• 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

Tournament rewards.

Ashrem

Well-Known Member
I feel that the least unfair way to do it is that whoever initiates the action 'loses' the points.
Mage kicks the person out? Fellowship loses that player's points (not that the player can do anything with them, probably).
Player leaves of their own accord? Points stay with the Fellowship.
I just realized there is zero chance this will ever fly:

  1. Player's dedicated tournament push city spends 4 days doing 5 rounds and accumulating 2500 or 3500 points then quits, leaving the points on the team.
  2. Player's real city rejoins the team and does one province to collect the blueprint earned by their push city.
 

Yogi Dave

Well-Known Member
I just realized there is zero chance this will ever fly:
Yep. Way, way, way too easy to abuse. Besides the way you gave for abuse, a push city could get the big score while being fed goods by a city who's only purpose is to make goods. The player is kicked out and joins the main FS taking their score with them for that FS.

If there are enough tiny push accounts, both of these methods could be used making it so the tiny cities only need 800 points since there could be 48 city's instead of 25 feeding the main FS. When the new tourney style comes out, they could easily auto-fight for 800 points barely losing any troops. They would only need to do 4 provs for 5 rounds. I'm sure a chapter 2 city could do that. No need to even feed the little cities goods, so no need for a trader.
 

LordVorKon

Active Member
I just realized there is zero chance this will ever fly:

  1. Player's dedicated tournament push city spends 4 days doing 5 rounds and accumulating 2500 or 3500 points then quits, leaving the points on the team.
  2. Player's real city rejoins the team and does one province to collect the blueprint earned by their push city.

Yeah, you're right... I mean, banning push accounts would solve that problem right quick, but they obviously have no interest in doing that, either.
 

Ashrem

Well-Known Member
If the account never donates anything to the main city, it's not even all that easy to label as a push account.
 

Hugo the ugly

New Member
We finish our 10 chest a day before the end. At that point it should have been record that the fellowship finished the tournament. I don't know how elvenar keeps score. It looks like they wait till after the tournament is over then check the scores for the fellowship.
 

Enevhar Aldarion

Well-Known Member
We finish our 10 chest a day before the end. At that point it should have been record that the fellowship finished the tournament. I don't know how elvenar keeps score. It looks like they wait till after the tournament is over then check the scores for the fellowship.

Yes, up to the very last second for any changes in score. If you have a member with 5k points who leaves one minute before the end of the tournament, then your fellowship loses those 5k points. I think we need a new suggestion to make this similar to progression I have seen in other games. Once a chest is earned, it is locked in and no loss of points can take that away. Or maybe specific chests, like the even-numbered ones. Does everyone remember the show Who Wants to be a Millionaire? There were specific prize levels where, once you got to it, you were guaranteed that amount, even if you got the next question wrong. That is what the tournament needs.
 

Ashrem

Well-Known Member
Yes, up to the very last second for any changes in score. If you have a member with 5k points who leaves one minute before the end of the tournament, then your fellowship loses those 5k points. I think we need a new suggestion to make this similar to progression I have seen in other games. Once a chest is earned, it is locked in and no loss of points can take that away. Or maybe specific chests, like the even-numbered ones. Does everyone remember the show Who Wants to be a Millionaire? There were specific prize levels where, once you got to it, you were guaranteed that amount, even if you got the next question wrong. That is what the tournament needs.
Again, it's too open to exploit.

And if the person who earned the points isn't part of the group any more, how exactly did the rest of the FS "earn" anything? Everything the other players earned is still there.
 

Enevhar Aldarion

Well-Known Member
Again, it's too open to exploit.

And if the person who earned the points isn't part of the group any more, how exactly did the rest of the FS "earn" anything? Everything the other players earned is still there.

Change it to be like the Spire then. You have to be in a fellowship at the start of a tournament to participate, so no more playing the tournament mid-week after joining a new fellowship. That would keep the full fellowships from rotating players in and out just to build up the total score. That would basically be the same as points being lost when someone leaves early, to prevent padding the score from more than 25 players.
 

Ashrem

Well-Known Member
Change it to be like the Spire then. You have to be in a fellowship at the start of a tournament to participate, so no more playing the tournament mid-week after joining a new fellowship. That would keep the full fellowships from rotating players in and out just to build up the total score. That would basically be the same as points being lost when someone leaves early, to prevent padding the score from more than 25 players.
But what is the advantage to coding that, vs what they have already coded? Unless you're still saying that the group gets to keep the points if someone quits it's not going to change what the OP is about. They're asking to get a prize that the existing FS members didn't earn by themselves, but could have been part of earning if someone else who did a bunch of work hadn't left.
 

ajqtrz

Chef
I think we need a new suggestion to make this similar to progression I have seen in other games. Once a chest is earned, it is locked in and no loss of points can take that away.

