• Good day, Stranger! — Are you new to our forums?

    Have I seen you here before? To participate in or to create forum discussions, you will need your own forum account. Register your account here!

Disparity in FA Rewards to Other Events

  • Thread starter DeletedUser6935
  • Start date

DeletedUser6935

Guest
I'm going to make a sweeping generalisation and say that the biggest bugbear with FAs is the extremely poor effort/reward ratio.

The effort/reward ratio for all other events is superb, bordering on excessively generous; be they mini events (Valentine's), month-longish events (Carnival) and the weekly tournament (of which I am a huge fan).

However, in FAs, despite all the quest-cycling, anxiety over "wrong clicking" during collection, foregoing precious space/land (which is the true currency in this game) to build the necessary buildings, planning, arguments, etc, etc, etc the recompense is simply the few mere trinkets at the end of each stage and then the trinkets at the very end for overall score. Admittedly, the FA rewards have improved considerably but the disparity between FA rewards and the rewards for every other event is cavernous and even that is an understatement.

As a specific example, during the Carnival all you had to do to gain candies (to access the daily rewards, i.e. spinning chests) was complete some very simple quests or simply find some on the outskirts of your city. So simple were these quests (not complaining) that even if you had to build extra buildings to complete them the loss of space was unnoticeable. And then when you hoarded enough candies you could go for the spinning chests and daily rewards. I am a huge fan of AW KP rewards, which were available from the spinning chests themselves and, more excitingly, the 30 KP reward was a daily reward. From memory, I managed to hoard 700+ KP from minimal work.

But the AW KP rewards for the just finished FA were 35 for the first stage and 30 for the second, which is pitiful. The other prizes were minor amounts of spell fragments and some semi-useful buildings, which would have been available many times over had this been any other event.

So, that's the whining part. How to fix this? I'm sure there are many ways this effort/reward disparity could be fixed but here are just 2 ideas:

1. Whenever anyone completes a badge they get a small reward straight away, as you would for completing any other quest in any other event. It doesn't have to be a generous reward but something, anything, would be preferable to nothing. As an example, for a Brewery you get coins (yes, I know some people hate extra coinage, which I have never understood, as you can simply change up any excess in the wholesaler for extra goods?), for a Treant you get supplies (as who doesn't need extra supplies?), for a Baker you get some T1 goods, etc, and then for a Blacksmith (as they are the biggest pain) the reward could be 1 whole KP or maybe 2 or 3!

2. Why not bring a concept used in the month-events to FAs, e.g. the periphery goods; i.e. candies , snowflakes, etc. For FAs maybe this could be "blood", or "sweat", or "tears", or "blood, sweat and tears" ;) And then these could be exchanged for fixed prizes, like you would in the trader's wholesaler, or maybe there could also be spinning chests incorporated into FAs, too, for a bit of randomness. I know some people hate the randomness of spinning chests but, again, even a useless reward is better than no reward. And with the incorporation of crafting in the Magic Academy, which I love, you can essentially exchange useless prizes for something worth having.

At the moment, doing well in FAs is all about status and bragging rights, which has no real impact on any other aspect of the game. This is all well and good for the largest and most "elite" FSs but leaves the other FSs eating dust. But I stress that the above isn't a FS equality argument, it's an event effort/reward argument. Please fix it.
 

DeletedUser5093

Guest
Another benefit of the system you propose is that it encourages people to collect more badges, so you'd have fewer players intentionally only putting in a token effort just to get the main prize, which would take some of the load off the players who do a lot.
 

DeletedUser6935

Guest
@UlyssesBlue
Anything to remedy the (negative) human condition of minimum effort for maximum reward (or something for nothing) is a good thing, even if that remedy is playing on another (negative) human condition, i.e. greed ;)

But, yes, this would positively impact:
- Increasing FS contribution, i.e. teamwork, which is a bonus for any FS and the game overall.
- Making FAs a worthwhile event for all players, as there would be personal (rewarding productivity) as well as team rewards, which would keep high the interest in the game and its many events.
- From a developer point of view this could resolve (balancing) complaints around FAs, complaints that have been around a lot longer than those pertaining to Blueprints and Royal Restorations ;). Never mind making FAs easier or harder, just make them more rewarding and players will become as calm as babes suckling at a teat.
- Retaining customer loyalty. Events for events-sake, without reciprocative reward, is a drain on customer loyalty in any industry, which circles back around to the human condition of something for nothing.

