• 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!

Spire like individual achievements in the tournament for chests

Skelve

Bard
How about having Spire like individual achievement requirement for tournament chests. Since the fellowship size is 25, maybe 1/25th of a chest score requirement to be reached to win the chest by an individual if the fellowship has won the chest. So that means 1600 min score to win a blueprint if the fellowship has won it. Just thinking aloud. :)
 

Silmaril

Community Manager
Elvenar Team
That is how it works now really, with the points accumulated for the Fellowship as a whole and for individual rewards to be paid out.
Although a certain number of chests (10) need to be completed as a minimum requirement for any rewards to be granted to an individual.
 

CrazyWizard

Shaman
That is how it works now really, with the points accumulated for the Fellowship as a whole and for individual rewards to be paid out.
Although a certain number of chests (10) need to be completed as a minimum requirement for any rewards to be granted to an individual.

Thats not what he ment?
now a person doing one provice, 1 round (30 points) and if the fellowship gathers 17chests, that person will get as much reward as all the other 24 players of the fellowship.

So what he ment is, like in the spire that 30 point player would get nothing as he added "nothing" to the tournament achievement of the fellowship.

So what he wants is a mechanism for all players to help to get the tournmanent rewards just like the spire does.
So a certain tournnament schievement should be achieved to share the rewards. and how many is based on your individual result.

example:
30 points: 1st chest
80 points: 2nd chest
150 points: 3rd chest
250 points: 4th chest
390 points: 5th chest
560 points: 6th chest
760 points: 7th chest
1000 points: 8th chest
1280 points: 9th chest
1600 points: 10th chest
2000 points: 11th chest
2400 points: 12th chest
2800 points: 13th chest
ect:

If you do not meet those marks your not eligable for those chests, even if the fellowship unlocks them.

This saves a lot of archmages kicking the lazy ones into action, at least thats what I presume his intension is.
 

BlueBlou

Illusionist
I personally would hate it if Skelve’s suggestion is ever implemented. It comes down to the fear that anyone else will benefit from your hard work and that all must add equal effort. If your fellowship is build around that kind of requirements, just kick out the perceived lazy bones and perceived benefit stealers.

I find it more satisfying helping my fellows that struggle by enabling whatever benefits for them. That way they progress faster. True slackers won’t last long in any case as they will loose interest and will see the door without even noticing it.
 

CrazyWizard

Shaman
I personally would hate it if Skelve’s suggestion is ever implemented. It comes down to the fear that anyone else will benefit from your hard work and that all must add equal effort. If your fellowship is build around that kind of requirements, just kick out the perceived lazy bones and perceived benefit stealers.

I find it more satisfying helping my fellows that struggle by enabling whatever benefits for them. That way they progress faster. True slackers won’t last long in any case as they will loose interest and will see the door without even noticing it.

Part of me agrees wityh you, on the other hand I also see how complacency affects performace.
I see people who easily make it to the top of the spire, but are lazy when it comes to the tournament, even if they do little they still get the prizes anyway.
So it looks like they spire system is a good motivator for players.
If that motivation helps them improve / stay sharp than it might be a good thing.

So it's not about if I am afraid they get more then they earn, I can do that easily by simply kicking them out of the fellowship, it's more about the motivation people seem to get from such a scheme. and as a result they might actually like the tournaments eventually.

Why? because of they want more prizes they need to do better, and you need to reach a certain point to get access to the goodies.
Once a player gets to the stage they get a lot of KP out of the tournaments they seem to improve a lot fairly quick, but people that never reach it don't seem to see the benefit to do more than nessesary.

People are lazy by nature, if your boss pays you your salary, and told you I don't care of you work 1 hour or 100 hours, how long do you think it takes before many of your collegues maybe including yourself will do less than 30 hours of work?
 

davemc

Bard
I feel in my fellowship it is the smaller and middle players that help more now since the recent changes. I used to 90% of the time top my fellowships rankings but now finding it harder and harder to do along with tournaments. Fight my way through all of them as the cost of goods for elvenar chapter is high .
Thoughts on this appreciated .
 

Pauly7

Magus
I can see the benefits of such a system, but personally I prefer that it is different from the Spire. Tournaments are a more relaxed affair, giving some players the freedom to be away, or to need to save up one week... and the rest of the group can cover. It also allows small players to build up some nice rewards if they've got a good team around them. The Spire is more intense and requires everyone's performance for the prizes to be reached. I'm not saying there is anything wrong with that, but I think it's good to have the two different disciplines.
 

Gargon667

Mentor
I agreee on the motivation part. the spire is far better and I prefer this system over the tourney system in general.

In our FS we have managed to have a high participation now, but it sure wasn´t easy to get there, might have been easier if the spire system had been introduced in the tourneys as well.
On the other hand not everything always has to be the same across the board, I am happy to have different events with different strengths and weaknesses. Also I think it would only work for the first 10 chests where the big prizes are after that there are no rewards to speak of, so nobody would care either way and instead of increasing participation further they would just skip the later rewards. Since 10 chests is nowadays a dummy exercise that everybody semi-interested achieves anyway, who cares about participation? The FS needs to regulate this internally rather than through external checkpoints. So I really see not much benefit in introducing the spire system.

As to heping small towns: The better way to do that in my eyes is to give them resources to do the expected points rather than leaving them hang around slacking. 1. they get actually more rewards than just team rewards, 2. it is more cost efficient for the FS (costs the small towns much less to do the same points as it costs a big town, 3. it teaches the small town at least how to play the tourneys (which is better than nothing). By chapter 3 or 4 you should have enough provinces for 1600 points. So no real excuses...
 

