EA Forums - Banner

Disagree with the friend points system

Replies

  • 4junk3000
    6024 posts Member
    edited February 2014
    it's not that complicated folks.

    it's to prevent people with 100 friends from speeding through the event significantly faster than people with less than 50 friends. they are pacing you.

    if you don't value the FP from ALL 100 of your friends, then that's your choice. you don't have to collect it.

    think of it like this: with 100 friends, you earn ___ total points. it just so happens that the majority of the points with the earlier taps.

    technically it's a convenience. if the total points was evenly distributed, you would HAVE TO spend the full amount of time collecting. is that what you'd prefer? 100% bonus for 100% taps, vs. 70% bonus for say, 50% taps?. since you're already skipping the lesser value to save time, it sounds to me like this works in your favor!
    All my designs look unfinished because i can't place as many plants, streetlights, and fences as i would like. PLEASE REMOVE THE LIMIT, EA!
  • 00-marco_rosas
    656 posts
    edited February 2014
    Actually, like Valentines, it's trying to balance those with low active friends with those with high active friends. Are you really turning down the extra friend points just because you only get one?
    Yes. You know the last 60 friends are worth less than half the first 40? I don't have that much time in my day.
  • 4junk3000
    6024 posts Member
    edited February 2014
    Actually, like Valentines, it's trying to balance those with low active friends with those with high active friends. Are you really turning down the extra friend points just because you only get one?
    Yes. You know the last 60 friends are worth less than half the first 40? I don't have that much time in my day.

    ...and some people do. some people have enough time for all their neighbors.

    and it works itself out, so it's ok. as you choose not to visit the people who aren't as valuable to you, they will notice your decline in visits and replace you as a neighbor. eventually, the people who care will have 100 neighbors who also care.

    it takes a while to make a good network of friends, you have to sort out a lot of people who don't value you enough to show it.
    All my designs look unfinished because i can't place as many plants, streetlights, and fences as i would like. PLEASE REMOVE THE LIMIT, EA!
  • mbemom
    258 posts
    edited February 2014
    Again, I don't buy the "it's not fair " argument for people who have fewer friends. Get more friends, it's not hard to get them. At all. This is a social game and people should be incentivized to visit more neighbors, get more friends. If the points system were reversed, where everyone got more FP as they visited more friends, it encourages people to get more friends. Still have a daily cap so nobody blows through the levels.
  • PatrickSays
    1140 posts Member
    edited February 2014
    look on the bright side, everyone.

    I actually like the new system.

    old system: forced visiting 100 friends

    new system: make BFFs! - maybe 50-70? or even less? I've actually deleted about 10 already after it started. Why keep those who don't care about the game, don't clean their town, messy, etc? I only get measly 3pt for visiting them, what's the point.

    I'd rather go through 50 people than 100 - period.

    First Year 2012 Player @ Game Level 939 & 3,200% XP
  • alexeliz3
    88 posts
    edited February 2014
    Every little point adds up in the end.
  • Skydude252
    16 posts
    edited February 2014
    I also prefer the new system. If I am a little strapped for time, then I can visit half my friends one day, and half the next (going backwards the second day so I hit everyone), and not miss out. It's good to have that option.

    The biggest thing is that you're acting like you're being punished for visiting the 60 people you get 3 FPs from. You're not. You're just not being rewarded as much. Enormous difference. What you're suggesting would actually be punishing the people who don't have as many friends. Not just not rewarding them as much, actually punishing them for it. So yeah, the "it's not fair" argument *does* apply.

    The main thing, as noted, is to keep people from friend-farming, because that's lame. I would rather earn ~800 points in a descending manner than earn ~8 points every town or need to visit all my friends in order to get even a fraction of it.

    I strongly disagree with YOU.
  • mbemom
    258 posts
    edited February 2014
    look on the bright side, everyone.

    I actually like the new system.

    old system: forced visiting 100 friends

    new system: make BFFs! - maybe 50-70? or even less? I've actually deleted about 10 already after it started. Why keep those who don't care about the game, don't clean their town, messy, etc? I only get measly 3pt for visiting them, what's the point.

    I'd rather go through 50 people than 100 - period.

    I get that completely, you should play the way you want to play. I'm just saying that an argument on the board here is that "it's not fair" for people who have fewer friends and that just rubs me the wrong way. It's called Tapped Out, you are supposed to be tapping, A LOT, and have a lot of friends. So being disincentivized to visit people seems counterintuitive to me.
  • TWD56
    12 posts
    edited February 2014
    Skydude252 wrote:
    I also prefer the new system. If I am a little strapped for time, then I can visit half my friends one day, and half the next (going backwards the second day so I hit everyone), and not miss out. It's good to have that option.

