Cap on "veteran" players per alliance

[Dark_Angel]

We've recorded everyones round history for years now, but not really put it to use in-game (other than awards)

What if there was a cap on the number people who've played for "> X number of rounds" for each alliance?

OR

A cap on the number of people with "> X number of award points" / A cap on the total number of award points (as a total of all member award points) per alliance (this one probably being the trickiest to work out)



Not sure what the limit should be. This would directly tackle the problem of 15-20 hardcore players running away with the round, given you'd only ever be able to have X number of "elite" players in any one alliance.

-
Example of one possible implementation: Someone creates an alliance - 12 of the spots in the alliance are subject to no restrictions atall (you can have as many FTW players as you want) But 7 must be filled by players who have played < X number of rounds/have < X number of award points.

Possible cons:

People wouldn't like not being able to play with friends (Though a limit of say, 10, is fairly lax and would allow most close-knit groups to maintain their close-knitty-ness)

People making new accounts to get past the cap (Though systems should be in place to detect this, and ofc you'd not have your progress added to your actual account)

-

Benefits:

More fluctuation in the alliance rankings - It would encourage FTW alliances to take on newer, less experienced players.

Everyone would suffer from having less reliable members, contrary to the current system whereby you can literally have an alliance of 20 people contactable 24/7, thus making the alliance pretty much invunerable.

-

Constructive replies please. This isn't intended to be an imba fix to the current problem with the alliance rankings (whereby rank 1 secure their win very early on and have no chance of being caught) - I'm trying to get more people to put forth possible solutions for this - so that the round is more competitive and thus enjoyable.

 

[Steve_God]

Could involve the 'veteran portal award' possibly?

 

[tobapopalos]

I don't like this suggestion. Not all "veteran" players are pros, and not all newer players are noobs.

What would happen if you wanted to make an inactive alliance for oldies, like DarkSider did with Big Balls in round 21? you wouldn't be able to because of this silly rule.

Just because a player has played lots of rounds that doesn't automatically mean they're uberseriousimbaleetpro players that only play 20 hour active rounds going FTW!!!1111!!.

People should be able to join whatever alliance they want, and any in-game mechanics against that will just push people away from the game.

We should focus on trying to encourage people to try different things rather than forcing them to do what we believe is best for the game.

 

[CLem]

Toby = truth

 

[Dark_Angel]

Not all "veteran" players are pros, and not all newer players are noobs.

Clearly. This is a rule of thumb assumption, I don't think "time" is a horribly bad indicatior of experience. The point is an alliance wouldn't be able to have 20 people who are likely 20 very experienced, very reliable people - who'll get off to a cracking start and have secured a win within the first 5 days.

Just because a player has played lots of rounds that doesn't automatically mean they're uberseriousimbaleetpro players that only play 20 hour active rounds going FTW!!!1111!!.

That shouldn't really matter. An alliance leader can pick whoever he wants for his FTW alliance, if one of the "experienced" spots can't promise contactability/reliability he can go to another alliance.

We should focus on trying to encourage people to try different things rather than forcing them to do what we believe is best for the game.

I see what you're saying. But the problem is ftw players play to win. If they can do so much more easily by playing with 20 other ftw guys, they're going to do it.

Its a shame but our "hardcore" playerbase aren't going to divide themselves up into nice little warring factions. They're going to stick together, where the possibility of a win is far, far more likely.

 

[atsanjose]

i must say that i see possibility's in this suggestion, although iam not sure about the selection criteria it should go by.

lets see it this way, current alliance cap is 20 players but what if 5 where reserved for new people, i could live with that.
And on response to toby's remark that you should be able to join any alliance you want: there is a cap of 20 members right now, so youre not free to join any alliance if they are full, and this suggestion doesnt change that fact.

on the issue of how to decide who is new and who isnt i wouldn't just look at rounds someone played but his/her achievements as a whole, for instance counting all the awards that you achieve by actually doing something (not the fun awards like hamsters etc.)

the biggest + on this "system" would be that new players have a higher chance of getting into big alliances, learning the games and most important get addicted ^_^ and start to contribute to the game.

