ANSWERED:Distributing New Prizes/Special/Limited Dragons

[stagazer_7]

While I think the Store suggestion is far superior then this one and already includes a minigames element, I wouldn't mind if we'd have an option to gather points through them to collect a prize. But only as long as this was done at a leisurely pace, meaning:

 

- prize costs x points

- when you gather enough points, you collect the prize, end of story

 

By all means, make this challenging (= the amount of needed points big), so the whole process is rewarding at the end when you finally get that elusive prize... I just hope this won't turn into a time sponge where you're coaxed into playing these minigames only to enter a raffle with 0.136 % chance of winning.

 

As far as any of these suggestions:

1. * the top N scores every week win a prize?

2. * Number of prizes

3. * Have N winners randomly drawn from the top Y scores (where Y > N).

4. * X winners from all participants.

 

I can't support any of these, because:

1. - it would require brainless grinding to even be able to compete ... where's any fun in that?

2. - so, basically, even with enough points you'd still have to snipe the... wherever you'd collect your hard earned prize and compete with others... nooooooo

3.-4. - sounds like another raffle... and we all know how popular these are

 

 

[_Sin_]

@NotBambi & @Olympe:

Thank you for your suggestions, they are now added to the first post.

[Pokemonfan13]

I'd say something between 183 and 365. 365 would be one year's worth of tickets, while 183 is roughly half that.

The problem is, you can't really just give out one point for "playing the game" and that's it. That would encourage people to just start a game and immediately lose, because that will give the same number of points as someone who plays the game out and does really really well. That just feels wrong to me.

 

You need to base the number of points given on how well is done in the game, and set the number of points needed to get the prize based on an "average" performance and a target amount of time it should take to earn the prize. People who put in the effort and do really well at the game can earn the prize faster, even though everyone is limited to one round per day.

 

The one caveat is the game needs to be a finite one with a maximum score that isn't all that much higher than the "average". Mana alchemy would work well. The "play until you make a mistake" variety of game is bad for this, since the score can vary from "died instantly" to "played so long that they got bored and died on purpose".

Edited April 15, 2016 by Pokemonfan13

[_Sin_]

I see what you mean. At the same time, there are two points that should be considered:

- as someone else said, it is good for the site, if people spend time being active, including playing games

- we don't want to make this suggestion all about very skilled players; obviously they are advantaged, but there must be a balance between skills/time/effort

Any thoughts about how to reach this balance and, at the same time, to not penalize anybody? I agree that to have people starting the game and to lose immediately, just to get the ticket, is not what we would want.

 

 

 

[Pokemonfan13]

The thing is, Mana Alchemy isn't a difficult game. If you play carefully it's not hard to get all the points. (at least, that's what I remember while playing it during the event) I can understand it being funny to base the speed you can get the prize on how well you do at the game if it's a really hard game that many people wouldn't do well at but certain people could still ace, but I don't think Mana Alchemy is like that. Especially since people would be playing it a lot over time, even if they aren't good at first they should learn the strategy.

 

Even if it's harder for some people, I think it's still fair to give out points based on how well you do. It's impossible to make things completely fair for everyone without doing something like giving equal points just for participating, but that takes away the incentive to actually play the game. The key is that we're eliminating the advantage people with lots of free time would have to grind the game by limiting the number of plays to a level even a time strapped player should be able to manage. Any slight advantage people who are better at the game have is more earned than the grinding advantage someone with time to kill would have without the limit.

[Fuzzbucket]

The thing is, Mana Alchemy isn't a difficult game. If you play carefully it's not hard to get all the points. (at least, that's what I remember while playing it during the event)

This. I could complete it in about 45 seconds. It was fun - but does not merit points just for starting a game that is so very easy. And it gets easier the more you play.

 

Not - as I've said - that I support this suggestion. I don't think it is particularly "good for the site" to bring grinding into it; that may encourage some people, but I think it will turn off a lot of established players. IF This suggestion came in, I don't think you should be able to get points for more than one play a day.

[Ruby Eyes]

And it gets easier the more you play.

Most games do that ...

[Thuban]

IF This suggestion came in, I don't think you should be able to get points for more than one play a day.

How about if you play more than once, only your top scores for the day count as your "one a day play".

 

 

Personally: I think this suggestion needs its own game made for it. Simply using event games isnt.. enough. Set, and Mana alchemy were fine for what they were made for, but as a base mechanic towards earning points for rares? Its not enough. Remaking those event games, with non event related art, is a help. Making new ones, is a help. If this suggestion is going to be based around using games to accomplish the goals.. then it needs to have its own legs to stand on. What other games could work, if mana alchemy (as it is) and the old set game (as it was) cant be reworked to be non holiday specific for whatever reason?

