Home EN Suggestions

Join the official Goodgame Big Farm Discord today!Join our Big Farm Discord Server


Are you looking for a community of like-minded farmers to discuss your farming experience with? Look no further than the GoodGame Big Farm Discord Server!


Our server is the perfect place to connect with other farmers from around the world. Whether you're looking to chat about strategy, share tips and tricks, or just make new friends, our community has got you covered.


And that's not all - as a member of our Discord server, you'll also have access to exclusive giveaways and other special events. It's the perfect way to stay up to date on all the latest news and updates from GoodGame Studios.


So what are you waiting for? Join the GoodGame Big Farm Discord Server today and start connecting with fellow farmers from all over the world. Just click here to join the fun!

Suggestion:Co op Ranking

Dark Underworld (AU1)Dark Underworld (AU1) AU1 Posts: 2,992
edited 28.12.2016 in Suggestions
Co op should be ranked in CC or any event that rewards co op participation (competition) by dividing the total of what the co op has achieved by the number of members in co op, NOT slots.  This will give better indication of how well ALL players in co op are helping.  Also it will also help on GGS gold income as small co ops would be able to push the larger ones to spend more gold.

This would make the Santa's wish list chapter 5 ranking more fair.
«1

Comments

  • Dark Underworld (AU1)Dark Underworld (AU1) AU1 Posts: 2,992
    edited 29.12.2016
    Another thought on the same subject. 


    The hard work rewards on CC, should be amount of RP required divide by 75 (max number any co op can have) multiplied by the number of members in the co op. 


    example for top prize I think is 120M RP so for a co op of 8 members would work out at:


    120M/75x8 = 12.8M  which would mean each player would on average have to achieve the same as a co op with 75 members to achieve same hard work reward.  This is example only.  Same effect if divide by 50 then multiplied by number in co op.
  • Dark Underworld (AU1)Dark Underworld (AU1) AU1 Posts: 2,992
    edited 02.01.2017
    We are doing another CC at least we know when they will be occurring so we know we can ignore 4 days.


    At least if they made the hard work achievable for small co ops, as per my formula above, then you may get more smaller co ops involved.  But with the rewards only co ops with lots of members or lots of gold (more gold required for smaller co op) can achieve the better hard work reward.  Even if each member on average does the same work as large co op their reward is less.

    So GGS is only reward bigger co ops and ignores the small ones
  • Damaria3 (US1)Damaria3 (US1) US1 Posts: 1,737
    Really Byron why would we want the hardworker changed that is not a co op thing it is individual 
  • I interpreted "hard work" as the rewards that we get during the co-op challenge. Guess he could have been talking about the Hardworker Event (No Pain No Gain) but I didn't think so.
  • Dark Underworld (AU1)Dark Underworld (AU1) AU1 Posts: 2,992
    edited 03.01.2017
    @Damaria3 (US1)  I was talking about hard work rewards on CC, where it is a lot easier for large co ops to achieve the exact same reward, which looks like GGS wants everyone to give up and leave their small co ops and go to large ones.


    For a co op of 75 members to get top reward (120M RP) each member only has to on average 1.6M RP but for a small co op say of 8 members to get exact same reward each member has to achieve on average 15M RP, how is this fair?  Huge difference between 1.6M RP and 15M RP
  • Kleine Jan (NL1)Kleine Jan (NL1) NL1 Posts: 283
    Byron i know why that is and it is very simple. At GGS they like the small Coops to merge into the super Coops. 

    On that way GGS will have always a good gold sale. Do you thin k that it is to avoid the stress that we have now twice a month a C-C??

    We come from 1 time in the 3 months in the beginning 2 years ago to 2 times a month!!!   And that is because they like to avoid the stress. No they only like to jack up the gold sales

    And as you know fairness is not the strongest point in this game



    My motivation and many in the larino coop is at -50 or even lower
  • Damaria3 (US1)Damaria3 (US1) US1 Posts: 1,737
    Thank you cordelia you are right,  sorry Byron i misread that and I see your point it is very much harder on the small coops which is why merged with larger group and i think we will see more of this with the coop village.
  • gizmo22 (AU1)gizmo22 (AU1) AU1 Posts: 1,720
    It sounds like a good idea but then u are penalising the coops that have 60+ members. Getting a coop to that size takes A LOT of work and dedication. Why should new smaller coops be given an advantage in an event like a coop challenge? A team of 3 very active players could have a higher average than the team of 60, so does that mean they deserve to win? I'd rather see leagues based on coop size........small coops should not be pitted against large coops and vice versa.
  • Dark Underworld (AU1)Dark Underworld (AU1) AU1 Posts: 2,992
    edited 04.01.2017
    I have been in large co ops, the problems with most the golders ruin it for the rest of the co op.  I left the last large co ops as the golders took away ALL the challenge of the game.  They think they are being helpful but just make it worse. 