 

[tobapopalos]

Time might not be a bad indicator of experience, you're not wrong there. But neither time nor experience are good indicators of value. You can have a highly experienced inactive player, and you can have a highly active and contactable relatively inexperienced player. I don't think it's fair to decide whether a person can join an alliance purely on how long they've been playing the game. In fact I don't think the game should be able to decide anything on the matter, no matter whether the deciding factor is experience, activity, IQ or star sign.

And atsan: And on response to toby's remark that you should be able to join any alliance you want: there is a cap of 20 members right now, so youre not free to join any alliance if they are full, and this suggestion doesnt change that fact.

That is quite simply nonsense and I don't think it has any relevance on anything, ever.

 

[Polo]

Why do people keep trying to kill the game by not letting people play with their friends?

 

[Bruce666]

tbh theirs like 1 massive group that wins in some form every round, those friends will only really play together, if you put rules in front of them they wont play and well lose even more players thus the game dies quicker, leave it, something will have too change too give others a chance maybe bring oldies back but one alliance winning every time must even be getting boring for the winners, i would imagine Twigley has been in more winning alliances than any other player

 

[IceOfFire]

Couldn't ppl just delete and restart their accounts??

 

[atsanjose]

Why do people keep trying to kill the game by not letting people play with their friends?

who says you cant?

tbh theirs like 1 massive group that wins in some form every round, those friends will only really play together, if you put rules in front of them they wont play and well lose even more players thus the game dies quicker, leave it, something will have too change too give others a chance maybe bring oldies back but one alliance winning every time must even be getting boring for the winners, i would imagine Twigley has been in more winning alliances than any other player

the only thing this would do is make the individual groups smaller and letting a few new people in every round. Dont tell me that some of them will quit just because there are like 5 other people in the alliance who they dont know...
+ getting oldies back isnt going to happen, the most of them didnt leave because they thought the game was ****, but because other reasons.
we should focus on getting new players in, keeping them in, and getting them hooked.

Couldn't ppl just delete and restart their accounts??

you cant delete your account, only Azzer can.
And IF that would even be possible,
Would you throw away all your awards just so you can play in a specific alliance?

 

[TaO]

Defo a no..
I like to play with a fair few people, and if i get the chance to play a round with them i want to play that round.
Not all "veteran" players are FTW, so this is a useless suggestion anyhow..

20 FTF "veterans" who became friends because they have played 5 rounds together are not able to play together again?

Don't like the idea, would just encourage solo play for all the "veterans"

 

[willymchilybily]

i thought more people would have torn this idea apart. its truely shocking. imagine this you've played in Dw for the past 13 rounds. and suddenly, sorry your not welcome. they have capped it. bye gadfly, bye rooney, bye Rev_Jim (though im not sure whos actually in DW this round tbf) you get the point

if the concept that judging what is considered a new and an old player is to hard to call didnt clinch it, and the fact that experience doesnt grant wisdom. Then the idea that only playing against good allainces and in good alliances can net you any decent ftw experience is probably is wasted on you. you need good oponents to get good experience. and need good team work.

if i idle for 5-6 rounds not playing that year cos im busy at uni or w/e, then come back im not going to be experienced in the new setups, and now you make a suggestion such that i may not even be able to reminisce with the few remaining faces i still recognise from the game...

this suggestion is truely disgusting. atsan dresses it up nicely as. we have 15man alliances. but you can recruit 5 new players on top giving you 20. but im against 15man alliances. and further more:

clearly any one serious ftw will get some of the old players to play with a new acount(like a multi but without multying) all they need is a new email adress = easy. and bang an alliance can have 20 'vetrans' and everyone else is forced to be smaller (15man) or can have 5 new people, which probably wont be willing to be contactable etc. and as azzer cant easily detect multi's unless they are sloppy about it or joint attack, farm eachother etc. Then it'll be pretty hard to prove and moderate.

even if this suggestion was GARENTEED to bring in more players and keep it interesting and had bells and whistles on it. to code and define and put finite figures to, it is impossible to get a fair balance. even if i agreed with the concept,(I clearly dont fyi) the implimentation of said concept is a nightmare. i dont see it ever being able to be coded, even if every one inc. azzer wanted it to. too many variables and room for complaints/exceptions.

