Next event, if there will be anymore


#1

i have some suggestions for next era. i might not be too liked after siding with PSI, but o well.

team picks:
option 1: each player is given a choice at tick 50 of the 5 or however many leaders, and they rate them in order of who they want most to who they want least

option 2: captains. each captain choose a player out of the pool of players at tick 50 one by one until each team has like 50 members. the rest are thrown randomly into teams based on power

the ability to have leader votes. like, a minister could start a vote for 24 hours and every player would get a thing where they choose who they want as leader, including the current leader. that would make it so that inactives wouldn’t have a voice, since only the votes that were put in would be counted currently even if every active player voted for a different leader, the leadership would remain the same becuase the inactives outweight the actives since everyone starts with a vote for the current leader. or make it so that after the teams are assembled everyone has 0 votes and players choose who they want and whoever has most votes is the leader.

if anyone has any other suggestions, please post below


#2

Current ideas for a potential next one is:

  • Kicking costs 500E
  • Leader is voted to be in charge at tick 50, whomever is most powerful on the world becomes the first leader with 1 vote.
  • A defeated alliance (leader conquered or perhaps give each a relic) is redistributed among the survivors, thus making the end condition “Last Man Standing”, fixing the whole hugging issue (hopefully). The strongest power players go to the weakest teams.

That said, I currently have too many tasks to run another event I fear.


#3

Sounds a lot like the schoolyard showdown or whatcha call it. Jazz is hosting something like it soon on e1.


#4

With the leader thing, what if it was a 2 ticker, where every say 60 ticks there would be a vote, and on the 75th tick a new leader would be put into office? That way if there isnt a whole lot of liking for a particular leader they would be removed automatically after 75 ticks?


#5

I would rather have a leader that is predetermined and trusted, and have good players that join a faction lead. That’s what happened this era anyway.


#6

This era we picked 4 people who won lots of eras and have solid reputations.

People seem to disagree with 2 (3?) of them.

Maybe people should pick a leader aligned with their personality and personal views instead, IMO. :slight_smile:


#9

Guys please stay on topic, let’s discuss this suggestion and not history. :slight_smile:


#10

I am going to say, I was planning to make a topic with already made suggestions as well as open it up to feedback for all. Please look out for it and feel free to state any opinions there. I do agree though, there were many issues that needed to be fixed. The biggest issue was we couldn’t change them mid era to fix (which we shouldn’t). But hopefully next time we can really think thoroughly now that we have a sample to work from on what CAN go wrong and how to prevent it.

(as a side note, the very first original idea of this event was for the 5 admins to each lead a team. But this was back when we had Ilona and Simen too. And then I was gonna leave it open for players to “pick” which team they wanted based on their favorite admin (I’m sure you can already see the issues with that though!!).


#11

Just make it no allies and it will be fun, dosnt matter then who is leader, he will just hold the flag…

In all teams ppl made small group of players with who they work the best so leader isnt needed to coordinate all players…

And i dont like that there are rewards but if there arent 90% of player wont play cuz thats what they care for not war or game…


#12

Would point much more towards leaders only being figureheads for future if we do something similar again. And I thought about not allowing allies, but then we all know it’d just be done in the background.

And same with rewards. I’ve always been one to rather just have rank 1 and that’s it. But with this kind of event, I THOUGHT that teams would be evenly fighting each other all era (obviously not the case). So I assumed that top 50 individual would lead to each team having fairly even chances. But then people started making era long NAPs… Which means in a 1v1, it’s very easy to dominate another team. The point was to have all teams keeping each other in check. Because obviously if 1 is gaining, the other’s would be falling behind. But this is not a mindset all leaders have and was a mistake on me.


#13

At least you tried and ofc there will be secret allies and deals but at least i could attack who ever i want and no one can stop it


#14

I didn’t play the event but i read everything. Why not having more teams? 6-10 teams?


#15

Nah it was good like this, just there should be only war no friends


#16

I have no friends :wink:


#17

As critical as I’ve been about BD, it’s staff, and large parts of it’s community recently; I do like to see these ideas and that they are trying to rectify the issue at least in the future.

I think the best way to fix the era would be to give more people the ability to move people around alliances, etc. Have faith in the staff to make the correct decision and give them to power to fix it when they don’t.