Jump to content

Proposal: Rewards


Recommended Posts

13 hours ago, Raynman said:

The only thing I'd change about the reward system is the BFp decay while playing. I get that some people won't have time to play it as much as other players but it would be nice to still be rewarded if you play a bit longer. Then again, I don't know how much BFp you will get per hour and how much you need to buy a pack. 

You could set a cap on how many times the BFp/hour gets halved.

Just wanted to give my opinion on the subject :) .

Basically what you are describing is a softcap system and i think the devs are already planing on implementing that ;). Playing longer will be rewarded :).

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 348
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

WARNING: THIS THREAD MIGHT CONTAIN OUTDATED INFORMATION Greeting, Skylords! It's been long since a solid update, and it has come to my attention that there are tonnes of threads that still i

Then the new players will stay, and old one will quit. I wonder which side has the most members

25 minutes ago, Treim said:

Basically what you are describing is a softcap system and i think the devs are already planing on implementing that ;). Playing longer will be rewarded :).

I think he knows that and is trying to say that he isn't fully happy with that softcap system :P

Link to post
Share on other sites
54 minutes ago, Ladadoos said:

I think he knows that and is trying to say that he isn't fully happy with that softcap system :P

hmm Im not sure myself about the softcap system. I mean it's suppose to be a way to not make BFP a grindable currency, but with the current model it will still be a grindable currency anyway, I'm not sure if there is a good way to avoid that.

The softcap system will actually promote multi-accounting to an certain extent, if the softcap decrease is alot(50%) less each time, then it will be more rewarding to start playing on the 2nd account even earlier

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Treim said:

Basically what you are describing is a softcap system and i think the devs are already planing on implementing that ;). Playing longer will be rewarded :).

I didn't know that they were implementing that, My bad.

6 hours ago, Ultrakool said:

hmm Im not sure myself about the softcap system. I mean it's suppose to be a way to not make BFP a grindable currency, but with the current model it will still be a grindable currency anyway, I'm not sure if there is a good way to avoid that.

The softcap system will actually promote multi-accounting to an certain extent, if the softcap decrease is alot(50%) less each time, then it will be more rewarding to start playing on the 2nd account even earlier

I don't know if someone has done this, but you could see how many packs you would need to open on average to get a complete collection. And maybe use that data to determine how much BFp you should get. For instance if you need to open 300 packs for a complete collection and people could earn enough BFp a day with daily quests and playtime to purchase 1 pack a day, that means that in about a year you've got a complete collection.

People like being rewarded, and getting a pack each day is a nice reward tbh. I personally think that you should be able to complete a deck (just the cards, not upgrading them) that you want in atleast a month. 

It's a difficult thing to balance, but I'm sure the team will find the best solution. The quest system is a FANTASTIC idea and hopefully fills the gap that the paid transaction's left.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Raynman said:

I don't know if someone has done this, but you could see how many packs you would need to open on average to get a complete collection. And maybe use that data to determine how much BFp you should get. For instance if you need to open 300 packs for a complete collection and people could earn enough BFp a day with daily quests and playtime to purchase 1 pack a day, that means that in about a year you've got a complete collection.

By doing some math you could determine that, because we know what the current rates are (not final):

1th card: 19.5% chance ultra rare, 80% chance rare and 0,5% chance of getting a promo, 2th card: 20% chance rare, 80% chance uncommon, 3th card: 25% chance uncommon, 75% chance common, 4th card is uncommon, 5th,6th,7th and 8th card are commons [Source]

Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, Ultrakool said:

hmm Im not sure myself about the softcap system. I mean it's suppose to be a way to not make BFP a grindable currency, but with the current model it will still be a grindable currency anyway, I'm not sure if there is a good way to avoid that.

The softcap system will actually promote multi-accounting to an certain extent, if the softcap decrease is alot(50%) less each time, then it will be more rewarding to start playing on the 2nd account even earlier

I actually feel the need to respond to this. You see, free-to-play models with trading features naturally always induce multi-accounting. No matter what is tried or done, if the currency can be transferred to other accounts, multi-accounting will happen, and there is very little that can be done about this while still maintaining trade liberty and the game's freedom and openness. Considering trading is an essential and core part of the game it needs to be kept. We need a full F2P model which makes things even worse as no currency can be obtained by paying or donating. There will always be multi-accounters, and the point of the reward system is to make the temptation to multi-account as small as possible while keeping the rewards fair and worth playing extensively for to keep server population and player motivation high.

