| Søren (Little Upsilon) | Thursday, December 23, 2010 - 03:09 pm 
As I made my breakfast this morning, I thought a little about the current state of SC, and where the game has come from. These are my thoughts on what needs to happen as the game moves forwards.
1. First and foremost, STOP trying to balance the game. You, W3C, have opted to create a persistent game-world. This means it will always be unbalanced in favor of longer-term players. Therefore, the best you can hope for it to build a COMPETITIVE game model that allows new players to be competitive with the older ones - after a little bit of work and guidance/help.
This already exists. SC allows new players to be competitive with older ones after only about 3-6 months of gameplay. This is great considering how long the game has been running.
2. Moving directly off of point #1, for a competitive model to work, there needs to be incentive for older players to work with newer ones to give them guidance and help make them stronger. That means it should be in the benefit of older players to do this.
Right now it isn't. It is in the best interest of established players to band together with other established players in the power-cartel fashion we see on most worlds.
The incentives need to be part of the gameplay. The affiliate marketing program is great - don't change that - but it isn't enough to extend to the gameplay. Players like JohnFire (Hai Scarlet!) have websites set up out of the goodness of their own heart, but I'm sure even JF would admit his effortsm while useful, are woefully insufficient.
3. Lets talk about these incentives from point #2. In my mind, a top priority should be re-vamping the federation system. There needs to be better communication, more obvious information, and greater benefits to joining federations.
Federations NEED: Internal boards for communication with the ability to link branches OR the limit for federations should be increased or switched to PLAYERS not countries.
Federations SHOULD: have internal weapons trading markets for easy direct transfers between members, or shared weapon stocks that players can contribute to and buy from (sort of like space stations). They should also have the ability to pool other resources, levy a federation tax to build an emergency fund, etc.
I know people will say these points create potential abuse by multis, but I have a novel idea... how about W3C actually start policing multis? We all know you don't, or at least not as strictly as you should. If W3C would police multis then this shouldn't be a problem. Plus, it's really not hard for players to eventually spot multis, so all W3C would have to do is look into reports if players think someone is multi-ing.
Federations SHOULD: also have better tactical support between members. Lets introduce radar planes to some new novel functions. Put the defense and offense radar planes into their own units, and have them confer attack or defense bonuses within their radius for the whole federation. The number of planes deployed extends the effective radius. Just one idea.
This won't stop power-cartels, but it starts giving large federations bonuses for new members and whatnot. The ability to use allied air-bases already provides the groundwork for a lot of the things that could rejuvenate federations.
4. Lets do something with war levels. I like war levels. They're a great idea, but there needs to be an incentive for people to progress beyond war level three. Here's a simple idea:
We have peaceful mode and full mode. If you are playing below war level 3 (which means you CANNOT be attacked) you are, by default, in peaceful mode and cannot change this. You can level all the way up under peaceful mode if you want and there is no obligation to increase your war levels.
Once you pass war level three, you can toggle over to war mode and level up under the full-game level requirements. I think many players would opt for this.
Coinciding with this, when a full-game-mode player fights a C3, there needs to be an option for WHAT level (of the previously conquered levels) you want that C3 to be at, giving you the option to quickly capture very poor countries and not increase your own war level if you don't want to. Conversely, you can chose to fight the max level in order to hone your skills, level up, etc. (I think peaceful mode players should be able to take one slave by war and then have to pay the 100 GC for new ones - or cash market - since they face no threat of conquest if these above changes occur. This is only fair and will be another incentive to play the war game and be above war level 3).
Then we remove blackout periods. If the above is done, along with the 48-hour period before wars start, blackouts are NOT needed.
4.5 Forget the blackouts. They suck. Even Tom and Jozzi should know this. Get rid of them, especially since if the above is implemented, players at least have the ability to truly play peacefully.
5. We need to start talking about ways to improve the map and make it more interactive/have effect on gameplay. There has been talk of terrain, resources, etc. There is a lot more that can be done here that would be positive for the game. It's an obvious lacking.
I'm sure there are more things, but these were on the top of my head. They could be done without MUCH change to the game, and they should be done quickly.
If you disagree, you are wrong. There. I said it. If, on the other hand, you see a way to change an idea to make it better, feel free.
However, it's fairly indisputable that we DON'T need changes every few months intended to balance the game (that really just throw it out of wack and 'balance' it by forcing everyone to figure everything out again). We DO need better fed communication and incentive to work with new players. We DO need more effective feds. We DO need something to bring back the war game. We DO need to get rid of blackouts and provide a way for peaceful players to play the game alongside war players with both playing in a balanced way. And the map DOES suck. |
| Søren (Little Upsilon) | Thursday, December 23, 2010 - 03:16 pm
Oh, and about feds... the fact that a handful of players can wipe out a world, killing one of the largest feds in the game (WGC) doesn't mean that the war game is imbalanced or needs to be changed. It means that everyone else sucks. Hard. Anything you can do, I can also do because we're both playing the same game.