To use a real world example, to highlight the fragility of customer loyalty, the huge lack of reward for customer loyalty in the British insurance market led to the advent of aggregators, which show instant price comparisons of a number of insurers. This led to customer bases shifting in huge waves on the basis of price alone. This has been a huge headache for the industry.
New customer discounts have been around for a lot longer than aggregators and operate on the knowledge that in exchange for attracting new customers based on price that customer will be unprofitable for at least the first year (usually the first 3 years), which means that the customer's subsequent years' premiums will increase exponentially to accommodate this until an equilibrium is met and the customer's premiums can finally stagnate. But price-conscious customers would then simply leave for another cheaper policy the following year, which perpetuates the problem, as the original insurer will then have to fill the shortfall caused by that customer by charging loyal customers even more, which could ultimately cause those loyal customers to leave.

I mean, this is an incredibly over-simplistic description of the insurance cycle but it's enough for the purpose of this argument. In response to this headache the industry is looking hard at alternatives to new customer discounts; e.g. sensible new customer discounts with gradual price increases, fixed term prices (over several years) without the original new customer discount, increased policy benefits (e.g. car insurers giving customers approved garages to use that will charge them trade prices on parts rather than retail prices), guaranteed claim response times, etc. In this world of increasingly savvy customers, made worse by instant access to information through the internet, organisations are increasingly needing to target problems before they arise, as tackling problems that become or already are institutionally engrained becomes a horrendously expensive affair.

Companies that didn't adapt their business models to this unprecedented advent in consumer strength and felt that they were unbreakable due to their market share strength fell hard. To quote some examples; Nokia essentially owned the mobile phone market but their refusal to sensibly invest in research caused them to fall hard against the competition from Apple and Samsung and they've never really recovered; BlackBerry tell a similar story due their similar refusal to adapt; and Kodak were essentially bankrupted by their refusal to acknowledge the dangerous rise in non-film photography alternatives.

The above would suggest I'm just showing off my business knowledge, and it probably was ;), but the message is still there somewhere: make FAs more appealing. FAs don't necessarily need to be made easier (or balanced), providing there is just reward difficulty becomes entirely subjective.
 

Deleted User - 341074

Guest
I like the idea of improving the effort:reward ratio, but for me the #1 priority should be on the effort side.

Just take the already existing code for challenges and apply it to the FA.
In the Challenges Event you collect a beverage, get a medal. Collect a toolbox, get 115 medals.
In the FA collect a beverage, get a dwarf badge. Collect a toolbox, get a blacksmith badge.
Simple as that (obv you adjust the FA spots accordingly)

Until that part is improved, I actually want the FA rewards to be garbage. There is so much hate in my fellowships for the quest cycling that offering better prizes will just cause a rift between the few masochists we have and those who think it is absolute BS that inno hasn't fixed the FA in 2 years.
 

Rarely Here

Seeker
Is not the simpler solution to just tell your fellowship that the group is taking part and they are expected to find space and time without good excuses. Sure there will always be some that resist and your leadership group may fail to get through to the end of stage 3. Still even those of us have been in the top 10 multiple times know how much effort is required and we see the same other groups every time. My point is that if the event gets easier it will still be the same people pushing through the final stage and most likely it would just mean that more fellowships will get the stage 3 prizes and still bailout at the sight of the whirlpool. Things that are seen to be too easy will rapidly be seen as no challenge, maybe then you could be the top placed group by tossing 9 items into the whirlpool.
 

RainbowElvira

Sorcerer
The FA is the only true team event Elvenar has. Adding personal rewards would devalue them, IMO. I see the FA as an opportunity to engage with my fellows more than in the usual gameplay. The fun of doing so is the main reward. The map rewards are less important.

This fun however is greatly reduced by the almost unusable interface. Give me something decent and I'm happy.
 
Last edited:

Rarely Here

Seeker
So you mean like indexing the quests ? If you use only one and the same one all the time they don't jump causing you to lose a partly completed quest that we have all seen happen. I generally lock in one quest to the bottom quest giver and after several rotations it stops jumping up in time for you to click to advance the quest. The other feature we are given is that the new quest has the symbol adjacent as a warning for when the 2 quest givers have changed places. Still I see it as a skill thing rather than an error with the FA program. Sure it would save your new member coming to chat and saying they logged in and collected all the 2 day productions (just wizzed around collecting everything) without indexing the quest.
 

RainbowElvira

Sorcerer
So you mean like indexing the quests ?

