlikely to happen.

Nat: If the Player Modes are Separated then this cannot even happen. If the cannot interact in anyway with other Modes of gameplay then how can they do any of this manipulation? T-Char Mode can be used as a Prototype and could be improved upon given a few guidelines and ideas. Plus add in that Score can be worked on anyway for T-Chars Standings then this would only be better for CB overall.

QBRanger June 24 2011 2:20 PM EDT

Perhaps an easier method would be to let people have a 2nd account.

Labeled with a tag such as Ranger01 of which only a NCB would be allowed.

Of course no transfers allowed. Auctions would likely need to be allowed as well as using the store.

Admins would have to make sure that abuses do not occur, such as corns selling for 1$ as a BIN.

KittehShinobu June 24 2011 3:00 PM EDT

>mew mew

^_^

KittehShinobu June 24 2011 3:01 PM EDT

hmm guess that wasnt it...

mew mew>

AdminNemesia [Demonic Serenity] June 24 2011 3:12 PM EDT

At what point is it not just a tourney char and being needlessly made more complicated.

Zenai June 24 2011 4:18 PM EDT

Because the game is stagnant Nat and players would like more than one gameplay choice. CBs mechanics are needlessly complicated but they are still there and players like it. Now there is just more of a thought for intricacies for Modes of play. This in and of itself has been asked for many times in different ways. Now this is not simple but does this make it any less wanted? Because of it's complicity does it mean it should NEVER be even considered?

/begin rant

My greatest frustration with the forum boards concerning ANY idea is someone ALWAYS has to pop up with a problem but NEVER a solution ever. Highly highly HIGHLY irritating especially when no matter what amendments to the original idea it is still a completely unacceptable idea.


How many times are we going to go around the block with "Hey this idea is cool!, Nope it wont work this is why." How about something along the lines of, "Nope it wont work this is why, you could do this as balance to said problem."

/end rant

AdminNemesia [Demonic Serenity] June 24 2011 4:58 PM EDT

Solution: Multiple tourneys to allow a permanent tourney with this ability.

Zenai June 24 2011 6:45 PM EDT

Funny Nat Tourney is one Mode of play. But since you insist on being this way that could very well be adapted to ANY mode of play it just has to be renamed and signed differently in the system.

ScrObot June 24 2011 7:10 PM EDT

I like the "permanent tournament" idea, but since normal characters can't attack tournament characters, that doesn't help with the lack of active teams (especially in the lower ranks), which is a real problem especially with new users.

So, as has been suggested -- maybe make it "tournament-like" in most respects but not exactly like a tournament in other respects.

Admindudemus [jabberwocky] June 25 2011 12:32 AM EDT

i understand people's concerns, but there are some things worth the trouble. for example, the nub is a big temptation for players to multi but the risk is acceptable for what it offers the game and we police it through admin actions. it also brings in little extra revenue stream for the devs.

i guess i am just saying that maybe we need to be a little more open to new ideas, multiple tournaments included of course.



AdminQBGentlemanLoser [{END}] June 25 2011 3:59 PM EDT

At what point is it not just a tourney char and being needlessly made more complicated.

This.

but since normal characters can't attack tournament characters, that doesn't help with the lack of active teams

If feasible, maybe the perm Tournament could be coded so that everyone could attack them, just like they could attack everyone else.

Also, you wouldn't really need a 'Tournament Score' for it, as it would be ongoing.

AdminQBGentlemanLoser [{END}] June 25 2011 4:00 PM EDT

So could everyone else though lol. Not really an exploit but most likely not the type of CB we want.

That's the point.

Everyone who now wanted to be, or remain, competitive, would *have* to do the same thing.

Zenai June 25 2011 5:27 PM EDT

Everyone who now wanted to be, or remain, competitive, would *have* to do the same thing.

If it were coded to NOT I reiterate NOT be able to interact with other modes of play then no one would *HAVE* to do anything to keep up, it would simply be a different Mode of Gameplay. No one HAS to do a Tourney but they do have the OPTION which is what I have been desperately trying to get across. Why do ppl play Tourney's in the first place? Bordem, to test a theory, want for a bit of change, an alternate to what is now, in other words MORE options.

