132 replies to this topic

[WWWolf]

The more I think about it, the more I have my reservations about hiding the top 100.  Especially compared to the other ideas here, I really don't think that would do much to encourage more kills vs just annoying people...

 

I really like the idea of giving 1 extra Ruby pot for all players who reach a certain threshold but I wonder if 25k is achievable for lower-level players with limited stamina banks.  I know I can reach it if my stamina is close to full at the start of the event and I use a high-level Conserve and get 2 good hunts in but it's still quite a challenge.  In terms of fairness, I wonder if 20k kills would make more sense.

I am completely against basing the required kills around the player's stamina.  While it makes sense to get a player with 10k stamina to get 20k kills, it is ridiculous to ask a player with 50k stamina to get 100k kills.

 

If HCS agrees to a tiered system for giving out extra Ruby chests, I don't think any of the proposed ones make much sense.  There would definitely have to be a sliding scale such as 20k, 50k, 100k

This scale would give the top 3 contributors who each made over 100k kills 3 extra chests in addition to what they get for the top 100.  Also, if HCS decides to implement such a scale, I think the bonus for top 100 should be dropped to just 1 additional chest or removed completely.  Even if the bonus chests are removed from top 100, players will still battle for the top 100 medal and if they can reach 100k kills, 3 extra chests.

[BigGrim]

I'm not for hiding the Top 100. It solves nothing and causes new issues IMO.

The amount required to gain an extra chest would be 4 or 5 times the Ruby qualifier. I disagree with tiered ideas as it essentially looks like punishing those who have more stam.

[Belaric]

WWWolf, on 21 Jan 2015 - 17:03, said:

The more I think about it, the more I have my reservations about hiding the top 100.  Especially compared to the other ideas here, I really don't think that would do much to encourage more kills vs just annoying people...

 

I really like the idea of giving 1 extra Ruby pot for all players who reach a certain threshold but I wonder if 25k is achievable for lower-level players with limited stamina banks.  I know I can reach it if my stamina is close to full at the start of the event and I use a high-level Conserve and get 2 good hunts in but it's still quite a challenge.  In terms of fairness, I wonder if 20k kills would make more sense.

I am completely against basing the required kills around the player's stamina.  While it makes sense to get a player with 10k stamina to get 20k kills, it is ridiculous to ask a player with 50k stamina to get 100k kills.

 

If HCS agrees to a tiered system for giving out extra Ruby chests, I don't think any of the proposed ones make much sense.  There would definitely have to be a sliding scale such as 20k, 50k, 100k

This scale would give the top 3 contributors who each made over 100k kills 3 extra chests in addition to what they get for the top 100.  Also, if HCS decides to implement such a scale, I think the bonus for top 100 should be dropped to just 1 additional chest or removed completely.  Even if the bonus chests are removed from top 100, players will still battle for the top 100 medal and if they can reach 100k kills, 3 extra chests.

 

Good points made here. It is difficult to create something new that is fair to the entire community, and there are pros and cons to hiding the top 100. 

 

I'm really not sure we have to mess with the system. It just worked pretty well.

 

The debate about stam usage and fairness and incentives happens Every. Single. Global.

 

There is always the argument that maybe NEXT time X and Y type player won't bother participating. That maybe NEXT time we won't hit ruby.

 

I've always been of the opinion that if we don't hit ruby we'll learn from it and play harder next time. That does seem to be the case. And we'll learn to use and make the most of our reduced rewards. 

 

Strangely enough the debate about globals often (I'm not saying always) seems to be about gaining MORE rewards and MORE incentives. EXTRA chests for things.

 

I think the rewards are massive as it stands from this global.

 

I think we'd need to see a consistent failure to perform before looking at altering things or increasing incentives.

 

Hitting Crystal and Ruby every time is not failure.

 

(BG if you want to give out extra chests for 4 or 5 times the ruby qualifier, fair enough. I'm not sure it is necessary TBH. And more epic chests in game from stam usage in globals reduces lingering urges to donate for epic chests - that needs to be considered in terms of the overall health of the game - by the players as well as by HCS. Yes, I'm being a boring old so in so.) 

