PDA

View Full Version : Here's how to fix the Syndicate imbalance: "The Super Bowl model"



JBE
08-01-2013, 02:30 PM
Who likes the Super Bowl?

The Syndicate battles have become boring because Fight Club has won every single one and no-one can compete. The winner's map, showing their dominance across the whole city, makes me yawn, and must be embarrassing to Gree. Any new player joining the game looks at it and thinks, ‘why bother’?

There's no sense of competitiveness when you're watching a team with unlimited money put trophies on their credit cards. How do we fix this, and make the wars interesting again?

Here's one proposal for fixing it. Many of you might hate this, fair enough, but give it some thought.

In the last 20 Super Bowls, 12 different teams have emerged victorious. How and why has this happened? How can one team not build up total dominance? In part, it's because of the draft system. The team that finishes worst gets the first pick of the best new players, and the team that finishes top (the Super Bowl winner) gets last pick, giving them the most disadvantage.

Somewhat adapting this, here's what I would propose: :D

The team that wins each war gets compulsorily disbanded for the next two wars. Each team member is distributed into the runner-up teams by order of their IP performance in their winning war.
So say Fight Club has 60 members and wins a war:

Fight Club as a syndicate gets disbanded for the next 2 wars (lasting roughly a month). The top-ranking FC player (who is also probably the guy who spent the most gold in battle) gets moved to the #2 team (Silent Assassins) for the next 2 wars. *This is compulsory* - he cannot leave and they cannot refuse him. He gets some kind of a crown or medal icon showing that he has been a Syndicate battle winner.

The second placed FC player gets moved to #3 Rogues Gallery, the third placed to #4 Indian Nation, etc. The 60th placed (least contributing) FC player joins the 61st placed team, who would likely still welcome such a strong player to their ranks. The boost for them would be huge.

After two wars - which would be necessarily guaranteed two different winners - FC can reform their original line up if they want to. But already the playing field has become more even, because it's not all the same players winning the three mega modifier items each time.

And let's assume that Silent Assassins won the subsequent war (and you would assume that they would, as they have all the 2nd place players plus the top FC player) - they would then get disbanded and dispersed within the top 60, for two wars.

The ramifications for this are huge. Within two wars, every team in the top 60 could gain two players from the two strongest teams.

The top FC players are still incentivized to spend lots of money as their individual performance counts now, as well as their team performance - they have to think of their long-term careers.

I'm sure this proposal will infuriate the top 3 syndicates, but it'd make the game so much more interesting for the remaining 99% of us. Maybe it wouldn’t make economic sense for Gree... or maybe it would. I think players would actually spend more gold if they thought there was a realistic chance they could actually finish top three.

When the trolls are done trolling, I'd welcome suggestions or ideas from others about how the syndicate system could be freshened up to make the results a bit more diverse. Because they're boring as hell right now.


JBE

recruiter
08-01-2013, 02:31 PM
and you expect me to read that?

scott(ST6)
08-01-2013, 02:32 PM
http://i2.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/newsfeed/000/443/892/b42.gif

jopdermod
08-01-2013, 02:36 PM
Maybe it wouldn’t make economic sense for Gree...


You gave the answer ..

I would have loved the idea, when they would have set up the game like this from the start. But now it's just NOT going to happen. It's TOO complicated to change now, especially with the baby syndicated and swapping members between them (willing to buy 1 war for the good items and sitting out the next) Gree has trouble enough to make the current game work right and making mayor changes like that would probably screw up the game bigtime .. putting it out for a couple of day's before they turn it back to the way it was because that sort of worked ok :)

Ben Weston
08-01-2013, 02:37 PM
its not difficult to read......


nice in theory but I don't think it'd work as people wouldn't spend the cash when not in FC for example, they might slow right down as whats the point in ploughing gold into 61st place when the same amount would normally get you to first.

Madsonovich
08-01-2013, 02:38 PM
I have to ask. A quick glance over your wall o'text looks like you want Gree to disappoint a group of customers who have hooked up their collect credit lines directly to Gree's bottom line, right? For the benefit of the rest of us who have not allowed them free access to our wallets?

I understand the motivation from our side. Why would Gree do it?

JBE
08-01-2013, 02:43 PM
I have to ask. A quick glance over your wall o'text looks like you want Gree to disappoint a group of customers who have hooked up their collect credit lines directly to Gree's bottom line, right? For the benefit of the rest of us who have not allowed them free access to our wallets?

I understand the motivation from our side. Why would Gree do it?

Gree would do it because:
1) It would encourage some of the 99% who haven't hooked up their collect credit lines directly to Gree's bottom line to do so, since we would now have a realistic chance at hitting the jackpot in the wars.

and 2) The sad truth is that Gree can disappoint the top 1% of customers who have already hooked up their collect credit lines directly to Gree's bottom line, and they will still keep coming back.

When crack gets weak, a crack addict doesn't stop doing crack - he buys twice as much crack in a bid to get the original high.

Stooboot
08-01-2013, 02:51 PM
Only read the first sentence but do u think gree really gives a $hit who wins? All they care about is how many commas are on there check that month

JBE
08-01-2013, 02:51 PM
its not difficult to read......


nice in theory but I don't think it'd work as people wouldn't spend the cash when not in FC for example, they might slow right down as whats the point in ploughing gold into 61st place when the same amount would normally get you to first.

