 Equal Rights For Small Hoods 

[Haystacker]

My regular "big" hood had 9 opted in last week. Seven of us did extra task and we finished 4th. The week before, we all did only 9 tasks and won by 12,000 points.

we often need to take extra task, but not always. Sometimes we see that we cannot make top 3 with extra task.

i do understand small hood frustrations. Nothing like looking at a done derby before you finish your first task.

(thanks, Jess)

The argument players in large hoods were making back then was "we don't need to do all 320 tasks and we always place top 3". Sounds pretty easy to me. I don't agree with large hoods being more deserving of extra prizes when players in small hoods put as much, if not more, effort into the derby. Sure, small and large hoods approach the derby differently but they all deserve the same.

I gave up on waiting for SC to do something about this a long time ago. I don't see it happening unless SC changes their stance.

[daz258]

Here's a question for u large hoods: when was the last time u spent diamonds on any given week to win the derby?

None in the last derby, because we were miles behind first place; so didn't even bother. Week prior that paid Diamonds just to help us finish 3rd.

It's very hard to win in a large derby, you need full participation and diamonds to pull it off. Sure you get the odd week where you get lucky with poor opposition - but same applies to smaller hoods.

I know all full well you often need Diamonds in smaller hoods too, but the risk of achieving full participation is lower; that is an undeniable fact. That is why I believe larger hoods should always be better compensated for derby success.

I do sympathize with the smaller hood players, in that the reward system seems to be engineered the wrong way around.

After thinking about it more from this topic, ideally I think it would be best if ALL hoods could active all derby thresholds; while larger hoods can potentially win more for 3rd, 2nd or 1st. Instead of the usual 4 or so expansion materials for 1st, it should be more relative to the size of the hood.

I believe there would be less dislike for the system if was adjusted in such a manner, sure some will still feel wronged; but I firmly believe the greater risk dictates better rewards for larger hoods.

[PerkyCox]

I do sympathize with the smaller hood players, in that the reward system seems to be engineered the wrong way around.

After thinking about it more from this topic, ideally I think it would be best if (1) ALL hoods could active all derby thresholds; while (2) larger hoods can potentially win more for 3rd, 2nd or 1st. Instead of the usual 4 or so expansion materials for 1st, it should be more relative to the size of the hood.

I believe there would be less dislike for the system if was adjusted in such a manner, sure some will still feel wronged; but I firmly believe the greater risk dictates better rewards for larger hoods.

(1) Agree totally

(2) Why? One player in a large hood and 1 player in a small hood is ..... ONE PLAYER. A NH of 30 with five opted in derbies against a NH of 5 with everyone opted in. Why should the 30-person NH get more?

The scenario you argue for perpetuates the inequality of derby prizes and diminished opportunity currently afflicting players in small hoods -- what this discussion is seeking to end.

[daz258]

(1) Agree totally

(2) Why? One player in a large hood and 1 player in a small hood is ..... ONE PLAYER. A NH of 30 with five opted in derbies against a NH of 5 with everyone opted in. Why should the 30-person NH get more?

The scenario you argue for perpetuates the inequality of derby prizes and diminished opportunity currently afflicting players in small hoods -- what this discussion is seeking to end.

I'm more than happy to see smaller hoods get equal opportunity at horseshoes BUT not the winning prizes as well. As with anything in life, the greater risk you take; the greater the potential reward should be.

I'm sorry but I just cannot agree to take the risk vs reward element away.

It's very easy to get 1 to 3 players to do all 9, or 10 tasks for that matter. To get 20+ players doing that is extremely difficult, the risk of losing in a larger hood is so much greater; that risk must be offset by greater rewards.

I guess we will just have to agree to disagree on this one. Ultimately it's up to SuperCell of course, I can absolutely see why they want to reward larger hoods; while they should come up with a better way than teasing lower hoods with thresholds they can simply never reach. That part I agree is very frustrating.

[FruitDaddy]

@daz, 30 hoods of 1 player, 15 hoods of 2 player... 1 hood 30 players all spend same amount on diamonds to win. One 30 hood team derby players get more horseshoes, and you still want more and better prizes?

Edited extra thought: In small hood one person misses task is a loss of a horseshoe and guaranteed loss. Percentage of points lost is greater than 1 out of 30 not doing what needed.

[daz258]

@daz, 30 hoods of 1 player, 15 hoods of 2 player... 1 hood 30 players all spend same amount on diamonds to win. One 30 hood team derby players get more horseshoes, and you still want more and better prizes?

Yes I do, because it's about more than just Diamonds spent.

As I have said previously, it's very easy to get just 1 or 2 players to complete all of their high point tasks.

It's terribly difficult for a hood of say 20+ players to do that. Several players have to be diligently trash the task board around the clock, players have to make sacrifices and complete more tasks they don't necessarily love doing, all while carrying the risk that real life will get in the way a small proportion (say 1 to 3) of the participants on that given week and really hurt their score; making it impossible to win despite the other 20 players completing all 9 tasks + a 10th paid for task.

I'm more concerned that the majority here consider that to be immaterial and unworthy of greater reward.

Edit: Sorry to spoil the party, I'm usually on the same side as most of you guys! Just not on this occasion.

[WussyPuss]

If derbies of 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30 participants can attain all horseshoes, then why exclude derbies of 1, 2, 3 and 4 participants?

[PerkyCox]

If derbies of 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30 participants can attain all horseshoes, then why exclude derbies of 1, 2, 3 and 4 participants?

That sounds like a question for round 3 of Developer's Question Time

[FruitDaddy]

Yes I do, because it's about more than just Diamonds spent.

As I have said previously, it's very easy to get just 1 or 2 players to complete all of their high point tasks.

It's terribly difficult for a hood of say 20+ players to do that. Several players have to be diligently trash the task board around the clock, players have to make sacrifices and complete more tasks they don't necessarily love doing, all while carrying the risk that real life will get in the way a small proportion (say 1 to 3) of the participants on that given week and really hurt their score; making it impossible to win despite the other 20 players completing all 9 tasks + a 10th paid for task.

I'm more concerned that the majority here consider that to be immaterial and unworthy of greater reward.

Edit: Sorry to spoil the party, I'm usually on the same side as most of you guys! Just not on this occasion.

You think easier in say 4 person hood? One person make mistake or has life emergency and 25% your participants have gone.

In <5 person hood everyone does 320 and still no way achieve all horseshoes.

I'm more concerned you feel your effort more than the effort of small hoods. They different efforts but still efforts,

And why you concerned what prizes small hoods get for prizes for winning? It change value of your prize if I win 2 planks? You already got extra horseshoes. Horseshoes you can all get without having to do 320's each.

[daz258]

That sounds like a question for round 3 of Developer's Question Time

Good question Wussy and good call Perky.

I think we can all agree the current system is poorly considered, despite having different beliefs of how it should operate.