DeletedUser
Would you care to provide numbers, like how much hp they have relative to their side and how much damage the opposition inflicts per round?
DeletedUser17202
Well that's a difference of opinion, in old worlds I would be spending all my time trying to gather items for the people i think deserve the rewards and would get nothing myself. This would not be fun for me (or anyone else I know).
If you don't like the idea that's also fine. I thought it was a good idea and so have many other people, as I'm sure other people think its a bad idea such as yourself.
I would like this idea implemented at some time with a chance of a random reward such as the products I listed because there shouldn't be any way to abuse that, and possibly the achievements linked to it as well.
*Edit* Sorry I don't get what you're asking rice farmer
If you don't like the idea that's also fine. I thought it was a good idea and so have many other people, as I'm sure other people think its a bad idea such as yourself.
I would like this idea implemented at some time with a chance of a random reward such as the products I listed because there shouldn't be any way to abuse that, and possibly the achievements linked to it as well.
*Edit* Sorry I don't get what you're asking rice farmer
Last edited by a moderator:
DeletedUser
You say that people die on the front lines for little or no xp, so I'm asking about these people before I say anything. Do they have high enough hp to take one round of damage and swap? Are they just offliners? I don't want to make any sweeping judgments here. 
DeletedUser17202
Oh, well I'll give you an example then - world 7 we have an unofficial ally babydoll with 4600 hp I think? Shes died in one round rushing a flag at the front, or blocking the flag. Or been close to death and no-one close enough to cover for her. She usually is a great help at blocking or helping us rush if we decide to rush because in old worlds the major win tactic seems to be a flag rush. A lot of the onliners will end up dieing trying to defend this if they block (and save the fort) while the ones that sit in their towers get the boxes and exp.
Also another example, last battle where we started with 10 less attackers than they had defenders, one of our allies - adventurer with 3500 hp took the lead and if they made it to the flag we might have had the fort, I would have nominated him for the MVP. People with 6k+ hp in forts usually will get a box for the sheer amount of times they dodge with that much hp.
Those are just some examples from previous battles in world 7 where the max either side can get at a fort battle is in the 80s. World 2 doesn't seem to do much better or world 8 either. World 10 both sides still have the ability to max out forts but I think almost everyone would be happy to have someone nominate them for the MVP of a fort, it doesn't mean you're the best fighter ever, just that the alliance appreciated what you did in that battle and they think you deserve this reward.
Those are the only worlds I play on so I can't judge every world, but I think in those worlds (and by extrapolation, all worlds) this addition would be a great improvement.
Also there have only been 1 or 2 battles that I have ever been to that I would consider nominating an offline player because of great positioning or something that the offline player did that results in us winning (one offliner with 6k hp put their character on the flag and it saved us the fort).
Also another example, last battle where we started with 10 less attackers than they had defenders, one of our allies - adventurer with 3500 hp took the lead and if they made it to the flag we might have had the fort, I would have nominated him for the MVP. People with 6k+ hp in forts usually will get a box for the sheer amount of times they dodge with that much hp.
Those are just some examples from previous battles in world 7 where the max either side can get at a fort battle is in the 80s. World 2 doesn't seem to do much better or world 8 either. World 10 both sides still have the ability to max out forts but I think almost everyone would be happy to have someone nominate them for the MVP of a fort, it doesn't mean you're the best fighter ever, just that the alliance appreciated what you did in that battle and they think you deserve this reward.
Those are the only worlds I play on so I can't judge every world, but I think in those worlds (and by extrapolation, all worlds) this addition would be a great improvement.
Also there have only been 1 or 2 battles that I have ever been to that I would consider nominating an offline player because of great positioning or something that the offline player did that results in us winning (one offliner with 6k hp put their character on the flag and it saved us the fort).
Last edited by a moderator:
DeletedUser
Some alliance give "medals" for battles, but that's too RP for me. I like the concept, but I'm not sure about the awards. I think achievements for x, y, and z MVPs might be better. I don't know about the voting concept though. I thought maybe they could be chosen by a general. The problem with either is that while I frequently appreciate people for their role in a single battle or their general FF style, and I always think it's obvious how useful the person is, yet they often get no respect whatsoever from the rest of the alliance. They never get captain and frequently get stacked. I think too many people are oblivious for voting to really be a realistic assessment of a player. Since, as I said, generals frequently fail to show respect for such players with a captain rank means my alternative wouldn't be much better.
Edit: I liked your last post as well, and it might encourage participation and selflessness, but I'm not sure if it would make them any more AWARE and thus better at voting.