This results in the main currency, BFP, having to be fully grindable or limited per day. The original idea was to have a limited amount per day, but this would not be fair towards long-term players and would force more duplicate accounts to be made. Adding a soft-cap rather than a hard-cap to the BFP for playtime rewards, we hope to achieve less multi-accounting and more respect for a fairer BFP distribution system. 

The problem with removing the soft-cap would mainly be community and newcomer-based problems. I have done some research on full F2P models with their currency distribution which is either long-term hard-capped (EXP, Account Level Bonuses) and then daily hard-capped as well, or it's hard-capped to have an insanely low amount of currency that never changes. The reason for this is to make newcomers stay and keep the community to play the game. This has nothing to do with the BFR team wanting bragging rights about our player base, but more so about this being an online PvP, Trading and Co-Op game, which require players. Considering there are a lot of maps, we need to have a decent server population in order to keep the system going. If we demotivate players by hard-capping, they might only play a set amount of time per day, which might not even be as long. We can also demotivate newcomers by having no cap whatsoever, widening the gap between rich and poor due to people having more time automatically being way richer, giving people with low amounts of time not a fair chance to quickly get into the game and the trading aspect thereof.

The problem therefore is to find a solution between not capping and hard-capping. Therefore the soft-cap system was created: Players with more time can keep grinding for BFP, although at lower rate, it's still BFP and encourages them at least a bit to keep playing. Newcomers or low-time players can still gain a decent amount of playing BFP which allows them to catch up with players having more BFP and time more easily. This should help a lot with keeping the servers populated whilst maintaining the idea of playing on a single account. The system is probably the most efficient way in our eyes to balance out server population and multi-accounting frequency.

Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, MrXLink said:

I actually feel the need to respond to this. You see, free-to-play models with trading features naturally always induce multi-accounting. No matter what is tried or done, if the currency can be transferred to other accounts, multi-accounting will happen, and there is very little that can be done about this while still maintaining trade liberty and the game's freedom and openness. Considering trading is an essential and core part of the game it needs to be kept. We need a full F2P model which makes things even worse as no currency can be obtained by paying or donating. There will always be multi-accounters, and the point of the reward system is to make the temptation to multi-account as small as possible while keeping the rewards fair and worth playing extensively for to keep server population and player motivation high.

This results in the main currency, BFP, having to be fully grindable or limited per day. The original idea was to have a limited amount per day, but this would not be fair towards long-term players and would force more duplicate accounts to be made. Adding a soft-cap rather than a hard-cap to the BFP for playtime rewards, we hope to achieve less multi-accounting and more respect for a fairer BFP distribution system. 

The problem with removing the soft-cap would mainly be community and newcomer-based problems. I have done some research on full F2P models with their currency distribution which is either long-term hard-capped (EXP, Account Level Bonuses) and then daily hard-capped as well, or it's hard-capped to have an insanely low amount of currency that never changes. The reason for this is to make newcomers stay and keep the community to play the game. This has nothing to do with the BFR team wanting bragging rights about our player base, but more so about this being an online PvP, Trading and Co-Op game, which require players. Considering there are a lot of maps, we need to have a decent server population in order to keep the system going. If we demotivate players by hard-capping, they might only play a set amount of time per day, which might not even be as long. We can also demotivate newcomers by having no cap whatsoever, widening the gap between rich and poor due to people having more time automatically being way richer, giving people with low amounts of time not a fair chance to quickly get into the game and the trading aspect thereof.

The problem therefore is to find a solution between not capping and hard-capping. Therefore the soft-cap system was created: Players with more time can keep grinding for BFP, although at lower rate, it's still BFP and encourages them at least a bit to keep playing. Newcomers or low-time players can still gain a decent amount of playing BFP which allows them to catch up with players having more BFP and time more easily. This should help a lot with keeping the servers populated whilst maintaining the idea of playing on a single account. The system is probably the most efficient way in our eyes to balance out server population and multi-accounting frequency.