Edited April 15, 2016 by Thuban

[cyradis4]

How about if you play more than once, only your top scores for the day count as your "one a day play".

 

 

Personally: I think this suggestion needs its own game made for it. Simply using event games isnt.. enough. Set, and Mana alchemy were fine for what they were made for, but as a base mechanic towards earning points for rares? Its not enough. Remaking those event games, with non event related art, is a help. Making new ones, is a help. If this suggestion is going to be based around using games to accomplish the goals.. then it needs to have its own legs to stand on. What other games could work, if mana alchemy (as it is) and the old set game (as it was) cant be reworked to be non holiday specific for whatever reason?

HAHAHA A dragon version of PacMan!

 

Ok, maybe I'm showing my age a little bit. But.... Who cares.

 

Cheers!

C4.

[Fiona]

The gameboard and tiles for mana alchemy were very non-holiday specific, so those wouldn't need changed at all.

 

However, I agree with Thuban that it was too simple a game for what you guys are proposing now. You need something with a bit more depth, requiring at least some skills if you're going to award points for playing.

[Thuban]

The gameboard and tiles for mana alchemy were very non-holiday specific, so those wouldn't need changed at all.

 

However, I agree with Thuban that it was too simple a game for what you guys are proposing now. You need something with a bit more depth, requiring at least some skills if you're going to award points for playing.

The loading bars would need changed, and with Set (not that people were pushing for it) new cards would be needed, since it was all pumpkins. Between the two games, set.. is definitely more of a challenge, but still too simple of a game, once its understood how to play it.

 

Matching games, pattern games.. those are things I really enjoy, but nearly all of them are too simple for this suggestion. So my question for this thread is: would it be better to come up with one in depth game to play, or a bunch of smaller games that can be played, to incorporate more types of things people enjoy?

[cyradis4]

The loading bars would need changed, and with Set (not that people were pushing for it) new cards would be needed, since it was all pumpkins. Between the two games, set.. is definitely more of a challenge, but still too simple of a game, once its understood how to play it.

 

Matching games, pattern games.. those are things I really enjoy, but nearly all of them are too simple for this suggestion. So my question for this thread is: would it be better to come up with one in depth game to play, or a bunch of smaller games that can be played, to incorporate more types of things people enjoy?

Multiple games, I'd say, even if they are simple. One size never seems to fit all.

 

Cheers!

C4.

[olympe]

I agree with cyradis. I'd rather have a choice between multiple games where I can use the overall top score to collect points than have to play the same game over and over and over again. Besides, even if some of us really liked mana alchemy, not everyone does. (Personally, I found it way too simple to enjoy it much.)

[Fiona]

If mana alchemy were to be used as part of this it would need to be significantly expanded. I think not only would more tiles be needed but some method of levels. Because yes, it was much too simple for something like this.

 

I like matching games and pattern games. There are lots of examples out there that we could use for inspiration. Yes, if this were to be a thing I think several games would be preferable to one single one, because One Size Fits All really means Fits No One, in reality.

Edited April 15, 2016 by Fiona BlueFire

[HeatherMarie]

Okay, I guess I'm the only one, but I have to admit that Mana Alchemy was hard for me. I never could really understand how to play, I just kind of did it randomly. I would *not* want that to be the *only* way to get points.

[olympe]

Which is why most people here argue for a choice of several games.

[Pokemonfan13]

Several games would have to be handled very carefully to ensure that they are similar hardness and give out similar amounts of points. Otherwise there would be one game that could be said to be easier that more people would play because of it, as well as one game that fewer people would play because it is harder.

[Tawanda001]

If you are going to require skills and ability I urge people to think about the results of the Christmas decorating contest and remember that we have a lot of players who maybe haven't mastered a lot of skills yet. ( not including the trees that got messed up, just the ones where kids piled on every decoration is any random order)

[olympe]

Several games would have to be handled very carefully to ensure that they are similar hardness and give out similar amounts of points.  Otherwise there would be one game that could be said to be easier that more people would play because of it, as well as one game that fewer people would play because it is harder.

Well, points could be staggered like this:

You can get up to 10 points per game per day - but only if you reach maximal score (if there is a cap). If you don't, you only get 1 point per 10% of the maximum score that you surpassed.

