S
Søren (Little Upsilon)
23 Dec 2010 15:09
Link
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.
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.