 

[TaO]

If alliancemembers = <15 then
'check for total "veteran"
if veteran = <15 then
If recruitplayer = true then
If playroundsplayed = >7 then
Player cannot join alliance because of too many round experience now bugger off!
end if
end if
else
Player recruited
end if
end if

Something like that lol

 

[Dark_Angel]

Why do people keep trying to kill the game by not letting people play with their friends?

Well, as has been proven this round (by Omgpop kicking half their team, reforming as Res, then even that alliance disbanding) there is rarely a scenerio in which 20 "close" friends join the same FTW alliance. Generally its a group of 5-8 close friends who play with each other time and time again - (i.e JJ, Mateen, Eden, Marvin) - The rest of the alliance being made up of 5-10 people they aren't "good" friends with but who they think will help secure their win.

If I thought this idea would prevent friends playing together I wouldn't have suggested it, but a limit of, say 12-13 "vets" per alliance would still allow most people to play with their close friends.

-

Time might not be a bad indicator of experience, you're not wrong there. But neither time nor experience are good indicators of value. You can have a highly experienced inactive player, and you can have a highly active and contactable relatively inexperienced player. I don't think it's fair to decide whether a person can join an alliance purely on how long they've been playing the game. In fact I don't think the game should be able to decide anything on the matter, no matter whether the deciding factor is experience, activity, IQ or star sign.

Time/Experience is a "constant", though, reliability/contactability is a variable - it changes from round to round; this depending on what else is going on in your life; exams, work etc.

I'm not arguing that rounds played' is a fantastic indicator of "value" - but this doesn't come in to my idea, so what you would essentially have is 12 "free" spots, with no limitations, and 8 "restricted" spots, that must be filled with people who have played <X number of rounds or who have <X number of award points.

-

I'm not saying this is a perfect solution, how it'd work in practice I'm unsure, but we do need more ideas floating about to combat this quite damaging problem.

 

[timtadams]

This could work with the right setup...maybe, here are my thoughts anyway

15 experienced players is plently of room for friends to be able to get together. Also, how many experienced players are loyal to a single alliance (eg Discworld)? i doubt it would be more than 15.

Also, for this to be fairer, you would need a sort of 'hardcore' meter. This hardcore meter would be affected by a number of variables:

The greater the number of rounds you have played, the higher this value
The greater the effectiveness you have earned increases the value
The higher your final valuation rank, the higher the value
The greater your activity, the greater the value (this is a big one, as activity is arguably the most important aspect of the game) Thus there should be greater emphasis on this value.

Also, a player might have played hard in their first few rounds, but now just play inactively. Thus they have a higher 'hardcore' value yet play inactively. So maybe increase the effect of the most recent rounds on the value.

Maybe the hardcore rating could be out of a hundred (like a percentage) and there is a cutoff at about 50% (ie > 50% = hardcore, < 50% = noob) so there is a max of 15 hardcore players

Or maybe the hardcore rating of all the 'hardcore' players (> 50%) in the alliance could be added, and the average must be below, say, 75%. So if the alliance tries to recruit more hardcore players, then they wont be able to (Sorry, but this person cannot be recruited as your alliance is already too hardcore) That way you could still have 20 experienced players, as long as they are not too hardcore.
But i think this method might be harder to implement effectively

 

[Ram]

Possible cons:
People wouldn't like not being able to play with friends (Though a limit of say, 10, is fairly lax and would allow most close-knit groups to maintain their close-knitty-ness)

Benefits:
Everyone would suffer from having less reliable members, contrary to the current system whereby you can literally have an alliance of 20 people contactable 24/7, thus making the alliance pretty much invunerable.

Both of these would lose the real ftw players. Lack of reliable members is demoralising which makes people not want to play, same goes with the friends. Why would you want to play with people other than your friends. If you just have 10 friends, gg.