 

Example: Maximum score is 1000. If your final score is 100-199, you get 1 point. For a final score of 200-299, you get 2 points. And so on.

 

 

Of course, with a daily maximum of 10 points, the points you need for each dragon would need to be multiplied by something between 5 and 10 (if compared to the suggestions before, where we assumed that you could only get 1 point per day).

Edited April 15, 2016 by olympe

[Fuzzbucket]

If you are going to require skills and ability I urge people to think about the results of the Christmas decorating contest and remember that we have a lot of players who maybe haven't mastered a lot of skills yet. ( not including the trees that got messed up, just the ones where kids piled on every decoration is any random order)

This. VERY this.

[olympe]

Well, practice does make perfect. And since you can practice every single day... Besides, if we get several games requiring different skill sets, I firmly believe that everyone will find at least one game where they'll be able to excel after a short time.

[Fiona]

If you are going to require skills and ability I urge people to think about the results of the Christmas decorating contest and remember that we have a lot of players who maybe haven't mastered a lot of skills yet. ( not including the trees that got messed up, just the ones where kids piled on every decoration is any random order)

A very good point I think but decorating games don't really have a "win" point so I wouldn't think they'd make a very good way to earn points. In ways I'd like to have them available to play with again because they're fun, but I don't think they're in the same category as something like mana alchemy, or a match 3 game or similar.

 

I'm not completely sure this is a good way to go, really. But I don't see enough reason to oppose it either. And giving input to possible ways it could be handled is entertaining.

[Tawanda001]

A very good point I think but decorating games don't really have a "win" point so I wouldn't think they'd make a very good way to earn points. In ways I'd like to have them available to play with again because they're fun, but I don't think they're in the same category as something like mana alchemy, or a match 3 game or similar.

 

I'm not completely sure this is a good way to go, really. But I don't see enough reason to oppose it either. And giving input to possible ways it could be handled is entertaining.

Oh, no, I didn't mean to imply any sort of earning points for decorating, etc.

Just that when people talk about making the games 'worth' earning points I would like them to remember that many of our players face challenges that make it difficult for them to compete with others. Whether those challenges are because they are young, or have vision problems, arthritis or what have you.

So rather than saying you need to do 'well' at something, in comparison to other players, I would prefer to see something along the lines of 'complete this puzzle or these challenges in your own time and earn points for each step completed', or something along those lines. I just want it to be something everyone feels like they have a chance to do well rather than feeling like they can't compete with faster, or older, or better coordinated players.

 

speaking of which I can't seem to get my fingers and my mind on the same page today, ugh

Edited April 16, 2016 by Tawanda001

[Pokemonfan13]

That's why I think it should be a game where reaching the high score is pretty easy. That way there isn't a problem with the players who happen to be -really- good at it reaching the point level to obtain the prize several times faster than anyone else, as might happen with a game with a typical score several times lower than the possible maximum. It's why something similar to Mana Alchemy is ideal, if you think about your moves and are careful it's not hard to reach the maximum, and it doesn't take speed or reflexes to play. (for those who really do have trouble with the game, I'm sure people will write up guides to make the strategy easier to understand if it gets used in something like this) And if people can come up with similarly easy games of different types, that would make things even better. (although it would make the limits system more complicated. One play of one game, you choose which? Something else?)

Edited April 16, 2016 by Pokemonfan13

[Fuzzbucket]

Oh, no, I didn't mean to imply any sort of earning points for decorating, etc.

Just that when people talk about making the games 'worth' earning points I would like them to remember that many of our players face challenges that make it difficult for them to compete with others. Whether those challenges are because they are young, or have vision problems, arthritis or what have you.

So rather than saying you need to do 'well' at something, in comparison to other players, I would prefer to see something along the lines of 'complete this puzzle or these challenges in your own time and earn points for each step completed', or something along those lines. I just want it to be something everyone feels like they have a chance to do well rather than feeling like they can't compete with faster, or older, or better coordinated players.

This actually is VERY true. One player was about to quit her scroll the other day as her hands are so crippled with arthritis that she cannot catch at all. Another player has worked out a way to help her stay in the game - but if this kind of thing became a routine way of earning eggs, it would seriously disadvantage players like her (and a mate of mine with RA, too.)

 

I would absolutely hate this idea to make the game "faster" or "more challenging".

 

Like Fi,

I'm not completely sure this is a good way to go, really.

But unlike her:

But I don't see enough reason to oppose it either.

- how good a reason does it have to be ? I am - how shall we say - extremely not keen