That's a good point, and here's where the logic of the system could lead to more money for Gree, rather than less:

While the guy in FC who has to be in the 61st placed syndicate might slow down the amount he is spending in the game (doubtful, see my crack addict theory above), each FC player reducing their spend would likely be replaced by three or four players spending MORE as they see a more level playing field and a chance to actually win.

Remember that anyone in a top 100 syndicate is already a gold spender, for certain. You can't finish top 100 with spending gold. So while the first placed syndicate may spend a little less for one month, teams #2 to #100 would spend considerably more.

The theory is that those teams are under-spending at the moment because they look at FC's dominance and think, 'what's the point?'

Gingeasian
08-01-2013, 02:55 PM
would never work
#1 because as you said it would not make economic sense and we all know that Gree wants the money
#2 would take way to much coding to make a syndicate unable to battle and to reassign players and make them stay
#Then it would just be the same 3 rotating winners instead of just 1 winner

nazgul
08-01-2013, 03:21 PM
would never work
#2 would take way to much coding to make a syndicate unable to battle and to reassign players and make them stay

No doubt, and given the recent troubles with people being booted from syndicates, do you really have faith that they could get what you proposed right???

Gingeasian
08-01-2013, 03:26 PM
Remember that anyone in a top 100 syndicate is already a gold spender, for certain. You can't finish top 100 with spending gold.

False all top 100 syns have gold spenders but not all players in a top 100 spend gold a smart and committed gold player can put up 30,40 or even 50K IP

Madsonovich
08-01-2013, 03:31 PM
When crack gets weak, a crack addict doesn't stop doing crack - he buys twice as much crack in a bid to get the original high.

It does seem like top level syndicate players would spend less on a decent crack habit than they do on this game.

I enjoy it, but as an old console gamer, I have trouble continuing to pay more for a game beyond the initial purchase. I'm getting better at being willing to put money in now and then, but hundreds or even thousands per player? Good to be Gree.

GU7 F4WK3S
08-01-2013, 03:37 PM
OP-Based off your subject which is all I read you're close to figuring out taking down FC. NFL pays its players. You need a similar method to attract talent. Consider creating a syndicate or take ownership of a current one and talk to a company, lets say Red Bull, get them to sponsor the team $30K. In return you put their name on a few leaderboards.

Note: this could backfire when you start going to these companies only to find they're owned by members of FC.

Randolph
08-01-2013, 03:40 PM
Most definately the worst idea ever!!!!

jopdermod
08-01-2013, 04:04 PM
False all top 100 syns have gold spenders but not all players in a top 100 spend gold a smart and committed gold player can put up 30,40 or even 50K IP

Hey I make 70k IP no gold, only be active 24/7 and have a good scouting team in place !

jopdermod
08-01-2013, 04:05 PM
OP-Based off your subject which is all I read you're close to figuring out taking down FC. NFL pays its players. You need a similar method to attract talent. Consider creating a syndicate or take ownership of a current one and talk to a company, lets say Red Bull, get them to sponsor the team $30K. In return you put their name on a few leaderboards.

Note: this could backfire when you start going to these companies only to find they're owned by members of FC.

One of the best ever posts I read , especially the punch line !

sister morphine
08-01-2013, 04:09 PM
One of the best ever posts I read , especially the punch line !
The real punch line is that FC's big spenders collectively could probably match or exceed the suggested 30K corporate sponsorship! ;) back to the drawing board, eh!

Dipstik
08-01-2013, 04:12 PM
http://i2.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/newsfeed/000/443/892/b42.gif

Well done, young padewan!

mxz
08-01-2013, 04:23 PM
I've seen some really bad ideas on here...but this totally bucks the trend! 5 stars for being well thought out and super duper!

Enforcer
08-01-2013, 04:52 PM
Reward the best team by splitting them up. Ha.

Angel6ix6ix6
08-01-2013, 04:57 PM
This is soo dumb this is really really dumb.

Who cares if Gree employees win every battle.

Don't ever compare this pixel game to football ever again!

MrM
08-01-2013, 05:07 PM
Don't ever misuse the word 'football' again, when you actually mean the padded, cushioned and helmeted sport that is NFL...

Angel6ix6ix6
08-01-2013, 05:13 PM
Certainly not talking about that little child's game called soccer! Boys stop playing soccer once their balls drop!


Don't ever misuse the word 'football' again, when you actually mean the padded, cushioned and helmeted sport that is NFL...

MrM
08-01-2013, 05:18 PM
What's soccer?

bald zeemer
08-01-2013, 05:27 PM
Even with this, Fight Club and GREE still win. If they move to a weaker syndicate it will be like an auction event. One of their real ballers will just drop $30K and put whatever syndicate they're in on top.

What would be a really fun stunt would be to put FC's top spenders in syndicates by themselves lol. Tam could make top 25 easily by herself.

One player can't do that all on their own - there are more than a few players limited by time, not gold. If it were possible then Ferr would've dominated MW instead of PUN.

GU7 F4WK3S
08-01-2013, 05:42 PM
One player can't do that all on their own - there are more than a few players limited by time, not gold. If it were possible then Ferr would've dominated MW instead of PUN.i'm not ready to dismiss this Liu player. i heard he's employed staff so there's fingers tapping 24/7.

bald zeemer
08-01-2013, 05:46 PM
Playing 24/7 it's still tough to get much more than 2m a day (for lvl 250 - adjust as required for lower levels/higher avg IP).

