A Thought About Mob Sizes
Forums › Suggestions & Feedback › A Thought About Mob Sizes-
I know this is a controversial subject, and as much as it pains me to even think this (considering all the tedious effort I put in over the past year to get to the mob size I have now) there almost needs to be a way to slow mob growth in order to allow at least the slightest hope for newer players and even for players who have been around for months.
A player starting up their game to see 10K, 15K and now 20K mob counts must be incredibly intimidated and even a little discouraged.
The retention of players in this game is unheard of as far as phone apps go...nobody's really quitting and it's just one big mob race spiraling up out of control.
What if there were mob decay? After a reasonable period of inactivity (without a log-in) that player is removed from everyone's mob.
-
Or another thought, what if mobs consisted of an active number and an inactive number?
If a player goes inactive for the specified period of time (90 days or something) then they are transferred to inactive status in everyone's mob...if they were to log in any time after they were inactive, then they would go back to being an active member of everyone's mob...
To me, (at least at this moment) it seems that this would really level the playing field and broaden the mob size competition.
-
All the top mobsters should still remain the same mob counts relative to each other (because everyone arguably has the same mob members as everyone else) and it would close the ridiculous gap between older and newer mobsters.
Those that punch codes regularly will rise to the top and stay there, whereas people like me who've grown lazy will move down the list a little more quickly.
-
I know what the top mobsters will say too...I worked hard, payed my dues and deserve to be 10,000 more mob than 90% of anyone playing...I deserve to kick back, never punch another code, and still be more powerful than 98% of anyone that is playing or that ever will play the game (with the exception of those few that actually do go on to play for more than a year).
(percentages are made up by the way ;)
-
Inactive players are the only way to jump the stalemate. Take them away and you end all capping.
-
Am on that thought Matt. I stayed active 6 months linger than you did. Don't I deserve a break
-
This is a common problem in mob games but the games have still survived. In Mafia wars for example a player has over a million mob. That game gas done fine with this
-
Belial wrote:
I already made this argument for you...because i knew people would say this.Am on that thought Matt. I stayed active 6 months linger than you did. Don't I deserve a break
-
~Matt~ wrote:
It's fair. The whole system is. No one mobs forever. I'm almost done now myself.Belial wrote:
I already made this argument for you...because i knew people would say this.Am on that thought Matt. I stayed active 6 months linger than you did. Don't I deserve a break
-
Iand like you said the retnetion rate here is unheard of. We have to ask if itlle stay that way when people start losing hard work
-
In most areas you only need 2-4k mob to start being competitive, if someone like Belial starts beating on a 2-4k guy, that guy has the option of forming a V to fight back, which is why Vs were created. I really don't see a problem here. The system is fine. Noobs aren't going to be top mob over night, just like it was last march when I started. I don't think things have changed much, Now Mob up or shut up. 😄
-
Belial wrote:
This is not really true. Inactive players is what gives you your 15,000 mob advantage over players that have only been playing a few months.Inactive players are the only way to jump the stalemate. Take them away and you end all capping.
All capping would NOT come to a stand still either. If you really give it some thought, everyone stays exactly where they're at relative to each other in terms of mob numbers, only we are all relatively closer in numbers to the rest of the players.
I don't know, I just don't know how to convey this concept the way I see it, especially when most everyone is always so close-minded when it comes to issues that affect entitlement.
-
When I started this game Key had 8k mob and I had 150 mob, now Key has 10k and I have 12k, it's an endurance game, you get out what you put into it
-
Belial wrote:
If it wasn't 'fair' Nick would have changed it long ago...which is why this game has had so much success because he does listen to issues and tries to make changes where necessary to keep gameplay fair.~Matt~ wrote:
It's fair. The whole system is. No one mobs forever. I'm almost done now myself.Belial wrote:
I already made this argument for you...because i knew people would say this.Am on that thought Matt. I stayed active 6 months linger than you did. Don't I deserve a break
-
David Kruegar wrote:
I helped write the damn book on mobbing up, believe me...I was number two for a brief period behind Night and held onto the 3/4 spot for quite some time before I semi-retired. I'll be back in the mix soon enough and even way past yourself because I have all the inactive players from the past year and more than 7,000 un-punched codes from the three months I was taking a break.In most areas you only need 2-4k mob to start being competitive, if someone like Belial starts beating on a 2-4k guy, that guy has the option of forming a V to fight back, which is why Vs were created. I really don't see a problem here. The system is fine. Noobs aren't going to be top mob over night, just like it was last march when I started. I don't think things have changed much, Now Mob up or shut up. 😄
-
And make no mistake, I am NOT complaining and frankly don't care as much as this thread would let on...I actually like the idea that after a few more months of mobbing up, I will remain untouchable by a vast majority of players because honestly, what percentage of players will actively mob up for more than 16 months straight?