    The biggest thing is that you're acting like you're being punished for visiting the 60 people you get 3 FPs from. You're not. You're just not being rewarded as much. Enormous difference. What you're suggesting would actually be punishing the people who don't have as many friends. Not just not rewarding them as much, actually punishing them for it. So yeah, the "it's not fair" argument *does* apply.

    The main thing, as noted, is to keep people from friend-farming, because that's lame. I would rather earn ~800 points in a descending manner than earn ~8 points every town or need to visit all my friends in order to get even a fraction of it.

    I strongly disagree with YOU.

    Friend farming wouldn't be a problem if someone was limited to 300 activities a day with their friends.

    Like someone else already said, all you have to do is go on facebook or put your username on this website and you have 100 friends. Why are people having difficulty with this?

    How would my system punish those people with less friends? Using your argument they get points just the same as me, but I get substantially more because I decide to invest more time as it should be. Also, why is it punishing to give less points at the start as compared to less points at the end? Before you say, "because they have less friends and will accumulate points slower", cry me a river. Get more friends if you want to progress faster. My argument for the reason why I feel it is punishing 100 friends users is because we see a lower rate of return as we invest more time in the game. So someone visiting 10 friends in 3 minutes gets 300 points as compared to someone who invests 6 minutes and gets 450 points. Then you factor in the constant crashing that many users experience during friend visits and it just makes it more of a waste of time.

  • rwvolture
    1259 posts Member
    edited February 2014
    Snakeyees wrote:
    its to discourage people from going to your city tap three buildings and then deleting your city and getting a new friend, then they rinse & repeat it.

    they could just only allow you to get x amount of points each day but still allow you the same amount of points from each tap. No need to go from 10 to 5 to 2 to 1
  • mbemom
    258 posts
    edited February 2014
    TWD56 wrote:
    Skydude252 wrote:
    I also prefer the new system. If I am a little strapped for time, then I can visit half my friends one day, and half the next (going backwards the second day so I hit everyone), and not miss out. It's good to have that option.

    The biggest thing is that you're acting like you're being punished for visiting the 60 people you get 3 FPs from. You're not. You're just not being rewarded as much. Enormous difference. What you're suggesting would actually be punishing the people who don't have as many friends. Not just not rewarding them as much, actually punishing them for it. So yeah, the "it's not fair" argument *does* apply.

    The main thing, as noted, is to keep people from friend-farming, because that's lame. I would rather earn ~800 points in a descending manner than earn ~8 points every town or need to visit all my friends in order to get even a fraction of it.

    I strongly disagree with YOU.

    Friend farming wouldn't be a problem if someone was limited to 300 activities a day with their friends.

    Like someone else already said, all you have to do is go on facebook or put your username on this website and you have 100 friends. Why are people having difficulty with this?

    How would my system punish those people with less friends? Using your argument they get points just the same as me, but I get substantially more because I decide to invest more time as it should be. Also, why is it punishing to give less points at the start as compared to less points at the end? Before you say, "because they have less friends and will accumulate points slower", cry me a river. Get more friends if you want to progress faster. My argument for the reason why I feel it is punishing 100 friends users is because we see a lower rate of return as we invest more time in the game. So someone visiting 10 friends in 3 minutes gets 300 points as compared to someone who invests 6 minutes and gets 450 points. Then you factor in the constant crashing that many users experience during friend visits and it just makes it more of a waste of time.

    This
  • RoystonVasee
    82 posts
    edited February 2014
    Actually, I think the system makes complete sense. Then again I am not as greedy as some. :twisted:

    I am happy to take the singles, as they are still points whether they come one at a time or in tens.

    The game is not tailor made to suit just a few individuals, but the whole tapping community. Yes, it may be easy to max out your friend list, but some people will never have that sort of time to invest in a game, and if they have a real life nor should they. I grind the game as hard as any, but occasionally life and duty calls and I only get half way through. What is being proposed by the OP would punish most people in the long run as most of us will sometimes have to put the game down for more important things. (Yes, that's right, there are more important things than Tapping.)

    If you do not want to visit friends and tap for those singles, I suggest deleting down to 50 so you are not wasting the other half's friend space.

    The reality is clear though, the more friends you have the more points you can get, whether or not you want to harvest those points is up to you.

    BTW, the singles are still worth 180 points a day if your friend list is full, not a bad tally really. :D

  • don8207232
    1 posts
    edited February 2014
    To those who don't like this model, let me put it a different way.

    Imagine the game designers decided the maximum number of fp, hearts or whatever, per day should be 900. They did all the math and decided that was the optimal max in terms of maximum progression speed.