Even though the soft-cap system is probably the best choice and I would have chose it to if I had to chose something, I think that this will still encourage people to multi-account. There should be another way to prevent this, or at least discourage it. 

Someone need to come up with something genius that will help this problem. If not, I guess the soft-cap system is indeed the best choice. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, SilenceKiller99 said:

There should be another way to prevent this, or at least discourage it. 

Honestly I am not sure of this. Not for a fully F2P game with trade integration.
Obtaining currency increases playtime, motivation, integration and value of playing the game, as well as greed for more (i.e. multi-accounting as a result).
Limiting currency tampers with all these aspects, no exceptions. If we have no cap greed decreases but so does integration and playtime. If we have a cap greed increases, integration increases but motivation decreases, etc. Soft-cap is the ideal balance between this. Yes there will be some greed left but not as much as we'd have with a hard cap, and yes there will be some decrease in motivation and perhaps integration, but it's better than it'd be when we have no cap.

Suggestions are always appreciated though.

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, MrXLink said:

The problem with removing the soft-cap would mainly be community and newcomer-based problems. I have done some research on full F2P models with their currency distribution which is either long-term hard-capped (EXP, Account Level Bonuses) and then daily hard-capped as well, or it's hard-capped to have an insanely low amount of currency that never changes. The reason for this is to make newcomers stay and keep the community to play the game. 

Can you explain the problem again if you would remove any kind of caps... Because if it is only the beginner problem it can be solved with bonuses for beginners, a good tutorial or a server new players can play with eachother without getting stomped by pro's.

I have no clue what the community problems could be...

Edit: Adding these things is a good thing in general, at least the tutorial.

Edited by SilenceKiller99
Link to post
Share on other sites

Basic suggestion to avoid multi accounts & maximum daily reward:

1. Rely on multiple reports from players to identify double accounts (would be quite hard but there is a need to have some community managers in the future when the game will be on). Yes, it's like big brother...

2. Do not give more than 1 bfp per day. When opening the game, people shall put their password manually each time, so that they spend a bit of annoying time to enter the game. This would be annoying enough to prevent some people to log in 5 or 10 times per day to get multiple bfp on each account.

(3. Any card exchanges could cost 1 bfp) - I'm not fond of this proposition since it would modify the previous mechanism of the original game

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 27.2.2016 at 10:06 PM, Ladadoos said:
8 minutes ago, powerpsy said:

Basic suggestion to avoid multi accounts & maximum daily reward:

1. Rely on multiple reports from players to identify double accounts (would be quite hard but there is a need to have some community managers in the future when the game will be on). Yes, it's like big brother...

2. Do not give more than 1 bfp per day. When opening the game, people shall put their password manually each time, so that they spend a bit of annoying time to enter the game. This would be annoying enough to prevent some people to log in 5 or 10 times per day to get multiple bfp on each account.

(3. Any card exchanges could cost 1 bfp) - I'm not fond of this proposition since it would modify the previous mechanism of the original game

By doing some math you could determine that, because we know what the current rates are (not final):

1th card: 19.5% chance ultra rare, 80% chance rare and 0,5% chance of getting a promo, 2th card: 20% chance rare, 80% chance uncommon, 3th card: 25% chance uncommon, 75% chance common, 4th card is uncommon, 5th,6th,7th and 8th card are commons [Source]

You should probably read the opening post.

The daily BFP reward will not be a part of BattleforgeReborn.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 3 weeks later...

1.) I hope if you create a Daily Questsystem it would be very nice if you let us the choice which kind of playing style we like to achive it. For example you let uns choose to Play either PvP or PvE to achive it. Not both, it would be very unluckly that my PvE Clan and me could only do half of the daily rewards :( cause we would not Play any Kind of PvP.

2.) Please give us BFP also for played time in the game and for won and lost missions :) more for won less for lost. So we can Play a lot of hours every day ! And it would not be useless to try a difficult Mission on hardmode often again.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Geisterlicht said:

1.) I hope if you create a Daily Questsystem it would be very nice if you let us the choice which kind of playing style we like to achive it. For example you let uns choose to Play either PvP or PvE to achive it. Not both, it would be very unluckly that my PvE Clan and me could only do half of the daily rewards :( cause we would not Play any Kind of PvP.

