Join the official Goodgame Big Farm Discord today!
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
This would make the Santa's wish list chapter 5 ranking more fair.
Comments
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.
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
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
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
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.
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)
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.
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
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
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.
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.
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
@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
were as 100 members could collect 10000 snowflakes. So the 10 would end up with a lesser valued deco than the 100.