AdminQBGentlemanLoser [{END}] June 25 2011 6:38 PM EDT

Zen, how does that relate to what I posted?

Dathron [Dragon Court] June 25 2011 7:11 PM EDT

Okay, I'll admit I have only read like two or three of the posts in here all the way through, but I wanted to add my opinion anyway as well. :P

Anyway, as a new player, I was really surprised to find out that the BA was pooled. I started a new character today, cause I felt like I'd finally figured out a little more about how all the uber-complicated strategies here worked, and wanted to test some stuff out. Of course, I quickly found that I would have had to use the same BA I use on my main character, which completely ruined the whole plan. I still want to be able to be growing my main at a quick rate, but also get a chance to try stuff out.

My solution would be: Have an option to create a "Test Character". This character would grow its own BA, starting with 160. Ya'll can decide if they get bonuses or whatever, I wouldn't care about that. The only difference it would have to other characters would be that it can't make transfers to your other characters, so that you can't use them as cash farms. It would still be able to transfer to other players characters, so that it can trade and grow as any other character, and maybe for a steep price (steeper than hiring a new minion, for example) you can change your test character to a regular character, that would then use the pooled BA again. This way, people can easily try out strategies, it would be VERY beneficial towards encouraging new players as they wouldn't be stuck with the first strat they thought of, and you would also have a chance to keep the character if you wanted, albeit for a steep price.

I'm not a programmer or anything at all, so I have NO clue how difficult this would be. But I know this is THE upgrade I would be looking for. I'm not great at strategies, and it takes me a while to learn how all the items and skills interact, so this would give me a chance to learn how everything works. So, again, I dunno if it's doable. But this is would be my dream solution.

Zenai June 25 2011 7:43 PM EDT

Zen, how does that relate to what I posted?

Everything if you pay attention GL. No one would need to do anything to keep up as no one would be left behind to begin with if you take into account what I posted before that particular post. I simply reiterated it however for the sake of argument I will repost it here:

Zenai June 24 7:52 AM EDT
Very very easily manipulated. And again you result in a situation where either they are not worth spending anything for, or else they become absolutely required to keep up.

Just an observation that I have seen as a running theme here for a couple years now. Every time something is brought up it is shot down due to the ability of being manipulated in some way. Honestly that is a part of strategy, just minimize it as much as you can then go from there. If you are always afraid of some kind of manipulation or whatever change will never happen. No change and you get stagnation which is what we have now and a LOT of this is from the simple fact people simply do not want to agree/settle on anything, no compromise it is a 1/0 equation not good for a game you love to play.

Personally I think, like I posed previously, Separate the modes and then only transfers between like modes. This could be done for auctions as well, a tag that says well this is from a Hardcore char and you are Easy char sorry but you cannot bid......or something of the like.

Dathron: This is primarily the same, just a few simple differences.

AdminQBGentlemanLoser [{END}] June 26 2011 3:00 AM EDT

My solution would be: Have an option to create a "Test Character".

You can make Test Characters in every Tournament run.

ScrObot June 26 2011 3:04 AM EDT

You can make Test Characters in every Tournament run.

True, but the majority of the time there's not a tournament going on. Plus, if there are item restrictions you have to get an admin to manually give you stuff.

It's a good thing to note when the stars align, but not a good general solution.

AdminQBGentlemanLoser [{END}] June 26 2011 3:06 AM EDT

Everything if you pay attention GL.

Come on Zen, do you really think I've not been reading this thread? Please.

Please explain how what you posted has anything to do with my post you quoted.

I was specifically responding to the discussion about Nat being able to 'game' any facet of a shared pool, if any sort of interaction was allowed.

If you had been paying attention to the thread, you would have noticed I actually support a totally separate way of implementing this, that wouldn't effect normal gameplay in any fashion (a perm tournament).

But any concession on this, trying to integrate extra playable characters into the main game, results in easily gamed advantages, that *everyone* would need to pick up and run to the maximum, to stay competitive.

Now if people want to play CB more (and ages ago I posted about how spending an evening burning the starting 1600 BA was one of the best itmes I'd had in CB recently), then the obvious thing to look at is increasing BA we can spend (even if that means reducing individual rewards) instead of concurrent characters.

