Subject: Improvement Suggestionslast
Pages: 1

Messages / 1 to 9 of 9

I am making this post because I have been here for quite a while and have noticed several issues that have come up from map to map.  I believe if these issues were corrected/modified then Global Triumph could be fairer, better for newbies, and more user friendly.  Don't consider this a complaint, but more a suggestion.  Obviously I enjoy this game so much because I am still here and active, so I have to think it's plain awesome!  So take no offense.  :p

1) Starting position minimum limits.  There needs to be a rule that prohibits players from joining excessively close to an existing country.  There is no valid reason to join right next to an existing country.  Some reasons why one would join excessively close to an existing country: Attack that country unexpectedly and take its capital on the first day, get revenge on another player on the first day by ruing their chances to progress in that world, get revenge on a larger country that is already in a world, and help a larger country by allowing it to take your bases to sell.  There are only bad (ie. unfair, cheap, wasteful) reasons to join next to a large country.  So prohibit players from doing so.

2) No Starting position maximum limits.  This involves what I have seen occur on several worlds.  Maximum limits is where a country must start within a certain range of another county or spawn point for select-spawn worlds.  This creates a pattern where many countries are close to each other and some parts of the map are, for the most part, vacant.  The worlds that have this rule applied to them often have a snowball effect occur- where one country is on the edge of the group of countries and can expand outward from that group with little resistance, while the countries in the middle of the group (usually the first ones to join) are surrounded and cannot expand anywhere (without a fight).

3) Ability to rejoin a world before it starts (select spawn worlds only).  A rule was implemented that prevents players from REjoining a world that has not yet begun.  This rule was implemented to prevent countries from hopping over each other in order to take advangage of the maximum limit rules.  If the maximum limit rules do not exist, then this rule should not exist either.  This allows players to join a map early, knowing if someone else chooses a spot close to them, they can rejoin the map further away from that player.  It would let the creator (Johnny) see how many people are planning on playing a map long before it actually begins- and lets those who join early have an advantage in starting postion choice.

4) If 75%+ of a world is taken, no new players.  This has a double edge to it.  It is not fair to have new countries showing up when there are very large countries around.  First: The new countries are too small to survive.  They simply cannot win.  Newbies join and then get destroyed in a second.  They lose hope and are frustrated then they leave the game for good.  It is not fun getting plowed over by a giant country.  Second: It is also not fair for the giant country to have to eat through all the new country's stuff.  Players are often defeated on a map, then they show up to torment the country that defeated them.  With current rules, they can quit and rejoin every other day even though the map is 99% full.  They can use all their bonus money attacking, then quit and rejoin.  Third: The 75% rule would also prove to be consistent, instead of the random times for worlds closing (this rule could also make it possible for worlds to reopen if someone quits/vacates).

5) Sandbox- Start far away.  Help newbies learn the methods of the game by implementing game code that prevents newbies from starting close to each other in Sandbox.  Keep them far apart.

6) Giant FFA.  This one is more of a want than a need.  A giant FFA map would allow players to experiment with the game, join whenever they want, grow to a large size without much interference, and learn more about the game.  It would also keep the demand of new maps low- because players would always have an open map full of possibilities.  Of course, if one is desirous enough to put in the time necessary to control that whole world, then good for them, haha.

Well, that's it.  Thanks for tuning in.
1) Done! For worlds that allow people to start anywhere, you now cannot start within 100 pixels of an existing country.

2) I can definitely see that being an issue. I choose the spawn method with I create a world, so I'm going to stop using that method and see how things go.

3) Done! You can now resign and then rejoin a country with a select spawn. (Random placement still has the same restrictions.)

4) This is more due to me not actively monitoring, so I apologize for that. If anyone notices a country mostly full that isn't closed, please let me know and I'll close it. (I'll probably end up added code to the Daily Cycle that closes it down, once I do a few more manually and see what the percentage those worlds are.)

5) I do have bold, red text urging players to start away from others, but I don't want to force that. Some people may want to get into a fight in Sandbox immediately to see how the attack system works.

6) I added a 4096x2048 world with no alliance/treaties. Since GT doesn't have many active players, I didn't want to create a world too large. If this one goes well, I'm thinking I can add a 8192x4096 world next.

However, if people would rather I replace the existing 4096x2048 world (Hiero) with a 8192x4096 version, please reply and let me know ASAP! I can replace it soon before people start joining.

Thank you for the suggestions, Rick, and for the new maps!
Wow.  Cool, that was fast.  Thanks for taking my suggestions into consideration.
Rick, you have been around long enough that your suggestions prob get taken very seriously.
I would agree with  the above....

rules and what Raven said...
I've been thinking of ideas for the game for a while.  Although I have to say that I like it the way it is so much I wouldn't care if it changed. 

These are not so much improvement ideas as they are ideas to make the game more complex. 

1)  A land unit, (Artillery) with a ranged attack just like a Warship. 

2) Elite Infantry, that perhaps might appear with an altered infantry symbol that comes with some special abilities.  (Like perhaps a rocket attack for heavier units and maybe even a capture button that would allow the unit to capture a heavily fortified base without having to confront turrets) 

3)  (SPOILER ALERT)  If you've ever played Metal Gear Solid 2 and beat the game, you know that the real metal gear in that story was an enormous submarine with missile salvos and all kinds of other badass shit.  (Including massive servers to control the world wide web)  But wouldn't it be cool if there was a submarine like unit that had carrier capacity as well as a missile launcher?  Maybe even invisible to enemies unless picked up by radar or surfaced?  I know the carrier idea brings up a problem addressed in earlier threads about the "power curve" and how units like that could make the game too easy to win for big countries.  It doesn't bother me though, love a challenge.
Here are my two humble suggestions for the game:

1)  Veteran Units/Experience.  I wish that units gained experience after a certain number of battles.

2) Healing.  If you kept units inactive, they would heal up after a certain amount of time.
Hey, I thought of an idea at work to day. After seeing that the new evening upload works well for me, and that I feel it evens out the last to update advantage. Instead of a fog of war, could you do a push of a button to set/ready up and if you wait 24 hr since your last click it updates with out you? So as an example if we all are updating at the same time it would go sooner but if someone was gone it would eventually skip them, but you wouldn't know when that time is so you can't wait till the end of 24 hr?

By the way good to be back, and the facebook post got my attention.
R005T3R_D wrote on :
So as an example if we all are updating at the same time it would go sooner but if someone was gone it would eventually skip them
That's definitely an interesting idea, but I think it would work better in theory than in practice. I've never seen a world in GT that didn't have at least a few abandoned countries, so the cycle would hit at the same idea every day regardless. So, in the end, it may not be worth it. I'll give it some thought, though. Thanks!

And welcome back! Always nice to see old "faces"! I'm glad to hear my Facebook boosting is having some return, too. haha
Page of 1
«Previous Page|Next Page»

Message Board