    I have been in winning co op at least 10 times and hate the fighting that goes on in them.  I have not found 1 large co op that has not had argument and player leaving due to disagreements.  I at one stage was trying to get a super co op by merging other co ops, but all that ended up happening is more fights and players leaving the game. 

    The other problem, is now every time CC comes around I now leave the small co op and new players to go back to a large co op twice a month, the large co ops will take me but what about the small farms who actually need the help.  Which is what I was trying to do with the small co op, help the small guys, who GGS seems to forget about.



  • gizmo22 (AU1)gizmo22 (AU1) AU1 Posts: 1,720
    I agree with you there......."large coop of golders" (I think u know who I am referring to) are now being smug and trash talking members of other groups and basically bragging about cheating. The CC is just a very ugly event and brings out the worst in people and I for one wouldnt miss it if it was removed for good.

    I do think the best course of action would be to have divisions within leagues.......divisions 0-10 members, 10-20, 20-40, 40+ just as an example. Small coops should compete with small coops and large with large. Allowing gold use and rep point purchases still makes it unfair but I have noticed especially in silver league that there are a number of coops that don't follow this egotistical win at all costs path others have taken. Just my opinion though.....I guess we wait and see what course of action GGS take (if any)
  • Co op should be ranked in CC or any event that rewards co op participation (competition) by dividing the total of what the co op has achieved by the number of members in co op, NOT slots.  This will give better indication of how well ALL players in co op are helping.  Also it will also help on GGS gold income as small co ops would be able to push the larger ones to spend more gold.

    This would make the Santa's wish list chapter 5 ranking more fair.

    So GGS is only reward bigger co ops and ignores the small ones

    I don`t think there is a totally "fair" way to have the coops competing against each other, because there are too many variables. You can have large or small coops with high or low level players or a mixture of the level  as well as a variety of differences between actual & possible numbers of members. The first CC version, with all coops thrown in together, was ridiculouly unfair, but the new version with the leagues is actually not too bad, as each coop eventually ends up in the league & position best suited to the activity level of its members. I agree there is an inbalance between coops of different sizes, but I don`t think your suggestion would necessarily make it any better, because even applying the same rule to 2 coops of exactly the same number of members, does not take into account the levels of those members.

    As for the Santa event, I think they have pretty much nailed that one for fairness. I did last year's in a top coop with over 65 members & this years in a low ranking coop of 5 members & achieved all the top rewards available with good happiness, both times. It was actually a lot easier in the smaller coop, which is why I think that it is correctly based on slots not actual member numbers, because it would be far too temtpting to just kick out members to make the event easier, if it was based on actual numbers, instead of encouraging coops to fill their quota as it does now.
  • @RunsWivScissors (GB1)  how can it be fair when a small co op of 8 members has to donate 72K of pig feed to get 1 VHP when a co op with 46 member only had to donate 122k for the same 1vhp.


    8 members had to donate 9k per person ( not even possible without lots of gold) when 46 members only had to donate 2.6k per member, that is a huge difference for the same 1vhp
  • RunsWivScissors (GB1)RunsWivScissors (GB1) GB1 Posts: 6,633
    edited 04.01.2017
    @Byron Longford (AU1) I was talking about the balancing of the event in general, between large & small coops. For example if you filled all the lists & worked equally hard collecting snowflakes, you ended up with decos of the same happiness value, whether your coop had 75 members or just 5. The smaller coops didn`t just get a deco with crappy happiness because they only had a few lists to complete.

    I see that you are talking about the amounts being asked for in the bonus tasks & I agree with you that they were ridiculous & not just for smaller coops, I think the amounts were crazy across the board. The other thing that I found to be very unfair to everyone, was that the happiness was always rounded down, even if it 0.8 or 0.9 etc
  • mia111 (GB1)mia111 (GB1) GB1 Posts: 741
    @RunsWivScissors (GB1)  how can it be fair when a small co op of 8 members has to donate 72K of pig feed to get 1 VHP when a co op with 46 member only had to donate 122k for the same 1vhp.