AdminQBGentlemanLoser [{END}] June 26 2011 3:07 AM EDT

True, but the majority of the time there's not a tournament going on. Plus, if there are item restrictions you have to get an admin to manually give you stuff.

Perm Tournament. ;)

Zenai June 26 2011 3:20 AM EDT

GL: You responded to Kefeck who was responding to Nat since we are doing semantics. My point here is that section of the thread is honestly moot to bring up since we have in fact, before the specific comment was made, had a solution to said problem.

AdminQBGentlemanLoser [{END}] June 26 2011 3:47 AM EDT

GL: You responded to Kefeck who was responding to Nat since we are doing semantics.

Yes. Was that *not* the discussion I was responding to?

No, I didn't name Kef specifically in my post above. Did I really need to?

Zenai June 26 2011 12:48 PM EDT

My point here is that section of the thread is honestly moot to bring up since we have in fact, before the specific comment was made, had a solution to said problem.

In others words GL this is equivalent of commenting on something in a conversation that has no valid point what-so-ever anymore. My question is why are you pursuing it now this late in the conversation? Is this going to pertain to the conclusions we have come to thus far? If so please tie it in for me because I am honestly not seeing it. If not please join the part of the conversation we are at currently (before this interlude). Moving forward in thoughts and ideas are productive which is the aim of this thread in the first place. Please let's not derail something that could potentially be a very good change for CB.

Zenai June 26 2011 12:57 PM EDT

Now if people want to play CB more (and ages ago I posted about how spending an evening burning the starting 1600 BA was one of the best itmes I'd had in CB recently), then the obvious thing to look at is increasing BA we can spend (even if that means reducing individual rewards) instead of concurrent characters.

Well I have no problem with more BA but having a test area so to speak or just an alternate from the norm that is Not the regular main steam or Tourney would be prime. Having other options is the idea, multiple options to be exact and I think this idea could run right along those lines. Personally if I were to play say a Easy char then sure more BA with lower rewards, I would do the opposite for Hardcore.

AdminQBGentlemanLoser [{END}] June 26 2011 5:02 PM EDT

My question is why are you pursuing it now this late in the conversation? Is this going to pertain to the conclusions we have come to thus far? If so please tie it in for me because I am honestly not seeing it. If not please join the part of the conversation we are at currently (before this interlude). Moving forward in thoughts and ideas are productive which is the aim of this thread in the first place. Please let's not derail something that could potentially be a very good change for CB.

Zen, pot, kettle. Really mate.

I was answering the current thread of dicsussion, expanding on why complicating this solution past that of a perm tournament was a bad idea.

Then you quoted me with a redundant message.

As for derail, I'll believe that if I ever see any changes. I asked for a perm tourny long ago. Aside form the abiltiy to set one going, it had absolutely no downside to CB in the slightest.

Yet we're unable to have one at present.

No amount of discussion will change that, so really, there's nothing to derail...

And to movign forward.

Perm Tourny.

End of.

Anything else is needlessly complicating the matter at hand. And obfuscating from the solution presented.

Dathron [Dragon Court] June 26 2011 5:15 PM EDT

Okay GL, I'm confused now. Why a Perm Tourny over just a permanent, non-tourney related, option to create chars that can't transfer to your other chars? Not sure what the big difference is there. Sounds like having a permanent tourney plus other, shorter tourneys, would be tough on the servers, so I'm curious as to how tough it would be to add this other kind of character.

Zenai June 26 2011 5:19 PM EDT

Perm Tourney, Different Modes of Play....a rose by any other name.

If the Tourney Mode was used as a Guideline then other Modes of Play can be presented as well, it's not any more complicated than that GL.

As far as which request came first what bearing does that actually have on the discussion? I have asked for many things over the years some before and some after other requests......big deal.

Along the lines of change, well if we can all agree on one thing and present it like we did for the AoJ in the form of a Petition then there is a chance that something may happen.

Don't shoot something down just because a few other things didn't work GL it's truly counterproductive.

AdminQBGentlemanLoser [{END}] June 27 2011 5:07 PM EDT

Okay GL, I'm confused now. Why a Perm Tourny over just a permanent, non-tourney related, option to create chars that can't transfer to your other chars? Not sure what the big difference is there. Sounds like having a permanent tourney plus other, shorter tourneys, would be tough on the servers, so I'm curious as to how tough it would be to add this other kind of character.

