Reply
Views: 4349 | Replies: 12
[ Suggestions ] Convoy/Plunder change

 [

Copy Link

]

  • Registered: 2017-07-24
  • Topics: 29
  • Posts: 2271
On 2017-02-13 12:19:11Show All PostsDescending Order
1# Go To
First, a warning, this is going to get long. Because this isn't just off the top of my head "let's buff convoy" post, but rather one that takes into consideration a number of things.

There have been numerous posts on suggestions for boosting convoy reward, and the frequent rejection reason for those are:
1. Plunder is not as good as it first appear, 150 is not guaranteed.
2. Plunder is meant to be better to reward top players.

We shall examine each of those two points.

I must say that I accept #1 to be true, if we were to say the subject is ALL POTENTIAL PLUNDERS. That is to say, for example, that ranked 50 player in a server of 100-200 active player. Fact of the matter is, not every potential plunder choose to plunder, specifically because of this. If a player does not believe that they can get more out of plunder, on average, than convoy, then they would not choose to plunder in the first place. Fact of the matter is, those who choose to do plunder, especially the top 5-10 of each server, always come out far ahead. Therefore, there does, in fact, a large reward disparity between those who DO plunder (not those who CAN, but those who DO) and those who don't.
Therefore, #1 is a moot statement.

#1 does in fact, however, support #2. Those who are rewarded are in fact the top players. Now, I have nothing fundamentally against rewarding top players. Although it is already being done in just about every other competitive feature so one could question whether it is even needed in convoy/plunder, but that is not my point to argue and is a decision that is purely on the hand of the devs. So no, I will not argue against this reason and will accept it as it is.

However, I do have a problem with HOW the top player is being rewarded in this case--they are forced to perform a "crime" in order to receive their "rightful reward". This, frankly, is bad game design. Enticing players to perform an optional "bad" deed, especially one both in "name" (i.e. robbery is wrong) and one where it is ACTUALLY harmful for other player (the plundered receive reduced rewards) is corrosive to moral values. Now, I realize it is "just a game", but that doesn't mean it does not subconsciously suggest that wrongful acts can be rewarding, and this is why I do not like the "how" of the "reward top player" is being done.

And with that, here is my suggestion. I propose that we preserve "reward top player" while not make plunder the absolute superior choice, instead giving the top player two equally rewarding options in both convoy and plunder.
Since the current plunder only allows the top 50 to plunder, I will take that as the intended target for the rewards.
Convoy:
Top 10 player may do 4 SS convoy for free per day at 30 coupon each (or alternatively, 2 SS at 50/convoy)
11-20 can do 3 SS convoy for free per day at 30 each (or alternatively, 2 SS at 40/convoy)
21-50 can do 2 SS convoy for free per day at 30 each
Plunder
Top 10 player can plunder 3 times, at 50 coupon per SS success
11-20 can plunder 3 times, at 40 coupons per SS success
21-50 can plunder 3 times, at 30 coupon per SS success

As you can see, at every tier, plunder can theoretically get more reward overall, but as was stated, plunder is a risky business (granted, convoy could get robbed too)
This have a further benefit of increasing the amount of SS convoy being done in a server, thus providing more plunder targets, as currently the top reason why plunder don't get their full reward is actually the lack of target. Of course, any shift from plunder participation to convoy participation will further aid in this, which makes plunder better which cause some shift backward etc, until an equilibrium is reached, as opposed to the current state of going plunder regardless of lack of target because getting lucky on average once per day is better than convoy altogether.

At last but not least, by further bracketing, instead of just a broad of "top 50" into 3 tiers, it will encourage ranked battle participation. Let me tell you, ranked battle is dead. Our group, for example, can achieve 300 login in group activities, but struggles with 180 ranked battle per week, except when other event(such as this week's monthly) demands ranekd battle participation, when in theory, if 5 ranked battle is done by everyone that logs in, it should reach 1500(granted, some might be alts that doesn't much ever, but still, 500+ should be easy). That's how dead ranked battle is. Even this week it only barely passed 300, that's only a dozen player finishing the monthly event daily when I know for a fact we have more active players than that (almost 30 in GNW). Let me say it again, ranked battle is dead, if fighting for ranking carry a bit more weight with this, it can only be a good thing.
  • Registered: 2017-07-24
  • Topics: 29
  • Posts: 2271
On 2017-02-13 21:38:23Show All Posts
7#
  • Zeoon On 2017-02-13 19:27:30
  • They probably wont do a thing about this but i support what you just said in this post. +1
Well that won't surprise me, I'm more interested in just what reason they could give for that, since I've addressed the most common rebukes, which is why I waited this long and have been observing their response.
  • Registered: 2017-07-24
  • Topics: 29
  • Posts: 2271
On 2017-02-13 21:44:01Show All Posts
8#
  • KageLion On 2017-02-13 14:53:03
  • for 2. Plunder is meant to be better to reward top players.
    well not only top players can get the rewards here even lower can do it you know why ?
    because of the lvl cap they have here if am a lvl 85 players i can only attack players who are 70+ so when a lvl 80 wants to do plunder he can just get all the convoy who are lower (70-65) which we "Top players "can't get no matter what we do.
    in that case any player can do plunder no matter what lvl they are so how is that meant to reward "Top players"

    tho the 50 Top player req to do plunders mean not all players can do plunder
    This post was last edited by zin***@hotmail.com at 2017-2-13 14:55
That have hardly anything to do with it. Because there is nothing stopping a weaker 85 from hitting a 82 or a 83 hitting a 82, that's more of an issue of reaction speed/luck.

What really makes it difficult for non-top player to plunder is the support. Due to the nature of support, it is entirely ineffective again the top player who can beat them in 1v1 anyway, but as long as a group have some top 10, even if not top 5, they can support against weaker plunders that are not in top 10, which makes plunder against members of stronger group very risky. Depending on server, there simply might not be enough un/under-supported target for the lower powered player to try.
Our group strongly advice lv 65+ SS be supported and far as I know there is nothing stopping a 85 from supporting a 65, so the level thing really won't do any good.

There is also the fact that non-top player tend to be more likely be hunted down for coins, while insignificant compared to the coupon gain, it is another advantage top ones enjoy over non-top ones, nobody can beat the #1, so they get to keep coupon and coins (unless he is in and leader of a weak team, but that's kinda their own fault..)
  • Registered: 2017-07-24
  • Topics: 29
  • Posts: 2271
On 2017-02-14 04:38:44Show All Posts
11#
  • Tenseigan On 2017-02-13 21:53:38
  • The reason is they can't really do anything about it because CN don't have what you said, if this ever approve by the dev in CN then it will happen in CN 1st and we may have it years later so suggestion about changing game code is not helping atm for us. At least til we catch up with CN.
    The only thing we could suggest is ask them to rush process about things that already happened in CN, all the change like buff/nerf, future system, etc... Not something total new. This post was last edited by Tenseigan at 2017-2-13 21:56
I could post this, in Chinese of course, on the CN forum. But as I don't play there, I'm not entirely sure if the context is exactly the same... Time zone difference make it rather difficult to play there seriously, and some of those can only be observed if you play seriously.
So unfortunately this is the more applicable channel for me. Now, I understand that code dependent change will likely suffer long delays and propagation before reaching us, but eventually is better then never. Whether I'll stay to play long enough to see the change, even if it is accepted, is a whole other matter entirely.


P.S. No, it would not have been a google translated version that no one can understand, I'm actually Chinese so... yeah....
Reply
Quicky Post
Reply

Log in in order to Post. | Register