I hate to remind you all, but my earlier suggestion would fix the problems all the way around. Instead of waiting for the end Inno could look at the history and pick the "high point score." If a player leaves before the end he/she loses the team rewards. If they join after the beginning, they don't get the team rewards and their score doesn't count toward those rewards (which is already the case, isn't it?). The incentive to "kick" a person or to "leave" is independent from the points scored and thus no problem either way. This is probably even easier than locking the chests.

AJ
 

Ashrem

Well-Known Member
I hate to remind you all, but my earlier suggestion would fix the problems all the way around. Instead of waiting for the end Inno could look at the history and pick the "high point score." If a player leaves before the end he/she loses the team rewards. If they join after the beginning, they don't get the team rewards and their score doesn't count toward those rewards (which is already the case, isn't it?). The incentive to "kick" a person or to "leave" is independent from the points scored and thus no problem either way. This is probably even easier than locking the chests.
All around, except it still means a group of people getting a reward they didn't earn.

If they join after the beginning, they don't get the team rewards and their score doesn't count toward those rewards (which is already the case, isn't it?).
It is not. Their past points don't count, but they can still earn more points to ward the total.

Not everyone agrees on what's fair. I say if our team is ahead at the 5th inning and our best player quits then we lose, we shouldn't get a prize just because we would have gotten one if they didn't quit. If our team didn't earn the prize when the tournament is over, then we didn't earn the prize. I see no good reason why the devs should spend time and effort changing this.
 

ajqtrz

Chef
All around, except it still means a group of people getting a reward they didn't earn.

It is not. Their past points don't count, but they can still earn more points to ward the total.

Not everyone agrees on what's fair. I say if our team is ahead at the 5th inning and our best player quits then we lose, we shouldn't get a prize just because we would have gotten one if they didn't quit. If our team didn't earn the prize when the tournament is over, then we didn't earn the prize. I see no good reason why the devs should spend time and effort changing this.

The only earnings a person who leaves or joins in the middle of the tournament would get are their personal ones. The fact that they were a part of the fellowship when the tournament started and did even a single province means they "earned" the fellowship rewards of the fellowship if they are there at the beginning and the end. All others revert to personal rewards only. The question is: were the points earned by the individual team points or individual points? Since they are recorded as team points they should remain so. Individual rewards are given by the number of provinces you do. Each contribute to both your personal score and the team score. When you leave you don't take the fellowship with you so the points they received as a fellowship, should, and can, remain. The problem, then, is to determine if the points contributed by the individual player are team points, individual points (added to the other teammates at the end to see where the fs ends up) or both. My belief is that they are primarily team points since it's mostly a team activity (you can't even do the tournament as an individual solo player without creating a fellowship), and thus they should stay with the team even if you also give the player the personal rewards as they go (which would cause no difficulty in coding since they are awarded as the player does the provinces anyway).

So let's say it's the 5th inning and the player does quit. If he/she scored a solo homer in the 4th do the refs take the run away from the team? Does the player lose the credit for the homer? The score is not adjusted downward because the player quits. The only thing that might happen is that you now have no right-fielder and thus, in the 6th-9th innings it might be easier for the other team to score (by analogy it would be harder for the fellowship to get the remaining chests).

The points needed for the prize were earned during the tournament. And having been earned, when the player leaves it doesn't mean they were, suddenly, "unearned." They should remain on the "score board." Winning the game is winning against a moving target in baseball. It's not in the tournament. In the tournament the goals are stationary and you aren't competing against another team. So it's more like a race in which you have to pass certain markers. Once you pass them, you don't go back.

AJ
 

Iyapo1

Well-Known Member
The points needed for the prize were earned during the tournament. And having been earned, when the player leaves it doesn't mean they were, suddenly, "unearned.
A player has the right to decide if they want to share their points.
 

Ashrem

Well-Known Member
Since they are recorded as team points they should remain so. Individual rewards are given by the number of provinces you do
They are not recorded as team points, they are recorded as individual points in your server wide ranking in the competition for bonus ranking points. Fellowships have a cooperative ranking which is the sum of all current members individual points.

Leaving (or being expelled) after points are earned costs individuals their chance at ranking points for the tournament as well as the fellowship's shared reward, so they are already losing more than the Fellowship does. What is the justification (desire aside) for the fellowship to benefit from a player's effort after they are no longer part of it? (Setting aside that the fellowship already gets to keep any benefit from previous tournaments where that player participated, including Team rank points from previous FAs)

And lets be honest. There aren't many players who leave a fellowship solely because of one Tournament where they got a lot of points and others didn't. Generally it's a pattern, and/or compounded by other actions. Why should a player be forced to leave a parting gift to the team they are forced to abandon in frustration? In what way is that "fair"?
 

ajqtrz

Chef
They are not recorded as team points, they are recorded as individual points in your server wide ranking in the competition for bonus ranking points. Fellowships have a cooperative ranking which is the sum of all current members individual points.

....

And lets be honest. There aren't many players who leave a fellowship solely because of one Tournament where they got a lot of points and others didn't. Generally it's a pattern, and/or compounded by other actions. Why should a player be forced to leave a parting gift to the team they are forced to abandon in frustration? In what way is that "fair"?