Smarty Pants
08-01-2013, 06:02 PM
Reward the best team by splitting them up. Ha.

Seems to work for the NFL and other massive competitive entities and they rake in unfathomable amounts of cash because there is COMPETITION. I don't necessarily agree with the proposed idea but something should definitely be done about FC, there's no reason to coddle the top 1 team just because they pay $X amount of dollars. Especially when the top 10 as a whole (if convinced they have a chance at the top) can put out WAY WAY WAY WAY more $$$.

bald zeemer
08-01-2013, 06:09 PM
Yes, but as stated earlier NFL players don't pay to play. You can't provide the same incentives when that key aspect is reversed and expect the same outcomes.

Enforcer
08-01-2013, 07:04 PM
Seems to work for the NFL and other massive competitive entities and they rake in unfathomable amounts of cash because there is COMPETITION.

The NFL does not split up championship teams for winning, neither does the NBA or MLB. Players come and go from teams because of salary caps, injuries, too old, not a good fit, etc. Has the Miami heat been dismantled yet? Is Kobe still a laker?

And they rake in cash because of entertainment value, not competition. Every year you can pick most of the playoff teams before the season starts as long as there are no serious injuries/suspensions.

Smarty Pants
08-01-2013, 07:14 PM
Yes, but as stated earlier NFL players don't pay to play. You can't provide the same incentives when that key aspect is reversed and expect the same outcomes.

This is true but it doesn't change the same baseline fact i was trying to point out; competition brings revenue

murf
08-01-2013, 07:18 PM
This is true but it doesn't change the same baseline fact i was trying to point out; competition brings revenue

It brings in revenue from the fan base....maybe that's what GREE should do...start selling tickets to the FC/Indians game or maybe have a clothing line, where I can buy Fight Club apparel....

Smarty Pants
08-01-2013, 07:20 PM
The NFL does not split up championship teams for winning, neither does the NBA or MLB. Players come and go from teams because of salary caps, injuries, too old, not a good fit, etc. Has the Miami heat been dismantled yet? Is Kobe still a laker?

And they rake in cash because of entertainment value, not competition. Every year you can pick most of the playoff teams before the season starts as long as there are no serious injuries/suspensions.

For starters they don't need to split teams up because they have new blood coming in and old blood going out to help keep it even. Players in CC come and go as well its no different in that sense either.

As for the next poorly articulated statement you made, the entertainment value you mentioned COMES FROM COMPETITION you jackwagon. Also yes you can pick out the playoff teams but the pool is over a dozen teams (a good portion of which who all have potential to win) not just one flipping team stacked with 60 players.

#ThinkB4YouPost

murf
08-01-2013, 07:23 PM
#ThinkB4YouPost

It's funny that you wrote this, because again I'll state that the competitive leagues like the NFL don't generate revenues from the teams...they generate revenue from the fan base, so your argument is completely misguided, until I can buy a Bald Zeemer jersey...

Smarty Pants
08-01-2013, 07:24 PM
It brings in revenue from the fan base....maybe that's what GREE should do...start selling tickets to the FC/Indians game or maybe have a clothing line, where I can buy Fight Club apparel....

The "fan base" are the people actually competing in the tournament bro. Why have +1500 people watch FC pretend to be battling it out for the top spot when you can have the entire "fan base" duke it out and rack in exponentially more.

murf
08-01-2013, 07:27 PM
The "fan base" are the people actually competing in the tournament bro. Why have +1500 people watch FC pretend to be battling it out for the top spot when you can have the entire "fan base" duke it out and rack in exponentially more.

No, if you are going to compare the NFL to the syndicate wars, the teams are the syndicates and the players are you and I....in the NFL competition causes the fans to spend money....in syndicate wars competition would cause the players to spend money....that is not how analogies work...

Smarty Pants
08-01-2013, 07:27 PM
It's funny that you wrote this, because again I'll state that the competitive leagues like the NFL don't generate revenues from the teams...they generate revenue from the fan base, so your argument is completely misguided, until I can buy a Bald Zeemer jersey...

You aren't following, NFL and CC are two completely different things the only thing in common that i'm comparing is their need of competition to thrive. If you can't understand this basic concept of marketing then brush up on your economics.

murf
08-01-2013, 07:36 PM
When you make a statement like this,


Seems to work for the NFL and other massive competitive entities and they rake in unfathomable amounts of cash because there is COMPETITION.

then this


NFL and CC are two completely different things

Why make the first statement, since their not analogous.

Smarty Pants
08-01-2013, 07:40 PM
When you make a statement like this,



then this



Why make the first statement, since their not analogous.

Don't cut out half my statements and try to twist my words, just as i said in the 1st post it's COMPETITION that entities such as the NFL, CC, and Free World Marketing in general need to thrive. If you STILL aren't managing to keep up with the rest of us then i suggest you save face and stop replying before you end up making a fool of yourself.....oops

Tommy Two Toes
08-01-2013, 07:46 PM
I saw the title of the thread, and hoped it would have something to do with a blackout in the middle of the game, or better still a wardrobe malfunction in the halftime show.
http://sports.cbsimg.net/u/photos/football/nfl/img19445319.jpg
Thanks for the disappointment.

dart
08-01-2013, 07:49 PM
Fight Club doesn't win because they are unbeatable, they win because they use the most gold. In fact, they have to use more gold for the same amount of points compared to many other syndicates because they have a lot of higher level players that can't average over 400 influence points per attack. If you want a team to beat them, just pick any team with players under level 150 that are relatively strong for their level, and get them to spend 1,000 vaults as a team. Pretty simple really. Expensive, but simple.