It does, however, testify to the woeful inefficiency of feds. They're clunky and hard to organize. The branch system is fundamentally flawed.
While we're creating an internal message-board for federations, lets also change the personal messaging system to a bulletin-style setup (astroempires, Ogame, tribalwars, otherrandominternetgamethathasthissoitobviouslyisnttoodifficult anybody?). |
| Søren (Little Upsilon) | Thursday, December 23, 2010 - 03:23 pm
edited: A point of clarification requested by CP -
corporatepartner: also, could you clarify this: "Once you pass war level three, you can toggle over to war mode and level up under the full-game level requirements. I think many players would opt for this. "
corporatepartner: this idea, among all is maybe the most important..
The idea for this part is pretty simple and goes like this:
Beneath War Level (WL) 3, you are considered a peaceful player, as you cannot be attacked and it is also assumed you do not have proficiency with the war engine.
Players under WL 3 play according to the peaceful-mode game requirements.
Once you reach WL 3, you are then able to toggle to the full-game mode and level according to those requirements.
Furthermore, after you reach WL3, you should get the option of which level you want to fight C3s at. You can fight them at your present level, or at any of the levels you have already defeated. Only fighting your present level will allow you to advance (I don't know if this option already exists but I think someone told me it didn't?)
For players beneath WL 3 who are still playing in peaceful mode, you should get the ability to conquer one country for "free" that does not effect your WL if you do not want it to (meaning you get the option to go up a WL with it or not). After that, you should either have to buy C2s for 100 coins or buy countries off the cash market if you do not want your WL to go up.
Players under WL 3 already have the advantage of not being able to be attacked. The one "free" country helps them meet game level requirements, but if they want to conquer more countries beyond that they will eventually have to be considered a war player.
On the whole, this appears fair and balanced to me.
EDIT: If you are worried about the vulnerability of new countries crossing over WL3 and switching from peaceful mode to full mode, consider this:
This isn't FORCING you to play the peaceful mode if you don't want to. You can build a normal empire with defenses and get to WL3 while still being at game level 1. Then, after switching to full mode, you earn your game levels.
But, both peaceful and full mode are super-easy to get to at least game level 4. So you could get peaceful game level 4 with your main in a week if you really wanted, then take those coins, conquer a slave, build a normal empire with defense, and cross over WL3 and play the full game.
It is only a problem if you make it a problem.
The game already has the two game modes, as well as war level protection now. If we do this, then viola! The game finally has what people have always complained about: a way for peaceful and war players to BOTH play without any hard limits or caps on either style.
Actually, as it stands now the peaceful game is already in place. Peaceful players can level as high as they want and build their empires without being restricted to a secure main and having to buy war protection.
The problem is that right now it doesn't make a whole lot of sense for other players to really want to go above WL3. So lets just do the logical thing and actually implement the two styles of play in an official manner.
Want to play peaceful? Great! You can stay below WL3 by doing this, and by the way, you get to conquer one country without the "penalty" of increasing your WL.
Want to play with war and defenses? Awesome, but you have to get above WL3 first, or else you will be forced to level up under the peaceful mode rules.
IMO, makes great sense. |
| CorporatePartner (Golden Rainbow) | Thursday, December 23, 2010 - 03:51 pm
could you clarify this: "Once you pass war level three, you can toggle over to war mode and level up under the full-game level requirements. I think many players would opt for this. "
[7:54:56 AM] this idea, among all is maybe the most important..
[7:55:32 AM] marizzio has become available
[7:55:40 AM] marizzio has left
[7:56:11 AM] ptbrules has left
[7:56:21 AM] maybe, something like..."country index levels" are separate from "war (ability) levels"
[7:56:44 AM] toahan has become available
[7:56:44 AM] toahan has left
[7:56:53 AM] you could earn Gold Coins for each, or just one or the other..
[7:57:37 AM] ..that would eliminate the two 'modes'
[7:59:46 AM] maybe just have country leveling based on the current "war mode" levels, since most all countries use that anyways, and eliminate the unused 'peace mode'
[8:02:49 AM] it would also match with your 'cross-over' idea..so, countries who decide to raise their war (ability) would already have at least defensive units set up...like missile batteries, bases, radar planes, and maybe some ground and air units
[8:04:28 AM] as long as leaders entering the war arena have better defenses than all countries without a President, it would guarantee that they wouldn't just be easy targets..