Edited by Belaric, 21 January 2015 - 17:36.

[Undjuvion]

congrats all, glad to see everyone that qualified got ~ruby~ chests this time

[vetlet]

Mister Doom, on 21 Jan 2015 - 14:48, said:

Preposterous. You can't reward someone more for having an un-upgraded character. It completely devalues the whole idea of upgrading ones character.

 How is that rewarding someone for not upgrading: I'm pointing out that when it comes to bonuses, someone with 5k base stamina, cannot kill as many with 10k. If you have more stamina, you can make more kills. If you use a kill:stamina ratio, then would negate that to an extent. I was aiming to make it fairer for those with less stamina, who will probably never get a bonus as it stands.

 

There was a mistype in my original post, which doesn't help, to be fair.

[Undjuvion]

vetlet, on 21 Jan 2015 - 18:28, said:

 How is that rewarding someone for not upgrading: I'm pointing out that when it comes to bonuses, someone with 5k base stamina, cannot kill as many with 10k. If you have more stamina, you can make more kills. If you use a kill:stamina ratio, then would negate that to an extent. I was aiming to make it fairer for those with less stamina, who will probably never get a bonus as it stands.

 

There was a mistype in my original post, which doesn't help, to be fair.

 

i think what mr doom means or what i think personally on this affair that is arising is that if u wanna do better than u are then u must upgrade, a couple of 60 dollar donations every few months dont hurt anyones budget, even those on welfare would be able to come up with a couple of donations here and there or they prob should be more concerned about other things than global kills, as for new players well as a new player in a game i wouldnt expect to launch into superstardom in the first few months or there cant be much depth to the game, build your char up as you go and set goals, it is pretty simple stuff

[insaner6]

yeah,  but the chances someone with 500 stamina bank, to be at full stamina,  is like 100%  ,  while someone with 100.000 stamina to be at full stamina,  is like  0%..

[vlkfenrir]

I am sorry if this question is off topic but...

 

Is the global booster intended to multiply stamina usage for ALL creatures?

[Undjuvion]

insaner6, on 21 Jan 2015 - 18:42, said:

yeah,  but the chances someone with 500 stamina bank, to be at full stamina,  is like 100%  ,  while someone with 100.000 stamina to be at full stamina,  is like  0%..

 

not sure if that is for or against what im saying or even directed at me, there are epic quests which take u to about 1k, epic quest is overdue and may take people to 1.5k

[WWWolf]

I understand the point that it is much easier for someone with 50,000 stamina to get 20,000 kills than someone with 10,000 stamina.

In terms of the player with 10k stamina, it makes sense to get 2 full hunts in (1 at the start and 1 at the end) because with your stamina gain upgraded and a few epics, you can actually completely refill your stamina bank.  However, the player with 50k stamina also will only get around 10k stamina during the event from start to finish so it makes absolutely no sense at all to tie any requirements to the total stamina available to each player.

 

The reason the other player has 50k stamina is because they spent a LOT of FSP to level that up and this is their reward for supporting the game.  No player should ever have things made more difficult for them because they decided to support the game by getting and spending FSP.

[Filletminion]

Mister Doom, on 20 Jan 2015 - 18:43, said:

Hide the top 100 till the event is over.

 

 

This "Oh look at the top 100, there's no way I can do that, I'm not even going to bother" stuff that is happening now is both saddening and unnecessary.

Only one problem with that suggestion we can go look at previous events of the same type and see what was needed to get top 100.

[Undjuvion]

id hedge a bet that why it went so hardcore this time was that many were actually low on chests and wanted to ensure they got at least two, then with so much invested many battled to try and hold so their stam wasnt in vain, id also bet it wouldnt get this hardcore very often.

[Subject]

Now that the wonderful GE Event is over ( thank you HCS ) was a GREAT event. ( very fun to watch ) how about that End of the month FSP Sale now...! Thornvine chest or that Golden Chest would be nice to see