What's the point? If they can't xfer to your main, why run them? Then you have the added pitfalls of being able to game the main game with them.

The simple solution is to use what we already have in place.

Not only do we have the mechanics for a perm tournament already in place (just the issue of running a second concurrently), this would give you a second lot of BA to burn.

There's also the added benefit of a perm tournament being a totally non usd influenced game, which is one of the major draws for it.

AdminQBGentlemanLoser [{END}] June 27 2011 5:09 PM EDT

Don't shoot something down just because a few other things didn't work GL it's truly counterproductive.

Zen, I'll shoot down anything that's flawed or doesn't work.

Supporting such into implementation is the 'truly counterproductive' thing to do.

Zenai June 27 2011 5:23 PM EDT

Zen, I'll shoot down anything that's flawed or doesn't work.

Just because it was unable to be implemented, or work before does not mean it cannot be resituated/reworked to be implemented now.

Supporting such into implementation is the 'truly counterproductive' thing to do.

Not if it brings true progress to the game GL. Simply saying it's broken and holding it to an old standard does not mean it should not be revisited if new technological hardware/software breakthroughs come about. So until you definitely know, and I know you do not have CBs Source Code so you cannot, step off of the it will not work bandwagon and stop shooting things down. I am not saying you must agree with every idea, but I am saying not to block the creative process.

AdminQBGentlemanLoser [{END}] June 27 2011 5:43 PM EDT

What?

The problems with separate BA pools has *nothing* to do with hardware or source code...

Zenai June 27 2011 5:52 PM EDT

Sigh you just want to have a battle of semantics huh GL? Well how about this: Are you right now currently working on CBs Sourcecode, infrastructure or anything programmingwise for the implementation of ANYTHING related to what we are talking about in this thread? If not please stop cutting other ideas down saying they will not work because you DO NOT KNOW for sure.

Now can we please get on with this thread without this back and forth that really has NOTHING to do with the original content?

AdminQBGentlemanLoser [{END}] June 27 2011 6:02 PM EDT

Are you Zen?

Otherwise shouldn't you be taking your own advice and stop suggesting things?

Zenai June 27 2011 6:11 PM EDT

Are you Zen?

No pof course not I am not an Admin, neither are you for that matter hence why I said what I said GL.

Otherwise shouldn't you be taking your own advice and stop suggesting things?

GL, at present Suggestions are a positive which there is a precedence for since it was the intent of this thread in the first place i.e. it was asked for. Cutting down others idea's without substantiation was NOT the intention of this thread NOR was it asked for so I ask what is the reason for you doing this GL? Because you THINK something will NOT work? Semantics and you know it. Make your suggestion, but do not cut down others in lieu of it.

AdminNemesia [Demonic Serenity] June 27 2011 6:17 PM EDT

Just as a note I would be against a perma tourney with the way tournaments are currently setup at the moment. There are a few more loopholes that still need clearing out.

AdminQBGentlemanLoser [{END}] June 27 2011 6:24 PM EDT

OK Zen.

I suggest I'm given a 1000000% XP and Cash Bonus.

All the items in the game, at higher than current largest item sizes.

And a RoBF large enough to one shot entire teams.

PLZ don't cut down this idea. If you disagree with me, just don't post anything. This thread is for supporting ideas only!

AdminQBGentlemanLoser [{END}] June 27 2011 6:27 PM EDT

There are a few more loopholes that still need clearing out.

I'd be interested in hearing what they are Nat.

Zenai June 27 2011 6:35 PM EDT

Just as a note I would be against a perma tourney with the way tournaments are currently setup at the moment. There are a few more loopholes that still need clearing out.

Since this directly concerns the subject of the thread I do not see it as a side note Nat, unlike GL's previous comment. What are the loopholes that still need clearing out? the only one I know of that is apparent is T-Chars Stats&Char Standings are mixed in with regular chars.

AdminNemesia [Demonic Serenity] June 27 2011 6:49 PM EDT

There are 2 things in particular, 1 is the tourney score bug which is still hanging around and the second is the fact that draws and losses against regular characters give the regular character exp.

