Expand FS to 30 Players.

[SoggyShorts]

So, by reducing the fs to 20 you re-distribute 20% of the top performers. Now you have more 10-chest fellowships, right?

I don't believe that's how it would go.
Aside from the heartbreak of having to boot 20% of your friends off of your team, it wouldn't be the best or even the average performers that you let go.
So the "worst" players from every fellowship become available all at once, and I don't see that greatly increasing the number of 10 chest fellowships.
Perhaps some 8-chest fellowships would rise up by trimming the fat and reducing requirements?

Sounds pretty awful to me anyways.

 

[Ashrem]

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.

So if the 25th place person had 900, and someone comes along at the last minute and does 950, the 25th gets bumped and replaced and only get 7 chests even though their team finished 10? It seems like it would create unreasonable tension in groups and lead to a lot of bad feelings.

That aside, I think 30 person fellowships is a solution looking for a tiny number of groups to assist. The game is balanced around 25, 25 is already work to maintain. There's little hope I'd vote for larger Fellowships.

 

[ajqtrz]

I don't believe that's how it would go.
Aside from the heartbreak of having to boot 20% of your friends off of your team, it wouldn't be the best or even the average performers that you let go.
So the "worst" players from every fellowship become available all at once, and I don't see that greatly increasing the number of 10 chest fellowships.
Perhaps some 8-chest fellowships would rise up by trimming the fat and reducing requirements?

Sounds pretty awful to me anyways.

But you forget, in most of the top 20 fellowships even the lowest players are usually well above average and capable of making 2000 tournament pts a week. In looking at the top 20 in Khelonaar there are only about 30 players under 100k. A 100k level player is quite capable. If you reduced the fs to 20 that's 100 players, "kicked" -- 70% of whom are above 100k. That's three more "10 chest" fellowships even if the fs' choose to let the smallest players go. And yes, it wouldn't be a fun proposition. But my point is that changing the number of players in an fs will either distribute the "solid" players over a wider number of fellowships or draw them into a lesser number. In both cases what's the purpose? If the purpose is to reduce the number of 10 chest fellowships raising the number of players and adjusting the tournaments to reflect the greater number of players will, effectively, reduce the number of 10 chest fellowships. However, due to higher standards it will probably also reduce the number of 9 chest, 8 chest, 7 chest and so on exactly because you have to have a certain amount of "solid" players to reach each level. Consolidating those solid members into fewer fellowships will naturally reduce number of fs's receiving rewards.

Lowering the fs member count will have the opposite effect, as stated above and for the reasons shown. This is especially true if you than lower the requirements for the chests by 20%.

Finally, I'm not for either raising or lowering the fs member count without a lot better understanding of how it would affect things. It might be nice to have 5 additional traders. It might be nice to have more possible participants in the FA. And it might even just be nice to have more people around to have some fun with. But let's consider the numbers carefully and then pick an option.

AJ

 

[Palavyn]

So if the 25th place person had 900, and someone comes along at the last minute and does 950, the 25th gets bumped and replaced and only get 7 chests even though their team finished 10? It seems like it would create unreasonable tension in groups and lead to a lot of bad feelings.

In every "10-chest fellowship" the players that don't hit 1600 points in the tournament know they aren't contributing their fair share. So if they end up with a number of chests that is proportional to their work, they have no reason to feel bad about it. It's like the Spire. If the FS gets a gold medal, do the players that didn't make it to the top complain about missing out on rewards? A positive effect will be to motivate the lower members to increase their contribution to the FS's success. It will be more of a friendly rivalry.

Think of the extra 5 slots as giving new recruits a chance to prove themselves with no risk to the rest of the FS. Or for people that are going through a tough time and not able to contribute properly to FS activities. They can feel better knowing they aren't hurting the rest of the FS.

 

[Ashrem]

In every "10-chest fellowship" the players that don't hit 1600 points in the tournament know they aren't contributing their fair share.

Sorry, I thought we were talking about expanding all Fellowships to 30, not just the ones that commit to 10 chests every week so have a right to expect 1600 points from every member.

I guess the rest of the Elvenar universe isn't welcome to share our thoughts in this conversation. Only the couple of dozen groups that matter?

 

[BrinDarby]

I couldnt support a chg to 20 or 30, without a darn good reason....
So far I haven't heard 1 here..... For the record, CH3-4 players can
do 1600 pts a week no sweat with a lil setup involved, just fine.

 

[NightshadeCS]

As someone who has a city in chapter 5, I am not so sanguine. There are a few choke points in this game where it can be very difficult to reach anything near the points people are casually throwing about in this thread.

I don't see any reason to start imposing a framework on things that fellowships right now have a right to make choices about. If your group wants to impose a requirement, then you may do so. If you have members not contributing, kick them out. No reason to force all of this on every single fellowship.

Sometimes less is more.

 

[SoggyShorts]

For the record, CH3-4 players can
do 1600 pts a week no sweat with a lil setup involved, just fine.