-
None of the bigger players are going to like losing any of that hard work Matt
-
I'm fully aware of the legendary Matt and who you are sir, the mob up and shut up part was directed at the latest bunch of whiny noobs
-
I see both sides. While I don't necessarily think we should lose anything, the way Matt put it is the first time I've seen any variation of this idea come anywhere close to making any kind of logical sense.
-
David Kruegar wrote:
Sorry, was in backlash defense mode!I'm fully aware of the legendary Matt and who you are sir, the mob up and shut up part was directed at the latest bunch of whiny noobs
I'm not legendary by the way...not even close; I'm actually perfectly content with simply being "heard of before"
-
BellaItaliana wrote:
And thanks Bella, this was never meant as any kind of real 'implementable' idea...more of a thought-provoking 'what-if' scenario; I should have known better than to mess with mob numbers - that's always been a sensitive topic.I see both sides. While I don't necessarily think we should lose anything, the way Matt put it is the first time I've seen any variation of this idea come anywhere close to making any kind of logical sense.
The concept would theoretically put the top mob spots within reach to more players (with the same hard work) without having to mob up for literally a year or more AND if the top mobs ever get tired of doing it...
-
~Matt~ wrote:
Matt meet David. He's am ally of Bella.and mine. And yes you're legendary. In the right circles at least.David Kruegar wrote:
Sorry, was in backlash defense mode!I'm fully aware of the legendary Matt and who you are sir, the mob up and shut up part was directed at the latest bunch of whiny noobs
I'm not legendary by the way...not even close; I'm actually perfectly content with simply being "heard of before"
-
i understand the concept in theory but believe belial is correct about the stalemate. because soon everyone will have the same number of actives... it's an eventuality. everyone becomes number 1.
-
See, everyone argues that the inactive players are the advantage...but are you REALLY competing with new players or players that have been playing for a significantly less amount of time than yourself?? Because that's where the advantage weighs in.
Let's be honest, you are REALLY competing with players who have been playing closer to the amount of time as yourself; the real advantage against these people (who you are truly competing with) is the early contacts. I've always argued this...you get an invite accepted from someone who picks up the game for a few days, maybe accepts a couple dozen invites then quits, then you my friend have the +1 mob advantage over anyone that didn't get that invite.
And you really can't count the first 3-5 months when this game was in it's infancy...and it would literally take a week to gain 100 mob members. The whole first 6 months of the game maybe equates to 1500 inactive mob...if that.
-
I talk to Belial and Bella a lot Matt, so yeah, Ive heard many stories, so in that respect your at minimal a quasi-legend
-
⚡Deicide⚡ wrote:
This is a completely valid argument, but it assumes a perfect world where nobody misses a code, everyone gets that early invite from the player who soon quits (granted under my concept that number will disappear, but only after some amount of time)...this puts a higher value on henchmen (which is good for business), and makes the temp codes extremely important.i understand the concept in theory but believe belial is correct about the stalemate. because soon everyone will have the same number of actives... it's an eventuality. everyone becomes number 1.
-
right. and the people that are really competing are giong to be on those temp codes and trying to get the newbs. and they should have that +1 on people who don't try.
-
David Kruegar wrote:
haha! Thanks I guess, those two are my closest friends in the game...fought a lot of great battles by their sides.I talk to Belial and Bella a lot Matt, so yeah, Ive heard many stories, so in that respect your at minimal a quasi-legend
-
I look at it this way. A new player starting out may be vastly behind in mob numbers. However let's say for example a noob has 1000 mob and another player has 2000 mob. That's 100% more mob and a 0% chance of a win over the bigger guy. Now if they both mob up at a constant rate look at the fight when one has 10k mob and the other has 11k. Now they are within 10% of each other. And the smaller guy can win a fight if they need to. Chances are that a noob will not make up the gap from starting out to 20k any time soon. But the high mob numbers ensure that sooner or later everyone that works at it will catch up to those around them enough to at least win against the bigger guys.
Also factor in the Vendetta defense hit and suddenly a 20k mob is capable once you have I don't know let's say 14k as a guess. Still a large number but attainable is a relatively decent amount of time. Take away fast mobbing and it becomes harder to work the percentages.
-
i just got on board in august. and didn't really commit and learn how to play until i was almost level 50 and probably in october or november. shame on me. i'm sure i lost out on a alot of codes. but i wouldn't change it just because i'm behind. i punch codes every day knowing that i'll never catch some of these guys until they quit. but i still punch codes and see no end to that.
-
I'm ok with a slowdown in mob growth but in essence the smaller players need rapid growth to be able to narrow that gap and win against larger mobs sooner. The faster mobs grow the less the effect having a larger mob than someone else lasts. The same effect holds true for henchmen. When you have a mob of 100 buying 100 henchmen makes you 100% stronger. When you have a mob of 20k 100 hench is barely noticeable.
![[][]](https://turfwarsapp.com/img/app/ajax-forbutton.gif)
Purchase Respect Points NEW! · Support · Turf Map · Terms · Privacy
©2021 MeanFreePath LLC