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!
Comments
-Y
You are probably right that it will never happen, but not for the reason you give... It will never happen because, its such a strange suggestion. When did you ever hear of any sort of game/competition/contest/event where a team would be expected to "step down" because they won it too often? I agree that something needs to changed with the way the coops are ranked for the challenge, but this is definately not the solution.
Nope I don't agree at all. I think you should give every coop the same chance of winning.... thios means leveling out the players numbers/levels. So if they do that the big ones will have no disadvantage as the effort they would have to make will be equal to that of the small coop. Hence, you get better (and fairer) competition (and maybe more gold spending becuz it will be closer). The big coop cna win on number base alone and not jsut activity.... .
For example a leveled out competition would mean a small coop of 5 needs to collect 5 appels for the same amount of points a coop of 65 players needs to collet 65 apples. Same effort for everyone....
PS: Both coops can use gold then to go to the advantage and buy extra apples (and so extra points). But that's somehting that should be possible. I'm just saying the base line should be the same. I think that's very clear. Otherwise you can't speak of competition...
Keeping in mind bigger co-ops already pay more per booster, you think that the effort required to unlock, recruit and keep 65 members should be further disadvantaged for their efforts?
I 100% disagree with this. Aside from the reason hinted at above which is I don't think Co-ops should be disadvantaged for hard work. The top ten slots would probably be filled with 1 person Co-ops. Why rely on anyone else, when you can do it all yourself with no penalty? That would indeed give a new (and twisted) definition to the Trophy of Solidarity.
-Y
The during the Co-Op Championships the field of co-ops is split into two (2) leagues: the Main League, and a Champions League.
For the first competition with this new set-up, the Champions League would be comprised of the top one hundred (100) co-ops from the previous championship. In all subsequent seasons, the top twenty co-ops in Champions league at the conclusion of the prior championship stay in the Champions league. The other eighty (80) co-ops return to the Main League. The top eighty (80) co-ops in the Main League at the conclusion of the prior championship would then compete in the Champions League in the places of those co-ops that returned to the Main League. (numbers 100/20/80 are just conceptual, could be 50/15/35 or 250/50/200)
Reward structure for the Main League would be unchanged from the current rewards. The reward structure for the Champions League would mirror the Main League but reflect the greater investment (work/gold) needed to earn your way into the Champions League. The progress rewards (total points earned) for Champions League would be much better (tokens, seaweed, gold, rare collectibles, etc.) but much more difficult to achieve (more total points needed and larger intervals) . The suggested new co-op orchard types could be used as the top finisher rewards in this league. A new super-deco could be created as the ultimate progress reward.
I think this would give the current top finishers something new to compete for as well as allow a greater pool of different co-ops to cycle into competition for the current rewards.
I see this creating battles in the Main League for the 100th place as well as the current competition for top finishers. You would also see co-ops in the Champions League compete for twentieth place if they wanted to remain in the Champions League for the next season.
I know there are faults with this idea, like; the logical extension of the current problem to the top ranks of the Champions League, but thought I'd throw the concept out there for others to comment. Perhaps a different ranking criteria for the Champions League, like points per player level (total points / total levels of all co-op members) would stop that from happening there.
Sound good.
Interesting... I think you have the makings of a good idea in there. There are some pitfalls in it as it stands atm if I understood the concept correctly, which would result in a lot of coops deliberately trying to lose, though in some ways that may not be a bad thing, afterall, competing to lose or competing to win is still competing lol
I will use your numbers, as its easier to explain that way........
You have the top 20 coops in the champions league, only 10 of which will win a reward & as we know its usually the same 10, so the lower 10 would be trying to drop below #20 & get out of that league, as they are the ones with the best chance of being the top 10 in the lower league. You also have 80 below them, that have no chance of winning in that league & are equally determined not to end up ranked 11-20, which gives you a league of 100 coops, 10 of which are fighting to be #1 & 90 are fighting to be lower than 20..... Already sounds like fun hehe
Meanwhile, in the lower league, again only 10 can win, but 80 are at risk of being sent to the champions league, where they know they will lose & have to fight to get back out, so probably only the top 20 would try to be in the top 10 & the 60 below them would again be battling to lose & end up lower than #80, so that they don`t get moved out. Being in the top 10 of the lower league does get you a reward, but also gets you a time-out for the next challenge, when you would be up against the big-guns & trying to lose your way back to the lower league, so you would end up with the same 10 coops winning the champions league each time & then 2 sets of 10 coops alternatley winning the lower league & not playing every alternate challenge.
I do think that splitting into different leagues is the way to go, similar to the Hard Work event, its just harder to split up coops based on their level, because the coop levels don`t always reflect the number of members or how highly ranked those players are. But I think you are on the right track, just need a way to do it so that you keep coops "trying" to win, rather than just not playing, so that they don`t end up with a bad ranking for the next challenge.
Thats true, how did I miss that whole paragraph? ... "Shoulda gone to Specsavers"
So yeah, if you are a top 80 coop that would make a difference. Currently my coop always finishes in top 10 but #1 is not going to happen, so rather than get yet another Cherry orchard, it would probably be more appealing to get better interim rewards..... I stand corrected! :thumbsup:
However, the higher level co-ops will invite you to join their co-op, (and leave your co-op, which you may be founder/leader) trying to entice you with a Co-op orchard and such. Stick with it.
Keep happily farming.
k
Perhaps the coop or coops who won the apple orchard don't get to win it twice in a row, it goes to the next highest ranking competitor(s), and the winners get an alternative prize.
-Y
I really like the idea that was expressed in this thread about making the score proportional to the number of members. That, in my view is fair play. Won't prevent the awesome Top level co-ops from winning, that is sure, but in turn, won't mean that smaller, more modest co-ops will be doomed to settle for puny prizes and not have a flying chance. I think it would actually make the challenge even more challenging and entice MORE players to participate because we won't have this discouraging feeling that the Pack will win it again in no time.
