DeletedUser18810
Guest
Expand FS to 30 Players.
-
Dear forum visitor,
It looks as though you have not registered for a forum account, or are not signed in. In order to participate in current discussions or create new threads, you will need to register for a forum account by clicking on the link below.
Click here to register for a forum account!
If you already have a forum account, you can simply click on the 'Log in' button at the top right of your forum screen.
Your Elvenar Team
Deleted User - 4750465
Guest
If you increase the Spire / Tournament requirements as well this would be a nice change. I have a city where I have about 4 active neighbors (and can't seem to trigger a move), so more FS members would be nice for that. There also seems to be a log jam for certain resources, so that might help there as well.
Enevhar Aldarion
Oh Wise One
It is already almost impossible to get 25 good players into a fellowship now. Older fellowships that have been at 25 players for a long time already have an unfair advantage over newer, smaller fellowships, so no.
SoggyShorts
Mathematician par Excellence
Really? How so? I've found that almost all top FS have openings occasionally and the requirements to join are reasonable, so I'm not sure what's unfair.
That said, I'm not really in favor of bigger fellowships since inno isn't great at balanced difficulty. i.e if we get 20% more FS members it will come with +30% harder tournaments, +45% harder spires, and +50% more badges needed in the FA
DeletedUser18810
Guest
Yes! I was thinking & there would be a lot of balancing impact. Inno has 80 Players to a Guild(FS) in FOE though. That was too little for a long time, but refined our requirements & reduced it by Players not meeting them. Its so hard to get into a good FS. Mine was good for a long time, but has fell apart. Not everyone who was good could go to my new FS because they're full. I could easily add another six good Players to it though.
Henroo
Oh Wise One
I think if this happened, the current established 10 chest fellowships would all have 5 openings. Some of the better players who are currently in mid-sized fellowships would either choose to leave or would be recruited by the larger fellowships. In essence, it would create a talent drain away from growing, midsized fellowships and would make it harder to develop them.
BrinDarby
Well-Known Member
I agree with both @Enevhar Aldarion and @Henroo ...
Recruiting good/active players is not easy, and it would
drain off talent from Mid-Low level FSs........
Recruiting good/active players is not easy, and it would
drain off talent from Mid-Low level FSs........
NightshadeCS
Well-Known Member
FoE guilds are so different than this game that I don't think a comparison of the two is helpful.
I cannot support this idea unless some very good reasons to want it are listed.
I cannot support this idea unless some very good reasons to want it are listed.
Palavyn
Well-Known Member
This would be great with the following conditions, which address the fellowship team events:
TOURNAMENTS: Only the top 25 scores count towards the fellowship total. Only players that are in the top 25 OR score an appropriate amount of points get rewards. For example, if your FS gets 10 chests, and you're not in the top 25, then you need 1600 points to get all 10 chests. Otherwise, you get less chests, according to what you scored.
SPIRE: Only the top 25 scores count for the FS. Rewards and reward requirements stay as they are.
FA: Increase the badge requirements proportionally; same rewards and reward requirements.
TOURNAMENTS: Only the top 25 scores count towards the fellowship total. Only players that are in the top 25 OR score an appropriate amount of points get rewards. For example, if your FS gets 10 chests, and you're not in the top 25, then you need 1600 points to get all 10 chests. Otherwise, you get less chests, according to what you scored.
SPIRE: Only the top 25 scores count for the FS. Rewards and reward requirements stay as they are.
FA: Increase the badge requirements proportionally; same rewards and reward requirements.
SoggyShorts
Mathematician par Excellence
I really like this. Probably the best suggestion I've seen regarding larger FS so far.