A team's total influence point score has nothing to do with having the "Best" players, and syndicates are matched in battle based on your team's total attack points. So if you had a team of level 50 players with 150k attack, they would never even face Fight Club, as the system would not match a team like Fight Club, whose average attack is probably over 800k, with a team of average attack of 150k, even if this new team were ranked #1 or #2.

3squir3
08-01-2013, 07:55 PM
Certainly not talking about that little child's game called soccer! Boys stop playing soccer once their balls drop!

Logical to call a sport where you use your foot like 1-5% of the time in a game of Gridiron =P.
Should call it Handball tbh

mca
08-01-2013, 08:05 PM
This would be way too much work =P

GU7 F4WK3S
08-01-2013, 08:06 PM
hook me up with 30 vaults and i'll give you 2 mil ip. contact my agent and lets work out the details.

MattThomas08
08-01-2013, 08:17 PM
hook me up with 30 vaults and i'll give you 2 mil ip. contact my agent and lets work out the details.

What are you gonna do with the other 10 vaults? I'd say 20 would serve up 2 mil IP for me.

murf
08-01-2013, 08:21 PM
Don't cut out half my statements and try to twist my words, just as i said in the 1st post it's COMPETITION that entities such as the NFL, CC, and Free World Marketing in general need to thrive. If you STILL aren't managing to keep up with the rest of us then i suggest you save face and stop replying before you end up making a fool of yourself.....oops

You are completely missing why you made an invalid argument...you use the NFL as an example of why competition creates revenue and then apply it to why competition would make CC revenue...you were comparing apples to oranges, and the analogy still doesn't work....you can't make a blanket statement that competition creates revenue...ask the airlines how competition does for their revenue

I'm not saying competition in CC won't make money, although I'm not sure it will, as a member of a top 25 syndicate if FC quit tomorrow, I'm 99% sure, we'd still be a top 25 syndicate with about the same IP...only 3-4 syndicates truly have a shot at #1 if FC wasn't there.....either way, you still used an incorrect analogy.

And I'm not sure why you get so angry, you need to relax a little

Smarty Pants
08-01-2013, 08:36 PM
You are completely missing why you made an invalid argument...you use the NFL as an example of why competition creates revenue and then apply it to why competition would make CC revenue...you were comparing apples to oranges, and the analogy still doesn't work....you can't make a blanket statement that competition creates revenue...ask the airlines how competition does for their revenue

I'm not saying competition in CC won't make money, although I'm not sure it will, as a member of a top 25 syndicate if FC quit tomorrow, I'm 99% sure, we'd still be a top 25 syndicate with about the same IP...only 3-4 syndicates truly have a shot at #1 if FC wasn't there.....either way, you still used an incorrect analogy.

And I'm not sure why you get so angry, you need to relax a little

Thats why i compared NFL an CC not airlines, stop pulling stuff out of nowhere. I did compare apples and oranges because they're both fruit, you either don't want to admit you're wrong or you are just dense. They both need competition to thrive there is no if, ands, or buts about it period.

Guess what if FC quit then thats 3 teams competing for top1 instead of 1 which increases profits still.

So no my analogy is not correct, try re-reading my posts if you're still having trouble understanding.

PS: No one is mad lol ignorance doesn't faze me :cool:

GU7 F4WK3S
08-01-2013, 08:41 PM
What are you gonna do with the other 10 vaults? I'd say 20 would serve up 2 mil IP for me.perfect....i will outsource the work to you and pay you 22 vaults.

MattThomas08
08-01-2013, 08:56 PM
You are completely missing why you made an invalid argument...you use the NFL as an example of why competition creates revenue and then apply it to why competition would make CC revenue...you were comparing apples to oranges, and the analogy still doesn't work....you can't make a blanket statement that competition creates revenue...ask the airlines how competition does for their revenue


I think the competition creates revenue idea would typically work with respect to CC. Syndicates have sent spending through the roof and we do all the footwork for Gree to make each other spend. We call each other cheaters, hackers, bad guys, etc. and convince each other that spending more $ would REALLY show those other guys. Meanwhile, Gree makes more competition with PVP battles and endless case events.

So within CC context, I think competition creates spending. I think you guys may actually be talking about parity though.

Just remember, Hitler created parity.

Sandukan
08-01-2013, 08:59 PM
Fight Club doesn't win because they are unbeatable, they win because they use the most gold. In fact, they have to use more gold for the same amount of points compared to many other syndicates because they have a lot of higher level players that can't average over 400 influence points per attack. If you want a team to beat them, just pick any team with players under level 150 that are relatively strong for their level, and get them to spend 1,000 vaults as a team. Pretty simple really. Expensive, but simple.

A team's total influence point score has nothing to do with having the "Best" players, and syndicates are matched in battle based on your team's total attack points. So if you had a team of level 50 players with 150k attack, they would never even face Fight Club, as the system would not match a team like Fight Club, whose average attack is probably over 800k, with a team of average attack of 150k, even if this new team were ranked #1 or #2.
BUT wouldn't FC just spend enough to beat this hypothetical upstart?
Your argument presupposes that financial resources and total time fighting is not limiting.
Then the only substantial variable left would be influence points per hit.