    OK. So, given 900 is *the* max - how should it be dispersed? It sounds like people here think it always has to be 300 actions at 3 points each. 100 friends, 3 actions per town, 3 points = 900. But what is the harm of changing the distribution? Everyone has the same daily max, so what's the harm of making it 5-3-1, or even 20-10-5-2-1, or other models? Wouldn't you rather get more points up front, realizing the max is the max and that everyone is treated equally across the game? Min-maxers are going to go for the 900 no matter what, so who cares if it's 3 per click, or 5-3-1 or other?
  • TWD56
    12 posts
    edited February 2014
    Actually, I think the system makes complete sense. Then again I am not as greedy as some. :twisted:

    I am happy to take the singles, as they are still points whether they come one at a time or in tens.

    The game is not tailor made to suit just a few individuals, but the whole tapping community. Yes, it may be easy to max out your friend list, but some people will never have that sort of time to invest in a game, and if they have a real life nor should they. I grind the game as hard as any, but occasionally life and duty calls and I only get half way through. What is being proposed by the OP would punish most people in the long run as most of us will sometimes have to put the game down for more important things. (Yes, that's right, there are more important things than Tapping.)

    If you do not want to visit friends and tap for those singles, I suggest deleting down to 50 so you are not wasting the other half's friend space.

    The reality is clear though, the more friends you have the more points you can get, whether or not you want to harvest those points is up to you.

    BTW, the singles are still worth 240 points a day if your friend list is full, not a bad tally really. :D

    If it's not a limited time event, how is it punishing those with less friends?

    240 single points? That means 80 different towns. 8 times more towns to visit and I still make less than the first 10 towns I visit. How do you not see a problem with that system? I am investing 8 times more time and receiving less than the initial 10.
  • jasonbd77
    238 posts Member
    edited February 2014
    I like it better the way that it is currently. I have almost the maximum of friends and nothing but time. I don't expect a pat on the back for wasting that time.
  • TWD56
    12 posts
    edited February 2014
    don8207232 wrote:
    To those who don't like this model, let me put it a different way.

    Imagine the game designers decided the maximum number of fp, hearts or whatever, per day should be 900. They did all the math and decided that was the optimal max in terms of maximum progression speed.

    OK. So, given 900 is *the* max - how should it be dispersed? It sounds like people here think it always has to be 300 actions at 3 points each. 100 friends, 3 actions per town, 3 points = 900. But what is the harm of changing the distribution? Everyone has the same daily max, so what's the harm of making it 5-3-1, or even 20-10-5-2-1, or other models? Wouldn't you rather get more points up front, realizing the max is the max and that everyone is treated equally across the game? Min-maxers are going to go for the 900 no matter what, so who cares if it's 3 per click, or 5-3-1 or other?

    It comes down to the fact that it takes a short time to get a third of that, but to get the rest of it, the amount of time needed goes up significantly. A fixed amount would at least offer me a reason to continue through my list without being punished with a reduced point per tap. My original argument (progressive system) encourages what the designers have wanted us gamers to do (implied by the game's name "Tapped Out").
  • jasonbd77
    238 posts Member
    edited February 2014
    TWD56 wrote:
    don8207232 wrote:
    To those who don't like this model, let me put it a different way.

    Imagine the game designers decided the maximum number of fp, hearts or whatever, per day should be 900. They did all the math and decided that was the optimal max in terms of maximum progression speed.

    OK. So, given 900 is *the* max - how should it be dispersed? It sounds like people here think it always has to be 300 actions at 3 points each. 100 friends, 3 actions per town, 3 points = 900. But what is the harm of changing the distribution? Everyone has the same daily max, so what's the harm of making it 5-3-1, or even 20-10-5-2-1, or other models? Wouldn't you rather get more points up front, realizing the max is the max and that everyone is treated equally across the game? Min-maxers are going to go for the 900 no matter what, so who cares if it's 3 per click, or 5-3-1 or other?

    It comes down to the fact that it takes a short time to get a third of that, but to get the rest of it, the amount of time needed goes up significantly. A fixed amount would at least offer me a reason to continue through my list without being punished with a reduced point per tap. My original argument (progressive system) encourages what the designers have wanted us gamers to do (implied by the game's name "Tapped Out").

    I don't understand the problem really. If you don't want to continue, don't continue.
  • delegg629524
    337 posts
    edited February 2014
    Yaaaaaahhh!!! This horrific thing is in addition to the usual $ and XP! Quit crying!!
  • Mjr1124
    654 posts
    edited February 2014
    Seriously, it's like a free gift for visiting neighbors, which most of us were already doing anyway. How can anyone complain about that?
  • jasonbd77
    238 posts Member
    edited February 2014
    Yaaaaaahhh!!! This horrific thing is in addition to the usual $ and XP! Quit crying!!

    there was mention of crying a river. maybe we all cry our own?
This discussion has been closed.

Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.