Potential Idea for new N*B format (in General)

First off I would like to say I've spent quite a bit of time thinking about ways the ncb or a rolling bonus could work and I have yet to find a way to make a rolling bonus that would both work and be fair. I have on the other hand thought of a slightly different format potential for the ncb and also nub that will remove a lot of people's complaints about them as well as maintain the n*b's integrity.

Here is my idea. Instead of having the n*b solely based on 180 days, instead it is based upon 100% of the ba burned, not including bought ba over 180 days. You would have a ticker for each ba used basically and once it hit 0 your n*b is gone. Changing ba regen rates would just modify the amount left.

Next as this only includes normal ba accrued the way in which to include bought ba is quite simple. When you buy ba it adds the amount of ba you bought back onto the amount of ba you can burn until the end of your n*b. In order to limit this so that people don't just burn bought ba only and maintain an n*b forever you have a cap on the amount of ba that can be bought for the n*b as well same as with the regular ba. Once that hit's 0 then your n*b would also end. Expecting that people will miss some ba you might be nice and allow a little leeway by setting this one at 185 or even 190 days worth instead of the base 180 days worth.

The things this solves:

1600 starting ba. This still will help but it will no longer be near as much of a bonus as currently.

Missing ba. You won't have to worry as much about missed ba. The way it penalizes you for missing ba is that the n*b bonus is set at creation while the top will keep on fighting. Thus you will end out at the same place provided your targeting was the same it will only change when you get there which mainly matters in where everyone else is in relation to that.

Bought run vs non bought run: This will make it so that you will gain a bonus for doing a run while buying ba. In a rolling bonus one of the biggest obstacles is that there is no cost for running a non buying character. You ride the rolling bonus up and then once it will no longer get you higher you start buying ba and its as if you had been running a buying character the whole time.

Vacation times: There is no overarching penalty for missing entire days or even weeks if there is a need and expect your n*b to be destroyed. The only cost you will face is that you will be slightly behind in time so everyone else will be a little higher when you finish your n*b. Also this means that nubs who start an account and play little, then come back years later like xeno for instance will still have a nub to come back to, provided they have an account.

Please tell me what you think about this.

This just seems to make the N*B even better for new users, and does nothing for vets with old, long-term characters. Unless I'm missing something here, I cannot endorse this.

Only solution I can give for old characters would be the ability to reset it with an ncb bonus. Only benefit this gives is that you keep the created date.

This doesn't solve a lot of the problems.

1) High cost of NCB
2) Worthlessness of characters outside of the top 10/20
3) No reward for long term play
4) Reward for short sprints.

That is not a solution to anything at all.

This is to discourage short term sprints.

Also, the reward for long term play is that you can gain ground on the top. If you aren't then you are either playing casually or you aren't playing well.

I still haven't heard a decent argument against replacing the N*B with a rolling BA bonus.

The only negative to the RB stated in the forums has been from Jon. Stating it rewards laziness or seething to that effect.

I think it takes the pressure of having to get in every BA everyday as a N*B.

Not with a rolling BA bonus. It encourages more game play.

You also ABSOLUTELY HAVE to take into account the BA regeneration rate changes. It's one thing to burn a certain amount of BA at 9/10, it's a whole different thing to burn the same amount at 6/10.

You need to reduce the number of "expiration BA" whenever the character jumps up in BA regeneration rate, and increase them whenever he loses a tier.

I think what Jon was trying to state is that with a RB, one can not be forced to get in all your BA to keep up with the top characters.

But if the RB is a % of the MPR difference and not at 100%, that does not factor.

Yes, people can miss BA and get a slightly higher bonus but they will still fall behind.

Again, this won't happen with a BA bonus. You will have to get in all your BA, more than you have now, to advance. Those that don't play often will fall behind, and won't get an extra rewards boost to make up for it. They will, however, be able to catch up by playing more.

The current NCB is worse than a rolling bonus. I can take 3 years off, come back and in 6 months be in the top 5. Do that with a well designed rolling bonus!

And by worse, I mean lazier.

Agreed.