Want my advice. Celebrate #2.
By the way I heard 2 of the top 4 teams have decided to "Voltron" and take on the challenge. Stay tuned.

murf
08-01-2013, 09:35 PM
Thats why i compared NFL an CC not airlines, stop pulling stuff out of nowhere. I did compare apples and oranges because they're both fruit, you either don't want to admit you're wrong or you are just dense. They both need competition to thrive there is no if, ands, or buts about it period.

Guess what if FC quit then thats 3 teams competing for top1 instead of 1 which increases profits still.

So no my analogy is not correct, try re-reading my posts if you're still having trouble understanding.

PS: No one is mad lol ignorance doesn't faze me :cool:

You made a blanket statement that since competition increases revenues in the NFL, then competition must increase revenue in CC...you still don't see how both derive their revenue from different sources...

And you proposing to piss off possibly your 60 highest grossing customers for the hopes that the next 120 or 240 will make up for that...it's not a slam-dunk that increases revenue...

You continue to call me names like a 5th-grader, yet you say your aren't mad...so either 1) you are a 5th grader and my apologies for this discussion or 2) you're angry, and my apologies for pissing you off or 3) you resort to 5th-grade antics when anyone begins a discussion with you, and my fault for not knowing better...

Good luck with your future arguments like: since red + blue = purple, then adding any 2 colors together gets you purple...I hope you are successful with that thought process.

bald zeemer
08-01-2013, 10:38 PM
The issue here is really one of barrier costs. Since FC has members with high stats, and has already done the organisational work to collect big spenders then any new team faces prohibitive costs to compete, even if their product (team) would be able to compete if starting on an equal footing.

A much better analogy would be along the lines of Telecommunications companies, where the cost of infrastructure is expensive, so fair use legislation is often introduced to force the existing monopoly/oligopoly to allow access to the infrastructure at fair price. Which is also more analogous to the OP's proposal than a sports draft system, anyway.

edit/ To draw this out further: In this analogy, IP takes the place of revenue, and gold spend takes the place of cost. Gree is a a monopsonist supplier to the industry. At this point the OPs proposal may or may not make sense - one would have to examine exact price elasticities, demand profiles, etc. The end question being how much rent-seeking the monopolist could engage in, and how much the monopsonist could appropriate.

The bigger fly in the ointment, however, is the Gree is also the monopolist supplier of products that can be purchased with the revenue (as they can decide how many prizes are awarded and of what quality the prizes are). I'm hard pressed to come up with a RL analogy for this situation. The closest I can think of would be company enclaves prior to the age of easy transport and communication, but even then the analogy is imperfect as there always existed some form of local market, however rudimentary.

TZora
08-01-2013, 10:45 PM
Since FC has members with high stats, and has already done the organisational work to collect big spenders
i've also heard they got rid of some damaged-brain big spenders ...

Tommy Two Toes
08-01-2013, 10:47 PM
i've also heard they got rid of some damaged-brain big spenders ...
http://i291.photobucket.com/albums/ll284/mlmadmax/butthurt.png

TZora
08-01-2013, 10:50 PM
Yes, but as stated earlier NFL players don't pay to play. You can't provide the same incentives when that key aspect is reversed and expect the same outcomes.
you forgot to put a comma after the word "earlier". it should be, "Yes, but as stated earlier, NFL players don't pay to play".

bald zeemer
08-01-2013, 10:58 PM
If you're going to attempt to correct grammar you may wish to make sure you're doing it right. Zero for two so far.

cc thunder
08-01-2013, 11:04 PM
I love it, would restructure everything

teo
08-01-2013, 11:09 PM
If you're going to attempt to correct grammar you may wish to make sure you're doing it right. Zero for two so far.

(looking at your signature line)

4 mill points/10,000 wins, that is in excess of $1,000 considering max obtainable bonus gold tier, would that be correct? I am not trying to judge, just to gain insight.

Thanks if you do answer. If you don't want to answer I respect that. PM works too.

bald zeemer
08-01-2013, 11:10 PM
Probably. I don't keep a particularly strict track of my gold spend.

teo
08-01-2013, 11:12 PM
Thanks Zeemer

TZora
08-01-2013, 11:31 PM
If you're going to attempt to correct grammar (you again missed a comma here) you may wish to make sure you're doing it right. Zero for two so far.
If you're going to attempt to correct people, you may wish to make sure you're doing it right. Zero for "two" (JC and BZ) so far .. or may be more ;)

teo
08-01-2013, 11:41 PM
I wonder who is the most bored right now. You two who are battling over commas or me who is reading it.......

Time to get battle started....

Trev
08-02-2013, 02:15 AM
As time goes on many players are getting stronger and stronger. Nothing can change in cc as suggested as a lot of players would just quit or not even try.
One day maybe fight club will lose its first place, but I wonder which will happen first.. fight club losing or cc/gree ceasing to exist. Until then we welcome the battle and we wish everyone good luck for this one today.

JBE
08-12-2013, 12:40 PM
I've seen some really bad ideas on here...but this totally bucks the trend! 5 stars for being well thought out and super duper!

