Ysosad is out of good names for titles...the idea is OK though, you should read me.

I think it's an interesting feature, but will not be strong enough to actually work as a counterbalance. For that, the devs would need to create some automatic modifiers based on active players. I don't know why that still hasn't been done.

The proposed feature is a fun extra element, but no faction would allow it to become too strong in favor of the other faction. Both sides have shown that they can pull together a concentrated assault if need be. Even more so when it would be an action that relies on the players that are playing/generating the most anyway, and doesn't need a large number of people to patricipate.

I'm all for the feature as an added interest, but it's wildly underpowered to counteract the continuing imbalance.

Tibr wrote:

I would prefer those cp gainers to ... remain anonymous.

I disagree, which I'm doing a lot of and is making me wonder if I am just a disagreeable person...I disagree with that possibility though (:

In general, I want to be able to plan, keeping this invisible makes that more difficult.

Tibr wrote:

I don't like the idea for anyone to be made responsible for failing his faction...

From external sources? If so...who could judge this person without being a hypocrite? Anyone that thinks they could do better can get into that group in 24 hours at most.

Tibr wrote:

also i dont like to put people on the spot and force them to feel the weight of their performance and drop their lives, school or study to generate more CP.

This is something you could say about the game right now by looking at the CP totals of individuals...or whenever a region is under pressure...which can be and often is just about every cycle.

Anyway, what I really want to say is that most players are adults...in which case it is their own responsibility to self-regulate...it's not anyone's responsibility by their own. Some players are children, in which case that responsibility is their parents' or guardians'.

I hope no one advocates for a time limit for how long you can be signed into the game daily...

Plonck wrote:

I think it's an interesting feature, but will not be strong enough to actually work as a counterbalance. For that, the devs would need to create some automatic modifiers based on active players. I don't know why that still hasn't been done.

The proposed feature is a fun extra element, but no faction would allow it to become too strong in favor of the other faction. Both sides have shown that they can pull together a concentrated assault if need be. Even more so when it would be an action that relies on the players that are playing/generating the most anyway, and doesn't need a large number of people to patricipate.

I'm all for the feature as an added interest, but it's wildly underpowered to counteract the continuing imbalance.

I don't know which suggestion specifically you think is acceptable...I'm thinking of a few discussions and they were far from a consensus...that would be my reasoning for why, in part, nothing has been done.

You say that neither Faction would allow it to get strong enough, but isn't that dependent upon how quickly and how steeply the bonus scales?

For instance, if the bonus started at 5% and scaled up 5% every additional cycle (I'm not saying this is so, just an example...no one go crazy)...after holding the region for 6 cycles that is a 35% bonus. I believe that 6 retentions would be difficult, but I think it is a plausible scenario.

I still think that a bonus mechanism rewarding quality is an excellent idea. But Tibr has raised a very important point here. A mechanism that puts individual players on the spot may create wrong incentives and just be at odds with how many like to play the game. Dictating players's schedules is a problem for many RTS games, not doing that has been one of the strengths of this one.

Quality play doesn't necessarily have to mean hardcore grinding though. Among the various battle modes that have been discussed pvp tournaments are probably most directly linked to "quality". But I'm all in favor of variety here (survival modes, pvp-vs-ai weird concept i know, but you know what i mean, boss modes - perhaps against a pack of high-lvl ogres and cave giants in order to save the devs some time). There are more than enough possibilities, and as long as we take into account the various strengths of the factions they can all be used to help balance the game.

Think, for example, of a battle mode that is only open to players with 500kcp+. That would have worked very much in favor of the dark faction in the previous round, but it could be designed in such a way that it does not force people to grind for hours and hours in a time window dictated by the game only in order to cash in on their bonus.

krawehl wrote:

Quality play doesn't necessarily have to mean hardcore grinding though. Among the various battle modes that have been discussed pvp tournaments are probably most directly linked to "quality". But I'm all in favor of variety here (survival modes, pvp-vs-ai weird concept i know, but you know what i mean, boss modes - perhaps against a pack of high-lvl ogres and cave giants in order to save the devs some time). There are more than enough possibilities, and as long as we take into account the various strengths of the factions they can all be used to help balance the game.

I agree, you may have even seen that in an earlier version (on HC) the idea was to have multiple bonus regions with different means of controlling them...including PvP-AI and 'New Battle Modes'

I stripped much of that original concept out because of the response, which expressed that it was...impractical(?).

ysosad wrote:

krawehl wrote:

Quality play doesn't necessarily have to mean hardcore grinding though. Among the various battle modes that have been discussed pvp tournaments are probably most directly linked to "quality". But I'm all in favor of variety here (survival modes, pvp-vs-ai weird concept i know, but you know what i mean, boss modes - perhaps against a pack of high-lvl ogres and cave giants in order to save the devs some time). There are more than enough possibilities, and as long as we take into account the various strengths of the factions they can all be used to help balance the game.

I agree, you may have even seen that in an earlier version (on HC) the idea was to have multiple bonus regions with different means of controlling them...including PvP-AI and 'New Battle Modes'

I stripped much of that original concept out because of the response, which expressed that it was...impractical(?).

Yup, I'm putting the impractical stuff back on the table - because those were great ideas

Not sure where exactly the impracticability comes in tbh - is it the concept of special faction bonuses or their number? For now, I'd try to make the idea as strong as possible, then see what can be realized.

krawehl wrote:

ysosad wrote:

krawehl wrote:

Quality play doesn't necessarily have to mean hardcore grinding though. Among the various battle modes that have been discussed pvp tournaments are probably most directly linked to "quality". But I'm all in favor of variety here (survival modes, pvp-vs-ai weird concept i know, but you know what i mean, boss modes - perhaps against a pack of high-lvl ogres and cave giants in order to save the devs some time). There are more than enough possibilities, and as long as we take into account the various strengths of the factions they can all be used to help balance the game.

I agree, you may have even seen that in an earlier version (on HC) the idea was to have multiple bonus regions with different means of controlling them...including PvP-AI and 'New Battle Modes'

I stripped much of that original concept out because of the response, which expressed that it was...impractical(?).

Yup, I'm putting the impractical stuff back on the table - because those were great ideas

Not sure where exactly the impracticability comes in tbh - is it the concept of special faction bonuses or their number? For now, I'd try to make the idea as strong as possible, then see what can be realized.

I don't know for sure either, but I think everything that goes into making them a reality. Part of the concept relies upon other things being added first (like new battle modes) or racial balance (PvP) so that might be part of it...but that's just a stab in the dark, nothing explicit. Here is the response, if it gives you any additional insight:

http://www.battleconforum.com/t2463p15-how-to-win-the-game-a-different-take-on-balance-population-issues#20529