    8 members had to donate 9k per person ( not even possible without lots of gold) when 46 members only had to donate 2.6k per member, that is a huge difference for the same 1vhp
    That would depend on the players' levels. At least the higher the level the higher the amount they needed to collect/donate. Players with high level needed to donate in their orders incredible high amounts of everything. And I know it is not linear with the level. I am level 120 and a player that was 60 levels above than me in the coop, needed to collect twice the amount I needed. I have no idea how they have calculated the amounts that players need to collect/donate according to level, but I do hope that they added a cap, as farm space and building levels are capped after all. Anyway, for phase 3 village happiness points, maybe those amounts were calculated by adding up the "expected" individual contributions of the coop players. In that way, the coop with 8 members ended with a lot more to donate than the one with 46, because their total player level was higher. That is a theory.

    Anyhow, what I came to say is that your proposal of the coop rankings has also its faults. If it were implemented as you propose, coops with a single member would be better in a sense than coops with more players. What would be the point of coops? In particular, what would be the point of developing the coops if somehow, staying small they could get better benefits than being large? Developing a coop is a large investment in dollars, gold and time. Coops that put the effort should get the benefits. In a sense, as low level players cannot expect to compete with high level players in the same terms, small/undeveloped coops should not expect to compete with big/developed coops in the same terms.
  • Dark Underworld (AU1)Dark Underworld (AU1) AU1 Posts: 2,992
    edited 05.01.2017
    @RunsWivScissors (GB1)  balanced my foot.  My deco was only level 24hp all with 0vhp and that was as high as we could get.  We were not able to get any VHP on our deco as amount was far too high to donate to.  I bet your 4 carriages were higher than 24hp and 0 vhp and that was with all our members completing each carriage.
  • ijrosh (US1)ijrosh (US1) US1 Posts: 1,325
    we had somewhere on the higher side of 30 members for it sorry i can not remeber right now but i know we were not full and we have space for 41 members and my carriage #2 was happiness 30 and 0 VHP  #3 was 29 happiness because i had to remove a couple players with again a 0 VHP and #4 was 28 happiness and 1 VHP but i am pretty sure someone in my coop spent the millions of dollars to buy the items to donate to get the point so i do not know how many members you have but for 30+members i only got 4 to 6 more happiness points then you did also i am level 113 because i know that was supposed to play a role in the happiness points too
  • level does not make difference I am level 314, all 4 of your decos are higher level than we could get, we would have to donate millions and millions even to get equal and you only have high 30's in members, so what do they get if they had 60+ members?
  • gizmo22 (AU1)gizmo22 (AU1) AU1 Posts: 1,720
    Yeah I don't understand the positivity about the wishlist event, smaller coops were CLEARLY disadvantaged......the lists were bad enough for them and then they had to compete with large coops in the collecting snowflakes stage. Stating this event was balanced is ridiculous.
  • ijrosh (US1)ijrosh (US1) US1 Posts: 1,325
    and why should a coop with more members not get a higher happiness then a coop with less members the coop with more members has to do more work to get everyone to 100% then someone with half as many members?
  • @ijrosh (US1)  it is easy too see you are in large co op. 

    It is the same for a small co op to complete 100% as large co op to get 100%.  Every member had to do same work on average.  So the small co op is disadvantage just because it is small as their reward is a lot less.  It should have been if all members IN your co op get to 100% the reward is 30 hp no matter if you have 75 members or 2, if some members did not start then the reward should decrease.


    Why do you think it is harder for large co op, if a co op of 8 has 4 members that can not complete, there are a lot less players to help them out.  for it to be the same in large co op that would mean half of the co op was not going to complete. 


    I am speaking as I have done this event twice, even though it changed some this year, still same theory.  Last year I was large co op and this year small.  It was a LOT easier in large co op and even though easier they get better reward.