Hey everyone, thanks for all the discussion in this thread. As for the two posters getting in a back-and-forth about the NFL metaphor, you both make valid points. And I actually liked the metaphor about Gree being like a telecomms giant and having a monopoly. Interesting observations.

Anyway, since this thread came and went, another war came and went and - what a surprise - Fight Club won again.

With each victory they move further and further from the realm of every other player... +40% gun attack, +40% hideout damage, multiple building upgrades, an attack stats boost of about 35k-40k (that's 200k stats boost over 5 wars, for those keeping count.)

Maybe the original post should be simplified into two trains of thought: does the syndicate system need to change or does it not? Are there people out there (aside from the 180-odd players in the top 3 teams) who are really happy with the status quo?

I for one have dropped out of the syndicate wars and am much happier. I've joined a low level team for the +25% building payout and a few other perks, and I get to enjoy my weekends in the sunshine. I don't participate. Nothing has changed - I still am not going to gain on the top players in the game, ha, not unless i win the lottery, but now I save a few hundred dollars a year, and all I lose out on is a minor stats boost twice a month. C'est la vie.

As a previous poster said, what brings in revenue is competition. 99% of the players can't compete in the syndicates, so why bother putting any revenue in?

Lueds
08-12-2013, 02:34 PM
I think the intent of the thread is good, but the implementation would be an administrative/coding nightmare and GREE doesn't need help in that department.

I'll suggest another approach that is analogous to amateur golf handicapping. What if the winning team had all syndicate bonuses drop 5 levels (25% to 0), second place drops 3 levels, and 3rd drop 1 level? Each subsequent war the bonuses increase one level, unless you place top 3 again and then you take more reductions. For example, FC wins and bonuses drop to zero, if they place first in next battle they drop 5 more levels so the "bonuses" are now 25% penalties for the third battle. This would help with their "we are too strong and can't score any IP" argument too. You are welcome.

This solution not only protects/increases GREE's revenue stream (which is the only TRUE requirement of any change), but also ensures some movement at the top eventually, which was the original intent as I understand it. Most of all it keeps teams together giving them a chance to overcome (translation: spend even more $$$$) the new challenge.

Smarty Pants
08-12-2013, 02:50 PM
i REALLY like this idea!!! ^^^

JBE
08-12-2013, 03:52 PM
I like that idea a lot too!

Tacoma
08-13-2013, 09:16 AM
Not sure if this idea would actually work, but something new needs to be done. I'm getting bored with all of it.

bald zeemer
08-13-2013, 10:06 AM
Not sure if this idea would actually work, but something new needs to be done. I'm getting bored with all of it.

Then join FC, if you're bored of being on the outside looking in. Or leave, if you're bored of being on the inside looking out.

Max Power
08-13-2013, 11:24 AM
This is what is wrong with society today.....we love to punish success.

By all means, let's blow up the people financing this game so everybody else can get a certificate of participation for sucking.

#brilliant

murf
08-13-2013, 11:29 AM
This is what is wrong with society today.....we love to punish success.

By all means, let's blow up the people financing this game so everybody else can get a certificate of participation for sucking.

#brilliant

Thanks Max...this is what I have said previously...I'm glad others see how warped the thinking is, whether it accomplishes the OP goal of more competition or not.

Walshii
08-13-2013, 12:40 PM
This is what is wrong with society today.....we love to punish success.

By all means, let's blow up the people financing this game so everybody else can get a certificate of participation for sucking.

#brilliant

Why have 60 people finance the game when you can have 180 do it, or even 600? This isn't an aristocracy, it's a tap game.

Michael Bolton
08-13-2013, 12:41 PM
Then join FC, if you're bored of being on the outside looking in.

*Ahem* *Cough* Pick me. *Cough*

Walshii
08-13-2013, 12:46 PM
I'm just going to be laughing my ass off when a year from now the game shuts down and all those people who spent 10's of thousands of dollars are just sitting there staring at there phone thinking, "now what?"

murf
08-13-2013, 01:00 PM
Why have 60 people finance the game when you can have 180 do it, or even 600? This isn't an aristocracy, it's a tap game.

I don't think that's Max's point...if you want to find a way to level the playing field and get the next 120 or 540 to spend more, go ahead, but I don't think it should be done by punishing the winners....

JBE
08-13-2013, 03:36 PM
I don't think that's Max's point...if you want to find a way to level the playing field and get the next 120 or 540 to spend more, go ahead, but I don't think it should be done by punishing the winners....

Levelling the playing field is not 'punishing the winners' ?? To believe that would be to believe that the game should just consist of seeing who can spend the most money. It may seem at times like that's what Crime City is, but it's not.

You are not rewarding FC if you give them an infrastructure that is boring and unchallenging to them. You reward them by giving them an environment in which they can test their skill, and give them an opportunity to have an advantage by spending RW$. But if the game itself becomes solely about spending money, it ceases to be a game.

Consider a definition of the word 'game': "A period of competition or challenge"

At the moment there is neither. Letting FC win all the time purely by spending the most money, and throwing in no unpredictable elements or challenges, is not a game, and it's not particularly kind to FC either.

