Ability/System/Process of increasing personal bonus

Admin wrote:I invite all users to post their ideas and/or discuss posted ideas a system that would allow players to ultimately give the chance of receiving extra points they can use to increase their personal boost to attack defense covert or income.

Ok, here goes. I propose you choose something similiar to "random events". These should be based around the stats they represent. Att, Def, Covert/Anti, income. You could possibly have 30 different "tasks" or maye 10 "tasks" with 3 levels each?

example,,,
Att. At a predetermined amount of Att power delieved in a single hit or within a 24 hr period you recieve 1 pt
Def. At a predetermined amount of Def power delivered in a single hit or within a 24 hr period you recieve 1 pt
Cov. At a predetermined amount of Cov power, sab/ass damage diliver or recived in 1 hit or 24hrs you get 1pt
Inc, At a predetermined income level, or at a trade amount(currancy or total trades) you recieve 1 pt

so all events could be 1 time events or the same event can yield 2 or 3 points total as the amounts increase. Say you get a point at 1 bill stike, another at 10 bill strike, and another at 100 bill. You can get points for massing with your strike, and for being massed as you use your defense. Covert and income the same

You can get points from good/positive actions, such as massing, sabbing, assasinating, and trading
You can also get points for bad/negative things, such as being massed, being sabbed, and getting assasinated.

This will cause people to use ALL parts of their accounts to gain Full points. It will force the peacefuls to war to gain the strike points. It will cause the Massers to build a def to get the defensive points, everyone will have to take the good and the bad with covert to gain all those points. Incomes will have to grow and trading done to get all of those. You can even tie some points to UP???

As for total points per class, I think that depends on the total allowed. I say if you have 4 catagories I think NO more then 50% should go to 1 stat. We have 30 now. 30 is allowed in a single stat now. So if you go to say100 total then 50 is all that should be allowed in 1 stat. If the points are limitless then I say no more then 50% can be one stat.

Just my suggestion.

Admin wrote:
Before posting a new idea consider the following points:
Is the effort required adequate (not too much and not too little)?
How much time is necessary (even if resources would be unlimited to target player)?
What are the requirements?
Any financial/misc efforts necesary in order to progress?
How many points you get extra?
Any limits on how much you can develop one single stat?
Is there a limit on total amount of points players can acquire (even with unlimited time and resources)?
Did you think about your idea for more than 5 minutes?

I think so as it requires you to use ALL areas of your account
I say a long time fram, year or more for max points but are potentially limitless.
They are set by you, and found by us, but all are stat power or stat use based
Yes, You have to actively use ALL areas of your account in both offensive and defensive measures
Mentioned above
mentioned above (But could honestly be limitless)
Honestly the original idea came to me in under 5 minutes but I have spent about 30 minutes typing and refining it.

Admin wrote:interesting ideas but as of yet i see too many vague depictions of concepts and some easily abusable (or too easy to achieve, rendering the task pointless)

Well honestly it all depends on it you want them limited or limitless. The requirements to get the points should be the same for all. Not cost more the later you start playing. Abuseable? I'm not sure I understand how, other then someone massing for no other reason,,,, and lets face it. That will happen sooner or later anyway. Main point is you need a reason to war, or you see wars of boredom. You do have many good and valid points. Perhaps some others can offer something to refine the idea?

Admin wrote:
how would you determine how high those attacks have to be? cannot be static as what appears hard now will be a joke at all at a later stage in the game (it makes sense that the relative effort can become "less" over time to give newer players get an advantage, but what's the point if it's too easy)

I disagree with you here. I'm not saying either is right or wrong. Its just 2 different ideas. I do think it should be static and it should be the same cost for all. Set the "points" FAR apart. make the gaps massive so there is no way you can gain them quickly. I mean in beta we have 2 min turns. 100 mill stats are common now but how long would that take in live? You have 30 points to start with. I don't see a need to gain any more for 6 months or more. and then set the 3rd point where you think stats may be in 1 yr after? IDK. You do have a point, we both do.

Admin wrote:
About the part with having to mass, sab, assasinate, etc. do everything at least once, looks interesting but I'm afraid if that's part of the requirements then large people who don't want to upset other large peopel to get the bonuses will go hit smaller people. (yes i could just make it that you have to hit someone your size but that's just makes the whole process even more complicated, both in terms of coding and of understanding on the players part)

Yes and No. I mentioned 2 different ways to do it. 1 is the total amount done in 1 attack. So that means you have to hit someone big to get it. the other is total damage done in 24 hrs. Now this might could be achieved massing 100 minor players or 10 sizeable ones. If they dont have the resources to mass 100 minors then it does force them to hit bigger. Either way I say these are very far apart as well.

Admin wrote:
The part with getting massed, sabbed and assassinated well maybe worth a thought, but again, what would be the determining amount as to how much you need to loose

Well thats where your wisdom of game mechanics comes into play. Thats all I could say there.


Just ideas, maybe some others can offer or evolve this idea.

hate to see that this discussion has died

Admin wrote:it's not dead as long as the issue is ongoing

why should anyone post if they have nothing to say?

If no one has anything to say then its not much of a discussion.

Carry on mate.

rflash wrote:I think this should be similar to ascension in sgw, just that you don't get to play a second server.

In order to prevent what happened in sgw the cost of ascending must be dinamic.

So you take the top 100 accounts in every aspect (size, UP, income, etc) and you make an average, then you link the "ascending" requirements to those averages.

.

This is a bad idea, because only older and larger accounts will be able to ascend. I mean a new account will never hope to ascend when we are 1 or 2 yrs old.