2.) Please give us BFP also for played time in the game and for won and lost missions :) more for won less for lost. So we can Play a lot of hours every day ! And it would not be useless to try a difficult Mission on hardmode often again.

You should read the first post. The things you are asking for is already planned, one way or another

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 3 weeks later...
On 8/31/2015 at 10:48 PM, Eirias said:

Instead of rerolling a random quest, what if you reroll to CHOOSE a standard one? I'd propose the "standard" quest options would be "win 1 ranked match," "win 2 Battlegrounds matches level 5 or higher," or "complete any map on intermediate." These quests obviously require a degree of skill so they may not be optimal for regular quests, but I think they have a good combination of difficulty and completabilty. I would hate be playing at US time when there are 5 active people online so I reroll my "play 3 2v2 matches" because there is LITERALLY no one who will play, and then I get "play a 12 player map" for even less bfp. So I'd like the reroll to be a quest I can complete FOR SURE, even if it's for less bfp. So instead of taking a bfp penalty from going from one quest I can't complete to another, I'd like to be able to choose "win 1 pvp match" if I'm feeling I can do that (and everyone, no matter how bad, can do that eventually), or "complete any map on intermediate" which maybe can't be done by total noobs, but it's still a guaranteed way to get 50%-75% of the bfp I would originally get. (Note that I said 50-75%, because 25% is really a pittance).

Can we count time spent looking for a matchup as part of the play time?

 

Also, 3 2v2 matches is usually at least an hour . . . that may be a bit much...

iv won on  3rd dificulty map without any upgrades on units or any extra cards it took me an hour but i figured it out if intermediate is second dificulty then it should be weary posible to beat it. it should be noted i dont remeber name of each dificulty any more so i am guesing intermediate is second dificulty

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, kkrriiss said:

iv won on  3rd dificulty map without any upgrades on units or any extra cards it took me an hour but i figured it out if intermediate is second dificulty then it should be weary posible to beat it. it should be noted i dont remeber name of each dificulty any more so i am guesing intermediate is second dificulty

What's your point actually?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Ultrakool said:

What's your point actually?

if intermediate is second dificulty then it should be to hard to pass and it would be medium time invested

On 9/1/2015 at 8:27 AM, Nemesís said:

hmm i actually have a suggestion regarding the possibility of multiple accounts cuz of the daily rewards.

1st things 1st i think all the possibilities to transfer or that kind of thing shall be 0 so that even if ppl use multiple acc they wont profit by transfering points to their main acc.

2nd thing i like the idea of daily quests but a 30min in-game reward would be good. that would also keep players ingame (afk or not).

why would you transfer points when you could just trade cards only way to stom multi accounting would be eather to make it so one canot transver anything or that you dont have time limit on how much you can grind on same acc without becoming less effective

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/5/2015 at 3:03 PM, veryhasted said:

I do agree on this partially. I think you have enough for upgrading Common and Uncommon cards but that you should need a little more effort to upgrade Rare and Ultra-rare cards :)

i think there should prob be some degre of grind in upgrading cards on every lvl it lets you as a player steadly progres in every aspect so that player needs to spend a bit of  time playing before he actualy trys pvp coz he frst wont learn enough before he is plunged into fray and second it will prolong overall time player spends playing the game witch will as resolt make server alot more crowded wich in my opinion is beter

Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, kkrriiss said:

i think there should prob be some degre of grind in upgrading cards on every lvl it lets you as a player steadly progres in every aspect so that player needs to spend a bit of  time playing before he actualy trys pvp coz he frst wont learn enough before he is plunged into fray and second it will prolong overall time player spends playing the game witch will as resolt make server alot more crowded wich in my opinion is beter

Please learn to write decent english sentences. It is very annoying to read your mashup of random words. Also, I have no clue what point you want to make, because I simply don't understand what you are saying.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/28/2015 at 5:21 PM, PorousBoat said:

Hi everyone, great discussion going on!

I've been digging all the proposals so far, but there's one point I think has been overlooked. What about quests rewarding pre-made play? I know that LoL recently implemented a "Party bonus" which works by giving you an increased bonus for having a bigger pre-made party. A system like this promotes social interaction between players as well as throwing a bone to those who already play pre-made.