 

[Dark_Angel]

Possible cons:
People wouldn't like not being able to play with friends (Though a limit of say, 10, is fairly lax and would allow most close-knit groups to maintain their close-knitty-ness)

Benefits:
Everyone would suffer from having less reliable members, contrary to the current system whereby you can literally have an alliance of 20 people contactable 24/7, thus making the alliance pretty much invunerable.

Both of these would lose the real ftw players. Lack of reliable members is demoralising which makes people not want to play, same goes with the friends. Why would you want to play with people other than your friends. If you just have 10 friends, gg.

¬_¬

If you're saying you join an alliance with friends each round and 20 of those are people you know extremely well and could not possibly go a round without playing with them. I think you're lying

TBA was my most socially active round, I was in S_G and knew a lot of the guys there, but I still didn't know all 20 people in the alliance.

This suggestion would require people who play with their friends round after round to limit themselves to playing with 10-12 people they're close with (Which as I said in my last post wouldn't be a problem for most groups, look at Omgpop - They've disbanded twice, proving those who stayed together were the "core" group of friends).

In exchange they may actually have something to do a week after the round starts, other than counting funds. (I.e competition) The phrase "greater good" springs to mind.

 

[TaO]

Possible cons:
People wouldn't like not being able to play with friends (Though a limit of say, 10, is fairly lax and would allow most close-knit groups to maintain their close-knitty-ness)

Benefits:
Everyone would suffer from having less reliable members, contrary to the current system whereby you can literally have an alliance of 20 people contactable 24/7, thus making the alliance pretty much invunerable.

Both of these would lose the real ftw players. Lack of reliable members is demoralising which makes people not want to play, same goes with the friends. Why would you want to play with people other than your friends. If you just have 10 friends, gg.

¬_¬

If you're saying you join an alliance with friends each round and 20 of those are people you know extremely well and could not possibly go a round without playing with them. I think you're lying

TBA was my most socially active round, I was in S_G and knew a lot of the guys there, but I still didn't know all 20 people in the alliance.

This suggestion would require people who play with their friends round after round to limit themselves to playing with 10-12 people they're close with (Which as I said in my last post wouldn't be a problem for most groups, look at Omgpop - They've disbanded twice, proving those who stayed together were the "core" group of friends).

In exchange they may actually have something to do a week after the round starts, other than counting funds. (I.e competition) The phrase "greater good" springs to mind.

Leave OMGPOP out of this!
OMGPOP just "disbanded" once..
The core 5 of OMGPOP are still in OMGPOP, those that started Resilience was the inactive uncontactable children, like JJ, Mateen, Eden etc..

Then ontopic..
If you decide to "lead" a round like i did 2 rounds ago.. *GC*
I actually recruited alot of people i knew, but never played with before.. and most of those people i actually started to know/like/respect during that round..

If you can't pick a team yourself, then why would you bother to lead an alliance?
If you can't pick a team yourself, you will just give the final blow to any core FTW player of this game.

This is a "stupid" idea.

 

[Dark_Angel]

I don't wanna get into politics regarding the current round, my point was simply that FTW alliances are made up of a "core" group of friends who are then supported by other FTW players.

This idea allows that "core" group to remain together, but where the leader would then seek to support that core group with other highly active, contactable players, he would have to pick from a group who may not be as experienced/active/reliable. To reply to Ram, that players would dislike being "forced" into alliances with players less "dedicated", every alliance would be in the same boat. Thats the interesting bit, alliances wouldn't be able to rely on every single member of their alliance, there'd be scope for failure. Rather than the current system of your lineup basically guaranteeing your win. Which is shocking, really, that the round is won before its even started based on lineups.

You seem to have misinterpreted this suggestion BigBoss. At no point did I say a leader wouldn't be able to pick their team, they'd simply have less choice after recruiting their "top" players, they would have to fill a set number of places with newer, less experienced players. (The definition of "experienced" we're still debating).

If you don't have something constructive to say/cba reading the original post please don't bother replying.