For those non poker players

[Cluanar 15]

Too many games end up 8-1 or 9-0 because the winning team forces the other team to quit by continuous drugging when the game is well in hand, by spawn camping when you have numbers .

 

If some of you were smart you would slow milk the game to get the kills and funds up as well as gold box chances. Don't blitz drug the other team when you have them out numbered 8-4 and winning 11-0 in a game to 20. I see it all too often.

 

Have drugs become so addictive you can't  use them wisely as opposed to abuse?

 

 Be smart, save your drugs and lengthen the game.

[Fungreatmario 122]

This also reduces the fund coming out of the fight.

I agree.

[RustyNail 1,538]

You're both right.

I wrote about it in numerous posts, drugs are being promoted by the last update and now more people use them.

So the images you describe are indeed common. Small average players' age doesn't help to balance the situation and "slow milk the game" as you put it.

And indeed total funds are significantly less than what would be if a more balanced outcome would prevail.

So, what's the solution? To apply to winning players give opponents a chance to recover? I think it's practically improbable.

Maybe there could be a technical boost for a slaughtered team. Something like whenever enemy players in the base area are more than the team players, team players get a boost on armor for a few seconds...

I am not sure about the mechanism, but the "spirit" of the idea is to boost a heavily losing team.

[Meowmix56 174]

There is no incentive to stay in a losing game.  The rewards are very low.  Even without drugs one sided games die quickly as players leave.  Usually these most experienced and tactically sophisticated players in a match.  Separate battle funds would resolve this, or boosting the rewards for the losing team.

[Cluanar 15]

There is no incentive to stay in a losing game.  The rewards are very low.  Even without drugs one sided games die quickly as players leave.  Usually these most experienced and tactically sophisticated players in a match.  Separate battle funds would resolve this, or boosting the rewards for the losing team.

I think this is the best approach. Have 2 funds, winning and losing. I will play 1 v 8 if i was getting 1k crystals out of it.

[r_0isx0 1]

hi

 

i don't understand why receive low rewards or 0 in case of losing? even if was a good match balanced long or short

 

what the reason is to stay and fight or to join in a game who already started in case the team going to lose

 

is a pain when you realize that this game is lost

 

where is the fun? if you can say...

[Cluanar 15]

hi

 

i don't understand why receive low rewards or 0 in case of losing? even if was a good match balanced long or short

 

what the reason is to stay and fight or to join in a game who already started in case the team going to lose

 

is a pain when you realize that this game is lost

 

where is the fun? if you can say...

the all or nothing funds is failing and causing low morale and motivation to play.  I'd like to see team and match distribution. I must admit, i purposely do not take first shot against armored attackers or attackers with flag who have good armor. I wait for others then I take finishing blow. Cheesy I know but that's how you score. You get no credit for assisted kills. All who hit target should get equal credit.

 

How about minimum funds as a start up for winning and losing teams then have it expand or diminish by kills and flags captured. This prevents people from making crystal farming games and promotes full participation.

 

Just a thought