[8:05:29 AM] or, not "guarantee", but normally
[8:06:08 AM] giving the Gold Coin awards for increasing war levels would be the key..
[8:07:24 AM] now, the rewards are maybe hidden..as cash 'robbed' from a country without a President..and, only at very high levels
[8:08:56 AM] the top leaders are almost always good at both economics and war, so the 'incentives' really should be for both achievements
cont.
<corporatepartner> well,
[8:21:41 AM] <corporatepartner> it seems a lot clearer to just have rewards for both
[8:22:06 AM] <corporatepartner> increasing country indexes recieves awards
[8:22:24 AM] <corporatepartner> and attacking/battling successes receive awards..
[8:22:49 AM] <corporatepartner> there is no 'peace' vs. 'war'
[8:23:32 AM] <corporatepartner> there wasn't either, for a long time..
[8:23:48 AM] <corporatepartner> someone just made those recently
[8:24:39 AM] <corporatepartner> rewards are great
[8:25:16 AM] <corporatepartner> if you get war level rewards 1 and 2, you can stay 'secured', for example
[8:25:53 AM] <corporatepartner> if you risk going higher, for bigger rewards, then you become open for attacks by other leaders..
[8:26:30 AM] <corporatepartner> well,
[8:26:40 AM] <corporatepartner> the -amounts- are negotiable..
[8:27:04 AM] <corporatepartner> maybe reduce indexes some..
[8:27:34 AM] <corporatepartner> like 30 Gold Coins each for index rewards and rewards for levels 1 and 2
[8:27:49 AM] <corporatepartner> ..and war rewards..
[8:27:59 AM] <corporatepartner> so, that would be 120 total
[8:28:17 AM] <corporatepartner> if a country was at level 2-2
[8:28:43 AM] <corporatepartner> only indexes, then they would be a 2-0
[8:28:54 AM] <corporatepartner> only war, they would be 0-2
[8:29:25 AM] <corporatepartner> so, 120 for both, or 60 for just doing one way
[8:29:49 AM] <corporatepartner> then,
[8:29:57 AM] <corporatepartner> 'free' leaders.
[8:30:09 AM] <corporatepartner> they could also do 2 levels for each..
[8:30:31 AM] <corporatepartner> but they would be rewarded with SC$ cash, not Gold Coins
[8:32:02 AM] <corporatepartner> moving to level 3, you would need to be 'full' leader
[8:32:15 AM] <corporatepartner> either side..
[8:32:37 AM] <corporatepartner> then those rewards could all be Gold Coins
[8:33:03 AM] <corporatepartner> war level 3, you could battle other leaders..
[8:33:49 AM] <corporatepartner> index level 3, you could nationalize, build more corporations, do space trading, etc.
[8:34:16 AM] <corporatepartner> maybe also do IPOs
[8:35:14 AM] <corporatepartner> because some leaders just want to battle..they don't care about indexes..haha
[8:36:02 AM] <corporatepartner> and, others just want a nice peaceful country with awesome indexes, and they don't care about war..
[8:36:07 AM] <corporatepartner> then,
[8:36:21 AM] <corporatepartner> the top leaders almost always do both
[8:37:45 AM] <corporatepartner> anyways...it needs to be really clear, simple, and rewarding for new leaders...
[8:38:29 AM] <corporatepartner> if..the worlds are to have more leaders, and more 'full' leaders, and more 'top' leaders |
| Søren (Little Upsilon) | Thursday, December 23, 2010 - 04:20 pm
I actually wouldn't be opposed to adding rewards to the war levels; however, I just don't think the GMs would go for it as much. At any rate, I think there is a significant volume of material to be discussed here as it stands.
I do like the idea of an X-Y setup for game level - war level that you can view like we view people's game levels. It should be as easy as adding the row to the country pages, right? Just put it below the game level  |
| Navamin (White Giant) | Thursday, December 23, 2010 - 04:41 pm
Hmm, interesting ideas. I do hope that federations are improved. I, as a peaceful player (at least for the next few months or so, maybe forever) would like something to do. Maximizing income, spending, and corporations is fun and all...but I'd like something that is not war and is not economics. Perhaps this is the wrong game for that, but it would be fun to have more international stuff. |
| Scarlet (Little Upsilon) | Thursday, December 23, 2010 - 06:20 pm
+10 Soren
Seriously, check your LU messages.