Yeah. I think the solution to RB promoting laziness is having it monitor BA usage and adjust the % bonus based on that so that it fluctuates between a minimum bonus for less active people and a maximum bonus for people who don't miss BA.

Josh,

That is an excellent idea.

Possible idea. Game computes what percentage of native (not bought) BA you use each day or week. That gets multiplied by the RB for you final xp boost. Money and xp for new players.

I'd still have it based on the BA of the top character at the time of creation, and if you match or beat that you're capped at 100% of the bonus.

If you fall below it, it reduces the bonus amount.

We should still encourage people to fight as much as the top to try to catch them.

Just give them the option to do so all the time, with any character.

>I'd still have it based on the BA of the top character at the time of creation, and if you match or beat that you're capped at 100% of the bonus.

If you fall below it, it reduces the bonus amount.

We should still encourage people to fight as much as the top to try to catch them.

Just give them the option to do so all the time, with any character.

this right here. having tried an a few very very unsuccesful ncb runs i would love to see a rolling bonus implemented. I could keep the same character and when RL let em i could log on burn some ba and have some fun.

Where as with the current N*B it's all or nothing. Miss some ba and you're screwed. i play games to have fun. feeling that i have to get on or else it'll = failure is not fun at all, it sucks big time.

+100

the current system seems to be that the only way to really "play" the game is hardcore. casual play is penalized.

it would be interesting to have a system that made it so that casual play isn't penalized and hardcore play is instead rewarded.

how to do that, i am not so sure of though.

You mean like a game with a rolling bonus say to 80% of the top MPR, with the options to choose regen rates, and a more fluid mid game?

i think that is the best combo of what i have heard so far for accomplishing it.

i would like to hear more about the rolling bonus being built into ba rather than xp though.

I think this sounds great, the only downside I saw to it, is it basically makes the game "more fun" for people moving up. I don't know really yet if this is a downside or not. But, imagine how it would feel burning 4/5x as much BA as you currently are. Sounds more fun to me. On a plus side, it would ensure people that are moving up are fighting a lot, and who knows, it might help retain newer players who want to fight a ton. But, for people like me who would likely receive no bonus, it seems almost like I'm missing out on all the fun. Definitely interesting though.

Base rewards would be equal. (Ex: 10/20 and 6/20 earn about the same, given equal challenge bonuses.)

Lower brackets have higher BA refresh rates (say, starting at 15/20). This gives lower MPR players the opportunity to catch up (more fights at same rewards) without giving them a reward bonus per fight.

Clan points will need to be weighted.

Also set max challenge bonus to 200%.

I don't see this as a downside. The people more likely to be at the "more fun" BA brackets are new users, who we want to impress.

But, but, but, maybe I want to burn 15 BA every 20 minutes :P

And here I am trying desperately to get into 6/20 to LOWER my BA rate. *grin*

I once posted a while ago, that saving up 1600BA and spenidng the whole of a Wacky XP time burning them was the most fun I'd had in CB for a long time.

Extra BA is a great idea, it gives you extra xp to catch up, and lets you, involve, yourself with CB more.

The only downside is that if we really require a NCB 'tax', this wouldn't work.

Personally, I'm in favour of giving extra BA, not needing a vet restart tax, and giving totally new players a NUB like cash only bonus.

Having almost finished my NUB, I really think that LB's most recent idea would have made it much more convenient and more welcoming to continue for all new players.

What do you mean by NCB tax?

The inherent increase in purchased BA cost.

If instead of an XP increase er fight reward we gave out more BA, then the NCB would generate more cash (from more right rewards) than was intended.

I still support killing the restart tax.

Well see if we designed it the right way, you could make it so say a rolling bonus is to designed to get you to 80% of the top MPR in 1 year assuming all BA hit (with no purchasing); and then with purchasing you can get there in like 9 months. So, there'd still be a significant upside to purchasing BA, but it wouldn't be nearly nearly nearly as important.

Would there still be a NUB/NCB difference to the Rolling Bonus?