As someone who has a city in chapter 5, I am not so sanguine. There are a few choke points in this game where it can be very difficult to reach anything near the points people are casually throwing about in this thread.

Indeed, if you do nothing other than tournament/spire then 1600 is easy enough. If you are progressing though, and using resources/space to complete research, then there are times where it can be difficult for a few weeks.
E.G. If you grab 3 SS techs but have to wait before you can upgrade your barracks

I like the ability of a FS to carry a player through those gaps, or if they have a RL issue we can get them to do just one province so that they get their full rewards.

 

[Palavyn]

Sorry, I thought we were talking about expanding all Fellowships to 30, not just the ones that commit to 10 chests every week so have a right to expect 1600 points from every member.

I guess the rest of the Elvenar universe isn't welcome to share our thoughts in this conversation. Only the couple of dozen groups that matter?

I was responding to your scenario where YOU specifically mention a fellowship that gets 10 chests.

 

[Ashrem]

I was responding to your scenario where YOU specifically mention a fellowship that gets 10 chests.

Well you quoted a post where I never mentioned 10 chest fellowships, in a thread where I never mentioned 10 chests fellowships, so your attempt to reply to some other post in some other thread should probably be considered a failure of communication.

 

[ajqtrz]

Well you quoted a post where I never mentioned 10 chest fellowships, in a thread where I never mentioned 10 chests fellowships, so your attempt to reply to some other post in some other thread should probably be considered a failure of communication.

Yep, that can happen. ;>)

AJ

 

[Ashrem]

Yep, that can happen. ;>)

Apparently, though I don't understand how. I get replying to the wrong thread, and I get replying to the wrong message, I'm even willing to concede that it's possible to do both. What I don't get is the logical process leads which to one quoting the wrong message, in the wrong thread, that has no relation to your response, then go on to reply to the resulting confusion without acknowledging that there was an error? Because while I'm happy to acknowledge my own imperfection, I can't find any sign of anywhere that I brought up a 10 chest fellowship scenario any time in the last couple of months.

 

[SoggyShorts]

I'm happy to acknowledge my own imperfections

When did you get so much free time?

 

[Palavyn]

I never ever implied this change was only for "10-chest" fellowships. Now that everyone is shooting me down, it's not going to be implemented. BUT if it were implemented, it would mostly benefit fellowships that are struggling to get 10 chests. It would cause more players to do more work, because if they don't they could lose out. You can't just do one province and then go afk for a few days and then expect to get the same reward as the rest of your team.

 

[SoggyShorts]

Now that everyone is shooting me down, it's not going to be implemented.

Just the idea, not you

You can't just do one province and then go afk for a few days and then expect to get the same reward as the rest of your team.

I disagree. When a FS member of mine says they have RL issues this week and won't be able to participate my response is always
"No worries, I hope your thing goes well, and if possible try to do one province in the tournament so that you get the blueprint"

But that's my FS, if you don't feel the same then that's what FS rules and the kick button are for.

Other fellowships like to have the choice to carry teammates if they want to, and your suggestion where only the top 25/1600+ get full rewards removes that choice.

 

[Enevhar Aldarion]

Somewhere in this sub-forum, within the last year, there was a thread where we discussed having the ability to set a minimum score that a player had to score in the tournament to earn the prizes, but I don't remember if it got shelved or fleshed out enough that it was voted on and passed along.

 

[Ashrem]

it would mostly benefit fellowships that are struggling to get 10 chests.

I think that's a complete fantasy, and I can't imagine how you think that will work. What it would mostly do for groups that can't get ten chests every week is cost them a few people and make it even harder to recruit replacements, because suddenly the groups that already do get ten chests every week would each have ten new openings where everyone doesn't have to work as hard. We'd end up with the same lead groups getting even higher scores than they already do, and the marginal groups would collapse.

 

[Palavyn]

I think that's a complete fantasy, and I can't imagine how you think that will work. What it would mostly do for groups that can't get ten chests every week is cost them a few people and make it even harder to recruit replacements, because suddenly the groups that already do get ten chests every week would each have ten new openings where everyone doesn't have to work as hard. We'd end up with the same lead groups getting even higher scores than they already do, and the marginal groups would collapse.

If you look at the top fellowships on each server, you'll find that several of them have room for more players (see elvenstats.com). So currently any player with a good performance in the tournaments can easily leave their fellowship and get into a top fellowship if they want to. If you've been in a second tier FS, you probably know this is a common occurrence, although most players are loyal and try to build up their own FS first. Since only the performance of the top 25 players counts for the FS, the 5 additional slots are somewhat optional. So there should be no rush to fill these new slots.

Let me clarify what my proposal is. Increase the fellowship size to 30, but only the top 25 scores count for tournament score and for FS Spire progress. So that's just 5 new slots that are somewhat optional.

What if tournament rewards were adjusted like the Spire for everyone in the FS? So you need the FS to do well AND get a decent score. It would be lower than the required FS average, though. Perhaps you'd need 1000 points for 10 chests, for example, instead of 1600, as long as the top 25 in your FS score 40K.