EDIT:
I would also like to say that I think certain people should dispense with the notion that somehow PLAYING the damn game is bad for the game. |
| Josias Jorvick (Kebir Blue) | Thursday, December 23, 2010 - 08:53 pm
thank you for that soren |
| White Darkness (Kebir Blue) | Thursday, December 23, 2010 - 09:46 pm
I'd want to keep black outs, a man has to sleep sometime. |
| Serpent (Little Upsilon) | Thursday, December 23, 2010 - 10:15 pm
You can sleep when you dead! LOL |
| Søren (Little Upsilon) | Thursday, December 23, 2010 - 10:47 pm
There are way to ensure that your enemy will have a difficult-to-near impossible time winning before you go to bed so that you can grab some sleep.
If your country isn't in the state to be able to do that, then you've probably already lost or are about to lose anyways. And a blackout period shouldn't save you from that.
And a 48-hour warning means there is plenty of time to prepare your country so that it can last long enough for you to be able to get home from work/school/etc if decs go live when you can't be around. |
| White Darkness (Little Upsilon) | Thursday, December 23, 2010 - 10:52 pm
Fair enough |
| Crafty (Kebir Blue) | Friday, December 24, 2010 - 03:07 am
The way I see it is the last person remaining who hasn't got up and left the game, wins! |
| Homerdome (Golden Rainbow) | Friday, December 24, 2010 - 04:38 am
I like the Idea Soren, somthing needs to be done with the war levels. Also in the current state that its in, you can amass a huge amount of weapons and ammo at lvl 1 and decide when it's good for YOU when to lvl up and strike your target. Questions.. anyone at say lvl 7 are they helpless to defend a fed mate if there attacked by someone who are in the lower levels? Has the war game become more difficult to wage war against a live president? Theres an inactive fed member, he's at lvl 0. His countries will turn to dust and no one can take them over before that happens. I myself see flaws in this setup. there has got to be a better way. |
| SuperSoldierRCP (Little Upsilon) | Friday, December 24, 2010 - 04:41 am
i agree with homerdome plus freeplayers cant pass lvl 3 in the war game...WTF look at FB filling with new players ur telling me there dead weight? |
| Jojo T. Hun (White Giant) | Friday, December 24, 2010 - 05:51 am
Good ideas about feds. Right, there should be more explicit incentives for vet feds to invite in newer members. Better internal communication is needed. Feds of players, rather than feds of countries, works better, and the game structures should reflect that.
I think blackout hours should be posted on a country's main page. Unless something has changed recently, even the best defended country can't withstand a strong attack for more than a few hours, and blackouts are useful for the defender. |
| Psycho_Honey (Little Upsilon) | Friday, December 24, 2010 - 06:00 am
Nice Soren. Looks to be about unanimous consent on the forum as well, something not often achieved by the most influential players of the game. Not sure who you really are, but you have a lot of insight that should be taken very seriously for the 'good' of the game. |
| Psycho_Honey (Little Upsilon) | Friday, December 24, 2010 - 06:01 am
If only this was brought up before war levels were introduced :s ... |
| Psycho_Honey | Saturday, December 25, 2010 - 06:24 am
bump. |
| The Silverhilltrader (Kebir Blue) | Saturday, December 25, 2010 - 01:35 pm
"I actually wouldn't be opposed to adding rewards to the war levels."
Neither would I.
"Feds of players, rather than feds of countries, works better, and the game structures should reflect that."
Yes, I agree it would work better. |
| whiteboy (Little Upsilon) | Saturday, December 25, 2010 - 11:06 pm
Several good ideas here Soren, very well said.
It's time to release the war level restrictions, too many problems were trying to be addressed with a single solution (protecting good/war players from newer/econ players and eliminating the issue of c3 warfare in particular).
I like the level 3 cut off point, makes sense. I also like the rewards for war levels although they were already supposed to be being introduced. The original idea for the war levels was intended to serve 1 purpose, reward people for learning warfare so that the war game could come back and people wouldn't be so helpless in defending themselves. Attaching restrictions to the system completely eliminated the purpose it was supposed to serve...eliminate the restrictions as suggested and introduce high war levels with rewards and it would have the intended effect.
The war level 3 restriction will make it so that no one who is attacked will be able to say 'I'm just an econ player' or 'I had no idea' or 'I'm a nub and I'm being picked on'. Then figure out another solution for c3 warfare, many have been suggested that would work without eliminating warfare as the current system has.
Finally, as far as feds go, you're 100% correct there. It's time for feds to mean something, they need to have better structure, communication and it needs to be easier to assist others. I like the ideas given.
Happy holidays all.
WB |
| BaneslayerAngel (White Giant) | Monday, December 27, 2010 - 05:40 am
So i thing W3C in response to this forum post should follow these steps:
1. flash the war engine back to 1 year ago
2. insert these forum ideas
3. restart
4. Welcome to life on SC again
Muuuuah Soren! <3 |