The box events have an element of luck. Choosing which items to use your gold/money/respect on has an element of skill. But the syndicate wars have been reduced to pure spend.

jesseawill
08-13-2013, 03:58 PM
JBE,

I understand the idea of wanting to "level the playing field", however, I don't think this idea would work. I can't see a member of FC spending funds to go against other members of FC. I assume a lot of people join upper level syndicates because they wish to be aligned with their friends or other dominate players (that perhaps they have formed some type of friendship with). To "make" them disband and spend their money helping others for a 2 battle/war period of time seems a little bit of a stretch to me. They would probably tank during that time. Then Gree runs the risk of losing them (and the TONS of money they spend) because they are setting parameters on their ability to get stronger. Now, if this was the model from the onset of syndicate battle, who knows, perhaps it would have worked...but to change to that now, I can't see it happening.

Lets just face it, they are the dominate group because they spend the funds to be that way. If someone else wants to be top dog, open the wallet up and make a stronger push. Until then, it is probably going to be business as usual at the top of the rankings.

murf
08-13-2013, 04:17 PM
Levelling the playing field is not 'punishing the winners' ?? To believe that would be to believe that the game should just consist of seeing who can spend the most money. It may seem at times like that's what Crime City is, but it's not.

You are not rewarding FC if you give them an infrastructure that is boring and unchallenging to them. You reward them by giving them an environment in which they can test their skill, and give them an opportunity to have an advantage by spending RW$. But if the game itself becomes solely about spending money, it ceases to be a game.

Consider a definition of the word 'game': "A period of competition or challenge"

At the moment there is neither. Letting FC win all the time purely by spending the most money, and throwing in no unpredictable elements or challenges, is not a game, and it's not particularly kind to FC either.

The box events have an element of luck. Choosing which items to use your gold/money/respect on has an element of skill. But the syndicate wars have been reduced to pure spend.

Did you misread my post?

I'm all for leveling the playing field by changing the structure...however I don't think you can do things like that have been proposed, like breaking up fight club for 3 wars, or knocking their bonuses down from 25% to 0% if they win...

That is definitely punishing the winners

_Drifter
08-13-2013, 04:29 PM
... That is definitely punishing the winners

Gree "punishes" people all the time. Those who have been playing longest or spent a decent amount of real dollars on levelling up being a perfect example. Reach the highest level in the game, either with time, money, or both, and get "rewarded" by scoring low IP in battle against anyone at a lower level. To be fair, level and stats shouldn't really have anything to do with IP potential. Making it random similar to how RP is earned would seem to make sense.

Basically, this being Gree, there will most likely be flaws with any structure they decide to go with. People currently say "it could be better/more balanced/less unbalanced", and if any changes were made there would be different people saying all the same stuff being said now.

Jiggaa
08-15-2013, 04:41 PM
thanks for the help

JBE
08-26-2013, 01:02 PM
What a joke - Fight Club won the Ellis Island Outbreak war by more than 10 MILLION points ahead of 2nd place. 10 MILLION! That's literally thousands of real world dollars more in gold spend than even necessary. Hilarious. Throw another sack of money on the fireplace, I feel a draught.

And people still, honestly believe that the syndicate system doesn't need changing???? Ha!

dr007
08-26-2013, 01:10 PM
[QUOTE=JBE;944447]What a joke - Fight Club won the Ellis Island Outbreak

Another conspiracist? LOL. Join Fight Club bro. Whatever system you put in place or dream up in your mom's basement, you will simply not take us down unless we allow you to! Ask SAS...you can cheat, recruit all the best players in the game, result is the same. By the way, just a word to the wise, the top 60 best players in the game are in FC. Make no mistakes. ;) :p

Ragmondino
08-26-2013, 01:21 PM
[QUOTE=JBE;944447]What a joke - Fight Club won the Ellis Island Outbreak

Another conspiracist? LOL. Join Fight Club bro. Whatever system you put in place or dream up in your mom's basement, you will simply not take us down unless we allow you to! Ask SAS...you can cheat, recruit all the best players in the game, result is the same. By the way, just a word to the wise, the top 60 best players in the game are in FC. Make no mistakes. ;) :p

Spending the most in no way makes you good at a game. So no the best 60 players are not all in FC.
Much better are the free players who still have massive stats and are competitive.

sister morphine
08-26-2013, 01:59 PM
[QUOTE=JBE;944447]What a joke - Fight Club won the Ellis Island Outbreak

Another conspiracist? LOL. Join Fight Club bro. Whatever system you put in place or dream up in your mom's basement, you will simply not take us down unless we allow you to! Ask SAS...you can cheat, recruit all the best players in the game, result is the same. By the way, just a word to the wise, the top 60 best players in the game are in FC. Make no mistakes. ;) :p
Congratulations. You win gold in the Condescension Olympics

MichelleEvelyncc
08-26-2013, 02:03 PM
What a joke - Fight Club won the Ellis Island Outbreak war by more than 10 MILLION points ahead of 2nd place. 10 MILLION! That's literally thousands of real world dollars more in gold spend than even necessary. Hilarious. Throw another sack of money on the fireplace, I feel a draught.

And people still, honestly believe that the syndicate system doesn't need changing???? Ha!

And the worst thing is your syndicate just wanted to make its move this war!

JBE
08-26-2013, 03:03 PM
And the worst thing is your syndicate just wanted to make its move this war!

Hahaha. I'm not in a syndicate. Read this thread from the beginning, then sit in the corner of shame for a few hours, then come back and apologize to the class.

