Incentivate the pro battles

[tommybau 1,033]

Hi! this this is a suggestion from myself that have the scope to amply the diffusion of pro battles in the game.

actually  they are battles where you can set advanced settings to vary the gameplay and make the game more based on the skill than on the wallet of the player. here you can:

-disable supplies use,

-bonus drops,

-crystal and gold drops(in exchange of a faster growing battle fund, eh!)

-activate friendly fire

-De-activate autobalance, so you can join for example all on the same team to go parkour and avoid killing eachother for error.

 

the downsides are that you cant partecipate in them whitout payng 500 crystals a battle of having the specific pass, that costs 5000 crystals a month.

 

cause the downsides, actually, only the higher ranks play them frequently. i cant manage to find a serious no supplies battle for my rank or the lower ones.

 

i have many separate ideas to improve their diffusion and to make this part of the game enjoyable by everyone.

-Make no supplies battles free or drastically riduce the price. something like 50 crystals and 500 crystals for the pass.

-Make NsB's have a slighty higher fund

-Make NsB's have a slighty higher chanche for gold boxes.

-Boost the exp by 10% ( just for example) in them.

-add another gamemode playable only in no supplies mode.

 

discuss below, and tell what ideas do you like/hate more. also say your ones to incentivate the use of no supplies battles.

[beeman10 8]

Make a server just for pro battles. Easier to find and join

[akhmatova 2]

 - The cost of the Pro Battle could be removed from the 'joining' of the battle, and instead reflected as a 'pro battle fee' deducted from the Battle Fund at the end of the battle. This fee could be a percentage subtracted from each players battle-fund winnings, maybe 50%. This would allow pro-battles to stay populated with players and keep the teams even, as anyone could join for free. But it would also reflect the fact that no-supply-battles have a 'cost' to the Devs of reduced income for the company (as players are not buying supplies, the only non-renewable resource in the game).

 

So for example with a battle fund of 1000 with 7 players, the distribution to winners at the end of game is usually something like 300,200,100,100,100,100,100. With a 'Pro Battle Fee' the fund would be 1000 minus the fee, say 50%, which would bring it down to 500. The distribution would become 150,100,50,50,50,50,50.  

 

Therefore the Pro Battle would probably not 'take over the game', most people would still be buying supplies and playing non-pro battles to get the bigger crystal win. However there would be more opportunity for the player who is more interested in the slower and more strategic pace of non-supply battles. It could also possibly encourage more players to buy micro-upgrades (the stealth version of supplies).

 

Thanks.

[Klankill804 753]

I completely agree.

[tommybau 1,033]

 - The cost of the Pro Battle could be removed from the 'joining' of the battle, and instead reflected as a 'pro battle fee' deducted from the Battle Fund at the end of the battle. This fee could be a percentage subtracted from each players battle-fund winnings, maybe 50%. This would allow pro-battles to stay populated with players and keep the teams even, as anyone could join for free. But it would also reflect the fact that no-supply-battles have a 'cost' to the Devs of reduced income for the company (as players are not buying supplies, the only non-renewable resource in the game).

 

So for example with a battle fund of 1000 with 7 players, the distribution to winners at the end of game is usually something like 300,200,100,100,100,100,100. With a 'Pro Battle Fee' the fund would be 1000 minus the fee, say 50%, which would bring it down to 500. The distribution would become 150,100,50,50,50,50,50.  

 

Therefore the Pro Battle would probably not 'take over the game', most people would still be buying supplies and playing non-pro battles to get the bigger crystal win. However there would be more opportunity for the player who is more interested in the slower and more strategic pace of non-supply battles. It could also possibly encourage more players to buy micro-upgrades (the stealth version of supplies).

Thanks.

like your idea, does not make a flaw.

[RustyNail 1,538]

 - The cost of the Pro Battle could be removed from the 'joining' of the battle, and instead reflected as a 'pro battle fee' deducted from the Battle Fund at the end of the battle. This fee could be a percentage subtracted from each players battle-fund winnings, maybe 50%. This would allow pro-battles to stay populated with players and keep the teams even, as anyone could join for free. But it would also reflect the fact that no-supply-battles have a 'cost' to the Devs of reduced income for the company (as players are not buying supplies, the only non-renewable resource in the game).

 

So for example with a battle fund of 1000 with 7 players, the distribution to winners at the end of game is usually something like 300,200,100,100,100,100,100. With a 'Pro Battle Fee' the fund would be 1000 minus the fee, say 50%, which would bring it down to 500. The distribution would become 150,100,50,50,50,50,50.  

 

Therefore the Pro Battle would probably not 'take over the game', most people would still be buying supplies and playing non-pro battles to get the bigger crystal win. However there would be more opportunity for the player who is more interested in the slower and more strategic pace of non-supply battles. It could also possibly encourage more players to buy micro-upgrades (the stealth version of supplies).

 

Thanks.

It's been a couple of days that I try to make up my mind whether your idea is good for the popularity of PRO Battles or bad.

I 'm still not sure.

It seems logical. That is, make the Battles free but with less "crystal profit" for the player. Easy to join, less crystals to get. Whoever wants to play based more on his / hers skill and less on the drugs, can enjoy a pro battle.

On the other hand though, a game is kinda lotary in its main principle. Many join and in the end they share the produced funds, but not equally. The "best" get their share plus a percentage of the "worse", who get less or zero.. So, in case of a game redused in funds there is less to get for everybody, "best" or "worse"... Is this reason enough not to play PRO?

...

I 'm not sure. Maybe its up to TO Devs to deside that. Still, it's a good though you made.  :)

[Devil_Shah 1]

not a good idea  :(

[I.WalkAlone 548]

It's a good idea for players looking for some freedom from drug wars, but detrimental to the whole pro battle system. Right now, no mult or saboteur will pay 500 crystals to enter a pro battle or 5000 crystals for a pro pass. This may decrease the number of clean pro battles.

[Remaine 4,687]

Incentivate isn't a word - well, isn't that embarrassing...

 

You mean incentivize

[tommybau 1,033]

Incentivate isn't a word - well, isn't that embarrassing...

 

You mean incentivize

sorry but i'm not a native english speaker.