PDA

View Full Version : Philosophies and the new BO system



FragmentFour
27th September 2014, 08:28 PM
As VE of my little village, I had a brain-child a while back about "sharing" or "piggy backing" on BOs. We would do it, partner villages would do it to us, and per arranged agreement, the original opening village keeps the highest percentage of completion - other villages do not over-run it. When it is close to closing, other villages may be allowed within 2 percentage points or so of 100. Everyone gets to maximize on "banked" crops.

The advent of rubies in the BO payoffs seems to make this an even more desirable practice. Get a group of cooperative villages together, "share" on each other's BOs which carry ruby payoffs, and ensure that the opening village gets to qualify for those rubies.

Now... this seems like good strategy to me. However, I have run into a few (a very few, but a few) players who thing this is an awful thing to do. One VE has forbidden anyone in her village from "sharing" BOs at all.

My question is - does anyone else find a value or a detriment in this practice? Thoughts?

FragmentFour
Old Redmarket
Valley of Magic

Divination
27th September 2014, 08:58 PM
Can you clarify I'm understanding this right? So basically you're suggesting we're allowed to have any two villages working together on the same BO? Is the payout per person the same, but instead of giving out across a maximum of 7, now it'd be a maximum of 14 per BO?

FragmentFour
27th September 2014, 09:03 PM
The BO system has always allowed more than one village to participate - we're just making it standard practice in our BOs that carry the ruby payoff. The payout is entirely dependent on the number of crops each village contributes - when the BO closes you have always gotten your contributed percentage (as stated in the leader when you examine the BO.) The rubies from a payout go only to the inhabitants of the village who closes it - which is why we are making a concerted effort to contribute a little to our partners' BOs so that they, too, can have three villages on their BOs, and qualify for their rubies.

What we've done is basically taken a competition, and turned it into a profitable cooperation. I hope. The competition will come from any other villages who DO decide to over-run the originator's percentage of completion.

Make sense?

Divination
27th September 2014, 09:11 PM
So this stems for the new rule that the rubies payout for some BOs is contingent of at least 3 participants total. Correct? How would you suggest the feature be implement? Each time a village starts a BO with ruby payout, they get to choose two other villages to send the offer for participation? If that's along the line of your thought, then wouldn't it be simpler just to do that ourselves with in-game message?

Redt
27th September 2014, 09:28 PM
Actually, in our valley we had -unspoken- agreement that we leave BOs to the village who had started it. We understood that BOs were for transformation purposes and we respected that.

Now, with rubies involved , I wrote to other active villages in our valley suggesting exactly what FragmentFour said. We would contribute few plants to 'their' BOs if they agree to do the same to us. SO, no, in our valley I don't think there is anything wrong with cooperating in BOs. BOs are somehow treated not as comps but rather as help with transformations.

FragmentFour
27th September 2014, 10:48 PM
So this stems for the new rule that the rubies payout for some BOs is contingent of at least 3 participants total. Correct? How would you suggest the feature be implement? Each time a village starts a BO with ruby payout, they get to choose two other villages to send the offer for participation? If that's along the line of your thought, then wouldn't it be simpler just to do that ourselves with in-game message?

We don't need to "implement" it - it's already there. What we have done so far is simply invite (by visit or game mail) other villages to join us, and offer to join theirs.

Aliya Silver
28th September 2014, 09:49 AM
"Surfing", "Piggy-backing" or "Sharing" BOs is a strategy that has been used long time before, yes... by a great number of players.
It has been a very good way of getting gold if your village isn't full and the HRs in your valley are hard.

Sharing them as Fragment has suggested (by actually talking to other people and inviting them) is much rarer than the usual surfing (when a village decides to do it without "asking" or "telling" the leading village) but it happened :)
Going for that strategy in a team of villages in order to get the ruby reward in turns is a wonderful idea in my opinion - living up to one of the main virtues of Miramagia... playing together in teams.

However, at the moment the ruby reward will be the only benefit of it. The relations of cheap and expensive plants are extreme, so surfing a BO won't earn your village as much gold now as it did before.

Divination
28th September 2014, 08:46 PM
I agree with Aliya. Under the old system of how BOs distributed their required crop, you could pick out certain BOs to make profit off as secondary villages. This worked because 1/25 of the cost of required plants = reward payout under the old system. Yet the % completion wasn't (and still isn't) based on % total cost. If a BO has a lot of its total cost covered by a small % amount of expensive plants, eg. mirabelles covers 80% of the total cost but only covers 20% total crops, with the carrots covering the other 80% total crops. The village that donated only the carrots would sit at 80% completion and would gain 80% of the payout when they only donated 20% of the total cost.

Under the new system, the situation basically reversed. The game now put an emphasis on reducing how much % of total cost expensive crops could cover for each BO (rather than a more random approach before). You don't see BOs with cucumbers/fanfare reeds/mirabelles/etc covering 80% of the cost anymore. Maybe not even 50% anymore. I suspect the limit is even lower since we're seeing so many BOs dominated by massive amount of cheap crops to cover the cost otherwise would have been covered by expensive plants before.

What that means is that it's not as profitable, if at all, for a village to donate a large amount in the new BO as secondary village. Of course only if they're looking for profit. What's suggested here about tagging along so the lead village gets their ruby reward make sense, and I already see some villages in my valley doing that already to help out (1 crop in all the ruby payout BOs)

One good thing with the new BO system as mentioned, is the ruby payout for the lead village (although imo 3 per person doesn't justify the cost still unless it's for transformation). Another positive is that they lowered the ratio from 25 to ~22.18, so multiply the payout of each BO by 22.18 and you get the amount of money it would take to purchase all of the required crops from Corner's shop.

(much of what I said is redundant information to most, but just wanted to elaborate for those that might not know)