While I concur that the points are recorded in the individual's record, since they are also shown, "in total" as the tournament progresses, how is it known that they are not recorded as team points as well? You say they are not, but only supply some implied reasoning which, in itself, is weak. Yes, they might follow the process of which you speak and be constantly adding up the individual score. Or they may be adding it up all the time and recording it as a team score but using the last entry for the rewards. In any case, since they are adding up the scores as they go it would be a simple thing to record them as they rise -- always recording the next amount only if it is more than the previous. Once this is done the rewards could be distributed to the remaining teammates. Not a lot of coding and just as fair.

You ask: '"Why should a player be forced to leave a parting gift to the team they are forced to abandon in frustration? In what way is that "fair"?' is answered by the assumption that the that the points belong to both the individual and to the fellowship. A player on the court scores a basket, then leaves the game. He/she scored as a member of a team even if the effort was entirely his/her own. The points are part of the team score and receive rewards based upon the team score. The basket is recorded as points scored by the efforts of the player, and he/she is rewarded for that as well. The dual nature of the points in a team sport is pretty clear. If you say those points are strictly the property of the individual why are there any team rewards at all? When the points are scored the player is part of the fellowship and thus, whatever contribution, great or small, the fellowship has made to his/her scoring those points, is part of the relationship between the player and his/her fellowship. That is why, even if the player thinks the fs hasn't done the job he/she thinks they should have done, the fs should keep the points. And that, like all team sports, is fair.

But you are also right that it's probably not something that affects many fellowships or players. Indeed, my experience is that it's pretty rare that anybody leaves the fs before it's over, and fewer even than that, that they are kicked. So, in the end, it may not be worth the effort.

AJ
 

Ashrem

Well-Known Member
You say they are not, but only supply some implied reasoning which, in itself, is weak
But your reasoning that they are somehow "earned" by the fellowship, who need to nothing in order for them to accumulate, is stronger? That's some warm fecal matter of a counter argument.

  • There is a direct correlation between a player's actions and their score.
  • There is a direct correlation between what the individual earns and their chance of getting extra ranking points.
  • There is the existing mechanic which is that the points go away if the player leaves the group.
  • A player can earn points in any fellowship they join.
  • A fellowship can not accumulate any points in any way except by a player earning them.

There is nothing beyond their appearance in a total that implies they belong to the fellowship. Pretending that the points ought to belong the fellowship is weak at best. The assertion they already do belong to the fellowship is ridiculous.
 

ajqtrz

Chef
But your reasoning that they are somehow "earned" by the fellowship, who need to nothing in order for them to accumulate, is stronger? That's some warm fecal matter of a counter argument.

  • There is a direct correlation between a player's actions and their score.
  • There is a direct correlation between what the individual earns and their chance of getting extra ranking points.
  • There is the existing mechanic which is that the points go away if the player leaves the group.
  • A player can earn points in any fellowship they join.
  • A fellowship can not accumulate any points in any way except by a player earning them.

There is nothing beyond their appearance in a total that implies they belong to the fellowship. Pretending that the points ought to belong the fellowship is weak at best. The assertion they already do belong to the fellowship is ridiculous.

This is getting to be almost fun. LOL.
  • There is a direct correlation between the fellowship's actions and their score.
  • There is a direct correlation between what the fellowship earns and their chance of getting extra rewards.
  • There is the existing mechanic which is that the points go away if the fellowship kicks them out.
  • A fellowship can earn points in from any player who joins.
  • A player can not accumulate any points in any way except by being in a fellowship.
See how easy it is to make the counter arguments? The problem here is one of definition. If the points are the individuals, why do they have to be a part of a fellowship? But they do, and that means the points are like those in basketball. The player gets credit for making the score, but the score belongs to the team score. The player gets rewarded for the shot made, but the team gets the points. I'm arguing that the membership means the points belong to the members collectively because you have to be a member to earn them, just as you have to be on the court to earn the points from the shots you make. You can shoot baskets all you want from the sidelines, but nothing you make that way counts. You have to be on the team and actively playing.

The fellowship has to accept the player for him or her to score points. On the basketball court of course the other players usually have to do something for the score, but not always. And in track the rest of the team does nothing while the player runs the race. Does that mean if the player leaves the track meet his/her team points should be removed? And in baseball, how is the team helping their batter? He's doing it all! Should the home run be removed from the score if the player leave in a huff in the seventh inning? Once earned, even if it's just the efforts of a single player without assistance from anybody, the score belongs to the team even if the player is also rewarded for it.

In any case, I've pretty easily reversed your points (or at least shown how they can be easily reversed) how about we return to the idea of changing number 3. Number 3 is the question at hand. I've shown it's a matter of how you define the points and to whom and in what ways the belong to the individual player or fellowship and have argued they are both. As such perhaps then, you may be right that if the player is kicked the points should go with the player. But if a player leaves on his/her own accord, maybe the points stay? That would seem fair to both sides, though probably difficult to code.

AJ
 
Top