It could work by giving a bonus increasing in increments for every member of the current game that you're in a party with. Alternatively, there could be quests similar to "Play map X with 3 other players in your party" or similar. I personally prefer the former way of implementation

Although I see mostly upsides with this idea, there are some downsides as well. These mostly involve punishing players who play solo. To combat this I think quests such as these would offer a slightly higher reward in exchange for being free to re-roll.

I hope to see more great ideas!

/PorousBoat

 

its not bad ide but then agen it wouldnt realy push players to go party as it can be easy avodible

2 minutes ago, SilenceKiller99 said:

Please learn to write decent english sentences. It is very annoying to read your mashup of random words. Also, I have no clue what point you want to make, because I simply don't understand what you are saying.

its not as bad as you make it seem dont be that person that justifys himself on account of other people writing

Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, SilenceKiller99 said:

Please learn to write decent english sentences. It is very annoying to read your mashup of random words. Also, I have no clue what point you want to make, because I simply don't understand what you are saying.

I think he is suggesting somekind of cap system in the upgrade system so that it takes longer to get your upgrades and makes people first do PvE and then PvP, since new people aren't good enough for PvP anyways according to him. The cap will make sure people will have to spend more time playing the game and therefore making the server have more members, according to him. 
 

I don't agree with this, but I think the reasons therefore are obvious.

@kkrriiss Is this what you meant? If not, feel free to correct me. About what Silence said, try to use punctuation to structure your posts better (. , ! ? : etc..)

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Ladadoos said:

I think he is suggesting somekind of cap system in the upgrade system so that it takes longer to get your upgrades and makes people first do PvE and then PvP, since new people aren't good enough for PvP anyways according to him. The cap will make sure people will have to spend more time playing the game and therefore making the server have more members, according to him. 
 

I don't agree with this, but I think the reasons therefore are obvious.

@kkrriiss Is this what you meant? If not, feel free to correct me. About what Silence said, try to use punctuation to structure your posts better (. , ! ? : etc..)

ty and il try to use more punctuation in future. i was thinking, its not like they wont get matched with other players that are on same lvl of skill ? but that it might be beter for them to acumulate a bit of cards, coz from what iv read on formus and it isnt little for time i was here, starter decks will be as in old bf and maybe there will be tutorial cards.so pvp will be decided on account of who picks nature,doesnt sound to healthy or does it ? ( tryed to use punctuation as much as i could so that it doesnt look like im trying to make fun of anyone im just bad )

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, kkrriiss said:

ty and il try to use more punctuation in future. i was thinking, its not like they wont get matched with other players that are on same lvl of skill ? but that it might be beter for them to acumulate a bit of cards, coz from what iv read on formus and it isnt little for time i was here, starter decks will be as in old bf and maybe there will be tutorial cards.so pvp will be decided on account of who picks nature,doesnt sound to healthy or does it ? ( tryed to use punctuation as much as i could so that it doesnt look like im trying to make fun of anyone im just bad )

As of right now the starting Free to Play deck (cards) and the tutorial deck will be the same. You can check this thread for more information about changes or things that will be kept the same: http://forum.bfreborn.com/index.php?/topic/823-battleforge-reborn-course-set-out-by-devs/ The matching system is based on ELO as far as I know, and the longer you wait for a match-up the higher the chances are of how being matched with someone either lower or higher. What do you exactly mean with "will be decided on account of who picks nature"? What about nature?

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Ladadoos said:

As of right now the starting Free to Play deck (cards) and the tutorial deck will be the same. You can check this thread for more information about changes or things that will be kept the same: http://forum.bfreborn.com/index.php?/topic/823-battleforge-reborn-course-set-out-by-devs/ The matching system is based on ELO as far as I know, and the longer you wait for a match-up the higher the chances are of how being matched with someone either lower or higher. What do you exactly mean with "will be decided on account of who picks nature"? What about nature?

well rookie players play passive,as nature get good t4 its basicly win if it gets to that,there is just no win vs giant wyrm on that lvl of play if you dont have anything colse to that and its flying unit that doesnt help.i will definitly check out that tread ty.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Zyna changed the title to Proposal: Rewards
  • Zyna unpinned this topic

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue. Terms of Use