Battle fund depends on map popularity

[DageLV 940]

Actually, this is a legitimate idea as when it says no asking for Increase of battle funds, it means in general, not in for specific ideas on maps and other events such as this.

Read it again.

Increase of battle founds!

[ToiletPaperRoll 1,318]

i never ever saw anyone made atra map battle. it would have like 20*funds :p

[Maf 32,326]

Read it again.

Increase of battle founds!

This idea does not request an increase in funds. I'm not sure if I wrote this exact phrase anywhere in the topic, but I expect the developers to balance the system out so that the amount of crystals players get from battles is still the same as before, since funds on some maps will be higher, but on others it will be lower. So the 0.7 and 1.8 multipliers are just an example and if they result in players earning more crystals, devs could always just change them to a lower, more suitable value. 

 

i never ever saw anyone made atra map battle. it would have like 20*funds  :P

Actually, I think it's only rare at your rank. At higher ranks it's definitely in the top 20 maps and maybe even in the top 10.

[DageLV 940]

Read it again.

Increase of battle founds!

 Umm

 

This idea does not request an increase in funds. I'm not sure if I wrote this exact phrase anywhere in the topic, but I expect the developers to balance the system out so that the amount of crystals players get from battles is still the same as before, since funds on some maps will be higher, but on others it will be lower. So the 0.7 and 1.8 multipliers are just an example and if they result in players earning more crystals, devs could always just change them to a lower, more suitable value.

 

 soo what is this?

My idea is that instead of a fixed increased fund value for rare maps, the rate of fund growth (i.e. amount of crystals added to the fund per kill)

[mps] [ecnm] [bfnd]

[Maf 32,326]

 soo what is this?

You cut off my quote. I said "The rate of fund growth should be dynamic", which implies increase as well as decrease of battle funds.

[DageLV 940]

You cut off my quote. I said "The rate of fund growth should be dynamic", which implies increase as well as decrease of battle funds.

but still. Its about increase/decrease so that means reject. Or maybe they should put GB like from 999 crystals to 100 000 crystals? Random chance? Its incrase and decrease on gold drops.

[Maf 32,326]

but still. Its about increase/decrease so that means reject. Or maybe they should put GB like from 999 crystals to 100 000 crystals? Random chance? Its incrase and decrease on gold drops.

You're just determined to force me to reject my own idea, aren't you?  :lol:

 

That rule only applies to ideas, where players aren't suggesting anything new and simply want more crystals. Something along the lines of "Please make the funds bigger I can't earn enough crystals!". Other ideas with original and interesting concepts sometimes do get approved, even if it may seem that the violate some section rules.

 

I specifically said above that if this idea is implemented, the fund multipliers can be tweaked to make sure players do not earn more crystals from battles than before. So I'm not asking for funds to be increased.

[LOLKILLERTOTHEDEATH 1,921]

This might actually make maps less popular, where there's fund there's people, no fund = no people.

[generalpotato_PRO 1,076]

What the rules mean is that you can't make topics saying, for example, "My idea is to have 100x battle funds tomorrow" and stuff like that.

[LOLKILLERTOTHEDEATH 1,921]

100x fund

 

 

 

 

 

 

XD!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! earn 1500/ person so bout 300,000 per hour is island thats awesome!!!!!!!!!!!!111

[DageLV 940]

You're just determined to force me to reject my own idea, aren't you?  :lol: Yea i think so :)

 

That rule only applies to ideas, where players aren't suggesting anything new and simply want more crystals. Something along the lines of "Please make the funds bigger I can't earn enough crystals!". Other ideas with original and interesting concepts sometimes do get approved, even if it may seem that the violate some section rules.

 

I specifically said above that if this idea is implemented, the fund multipliers can be tweaked to make sure players do not earn more crystals from battles than before. So I'm not asking for funds to be increased.

So how battle found cant be increased if its X1.8?

 

Like my crystal box idea? Decrease battle found a bit and give us new blue boxes! with 1-5 crystals each :D Drops only in active battles and drop rate is 200 seconds. (if devs want more buyers, they should decrease battle found)

[Maf 32,326]

So how battle found cant be increased if its X1.8?

 

Like my crystal box idea? Decrease battle found a bit and give us new blue boxes! with 1-5 crystals each :D Drops only in active battles and drop rate is 200 seconds. (if devs want more buyers, they should decrease battle found)

I said that the 1.8 multiplier is an example, which can be tweaked by developers to make sure overall earnings are not increased.

 

Your crystal boxes idea didn't get accepted not because it gives players more crystals to earn, but because crystal boxes destroy gameplay, so developers decided to remove them from the game completely with no chance of bringing them back.

[Zenyth 6,494]

dynamic fund seems good for the lesser known maps, but I disagree with the "lesser fund for popular maps" aspect

[Maf 32,326]

dynamic fund seems good for the lesser known maps, but I disagree with the "lesser fund for popular maps" aspect

Well, without the lesser fund part I would actually have to reject this idea :D

[Mr.Ace 1,116]

i agree with u to increase funds of rare map but common maps 0.7% , sorry is that what good maps deserve , wow (no offence) but if you like a map and dont play others u will get lower funds in your favourite maps , we have the right to play in any map we want, sorry mafioso but i disagree with you on this part of ure idea , and 1.8 fund for rare maps are too much x1.5 for rare maps and x1 for common maps

[Maf 32,326]

The idea is that if you like your favourite maps so much, you can keep playing on them. Whereas if you only care about battle funds, you can explore rare maps to get more crystals. And again - the values are not finalised. Maybe it could be 0.9 on popular maps and 1.1 on rare ones. It's impossible to tell what the perfect balance will be without testing it first.

[CooperO 7,956]

^In addition to that, the rare maps will most likely become more popular if this idea got implemented. More rare maps being played -> more people getting to know the rarer maps -> more players will realise how much fun some of the rare maps can be -> more variety in maps to choose from in the battle lists.

[Hex 11,522]

Gravity is so awesome <3

[Maf 32,326]

Gravity is so awesome

No it's not, it prevents you from flying!

[dj112_TURBO 388]

it is a wonderful idea but will require a tricky coding OOP ofcourse

[ToiletPaperRoll 1,318]

i agree with u to increase funds of rare map but common maps 0.7% , sorry is that what good maps deserve , wow (no offence) but if you like a map and dont play others u will get lower funds in your favourite maps , we have the right to play in any map we want, sorry mafioso but i disagree with you on this part of ure idea , and 1.8 fund for rare maps are too much x1.5 for rare maps and x1 for common maps

you know what is 0.7%? 143 times  smaller battle funds! no way

[Maf 32,326]

you know what is 0.7%? 143 times  smaller battle funds! no way

Wut?  :blink:  How the heck did you get that number?!

0.7 is 30% less funds, because multiplying a number (the battle fund) by 0.7 is the same as taking 30% off it.

[ToiletPaperRoll 1,318]

Wut?  :blink:  How the heck did you get that number?!

0.7 is 30% less funds, because multiplying a number (the battle fund) by 0.7 is the same as taking 30% off it.

you didnt notice a % at 0.7 which means /143 battle funds meaning we get 1 crystal per 72 kills o.o

[Maf 32,326]

Umm, no. A "0.7 multiplier" means that you multiply the original number by 0.7, not divide it by some random 143.

[Amateur 829]

Did devs consider this idea or not yet?