AdminQBGentlemanLoser [{END}] June 27 2011 6:49 PM EDT

unlike GL's previous comment

What, the one just above your post...

Zen, there is *absolutely* no point in these forums if you don't accept feedback, especially if that feedback is *negative*.

If you're wrong, you're wrong. If your idea is bad, it's bad. If it has flaws, it has flaws. Maybe they can be fixed, maybe they can't.

But you *need* to accept that not everyone will be a yes-man, and that not everything is going to be perfect.

And that highlighting problems can lead to better solutions.

AdminQBGentlemanLoser [{END}] June 27 2011 6:51 PM EDT

There are 2 things in particular, 1 is the tourney score bug which is still hanging around and the second is the fact that draws and losses against regular characters give the regular character exp.

That second one is :'( Tournaments should never have gone live with that bug in place. :(

As for the first, what's the T Score bug?

Zenai June 27 2011 6:56 PM EDT

I already accepted that GL, maybe you could accept that no everyone is going to gracefully accept you trashing their ideas in lieu of your own. In other words at least understand that just because you say someone's idea is bad in your opinion doesn't mean it is factual so don't treat it that way. I am perfectly fine with you or anyone saying I do not think that is a good idea. I do have a problem with someone saying that is not a good idea and base it on semantics and expect it to be treated as factual. I can agree to disagree GL, can you?

Kefeck [Demonic Serenity] June 27 2011 6:57 PM EDT

There are 2 things in particular, 1 is the tourney score bug which is still hanging around and the second is the fact that draws and losses against regular characters give the regular character exp.

To be honest these are both pretty minor. And of course those that abuse these loopholes we could always just hit with the ban-hammer. >.>

Not really reasons to not have a permanent tourney.

AdminNemesia [Demonic Serenity] June 27 2011 6:58 PM EDT

Every time the score self resets (which happens every 50 fights on a character) and its a tourney character that does the hit score gets set to Tscore. This can be undone by hitting update stats manually on the character and it will return regular score to the correct amount, but if this isn't done and the character goes through another 50 fights and has it auto set again or it passes through cache check without it being manually reset the Tscore amount is finalized into regular score and the correct old amount is lost. That is the bug I'm talking about.

About the second main thing that needs correcting this is mostly handled currently by having short tourneys or keeping the tourneys to a smaller size. Before we ever separated tourney characters from regular ones you never did see any tourneys with large bonuses.

There is 1 more thing that also needs correcting as well. This would be that tourney characters can set the top character as well as set your ba regen for your regular character.

AdminQBGentlemanLoser [{END}] June 27 2011 7:00 PM EDT

What semantics Zen?

The reasons for a shared BA pool being bad have been given, and explained. Numerous times.

The more elegant and workable solution of a Perm Tournament has been given in lieu.

If I had the time, I'd go hunt out Jons post on things like this being bad as more evidence.

No semantics Zen. Bad idea was bad. It was explained why and others offered up in its place.

Zenai June 27 2011 7:07 PM EDT

The reasons for a shared BA pool being bad have been given, and explained. Numerous times.

Never said they would even have a shared pool GL. Bad investigating because I said with thew T-Chars set up as a guideline.

The more elegant and workable solution of a Perm Tournament has been given in lieu.

Again using the T-Char's set up as a guideline would be fine simply rename it. I cannot tell you how many times I have said this, Perm Tourney, Deifferent Mode of play.....a rose by any other name.

If I had the time, I'd go hunt out Jons post on things like this being bad as more evidence.

the evidence would pertain to Perm Tourney bro, Semantics.

No semantics Zen.

See above.


Bad idea was bad. It was explained why and others offered up in its place.

Was not a bad idea GL otherwise you would be calling a Perm Tourney a bad idea too. Go back and reread, T-Chars have their own, BA Pools, Bonuses it's by definition a different mode of play.

AdminQBGentlemanLoser [{END}] June 27 2011 7:34 PM EDT

Zen, I was never commenting on your posts in this thread.

I was talking about (I said shared above, my bad, should have been separate...) the problems with seperate BA pools for main game alts.

