Every KP you get as profit is one KP someone in your FS lost. Some people prefer a fair system over a competetive system in their FS.
So competition is the problem? Isn't it competition to get to the chest first? If I'm on line all the time and somebody posts a net zero, I go and claim chest one with 40KP. The next guy can't get that chest because I beat him to it. Isn't that competitive? Your premise that somehow just because you pay more for the chests and get back exactly what you put in in a net zero based AW KP swap, it isn't competitive, is a bit flawed. What's the difference between that and the desire to put in just 7KP for the top chest? Both are the same. On the other hand, the possibility of grabbing a profitable chest might be an encouragement for players to be more active...because if you aren't here, the opportunity may go to another player.
It appears to me that the real difference between the two methods is that the owner of the AW in the net zero benefits more from the players contributions, than in the FSO method. Which, to me, means some danger. I can imagine a player putting in an AW and just letting people contribute -- without doing much for others. And if you insist he/she do so, who'd tracking and how? You can have the players do so on their own, as it appears they are doing, but what's to keep a person from simply laying back and finishing their AW without doing the same for others at the same level? Even if the contribute to another player, it doesn't appear their is any method to prevent them from doing so at a lower level other than the AW owner noticing and ...complaining? Of course, then the AM can just get involved and kick the "ungenerous" player, I guess. And if you try tracking who put what where and when, that's a lot of overhead.
On the face of it the net zero appears to work on the "honor" system. And, frankly, given the player base, I suspect that "good enough" in almost all cases. People in fs's are usually very good about that. On the other hand, one has to say the same thing in the profit motivated FSO system, though, of course, "profit" may be a stimulus to temptation.
So here's how I compare the systems.
"Fairness" as defined in opportunity offered: even.
"Fairness" as defined in everybody gets exactly the same KP advantage over time: Net zero
Enthusiasm generated and thus more active: FSO by a small bit.
Profit for the AW owner: Net zero
Profit for the players: FSO by a lot.
Danger of nefarious activities where somebody grabs all the advantages and others are "left out" About the same
Danger of outside fs players grabbing chests: FSO due to it's very short turn around
From this I'd say using one or the other is a matter of if you think it's important that everybody get exactly the same benefit from everything and can regulate/let players regulate who grabs the chests first and second, and so on. That's the net zero. If, on the other hand, you want the players to profit and "work the system" to their advantage the FSO is much better. I think, in fact, most fs's would benefit from the response to FSO since it's a quick and fast way for a player to grab a lot of KP instants with very little investment, even if it means some competition.
AJ
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.