Edit: I liked your last post as well, and it might encourage participation and selflessness, but I'm not sure if it would make them any more AWARE and thus better at voting.
Last edited by a moderator:
DeletedUser17202
@ Elmyr - Good points and thats why I was hoping that the voting option would be sufficient (also don't see any other real way of doing this democratically), that enough players would see someone that goes out of their way to keep/get a fort.
I know there are people that are fairly selfish and any system thats computer generated wouldn't 'see' what the players are doing as obvious by the way the AI sends people in every direction in fort battles because a 'hole' opens up somewhere else. I was hoping that the achievements and the chance at say, a random product as listed in my possible rewards section would be sufficient to limit any selfishness and make people more aware of people that do continuously take one for the team.
I personally try to thank people that end up dieing or just making good blocks whenever I can and I think this reward system might just help those people feel a bit better.
I know there are people that are fairly selfish and any system thats computer generated wouldn't 'see' what the players are doing as obvious by the way the AI sends people in every direction in fort battles because a 'hole' opens up somewhere else. I was hoping that the achievements and the chance at say, a random product as listed in my possible rewards section would be sufficient to limit any selfishness and make people more aware of people that do continuously take one for the team.
I personally try to thank people that end up dieing or just making good blocks whenever I can and I think this reward system might just help those people feel a bit better.
DeletedUser
The game mechanics can't fairly quantify heroism, and leaving mvp nominations to the alliance is prone to abuse. So, I think the best route would be for the two sides that fought the battle to co-pick the mvp's for both sides. You can pick who was most helpful to you and also who proved to be the greatest obstacle for you. Get both sides to agree on the mvp's and there you go.
DeletedUser17202
Thats a great idea rice farmer, I personally don't pay attention to most of the other side and that might help prevent abuse. No idea how this would be programmed though.
DeletedUser22685
After reading all the posts, I still stand by my original opinion that there shouldn't be any reward. I think all the selfless people that sacrifice themselves like you're saying want is a bit of recognition for what they do, not some sort of reward. If they wanted rewards, they'd hide and try to get damage, not sacrifice themselves in a block or a rush. There would be absolutely no reason to try to abuse the system if there's no material reward, and there would still be incentive to get voted the MVP. Perhaps the number of times a player has been voted the MVP could be displayed on their profile, but I don't think an achievement should be implemented either - it would only result in those players that like collecting achievement points (the same ones that buy things for minimum price and sell them back when they have the achievement) getting voted for every time no matter what they do in the battle just so they can get their achievements that no one else cares about.
DeletedUser563
No. There is already too much "politics" in this a game. So if a certain GG /tank win this for the so manied time. Will you guys still like this idea. There is already a reward system for fort fighting we dont need another one.
DeletedUser
There is no fort reward system for intangibles and there's no way to implement it at all reliably without the MVP being chosen by other players. There's a fine line between heroism and stupidity: moving to a tower or flag to block with low hp for one round until someone else with more hp can get into position can save a fort, but it would be impossible to code all the variables to distinguish between a hero and some idiot committing suicide for no reason.
What if there was also someone designated as a leader for the battle and he picked the MVP? I'm not sure what else leader could entail, but a decent leader will be more aware of people's actions than a lot of people. It still wouldn't be perfect, e.g. some leaders manage to win a fair number of battles by copying another person's strategy without really understanding why it works or how to adjust if the other side doesn't do what they're supposed to. There are also times that a leader has to leave unexpectedly and someone else has to take over.
What if there was also someone designated as a leader for the battle and he picked the MVP? I'm not sure what else leader could entail, but a decent leader will be more aware of people's actions than a lot of people. It still wouldn't be perfect, e.g. some leaders manage to win a fair number of battles by copying another person's strategy without really understanding why it works or how to adjust if the other side doesn't do what they're supposed to. There are also times that a leader has to leave unexpectedly and someone else has to take over.
DeletedUser17202
Well if they're getting voted for the MVP everytime Futurama then they are most likely doing the most valued things in the eyes of the players there. I doubt there is one person that would ever get the achievement everytime, I'm sure after someone such as yourself got it a few times there would be others that do something remarkable as well that would get them voted the MVP.
If there was no reward at all, not even an achievement it would be the same as me saying thank you to the players I think do something heroic during the battle which I do anyways. This system would have no merit at all.
@Elmyr I like your idea but I think having just one person voting who is the leader, would generally be biased against some players. I know in every world I play in that the players that talk would be preferred to players than the ones that don't to the leaders. That doesn't mean the players that aren't talking aren't following orders or sacrificing themselves to win. That's why I picked a voting system, little iffy on the voting for both sides thing because the other side can't even see who's online. And yes I agree that coding that system would be impossible which is why people that can be heroes of a battle don't already get the wooden boxes, because it is impossible for the computer to understand whats going on other than pure numbers.
