PDA

View Full Version : Should Syndicates Be Locked During SLTQ's?



P.Squiddy
09-01-2013, 09:16 AM
Should syndicates be locked during SLTQ's?

If they were locked it would prevent 50% of the threads created in the past 3 days.

If they were not locked it would let players help friends out.

Which is better?

Dipstik
09-01-2013, 10:10 AM
I tend to agree about syndicate loyalty, but preaching about it would be like a rich guy telling a poor guy he shouldn't sleep under a bridge. HTC4L.

Goldvalue=0
09-01-2013, 12:26 PM
Lock them with the option to not give final prize to anyone who did not participate in at least half the goals.

Shadypal
09-01-2013, 12:54 PM
They could set a minimum point participation to the higher reward so that people buying items would have to stay in the syndicate to participate. Some guys won't let you claim the high rewards unless you meet a minimum contribution amount.

Idiosyncrasy
09-01-2013, 12:56 PM
Lock them with the option to not give final prize to anyone who did not participate in at least half the goals.

That last part probably won't happen, or we would be able to set point thresholds during wars for individuals to get the syndicates prizes. Maybe that will happen one day though. It would eliminate moochers.

CJ54
09-01-2013, 04:35 PM
We won't be locking them. Syndicate events are common enough that if we locked them all, there wouldn't be much time for syndicates to recruit, or for players to find syndicates they want to join. There are some other potential ways around the downsides of unlocked Syndicates, but it won't be locking for these events.

We ARE making a mechanic that will lock the main Battle for the City events for an additional two hours, to make sure people in that type of event get prizes for full participation. We're sympathetic to the various social situations that can crop up, but we have to be careful about how we address them.

TMI
09-01-2013, 04:52 PM
I don't think that it's a good idea to lock for an additional 2 hours. if you do that we'll have so many leachers!! At least right now we're protected from leachers!

IMHO

Dipstik
09-01-2013, 05:05 PM
I don't think that it's a good idea to lock for an additional 2 hours. if you do that we'll have so many leachers!! At least right now we're protected from leachers!

IMHO

You realize, of course, that CJ JUST SAID that the entire purpose of the extra two hour lock was to PREVENT you from doing this, right?

Mack The Knife
09-01-2013, 05:08 PM
Leaving it open adds an interesting dynamic that may ultimately lead to a consolidation of very strong players.

I just found may way into a great syndicate I would never have otherwise sought out. So Im for leaving it open.

Jerle
09-01-2013, 05:31 PM
You realize, of course, that CJ JUST SAID that the entire purpose of the extra two hour lock was to PREVENT you from doing this, right?

^ Win.

It's a complicated issue with many sides, but we've seen enough hijinks with end of event behavior to warrant the extra protection.

BigMoney
09-01-2013, 05:52 PM
We won't be locking them. Syndicate events are common enough that if we locked them all, there wouldn't be much time for syndicates to recruit, or for players to find syndicates they want to join. There are some other potential ways around the downsides of unlocked Syndicates, but it won't be locking for these events.

That's fine, but I think you should address the ways that such syndicate swapping gives certain syndicates an unfair advantage. For example, in a PvP, if a syndicate were to have multiple subordinate syndicates, they could easily promote and demote their players such that they are receiving far more than 60+ players contributions to their score. For example, I play for the A-Team all day during my waking hours, and then when it is time for me to go to sleep, they bring up a player from the B-Team whose sleeping schedule is opposite of mine (because they live on the opposite side of the world, for example), so that I can sleep on the B-Team, and the B-Team player can throw his points to the A-Team. Not only that, but my fellow A-Teamers can then find me on their Rival List, and I'm likely to be worth more PvP points because I am highly ranked in the PvP and have good stats (and perhaps I even let me syndicate members know exactly when my buildings would be available to rob).

Or perhaps in the syndicate LTQs, with the odd "kill the boss 100 times", "get 200 boss items," you can easily swap players who already have boss items into a syndicate and have their items count towards the new syndicate's goal (even though they earned those items in a different syndicate). I'm fine with the idea of players joining a lower syndicate to help kill bosses, but the easily-circumvented item goal gives an unfair advantage to certain syndicates.

