• Dear forum reader,
    To actively participate in our forum discussions or to start your own threads, in addition to your game account you need a forum account. You can
    REGISTER HERE!
    Please ensure a translation in to English is provided if your post is not in English and to respect your fellow players when posting.

Do Not Suggest Battleground Season/Championship Pass

Status
Not open for further replies.
Reason
Recent changes are going to quickly burn out the remaining "premium" resources of the most active and profitable players ("whales"), one at a time. Top one will quit, then when the impact falls on the next, they'll quit. You need to be able to share this.
Details
1. Each Battlegrounds championship, allow players to buy/subscribe to the Battlegrounds Season Pass



2. The Season Pass would give rewards similar to event passes, for fights and/or negotiations complete, and possibly at other milestone type events.



3. Each guild member who has a season pass reduces the diamond cost for rushing buildings for their guild by 5% (additive not multiplicative, so, 20 guild members buying the season pass results in free rushes).



With element 1, if you change it to per-match, that may be a bit too much. But if you think this will cost you too much, you could try it per-match instead of per-championship (6 matches).



With element 2, you avoid the insinuation of greed by providing people with additional milestones and accomplishments.



With element 3, you allow guilds to share the cost of the premium feature you clearly intend to try to make more money off of. Inno deserves to make money, but do it in a way where we actually enjoy paying you. I would subscribe to the Battlegrounds Pass the instant I see it. I will not buy more diamonds knowing that the leaderboard is random and that that's where all my diamonds are going to end up going towards. I think you'll get much more than 20 guildmates in large 80 person guilds signing up for this if you do element 2 right, especially if you put the FP rewards that were removed in the latest update back in as season pass rewards.
Balance
No balancing required.
Abuse Prevention
No
Summary
Allow players to subscribe to a Battlegrounds season pass that lasts for the championship, to receive additional rewards throughout the championship- and most importantly, each member of a guild that buys the pass causes their guild's cost to rush buildings in battlegrounds to go down by a set, additive percentage, up to an amount that makes it free for anyone to rush if-say 20 guildmates- are signed up.
Have you looked to see if this has already been suggested?
I confirm I have read the DNSL and this IS on the DNSL, but I hope the mods have the ability to realize the value of this suggestion and bypass that.
One of my biggest issues with the update to battlegrounds is that the cost of diamond rushing can't be pooled and then generally falls on to the hands of whoever's job it is to coordinate the map action, and frankly, for one person to take that on is outrageous. A quick/top battlegrounds guild needs it's leaders to diamond rush as sectors are taken in order to ensure the action continues as quick as is humanly possible when racing on the map. This means the person doing the callouts and targeting, with everyone else focused on what gets targeted next.

I'm aware many diamond pooling suggestions have been made already, and frankly, the idea of a diamond pool you can contribute to to get a building rushed doesn't solve the need for speed, would be an ugly UI, and the UI would give a strong negative connotation of greed- saying to the players, that it's more expensive than even one person can afford- which is true en masse but it would be shining a spotlight on that fact, not to mention, hard to implement.

This is on the Do Not Suggest List, but I don't care. I hope the mods have some wiggle room and don't delete it. I've been in the industry, understand Inno needs to make money, and I think this is an idea worthy of their consideration and implementation. I think FoE has a growing number of players with diamond reserves wavering that just like me you'll find decide it's no longer worth buying more, because of how much is needed, at the 1000 League Point level, to compete for the top. Once I stop rushing for my guild, the next batch of people will wear out their reserves, then the next batch, etc. You'll find us dropping like flies. The costs are just too outrageous for one person to bear, and the need for speed causes the action to fall on one person or a small number of people, rather than the group as it should.

The key component of this suggestion is that if a certain amount of guildmates in a guild have paid the price for the pass, diamond rushing would be free for the season for everyone in the guild.
 
Last edited:
This suggestion has been closed. Votes are no longer accepted.
.The Forum has been deluged with posts accusing INNO of "money grabbing". Now we have players advocating what amounts to the same thing. :rolleyes:

The 5% diamond cost reduction is a problem. First, it maxes at 100% when 20 guild members buy the pass which means that it discriminates against small guilds. Second, what's to stop a player in a 21+ member guild from not buying the pass instead letting other guild members carry the burden (just like they do now when letting others diamond rush buildings)? Third, if your solution to #2 is to annotate the players' account to show purchase of the pass then players will be upset, and quit, when their guild leaders require participation.

In both guilds where I play GBG, leadership set up a message thread alerting players when a building needs to be diamond rushed. The expense is getting shared more evenly, it's not perfect but it's better than the GBG leaders having to do it on their own.
 