@Jakkals I don't think just because people have a golden gun or are a tank means that they are the most valuable players. In most of the worlds I play in the tanks wait until later before jumping to the front and 'save the day', I don't really see that as heroism, just their best chance to stay alive the longest (after most of the other side is dead and they won't die in one turn). Sure its a good strategy but not as heroic knowing you won't die for a while yet. Those players are usually rewarded fairly often as it is and I think people would see other acts of heroism as well from non-tanks. My idea is just to promote teamwork and reward people who would possibly otherwise get nothing
If there was no reward at all, not even an achievement it would be the same as me saying thank you to the players I think do something heroic during the battle which I do anyways. This system would have no merit at all
.@Elmyr I like your idea but I think having just one person voting who is the leader, would generally be biased against some players. I know in every world I play in that the players that talk would be preferred to players than the ones that don't to the leaders. That doesn't mean the players that aren't talking aren't following orders or sacrificing themselves to win. That's why I picked a voting system, little iffy on the voting for both sides thing because the other side can't even see who's online. And yes I agree that coding that system would be impossible which is why people that can be heroes of a battle don't already get the wooden boxes, because it is impossible for the computer to understand whats going on other than pure numbers.
@Jakkals I don't think just because people have a golden gun or are a tank means that they are the most valuable players. In most of the worlds I play in the tanks wait until later before jumping to the front and 'save the day', I don't really see that as heroism, just their best chance to stay alive the longest (after most of the other side is dead and they won't die in one turn). Sure its a good strategy but not as heroic knowing you won't die for a while yet. Those players are usually rewarded fairly often as it is and I think people would see other acts of heroism as well from non-tanks. My idea is just to promote teamwork and reward people who would possibly otherwise get nothing
Last edited by a moderator:
DeletedUser563
Well after the:censored::censored::censored::censored: "Bryce" incident. I am a bit cold to any competitions. Although I do see we took the sheep hand shearing Tri Nations and our man is about to defend his world crown next year. Well as long as you can keep it so that
1. Big towns dont vote their members each time.
2. The same players dont get it each time.
Perhaps it would be best if the game picked the nominees like for instance
a. Player X Most damage inflicted.
b. Player Y Most damage taken/rounds
Members below lvl 60
a. Category.....
1. Big towns dont vote their members each time.
2. The same players dont get it each time.
Perhaps it would be best if the game picked the nominees like for instance
a. Player X Most damage inflicted.
b. Player Y Most damage taken/rounds
Members below lvl 60
a. Category.....
DeletedUser22575
Left up to the players this will be nothing but a popularity contest with the same contestants and winners time after time.
DeletedUser17202
Wells Jackkals if it was how you suggested it, ie most damage or dodged etc then the people that are already getting boxes would just get an extra reward. I think the players that end up dieing and not getting a reward because of some game saving play are the ones this idea is targeting.
@TJ - Thats also why I changed the idea to having both sides vote for the people on each side that they think should be the MVP.
I'm looking for more suggestions on how this idea could avoid abuse and be simple to choose the MVPs. A timer of some sort could be beneficial such as the player that is the MVP can't get the reward again for a week.
@TJ - Thats also why I changed the idea to having both sides vote for the people on each side that they think should be the MVP.
I'm looking for more suggestions on how this idea could avoid abuse and be simple to choose the MVPs. A timer of some sort could be beneficial such as the player that is the MVP can't get the reward again for a week.
DeletedUser
maybe only those who got <500 xp would be eligible, therefore making it unlikely that the same person will be chosen every time.
DeletedUser17202
I would agree to that rice farmer but I think that would encourage people to die early, and its not what I'm going for. I've died on the 3rd round and still gotten 400 exp just for hitting a few people. Good idea though
DeletedUser
I know it would be hard, but I like the concept and I hope there's some way to make this work. What about just restrictions on how often you can win? Once per week, once per two weeks, once per 10 battles, w/e. It can't be too long, like once per month, I don't think, because you wouldn't want to run out of deserving candidates.
DeletedUser
you do need to be slightly suicidal to be a good fighter
anyways, I think people would rather hide and get a lot of xp plus boxes than to suicide for a doctor's bag or other small award.
anyways, I think people would rather hide and get a lot of xp plus boxes than to suicide for a doctor's bag or other small award.
DeletedUser563
solutions might be to make the opposition decide. They sure know who kicked :censored:. This way you get some objectivity as they dont really will have "favorites".