Henroo
Oh Wise One
I like the idea mostly, but I think a straight 1600 point requirement would be impossible for smaller cities. I would suggest the formula of: current chapter # x 10 x chest number. So to get all 10 chests, a chapter 16 city would have to score 1600 points (16x10x10). A chapter 1 city would have to score 100 points (1x10x10). To get 5 chests, the chapter 16 would have to score 800 points (16x10x5). The chapter 1 city would have to score 50 points (1x10x5)
Kekune
Well-Known Member
Perhaps, but they'd still get rewards in proportion to their contributions. More importantly, they'd have increased access to stronger fellowships who would be more willing to take on a small player and help them grow. As is, they're often left with smaller groups and fewer chests anyway.
michmarc
Well-Known Member
I disagree. You'd in an odd situation where scoring 1200 points might get you 10 chests if you're in a "small" FS, but as soon as the 26th person joins, you suddenly lose out on your rewards. And this could happen just before the tourney ends if someone joins late.
If we switch to a system where you have to earn you way (like in the Spire), it should apply equally to everyone: 1200 points either gets you the 10 chest reward or it doesn't, regardless of your rank or size of the fellowship.
If we switch to a system where you have to earn you way (like in the Spire), it should apply equally to everyone: 1200 points either gets you the 10 chest reward or it doesn't, regardless of your rank or size of the fellowship.
Henroo
Oh Wise One
Doesn't a player's tournament score reset if they change fellowships in the middle of the tournament? So they would have to join a fellowship at the last minute AND beat your score after doing so.
SoggyShorts
Mathematician par Excellence
I know of a couple of chapter 3 cities getting 1600 points each week without help, and it wouldn't take much at all for a bigger city to push others through.
Yup. I tested this a few weeks ago.
Edit: To be clear, my score didn't reset, but my points did not follow me to the fellowship.
Palavyn
Well-Known Member
40,000 points is the FS requirement for 10 chests. This averages out to 1600 points per member. That's why I suggested 1600 as the safe zone for 10 chests. Thus, if you have 1600 points you get the 10 chests even if you're 30th in the FS. If you have less than 1600 your FS needs to score 40K AND you need to be in top 25.
Pheryll
Set Designer
What do you mean by badge requirements? 60 beverages to brewers, or 20% more brewers needed?
SoggyShorts
Mathematician par Excellence
I think it'd have to be 20% more badges, right? Because of the spell badges and other non- workshop ones
ajqtrz
Chef - loquacious Old Dog
I'm of the opposite mind. Reduce the fs's to 20. I say this a bit tongue in cheek but if you to see the disadvantages of something do the opposite and see how things are positively affected.
So, by reducing the fs to 20 you re-distribute 20% of the top performers. Now you have more 10-chest fellowships, right?
By reducing the fs to 20 you can still get the 40,000 as most top players are capable of achieving 2000 pts per week. I average 5265 and I'm not much of a fighter myself. In my fs there are probably 20 who could raise their average to at least 1500 and at least 10 that could do 2500. In other words a well developed fs could keep doing 10 chest level performance even if you cut 5 people.
Cutting the FA badge levels by 20% would help smaller fellowships who have 15-20 players compete.
Cutting the FA badge levels by 20% would make the FA easier for all -- but it's already pretty easy for the larger fellowships.
The Spire might be more difficult but that too, could be adjusted.
Hmmm....seems like, in the end, the size of the fs isn't too important as either way you go you end up with about the same things. The only thing is, by cutting the numbers you put some of the good stuff in reach of more players.
AJ
So, by reducing the fs to 20 you re-distribute 20% of the top performers. Now you have more 10-chest fellowships, right?
By reducing the fs to 20 you can still get the 40,000 as most top players are capable of achieving 2000 pts per week. I average 5265 and I'm not much of a fighter myself. In my fs there are probably 20 who could raise their average to at least 1500 and at least 10 that could do 2500. In other words a well developed fs could keep doing 10 chest level performance even if you cut 5 people.
Cutting the FA badge levels by 20% would help smaller fellowships who have 15-20 players compete.
Cutting the FA badge levels by 20% would make the FA easier for all -- but it's already pretty easy for the larger fellowships.
The Spire might be more difficult but that too, could be adjusted.
Hmmm....seems like, in the end, the size of the fs isn't too important as either way you go you end up with about the same things. The only thing is, by cutting the numbers you put some of the good stuff in reach of more players.
AJ