Personal Boosts - In or Out?

[Kerean]

There has been much debate on personal boosts. Some say they should be taken out and some say they should come back.

I reckon the reason why they are taken out is to level the playing field. However, this very decision unlevels the playing field permanently between the big and small players. Let me explain.

Personal boosts in the short term will benefit the big players, who can win events and rack them up pretty quickly, giving them a lead over the smaller players. However, big players will eventually reach the cap of 200%, and the smaller players can eventually catch up.

However, by arbitrarily cutting them out, GREE has permanently froze the unlevel playing field at its unlevelled state, thereby allowing the big players to forever retain their big advantage as no smaller player can ever catch up.

A more balanced approach would be to bring back permanent boosts on existing worlds, but to stop permanent boosts on any new world that may be opened. This would allow a true balanced playing field both on new worlds (who will never see personal boosts ever) and old worlds (whose smaller players still have a chance to catch up).

[Sandra Malley]

A more balanced approach would be to bring back permanent boosts on existing worlds, but to stop permanent boosts on any new world that may be opened. This would allow a true balanced playing field both on new worlds (who will never see personal boosts ever) and old worlds (whose smaller players still have a chance to catch up).

It would only balance things in that world, when it comes to cross worlds, the unbalance would still exist when meeting older world alliances with boosts. 2 choices, as I see it:

1. Remove all boosts from players and alliances.
2. Reintroduce boosts into rewards, but lower the cap from 200% to 80%.

Number 2 would mean players with boosts already above 80% would keep their boosts but no benefit from more. Whilst lower players would have the opportunity to catch up to a realistic percentage.

[Kerean]

First option is akin to bursting a property bubble and will see mass refunds being requested as you are essentially taking away what was earned.

Not doing anything is akin to letting the imbalance perpetuate.

Perhaps the better alternative is to have boosts requirements scale up like alliance boosts. Ie you need more boosts for the next percent. Say 2 boosts for every % above 100 and 3 boosts per 1% above 150. These are just arbitrary numbers but the concept allows the newer players to catch up more quickly, yet let the established players feel like they can still progress.

[christo1]

First option is akin to bursting a property bubble and will see mass refunds being requested as you are essentially taking away what was earned.

Not doing anything is akin to letting the imbalance perpetuate.

Perhaps the better alternative is to have boosts requirements scale up like alliance boosts. Ie you need more boosts for the next percent. Say 2 boosts for every % above 100 and 3 boosts per 1% above 150. These are just arbitrary numbers but the concept allows the newer players to catch up more quickly, yet let the established players feel like they can still progress.

Yes they shouldn't handicap me cause I'm at nearly all 200%. But I also like the idea of increasing the requirement like they do with AP rewards. But they should also allow us to continue over 200% as I've got an inventory full of unused boosts.