    Why should members of small co ops be disadvantage just because they are small?  They are the ones with less farm $$ and usually lower level players as the large co ops will not take them as they are to small.  I am in small co op now to try to help some of these players, large co op disregard.  I can get into just about any co op I want, but then I will also be ignoring the small farms.  Mentality on this game is ME ME ME ME, and forget about the small guys.  If the game wants to survive, new players are the players they have to encourage to stay, not disadvantage and chase them away.
  • ijrosh (US1)ijrosh (US1) US1 Posts: 1,325
    edited 05.01.2017
    yes i am in a big coop because i have dedicated a lot of time,money,gold and effort in the last 2 years so you are saying that the last 2 years i have worked very hard on should be for nothing that i should get the exact same thing someone that has only been here for a couple months should i am sorry i really have to disagree with you you and other people have a chose you can either join a bigger coop or you can spend the time,money,gold like all the other coops have to get were they are or if you want to stay small then do it knowing that you are not going to get as much as a large coop and i know you are going to say well the big coops will not take a low level player but again my point is why should someone just starting out that has not spent the time or effort to build there farms up get the same as i do after 2 years of hard work how exactly is that fair? also i should probably state that my 41 member coop was only i think like 15 members when i joined it so yes it was a small coop at one time and got less prizes and honestly small coops got a lot less with the last type of coop championship they had which is when my coop was small
  • Dark Underworld (AU1)Dark Underworld (AU1) AU1 Posts: 2,992
    edited 05.01.2017
    A lot of large co op won't let the small players in.  I am level 315 so I have no trouble getting any co op I want.  But what about the small farms.  Your mentality is exactly what I was saying.  ME ME ME.  Someone needs to speak up for the little guy.  BTW after 2 years I was way higher than level 113
  • ijrosh (US1)ijrosh (US1) US1 Posts: 1,325
    and you are give me,give me, then they should do the work and spend there time to join a bigger coop or grow there coop like i did mine and actually earn the rewards not just have them handed to them
  • I don't want anything, I don't even have any deco's on my farm, except a few on my flower farm, so the rewards were absolutely useless to me.  I only did event to help the SMALL farms.
  • ijrosh (US1)ijrosh (US1) US1 Posts: 1,325
    i am sorry but i thought this thread was about changing the way the coop competition is scored for lower level people that is what i was referring too  
  • Data King (US1)Data King (US1) US1 Posts: 7,994
    I see both point here.
     Yes a large co op may do better than a small one. But that large co op was once a small co op to. The biggest reasons IMO that the larger co op do not want to take in the lower level players is the time and effort it takes to bring them up to speed with the game and how it works. Then to allow them the time to level up where they can be more of a help rather than not.  Not saying all large co ops are like, this just most.
     As for the fairness in this game, the ones with the most gold wins pretty simple.
     The only way that is going to change is if they take that option away lol
    no chance of that happening ;)
  • Dark Underworld (AU1)Dark Underworld (AU1) AU1 Posts: 2,992
    edited 05.01.2017
    it is and it is not fair that they get less for a co op that completes, no matter what the size.

    @Data King (US1)   yes the golders will always win no matter what.  But all that I was saying is even the playing ground on hard work rewards and ranking for co op event.  The best way is to do by average on the number of members in the co op.  The gold players will still win and they will still get to spend lots of gold.  They may even have to spend more, making GGS happy
  • ijrosh (US1)ijrosh (US1) US1 Posts: 1,325
    well for my legue right now there is a coop with 35 members in first then us with 41 members then 3rd place has 3 people in it so it is possible for a coop of 41 people to get the exact same prizes as a coop of 3
  • Data King (US1)Data King (US1) US1 Posts: 7,994
    it is and it is not fair that they get less for a co op that completes, no matter what the size.
    Ok I see what you're getting at. 10 members collect say 1000 snowflakes
     were as 100 members could collect 10000 snowflakes. So the 10 would end up with a lesser valued deco than the 100.
  • I think it should be a level playing field for both large and small co ops.  I think that all should begin on the same basic deco with the same exact happiness points.  Level up from there.  Obviously the larger co ops, with more active players, will gain higher happy points.  But, make sure that the challenge ie amounts of things needed are directly proportional to their level.  You would and can not expect a level 20 player, who really wants to play the game, to need to get 30,000 of something.  A level 300  might need to get it. This is just a rough example.  But to penalize a player right off the bat is unfair.  I am in a small co op.  I will spend gold but not in competitions but rather for an upgrade.  This isn't about gold but fairness.  Yes we only got 24 happy points.  Yes it would have been nice for better.  But we LIKE the decos.  We, the 2 of us, played hard and fair.  GGS needs to consider everyone equally.
Sign In to comment.