A discussion between Dude and Nat, which when Kef commented on Nat's explanation to Dude, I wanted to highlight that that was just the sort of "everyone's gotta now do it" flaw that is bad for the game, and something Jon opposes.

Then you came in and quoted me with a post of your own that had nothing to do with my post, and it degenerated from there.

I've never discussed your 'modes of play', or 'T-char's guidlines', and quite frankly I think they're actually in support of a perm Tournament (even if you insist on trying to call it different names).

I still have no idea what you're posting about, or how it relates to what I was discussing in any fashion, but you seem to be confused as to what I'm talking about.

If you aren't supporting separate BA pools, then cool, just accept that's my stance as well and move one.

If you are supporting it, well, the evidence is there for it being a bad idea.

But come what may, I will continue to oppose, counter and debate any suggestions or ideas I feel are flawed.

I'm not perfect, and never claim to be. I'm wrong and happy to be corrected.

But that won't silence my input.

Zenai June 27 2011 8:07 PM EDT

Then likewise do not think it will silence my input either GL. Just like you have a right to your opinions and Ideas I have a right to mine. Point is we moved on in the conversation GL, and in lieu of that you totally dismissed everything up to that point. Maybe if you had simply said "aside from the present branch of the subject" or some other statement as a nicety(as many say is etiquette/decorum.) I would not have taken offense.

Point is if this were a group of ppl standing around and talking would you do the same thing GL?,

1) You come into a convo that is already advanced past the point you brought up.

2) You dismissed everything after the point you brought up.

3) You trashed others ideas in lieu of yours and based it on semantics and tried to present them as facts.

Wouldn't you be offended?

Furthermore no I think Perm Tourney is an Oxymoron in CB as Tourneys are by definition limited on duration. In my opinion a Permanent Tourney is a different Mode of Play.

Zenai June 27 2011 8:15 PM EDT

Every time the score self resets (which happens every 50 fights on a character) and its a tourney character that does the hit score gets set to Tscore. This can be undone by hitting update stats manually on the character and it will return regular score to the correct amount, but if this isn't done and the character goes through another 50 fights and has it auto set again or it passes through cache check without it being manually reset the Tscore amount is finalized into regular score and the correct old amount is lost. That is the bug I'm talking about.

Interesting, has anyone found where in the code this is located?

About the second main thing that needs correcting this is mostly handled currently by having short tourneys or keeping the tourneys to a smaller size. Before we ever separated tourney characters from regular ones you never did see any tourneys with large bonuses.

Hmmmm I wonder why it's like this. there has to be a connection somewhere

There is 1 more thing that also needs correcting as well. This would be that tourney characters can set the top character as well as set your ba regen for your regular character.

I should have remembered this as it was me making a thread about it that inspired this one. /me facepalms

ok so this is actually because the code is setup to round up to the highest cost/number found right?

AdminQBGentlemanLoser [{END}] June 28 2011 4:01 AM EDT

Then likewise do not think it will silence my input either GL. Just like you have a right to your opinions and Ideas I have a right to mine.

Zen, it was *you* telling me to shut up and stop posting. In fact, that's the underlying message of qouting me. My comment is Superfluous, and I shouldn't have posted.

Point is we moved on in the conversation GL, and in lieu of that you totally dismissed everything up to that point. Maybe if you had simply said "aside from the present branch of the subject" or some other statement as a nicety(as many say is etiquette/decorum.) I would not have taken offense.

Everything? No I was responding to a specific part of the discussion. Which I had been in from early on in the thread.

Can't be on line all the time...

Point is if this were a group of ppl standing around and talking would you do the same thing GL?,

Of course. I don't hide behind the internet.

1) You come into a convo that is already advanced past the point you brought up.

Real Life.

2) You dismissed everything after the point you brought up.

No, I was commenting on a specific part of the discussion that had appeared since I left it, that interested me and I wanted to comment on.

Again, I had *never* commented on, discussed, or even by ommision dismissed other facets of the discussion. Including your modes of play or T Char guidlines.

3) You trashed others ideas in lieu of yours and based it on semantics and tried to present them as facts.

What semantics. I 'trashed' the seperate BA pool through explaination.

Wouldn't you be offended?

Nah, I don't offend easily.