JBE
08-26-2013, 03:04 PM
[QUOTE=dr007;944465]

Spending the most in no way makes you good at a game. So no the best 60 players are not all in FC.
Much better are the free players who still have massive stats and are competitive.

A truer word was never said.

MichelleEvelyncc
08-26-2013, 03:14 PM
Hahaha. I'm not in a syndicate. Read this thread from the beginning, then sit in the corner of shame for a few hours, then come back and apologize to the class.

So you wrote that opening post, that one ... and expect me to get beyond the first paragraph, because apparently somewhere in it you state that you are not in a syndicate? And yet you are worried about Fight Club winning? Well, ok, but only in Bizarro world can someone who writes a post like the one that started this thread expect others to be ashamed...

TMI
08-26-2013, 04:52 PM
What a joke - Fight Club won the Ellis Island Outbreak war by more than 10 MILLION points ahead of 2nd place. 10 MILLION! That's literally thousands of real world dollars more in gold spend than even necessary. Hilarious. Throw another sack of money on the fireplace, I feel a draught.

And people still, honestly believe that the syndicate system doesn't need changing???? Ha!

You have to put something in perspective. In top 10 teams, and more so in the top 3 teams, 10 million points is potentially 2 battles. This is the truth. you can ask FC/SAS/RG/SC or any other top syndicate, 60 ppl can EASILY, I repeat EASILY score 100k in 1 battle with continuous tapping (about 2 vaults), going up 6 million total. You may think that FC is dumb in having such a high buffer zone, but that range is actually very reasonable and smart. They are not undefeated because they are dumb. They are undefeated because, among other things, they keep a smart buffer zone. They did NOT spend more than what was necessary.

Do I believe that the syndicate system needs changing? No. I don't see anything wrong with it.
Congratulations FC for winning this war. And congratulations to all the syndicates that worked hard and plugged away at battles.

dr007
08-26-2013, 04:53 PM
Spending the most in no way makes you good at a game. So no the best 60 players are not all in FC.
Much better are the free players who still have massive stats and are competitive.[/QUOTE]

Free players with massive stats. Who are they?


Congratulations. You win gold in the Condescension Olympics.[/QUOTE]
Are you still playing? Relevance, please!!!


A truer word was never said.[/QUOTE]
It's been said that the truth hurts. FC wins wars, leaderboard events, stats, etc. etc. Prove me wrong!!!

sister morphine
08-26-2013, 05:24 PM
Yes, I'm still playing. Not involved in syndicates now because these games were taking over my entire life, so I chose to concentrate on the one I enjoy most

Ragmondino
08-26-2013, 05:32 PM
You not in the syns anymore sis? I've deleted the games and chat apps now.
I won..
There's many free players down low level who are free and high stats. I know of quite a few over 500k at level 60-70 for free..
Where is the skill in spending a lot? What part of spending makes you good at the game?
At high levels there's quite a few I know of around the 1mil stat mark who spent very little amounts, but planned and strategised there games.

songsalieri
08-26-2013, 08:40 PM
The idea of Super Bowling Crime City starts out as a good one. The main problem with the idea of disbanding a top syn & disbersing
its members throughout other syns is expecting cooperation from
people when a policy is changed. You can't count on those players
helping the next syndicate, some disgruntled player may even
try to deliberately mess up. What if someone declared war repeatedly
& laid back to let the other syn win? If the syn that player got
put in with didn't like the syn leader or whatever, it could get
crazy.
Please consider another option along that same idea, which
requires no cooperation from the winning syndicate.
Ever play 'King Of The Hill'? What if the 'King' was the only one
not allowed to push anyone? The top syndicate becomes 'King of
the hill' & cannot battle for the next 3 wars. That syn receives a
special bragging rights prize...medium level trophy building for
each member's hood after war #1, trophy hideout for the syn after war
#2, and a personal item after war #3. They glory in their win for the
next 3 wars and during those 3 wars, other syns get to battle for top
spot. This cycle continues and makes other syndicates scramble harder,
actually increasing the potential for game income as people would
see a purpose in spending a little cash now that they have a shot at
the top. The way it is, the top syns will soon no longer need to buy
anything & the cash flow will dry up, probably making it not worth
keeping on the market. Now everybody, even the ones who aren't
rich in real cash, has a shot. Now instead of just a prize that goes
into a rarely looked at inventory, and a notice people have read so
many times they ignore it now, the winning syndicate has real bragging
rights. The buildings in their hoods have a crown on them & the syndicate
has a crown next to their name. After sitting out 3 wars, they can try
for a 2nd crown until they are a 10 crown syndicate or something.
I know some people still wouldn't like it, but now their cooperation
is no longer required to make it work.

Enforcer
08-26-2013, 09:08 PM
You think gree is gonna tell the biggest spenders in the game they can't participate for 3 wars? And then tell the second biggest group of spenders the same thing the month after?

sister morphine
08-26-2013, 11:23 PM
You think gree is gonna tell the biggest spenders in the game they can't participate for 3 wars? And then tell the second biggest group of spenders the same thing the month after?
You mean you actually read that?

Green Drake
08-27-2013, 04:56 AM
So if I am understanding this correctly.....according to this logic SAS would be forced to take a member of fight club? Wouldn't this then result in SAS being forced to kick one of their own members off their team? Granted every team has turnover after the battles it should not change the fact that potentially a person could forcibly be removed.