I believe these sorts of issues should be addressed if you are going to keep syndicates open.


^ Win.

It's a complicated issue with many sides, but we've seen enough hijinks with end of event behavior to warrant the extra protection.

I just wanted to say that it made me feel a little nauseous to see Dipstik's text appear in blue. :rolleyes:

Dipstik
09-01-2013, 06:01 PM
That's fine, but I think you should address the ways that such syndicate swapping gives certain syndicates an unfair advantage. For example, in a PvP, if a syndicate were to have multiple subordinate syndicates, they could easily promote and demote their players such that they are receiving far more than 60+ players contributions to their score. For example, I play for the A-Team all day during my waking hours, and then when it is time for me to go to sleep, they bring up a player from the B-Team whose sleeping schedule is opposite of mine (because they live on the opposite side of the world, for example), so that I can sleep on the B-Team, and the B-Team player can throw his points to the A-Team. Not only that, but my fellow A-Teamers can then find me on their Rival List, and I'm likely to be worth more PvP points because I am highly ranked in the PvP and have good stats (and perhaps I even let me syndicate members know exactly when my buildings would be available to rob).

Or perhaps in the syndicate LTQs, with the odd "kill the boss 100 times", "get 200 boss items," you can easily swap players who already have boss items into a syndicate and have their items count towards the new syndicate's goal (even though they earned those items in a different syndicate). I'm fine with the idea of players joining a lower syndicate to help kill bosses, but the easily-circumvented item goal gives an unfair advantage to certain syndicates.

I believe these sorts of issues should be addressed if you are going to keep syndicates open.



I just wanted to say that it made me feel a little nauseous to see Dipstik's text appear in blue. :rolleyes:

Your first example isn't really a problem. If you can con people into contributing energy and gold with no hope for prizes, good for you. The prizes only go to one group, not both. In your second example, I don't think it works that way. It counts as the syndicate earns them. It doesn't continuously check inventories to see if there are enough in total. If I have 200 boss items, I can't just go around and complete everyone's goals.

Also, I'd be a better mod than most.

#smug

bald zeemer
09-01-2013, 06:07 PM
If I have 200 boss items, I can't just go around and complete everyone's goals.

#smug

I'm not 100% certain that you're right about that, Dippy.

TMI
09-01-2013, 06:19 PM
You realize, of course, that CJ JUST SAID that the entire purpose of the extra two hour lock was to PREVENT you from doing this, right?

No, CJ said it's to ensure ppl with FULL PARTICIPATION get their prizes. I was talking about ppl who literally never show up to any battle once the war starts (leachers). There's a big difference.

I guess the question is balancing
protecting ppl with full participation FROM vindictive syndicate leaders with
protecting syndicates FROM leachers (ppl who join the syndicate and don't show up to a single war)

My biased reality (Top100 team for most of my syndicate career) is protecting syndicates from leachers.
It's definitely debatable as there are 2 very real opposing issues.

Dipstik
09-01-2013, 06:32 PM
I'm not 100% certain that you're right about that, Dippy.

Possible. I can't test it myself, but that's what I heard. I assume it would be all over the place if it DID work that way. If I'm wrong, though, then it clearly needs to change.

bobtodd
09-01-2013, 06:51 PM
yes because im getting tired of people begging for help

Idiosyncrasy
09-01-2013, 07:01 PM
Possible. I can't test it myself, but that's what I heard. I assume it would be all over the place if it DID work that way. If I'm wrong, though, then it clearly needs to change.

You are wrong. I'm surprised you guys haven't been doing this.

noamlin
09-02-2013, 04:51 PM
the solution is quite simple - players must participate in the sltq and help with at least 10%/20%/30% of the energy in order to get the items.
this may also include inactive/leechers players.

bald zeemer
09-02-2013, 04:57 PM
That's a terrible idea. Why would you want to remove any ability for a syndicate to manage its own members?

TMI
09-02-2013, 05:05 PM
SLTQs should not be locked. Let ppl go around and help for money or whatever their choosing. This is something that i never thought would happen but it has added more depth to the gameplay.

There's nothing wrong with ppl helping other syndicates. It's not cheating or hacking. It's a new, in my opinion, welcome element that crime city has now.