I haven't considered the NUB in LB's scheme only in mine, which basically, NUBs would be the same as NCBs except they would get bonus money as well. I'd imagine it would be similar in LB's, but he could probably answer better.

Aye, that's def the design I would support. ;)

I <3 this idea

Not so recent. I initially proposed this about two years ago. But thanks for the nod.

No. Vets and new users would get the same rewards at lower BA brackets. There is the flaw here that vets will get large cash rewards if they continually play new, low MPR characters. I find this preferable to the N*B as it is.

Perhaps another bonus feature, similar to tournaments, could be accessible for users in their first year to earn some extra cash prizes. No NUB-style bonuses though.

Can't remember how long ago it was when I said the bonus should be like a BA locker instead of a percentage bonus, or whatever. There were issues with that (can't remember those either), but at least it meant the new user had to click a lot. *smile*

Not sure this is even the same idea... Would this be more of a BA locker where each BA has a certain percentage of bonus to it? If so, couldn't the user use more of their locker under high experience times (if not all of it)?

Sut,
http://www.carnageblender.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=002WUO&all_p=1

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

Though I'm sure the idea has been through a few revisions since then.

LB:

1) You don't think NUBs should get any money bonus?
2) The RB you like would just apply to xp right?

Not in a N*B-style fashion, no.

To BA. I'm not sure where you are getting XP from what I wrote here. Base rewards would be the same across all BA brackets, whereas now 6/20 gets far more than 10/20.

In which fashion would you prefer?


I get what you are saying, I just was getting a little to theory oriented. So, with a rolling bonus, and a small char, wouldn't you make more money then someone with a large char and no rolling bonus? Assuming no tweaks to xp/money ratio.

I reread those linked thread, and had forgotten I'd suggested another route to a money bonus for a newly new player.

Link an increase to cash awards for finishing the Tutorial.

That was, the new player gets it regardless of bonus system, and 'vets' can't ever access this one time deal. ;)

I do feel that newly new players should receive a bonus to their cash rewards. As they need an equal chance as the money side of CB as well as the XP side.

I address these three posts up.

Yes, a vet could keep playing small teams for more cash, assuming BA spending at the much higher rate. That is a known flaw. I still find it preferable to the N*B, in all its forms.

I just (like, right now as I was typing this) thought of a tax on old, rich players with tiny teams, like a cash-based encumbrance. But I'm not sure I like that idea.

Also, with rare items selling at only a fraction of what they went for back in the day, do new players really need such a big cash bonus anymore? Gone are the days when a base Enforcer's Crossbow sold for $1.1 million.

the initial item cost was always the smaller part of the power of items.

I think they do, maybe not huge, but definitely noticeable. I'm a big proponent of making new players and old players alike work to be a top score player, but I think if there was none or little, it'd be very hard for a new player to do well.


Yup, missed that, sorry.

So, instead of having a system where old players could just stay low and get rich easily, and wait, or sell their CBD. Why not create a system where the xp ratio is weighted to stay at their non-RB bonus BA amount, while their money is weight to match their RB bonus BA amount.

Regardless, at 6/20 base rewards, and at least twice the BA for which to earn rewards, and more than likely a higher challenge bonus, new players will close the money gap along with the XP gap.

And I've decided I'm ok with old players creating weak teams to farm more cash. We need more gameplay options. So what if a player wants to forgo competing at the high levels to make extra cash? Isn't that what forgers do now?

That was in response to Dude.

Do you all think it's worth fleshing out and posting up the couple of RB options we've ben hashing out in thier entirety?

Maybe even ask for a Poll to gauge what CB as a whole feels about them?

If we can get a fully detailed, rational RB idea, and CB is behind it, maybe we can push to get it implemented?

http://www.carnageblender.com/poll/poll-results.tcl?poll_id=464

I ment which out of the 2/3 options the player base preferred. ;)

If we can get it posted up in it's entirety, and get the support of the player base, then we'll have more weight to try to get it implemented.

But that's a nice poll to link to show the support for changing it to something!

you know we can come up with all the great ideas in the world the odds of them getting implemented are tremendously small

Shouldn't stop us trying! ;)