Along with this change, I would propose that fellowship mergers be facilitated. The Archmage of any fellowship could invite another fellowship to merge with their fellowship as long as the total number of members is not more than 30. The Archmage of the other fellowship could accept this merger.

Finally, any fellowship that doesn't want to risk players missing out on tournament rewards can simply restrict their fellowship to 25 members.

 

[Ashrem]

If you look at the top fellowships on each server, you'll find that several of them have room for more players (see elvenstats.com). So currently any player with a good performance in the tournaments can easily leave their fellowship and get into a top fellowship if they want to. If you've been in a second tier FS, you probably know this is a common occurrence, although most players are loyal and try to build up their own FS first.

I'm not sure what point you think that was making, but to me it makes the point that recruiting is difficult, and not espcially less so for a 10 chest fellowship, because they have to be careful who they select. With five extra slots, they can be a little less discerning on who they try out, without risking their activities.

Since only the performance of the top 25 players counts for the FS, the 5 additional slots are somewhat optional. So there should be no rush to fill these new slots.

More trading partners, more helping partners, more participants in the FA and the spire and the tournament. Extra participants means someone can skip the current activity without putting the team at risk. Are the other five people being denied rewards in everything if they can't make the minimum or does each enlarged fellowship mean five more blueprints and five more full sets of spire prizes and fifty more special prizes for making the top 10 in the FA? If denied the prize for only getting 900, how are they going to feel about that? How will you recruit a small player if they will be denied all prizes until they are big enough to meet the minimums? What groups will recruit new players? Only mediocre groups that expect to lose them as soon as they are large enough to fit a top-tier group?

What if tournament rewards were adjusted like the Spire for everyone in the FS? So you need the FS to do well AND get a decent score. It would be lower than the required FS average, though. Perhaps you'd need 1000 points for 10 chests, for example, instead of 1600, as long as the top 25 in your FS score 40K.

So again, new players who can't get 1000 are just not getting any prizes unless they stick around long enough to be able to meet the minimums? That appears to be a disincentive for new players

Finally, any fellowship that doesn't want to risk players missing out on tournament rewards can simply restrict their fellowship to 25 members.

And not accept any members who can't make the minimums. And suffer a disadvantage over groups of 30 when one or two can't/won't participate this week, vs the groups that have 30 so have spare capacity for people who aren't able to participate this week. What player who can get 1000 points any time they want is going to choose to stay in a group of 25 where they risk their friends' results and/or get hassled if they take a week off, when they could be in a group of 30 and be under no pressure to participate, but are guaranteed a blueprint any time they get 10000 points? I have trouble with the notion that borderline fellowships would survive, let alone thrive, under those conditions. Top fellowships aren't going to throw open the gates to small players. they are going to bleed more high-performing players from the fellowships in the middle, leaving those mid-tier fellowships to recruit from the dregs.

My estimation of the result is:

• More difficult recruiting for all but the top fellowships or those willing to take any semi-warm body that comes along
• Fewer fellowships overall.
• Larger (not significantly more) competitive fellowships.
• More distribution of prizes into the economy.
• Less opportunity for new players to experience a top-tier fellowship.

 

[ajqtrz]

If you look at the top fellowships on each server, you'll find that several of them have room for more players (see elvenstats.com). So currently any player with a good performance in the tournaments can easily leave their fellowship and get into a top fellowship if they want to. If you've been in a second tier FS, you probably know this is a common occurrence, although most players are loyal and try to build up their own FS first. Since only the performance of the top 25 players counts for the FS, the 5 additional slots are somewhat optional. So there should be no rush to fill these new slots.

Let me clarify what my proposal is. Increase the fellowship size to 30, but only the top 25 scores count for tournament score and for FS Spire progress. So that's just 5 new slots that are somewhat optional.

I agree that if a really solid player wants into a top tier 10 chest fellowship he/she can get in. But if you add 5 more slots what AM of those top tier fs's wouldn't be out there recruiting capable players to fill those slots? Since the top 25 players in the fs would have to average 1600, adding 5 other "optional" players means you now can recruit 5 more "capable" (of 1600 pts per week) which would, in effect, consolidate the number of capable players into fewer fellowships. This would occur if all 30 are capable each player can "take a break" every 5 weeks, do one province, and other than the personal KP and rewards, get the 10 chest rewards as well as the week to rebuild his/her troops etc... In essence this is a great advantage to any 10-chest fs that might be having to work hard to get that 10th chest every week as it gives them 5 players a week who can concentrate on preparing for not the next tournament. And, as said, is consolidates the number of capable players into fewer fellowships.

On the other hand, it does make the mid-level fellowships grow -- but since only the top 25 count, the growth isn't in their tournament performance. And, now that there are 5 more spaces in those 10-chest fellowships, there are fewer capable players for the mid-level fellowships. In the end, you don't want to do this because it put a greater burden on the "2nd tier" fellowships, makes it harder to find capable players to recruit, and helps the larger, already established fellowships maintain their 10-chest status more easily. I think that's the opposite of what you intended.

AJ