Deleted User - 341074

Guest
If implemented I don't think it should be full points for chests. This way you can still partly carry FS members and help them grow.
Something more like 75% of the required points.
i.e. 1200 minimum for 10th chest rewards. (1600*0.75)
 

Deleted User - 341074

Guest
Although a certain number of chests (10) need to be completed as a minimum requirement for any rewards to be granted to an individual.
Either I'm misunderstanding you or this is completely wrong. If a player gets 30 points and the FS gets 1,5, 10, or 19 chests that player gets the full FS rewards.
 

Deleted User - 341074

Guest
Yes we are at crossed purposes @SoggyShorts as I am discussing the Spire of Eternity mechanics and you are discussing Tournament chests.
Ah I see, perhaps one of us should double-check the thread title and re-read the OP's suggestion then.:p
 

Far Reach

Conjurer
I personally would hate it if Skelve’s suggestion is ever implemented. It comes down to the fear that anyone else will benefit from your hard work and that all must add equal effort. If your fellowship is build around that kind of requirements, just kick out the perceived lazy bones and perceived benefit stealers.

There are Fellowships in which there is disagreement between those who would like minimum standards, and those who would prefer a more casual approach. These disputes can rumble on, particularly when there isn't a clear majority on one side. If the suggestion were implemented, then it might appear to offer a compromise (which I'd welcome).

In practice I suspect that the suggestion would not achieve that though. The tournament rewards (particularly the blueprint for reaching 10 chests) are a lot more valuable for some cities (e.g. those with lots of magic buildings) than others. If the dispute is really about whether there should be a common fellowship push to reach tournament milestones, then the change might well achieve little. (Players who were doing less before, would probably continue to do so.)

It might help our discussion if the OP could describe what issue the suggestion is intended to address, and what the intended outcome would be.
 

DeletedUser10688

Guest
I personally would like to see a system where rewards in tournaments are distributed on the individual performance. Say, x pts in the tournament and player can get rewards for 10 chests. Overall FS performance could count towards ranking points, not to make FS redundant.

It is inevitable that current design leads to many grievances and there will be always players who will be versed to take advantage of others. For me, blueprint is one of the most important tools to develop the city, spire can give substantial rewards even without collective rewards based on FS performance. I could easily do without collective rewards in the spire, if tournament system would be improved in a way where individual player can reach blueprint. For example, personally I do not like utra-competitive players taking advantage of others, same applies to too much pushing to play in a certain way benefiting FS. If rewards in the tournaments would be improved in a way suggested, I would be more than happy to play this game in one player's FS :) In other words, I would see this as the option to play without any frustrations, any pressures, when I want, etc. and still achieve something what benefits healthy development of my city.

Changes to the rewards in tournaments might stop many players from leaving this game ;) Current system works against players wishing to play individual game on their own pace.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Pauly7

Magus
Current system works against players wishing to play individual game on their own pace.
That's called being in a fellowship. Without fellowships this game would have collapsed long ago and they are very much what makes the game a success. They need to increase the opportunities for teams to work together, not convert these things into individual pursuits where players all play at their own pace, as they want to. Someone wishing to "play at their own pace" can choose to do so without being in a fellowship, but these are the players always much more likely to quit.

New players get to develop and become hooked on the game by getting themselves into successful teams where they can be supported and one of the biggest draws is having access to blueprints and great end of week prizes in tournaments. For established players it isn't so important because they're winning a lot more things personally along the way... so I wouldn't ever change this format.
 

CrazyWizard

Shaman
That's called being in a fellowship. Without fellowships this game would have collapsed long ago and they are very much what makes the game a success. They need to increase the opportunities for teams to work together, not convert these things into individual pursuits where players all play at their own pace, as they want to. Someone wishing to "play at their own pace" can choose to do so without being in a fellowship, but these are the players always much more likely to quit.

New players get to develop and become hooked on the game by getting themselves into successful teams where they can be supported and one of the biggest draws is having access to blueprints and great end of week prizes in tournaments. For established players it isn't so important because they're winning a lot more things personally along the way... so I wouldn't ever change this format.

I think the better way to say it is, that being in a group makes it harder to quit. as you do not only quit the game, but also "quit" the friendships you might have build up in your fellowship. so group thinks make people play the game, overcome bad periods and find new periods of fun and hopefully spending.

For the same reason people do not change fellowships often even if that fellowship does not conform to there ambitions. it takes a lot of time and consideration before these people decide to leave and move on. sometimes years.
 

DeletedUser10688

Guest
Attempting to 'manage' others like employees, requesting to share certain data which should not be shared online (ofc there will be people who will want to display their personal life - it is up to them) and running FS like a formal work place with concepts mostly used in HR departments are the worst aspects of this game for me. Many people have enough responsibilities in their lives, lead active lives which does not align well with many 'team' events in this game - those interests you are simply excluding now. I would strongly argue that the above aspects can make players quit in exactly the same manner as playing this game alone.

When circumstances change, players get bored of this game (it can get extremely repetitive and boring, especially when you have a large city and/or demanding/intrusive FS), they can and should quit :) Is not a formal work you know, where people earn their living, nor it should replace real world friends or family :)

For me Elvenar would be an ideal game if FS concept would disappear completely. Not because of the people aspect, but because of disproportionate reliance on others and their availability/performance.
 

Timneh

Artisan
If people are not happy with the way the FS they are in is being run they should consider finding a different FS. There are FS that are relaxed and do not insist members do a certain amount in tournaments or spire etc. The FS i am in has only 1 rule and that is to do a minimum of 4 visits per week and we seldom need to look for members. It is all about finding a FS that suits your needs, there will be one out there.
 
Top