The 5% diamond cost reduction is a problem. First, it maxes at 100% when 20 guild members buy the pass which means that it discriminates against small guilds.
if a guild has less than 20 people, I don't think they'd be rushing that many buildings. They probably shouldn't buy a season pass, at least not for the 5% reduction it gives to the guild.

Second, what's to stop a player in a 21+ member guild from not buying the pass instead letting other guild members carry the burden (just like they do now when letting others diamond rush buildings)?
nothing

Element 2 of my suggestion, to have the pass give event pass type rewards based on milestones would hopefully make it desirable on it's own rather than being seen as something you have to do to support your guild.

I buy a war pass in simcity that lasts for all wars for three weeks, it does nothing for my simcity guild and I'm happy to pay it for the goodies I get.

Third, if your solution to #2 is to annotate the players' account to show purchase of the pass then players will be upset, and quit, when their guild leaders require participation.
it isn't

In both guilds where I play GBG, leadership set up a message thread alerting players when a building needs to be diamond rushed. The expense is getting shared more evenly, it's not perfect but it's better than the GBG leaders having to do it on their own.
good for you. I bet you're in competition for first on your server aren't you? I bet when the map opens up on Thursday 8am, whoever you have leading has a lot of fun. I imagine when you're rushing from a3v to a3y so that you can get to a2t before a race on it opens against two other competitors, that you're enjoying the chat time in your diamond thread. You're so well coordinated and competitive I applaud you Pericles.


Inno calling this a battleground championship and basing the main leaderboard on the result, was done to make more money on diamond rushes from the large guilds who will diamond rush three fortified command posts on a single sector for the victory point boost. I'm just here to say, it is unsustainable and any evidence they have that this is working in the current model is false - the people spending the money will break, that leads to the people under them briefly taking over, until they break. If inno needs to make money off the large guilds who are competing for a championship title, provide an option to do it directly in a way where the burden is shared by the people involved, without impacting the timing (since the only way to share the burden without this is to use a thread or have everyone who's willing staring at a sector and each clickijg to rush it when they should have already moved on to the next battle).

The current model is like asking players to step out of a soccer match to pay their taxes after every kick, but giving the coach the option to pay taxes for them out of his own pocket to keep the game going. The team will only win if the coach does that, but the entire monetization system is flawed. Charge for entry. Put lipstick on it and people will be happy to do it.
 
Last edited:
Inno calling this a battleground championship and basing the main leaderboard on the result, was done to make more money on diamond rushes from the large guilds who will diamond rush three fortified command posts on a single sector for the victory point boost. I'm just here to say, it is unsustainable and any evidence they have that this is working in the current model is false - the people spending the money will break, that leads to the people under them briefly taking over, until they break. If inno needs to make money off the large guilds who are competing for a championship title, provide an option to do it directly in a way where the burden is shared by the people involved, without impacting the timing (since the only way to share the burden without this is to use a thread or have everyone who's willing staring at a sector and each clickijg to rush it when they should have already moved on to the next battle).
You may be correct. At the level you describe it, diamond rushes may be unsustainable. All this means is that the level of diamond rushes will fall and find a new level that will be sustainable.
 

angelgail

Baronet
.The Forum has been deluged with posts accusing INNO of "money grabbing". Now we have players advocating what amounts to the same thing. :rolleyes:

The 5% diamond cost reduction is a problem. First, it maxes at 100% when 20 guild members buy the pass which means that it discriminates against small guilds. Second, what's to stop a player in a 21+ member guild from not buying the pass instead letting other guild members carry the burden (just like they do now when letting others diamond rush buildings)? Third, if your solution to #2 is to annotate the players' account to show purchase of the pass then players will be upset, and quit, when their guild leaders require participation.

In both guilds where I play GBG, leadership set up a message thread alerting players when a building needs to be diamond rushed. The expense is getting shared more evenly, it's not perfect but it's better than the GBG leaders having to do it on their own.
we did not know if other members could dime the buildings or if only leaders could so we tested it to see an yes they can dime them so it dose help
 

drakenridder

Overlord
Perk Creator
The staff probs just gonna say: “the potential for exploits is huge.” No need to explain it. Players must give explanations according to announcements, that rule however doesn’t apply to the staff. Fortunately I ain’t part of the staff, so I don’t enjoy the privilege of not having this rule being applied to me.
If implemented it would just break the game. Battle passes generally making games stealthy casinos and P2W. No need to turn guild features into it. Events already are. Another part is the vulnerability for exploitation and pressuring members to effectively pay for you. As explained by someone else. Sorry but we already got 2 battle cash passes, it’s already bad enough. Especially with the winter event’s P2W golden upgrades on chocolate factories.
 

Demeter7

Squire
Diamond costs are too high. They are too high for leaders. I am not going to ask guild members to pay for something that is already too expensive for leaders.
Everyone should just stop using diamonds to finish buildings.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top