If I had to design the worst possible user interface, I would have missed the opportunity to let the quest givers jump around. Kudos, I guess o_O. Yes, it would help if the quest givers stayed in place but not remotely enough to make it noteworthy.

I was thinking of the mobile interface but with repeating the same quest after successful completion instead of jumping to the next.

Just take the already existing code for challenges and apply it to the FA.

This would be the best way. However it's more than I dare dreaming of.
 

LazyTony

Sorcerer
I have a sneaky suspicion the awful interface is intentional. Atm, winning an FA is a combination of effort (or repetitive strain injury :p) and space. With a really good interface, like challenges, it is much less about effort, much more about space. The endgame, no guest race buildings, coined a a lot of expansions FSes will win with very little effort. I hate the current interface, but I like that smaller, non-coiner and/or moderate coiner players have a shot. Not sure what the answer is.
 

Deleted User - 341074

Guest
Is not the simpler solution to just tell your fellowship that the group is taking part and they are expected to find space and time without good excuses.
"Accept that you will have a repetitive stress injury. Carpel tunnel syndrome is just part of the game. If you don't like it, find another FS":rolleyes:
My point is that if the event gets easier it will still be the same people pushing through the final stage and most likely it would just mean that more fellowships will get the stage 3 prizes and still bailout at the sight of the whirlpool.
The number of productions, the space you need to use, the coordination required-- none of that needs to change. All we are asking for is not to click 128 times to hand in the 8 farmers badges I cooked. :confused: There's no reason why I can't just collect my 40 workshops and get 8 badges automatically.
Still I see it as a skill thing rather than an error with the FA program
Clicking the "decline" button a dozen times between collecting is skill?o_O
I like that smaller, non-coiner and/or moderate coiner players have a shot.
How do you figure that? Because smaller F2P players hate the clicking it less? Why?
As you said, the FA is about size, and the number 1 purchase in the game is expansions so I don't see how a crappy interface means that F2P has a better chance than they would with a better one.
 

LazyTony

Sorcerer
How do you figure that?
Ever tried to collect 20, 30 or even more badges at one time? It can take over an hour. For this exact reason, the players with more space in our FS make long badges - it would be utterly intolerable to do that clicking all day. And that's why a slow interface gives those with less space a shot - determination can to some extent compensate for space.
 

Deleted User - 341074

Guest
Ever tried to collect 20, 30 or even more badges at one time? It can take over an hour. For this exact reason, the players with more space in our FS make long badges - it would be utterly intolerable to do that clicking all day. And that's why a slow interface gives those with less space a shot - determination can to some extent compensate for space.
This makes no sense.
Of course, a player with 50 empty expansions who refuses to play will do worse than every other player, but you must compare apples to apples.

If player A&B are willing to put in the same number of clicks then the player with more space wins, or at worst it's a tie.

It's that simple.
A shitty interface does not give a small player any advantage that it doesn't also give to a big player.
and yes, I have filled 27 expansions with mixed T1 buildings to make Lux flacons, so I do know exactly how painful it is.
 

LazyTony

Sorcerer
To make full use of 10 times the space you have to click 10 times as much. Or make longer badges, thus clicking less.

Remove the difficulty in collecting badges, and space will be 100% of the decider, instead of 75% + 25% effort.

If 5 mins of clicking is a disincentive, 50 mins of clicking is more of a disincentive.
 
Last edited:

EdwardTrunk

Soothsayer
I think too much is being read into the interface as if somehow it's all part of Inno's masterplan when in reality I'm pretty sure it's just lazy programming. They already had the interface for the chapter quests and simply couldn't be bothered coding something appropriate for the FAs so used that instead. In culinary terms, they couldn't be bothered to cook dinner and simply re-heated a pan of baked beans left over from the night before... :mad:
 
Last edited:

Deleted User - 341074

Guest
Remove the difficulty in collecting badges, and space will be 100% of the decider, instead of 75% + 25% effort.
I fully disagree that "effort" is currently 25%
We have compared the top 10 FA fellowships on US servers and counted how many squares were dedicated to level 1 buildings and there is a near perfect correlation between space used and FA rank.
Yes, there is an upper limit where a player with 1000 workshops will probably not make 10x as many as a player with 100 workshops, but players with 50 workshops are absolutely making 10x as many badges as players with 5 under the current system.

The crap interface is not helping smaller players to compete, and also I think complete is more important than compete for anyone outside of the top i.e. 99% of players.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Top