Anyway, we all know why GGS is pushing this event so much. It creates a HUGE influx of gold buying (re: income). It's the same thing as the Island and all the gold spending pits they created in the past year. No wonder they doubled their net revenue in the last year.
'nough said... going back to READING THE NEWS!
Good luck to all of you... I'm not playing or barely this time around. Gonna keep my money to buy 2 nice pieces of prime rib and a nice bottle of wine.
IO
-Y
I agree! Its taken a lot of time to put together my group....a lot of messages to potential recruits with a mixture of success and failures. Why should groups with a lot of members be penalised for their success? Having said that I think it would be fairer system if coops were seperated into different competitions based on number of members. Competition between coops of 0-10 players, 10-20, 20-30, 30-40 etc etc with the best final rewards going to the teams with more members.
The main issue with the challenge in my opinion is solo missions and of course the dreaded reputation point hot deals. GGS probably wont ever change this but I still think its unfair when challenges can be bought rather than won.
I was not and would never ever take pot shots at Brat or Bar-K or other co-ops that are successful. That would be so petty. I have to admit though that I find it pretty "surprising" to hear you guys tell me that co-ops that have worked hard should be rewarded better than co-ops that haven't. Do you really think it is an easy task to maintain a group of 10 players to rank #16 and that we are a bunch of slackers? I'm not trying to "glorify" my co-op, but you guys may call us anything you want, but slackers simply doesn't fit us.
Also, who said anything about penalizing the biggest co-ops? I certainly never did. I merely said that I feel it would be fairer to "normalize" the score in relation to the size of the co-op so that HARD working co-ops have a chance to win as well, regardless of their size. I never said "give the trophy to every co-op" either.
I like Gizmo's idea. It's a twist on what I was proposing and although it would not be the same thing as what I wished, it would be a huge improvement in terms of fairness at the very least and make the competition more interesting. Thanks Gizmo for putting that idea forward. You have my support and vote.
I hope this clarifies my point and sorry if I was not clear in my initial post.
IO
I don't think its easy to run a co-op of any size. But if you think its hard to run one that is 10-15 hard working people. Try running one with 55-65 hard working people. I will accept you aren't demeaning their efforts intentionally, so I will absolutely take back the 'churlish'. But I do think you are diminishing their achievements in the comment: "regardless of their size". Becoming that size AND holding on to it over time, are the two great achievements you are diminishing.
I would offer that rather than allowing small co-ops who haven't yet put in the efforts in building and maintaining a large co-op (This says nothing about how hard you work as farmers, just that you haven't yet succeeded at this particular effort), to compete with larger co-ops, the smaller co-ops follow the same road as the big co-ops (who all started small) and work their way to the top. That's the effort I'm talking about.
-Y
Yeah, it must be sooooooooooooooo hard to run a co-op with 51 members. LMAO! Gimme your most hard working ones and I mean, just a handful and you can kiss your Rank #9 goodbye, darling! Any monkey can fill a co-op with slackers or casual players but THEN it becomes a bit harder to run because you always have to bring out the whip and get them to participate and contribute to the success, or just simply be GREEN DOT! Our co-op doesn't have that problem and runs by itself. I do not have to tell anyone, anything. They know what needs to be done and they do it because they love being with us and the challenge of being the smallest co-op at our rank. ALL of our members are PROUD to be in our lil' family and ALL of them are hard workers. No whip required!
In case you haven't noticed, you have to go down to Rank#83 to actually find a co-op smaller than ours. So you can stop your little preaching about efforts and achievement. I have no lessons to receive from you, with all due respect. I found your comment to be really offensive and pretentious!
Have a nice day,
IO
BTW... our co-op was created more than 1 year after yours... again, speaks volumes.
I've never mentioned my co-op.
I didn't notice, your rank, because I didn't even look at your co-op. My words were strictly based on your post. I believe the error in our understanding stems from the idea of working hard for a Co-op. Working hard for your own farm is one thing. I certainly believe there are hard workers across all co-ops. But what you repeatedly seem to be discounting is the Hard Work VERY hard work in building a #1 co-op like Brat Pack has done. That is the hard work, I'm referring to, that you are diminishing. And that is, and has been, my only point.
_y
I never, ever diminished, undermined, berated or take for granted the hard work Brats and Bar-K and other at the top have put in. Never.
You know what? Why not put an end to this conversation as clearly, you have a chip on your shoulder regarding me, otherwise, you would not react the way you do. Or maybe I'm wrong and you are simply not getting my message. Either way, I have other things to tend to then to spell the obvious to you and tell you to stop making assumptions.
Brat and the rest have WORKED their way up there, no question. That is totally beside the point and YOU have steered that conversation about it. I will no longer take part in it. Think what you want, believe what you want.
Best of luck in the competition,
IO
-Y
By hard work you mean entering in their credit card information on the payment screen and spending the gold to buy collectibles and pushing egg harvests.
Carry on.
If i am not mistaken, there has been 7 coop championships so far? In each championship, the same coop has won the apple orchard each time.
Consequences...
The other coops must get a chance to win the apple orchards, cos the same coop has 7 apple orchards. No offense to the winning coop!
Suggestion :
There are several coops working whole day and night to win those apple orchards and it would be nice if others could gain one too! Atleast top 3 coops. Our enthusiasm has been less each time the CC appears and is now at zero level.
On that note here is my suggestion...
Top 3 Coops - Apple Orchard
Top 10 coops - Chery Orchard
Could we maybe have a change in the top three prizes? Just a thought.. Opinions? You're more than welcome to comment.[/QUOTE]