Furthermore no I think Perm Tourney is an Oxymoron in CB as Tourneys are by definition limited on duration. In my opinion a Permanent Tourney is a different Mode of Play.

OK...

Kefeck [Demonic Serenity] June 28 2011 4:19 AM EDT

You guys know how to use cm"s? No one wants to look at this junk 24/7..

Admindudemus [jabberwocky] June 28 2011 8:35 AM EDT

permanent tournaments would work, once the fixes above are implemented. i would still like to see extra character slots as microtransactions with some sort of mule character slot being sold as well. perhaps a new perma-tournament only character slot or just an extra standard character slot.

the mule slot would be for holding things only, can't be auto-retired, cannot fight or forge and has more storage space.

Admindudemus [jabberwocky] June 28 2011 8:44 AM EDT

i guess it needs to be said though that my main problem with using a permanent tournament to accomplish my goals is that if i take a character up without using transfers or any supplemental usd and can compete on an equal footing at the top with those that have grown the other way, then i really should be able to affect there score, shouldn't i? especially if this more hardcore character becomes the one i play mainly.

Zenai June 28 2011 9:28 AM EDT

> Admindudemus 8:35 AM ED permanent tournaments would work, once the fixes above are implemented.

Thankyou for clarifying this! I still dislike the term "Permanent Tournament", this is just me but I would call it "Tournament Mode". My methodology on this is a Tournament no matter how long is still temporary even if recurring.

i would still like to see extra character slots as microtransactions with some sort of mule character slot being sold as well. perhaps a new perma-tournament only character slot or just an extra standard character slot. the mule slot would be for holding things only, can't be auto-retired, cannot fight or forge and has more storage space.

Agreed this would be a good change to implement imho.

Admindudemus 8:44 AM ED i guess it needs to be said though that my main problem with using a permanent tournament to accomplish my goals is that if i take a character up without using transfers or any supplemental usd and can compete on an equal footing at the top with those that have grown the other way, then i really should be able to affect there score, shouldn't i? especially if this more hardcore character becomes the one i play mainly

Having separate Modes of Play should have their own Score System and Character Standings(Tim) However, I feel that there should be no problem in having the current system be reworked to include Separate and Overall Standings where they would be affected. Case in point she. Tournament happens everyone is assigned a T-Score, why not use this in the "New" Overall Scoring System? There would still be competition and the highest will still show up on top. As a side note could this very well be a fix for the current amalgamation of Regular and T-Char Standings?

Quyen June 28 2011 11:32 AM EDT

hmm.. for perm tourney: will it be a normal tourney of 2 weeks and you gotta retire or will it be sandbox?

AdminQBGentlemanLoser [{END}] June 28 2011 12:12 PM EDT

It would last as long as CB does.

Zenai June 29 2011 8:09 AM EDT

Sandbox is something else I would like to see implemented but this could be settled with using another mode of play as a work around. :-)

Dathron [Dragon Court] June 29 2011 12:25 PM EDT

Just a quick random thought that I'm sure I'll get told has already been mentioned, but I'm not gonna bother slogging through everything that's been posted so far. What if you could buy with USD up to two extra characters, that would come with their own BA pool? Maybe the first one would be $11, and the second one would be $20. Or maybe they're both $11 if you get them with no bonuses, and $20 if you want NCB bonus, and $40 or $50 or something, if you wanted it with a NUB-level bonus (that would still expire in the usual time period). Yes, it would give an advantage to players with tons of USD, but really, that's kind of the point. If you put money into the game, you would hope it gives you an advantage. And I think enough people would be interested in at least getting the second slot for strategy testing, that it would be a nice boost for the devs. And sure, whoever decides to shell out $100 for two more NUBS would get a huge advantage, but they're also contributing another $100. Plus that advantage will get more people to pay the $100 for the NUBs, leading to more cash. Or whatever. As someone who'll probably never be in the top ten here in anything, I'm totally fine with giving that kind of advantage to people who do strive for that.

Thoughts? Or will I just get told to check another post, or just completely ignored, as usual. :P

Zenai June 29 2011 12:39 PM EDT

Good thoughts but probably would fit better in the microtransactions thread imho.
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=003C78">idea inspired by zen's ncb effect post</a>