Changes to Come -- Message Board / Global Triumph -- Too Much Stupid

1) I think players quitting and countries immediately disappearing is dramatically hurting the game. Players seem to often quit when facing a larger opponent, which leads to the larger player simply snowballing in size. It also doesn't really make sense, since a leader giving up wouldn't lead to the country simply vanishing. What would happen is another leader would step it to take its place.

So, as proposed in the past, the game will be updated to place abandoned countries in a queue where they can be claimed by new players. To eliminate the concern about existing countries in a world "trading up" (i.e. abandoning their country and claiming a larger one as soon as it becomes available), a player who abandons a country in a world will not be able to claim a different country in that world for a period of several days (most likely three). (The player can still immediately rejoin as a new country, of course.)

Not only will this keep the worlds more dynamic and fulfilling (as I never imagined anywhere near the number of people quitting as I'm seeing), but it will also provide players with the ability to play the game in a more short-term manner.

2) Countries joining after a world has started currently receive the standard starting rate ($12,000) plus $100 for every day the world has been active. That was just an arbitrary value I decided to try initially, but I never revisited it. Since every player receives upwards of $8,000 a day, that amount needs to be adjusted dramatically. Instead of $100 for each day, the value will be $1,000. This gives players joining late a wee bit more of a fighting chance while still only being no more than 12.5% of what existing players earn. (That percentage is much smaller in practice, though, since existing countries obviously earn much more than $8,000 as they expand.)

3) In order to address the issue of players logging in later having an advantage over players who log in earlier, a change will be made to the creation process. Rather than objects being created immediately, they will instead be created as "ghost" objects (i.e. appear faded on the map) and be created during the Daily Cycle instead (after attacks are processed). So, for example, if a truck that creates a base during the day still exists when the Cycle runs, then the ghost base will become real and usable the next day. If not, then it simply will never be created. If a base creates a land unit on sector 1.2, and if that base still exists and sector 1.2 is still owned by the player, then the unit will be created and available to attack the next day.

There will be two exceptions to the delayed object creation. One will be bases on a country's own capital. The other will be air units, which will be usable for attack immediately. (They operate more as a function of an air base than as actual separate objects.)

With those changes, the time a player logs in should have no bearing on the game.

4) The new forthcoming 1024x512 map is going to also have a different money model. Instead of players starting with $12,000 and earning money each day, all players will start with a certain fixed amount of cash (probably $5,000,000) and will not earn a penny more from resources as the game plays out.

If anyone has any feedback on any of the changes listed above, please feel free to share! However, please do not use this thread to propose new ideas for the game.

so in order to build units, it will take multiple days?

day 1: contruck builds land base
day 2: land base materializes, builds units
day 3: land units materialize

if this is the case, will new land bases be able to build contrucks on their first day again? contrucks still can't make a land base immediately, so i see no harm in being able to build a contruck immediately since you have to wait a full day for the base to materialize.

parandiac wrote on :

if this is the case, will new land bases be able to build contrucks on their first day again?

Yes, I agree. Really, with the new build delay, it's basically like all units would be forced to wait a day instead of just trucks.

LOVE IT!!!!!

I am curious as to how 5 million each will go....I forsee vast armies built... and then as people run out of money they will watch as their empires are run over.

Mad Max world....LOL Could be fun

Edicus_Rex wrote on :

I am curious as to how 5 million each will go....

Me, too! I have no idea if spending tons early or spending little and saving will work best in the long run. I'm really curious to see how it will play out.

Hanibel is actually the one who mentioned the idea to me earlier today. I loved it immediately. I thought a tiny map would be a perfect trial, since it would conclude much more quickly.

hmmmm, i'm guessing we'll see a bunch of big, strong units as opposed to a lot of small ones.

1. It looks good in writing, but unless you have a large enough player base where a country will be picked up by another within about 3-4 days this will make almost no impact on the game, by the time many countries would get picked up they'd already be steam-rolled. This is one issue that I don't think has a viable solution yet. I think the best way to solve it would be to somehow further streamline the order giving process. I know I would like to fight to the death, but when it still takes upwards of half an hour to set orders in a losing battle you just quit.

2. Does this apply to #1? If so, it skews the game to the point that a country in a losing battle could possibly have a huge one time boost in resources. For instance a country that got "acquired" on Bogorov right now would start out with almost $200,000 which is more than any country on the map currently makes.

3. I remember making this proposal around the middle-end of last year and it was quickly shot down by most players as something that would slow the flow of game too much.

4. I like this idea, however, by removing daily income you're removing the need to expand, I see a lot of people keeping their capitols as their only bases and almost strictly using air strikes until people start running out of money then they get steam-rolled. It removes the positioning strategy and becomes completely mathematical. Whoever understands the attack algorithm best will go far.

the biggest alliance is going to win ;-)

Yeah, and the alliance thing is way out of hand already, look at Fulgar.

Vorgse wrote on :

1. It looks good in writing, but unless you have a large enough player base where a country will be picked up by another within about 3-4 days this will make almost no impact on the game, by the time many countries would get picked up they'd already be steam-rolled. This is one issue that I don't think has a viable solution yet. I think the best way to solve it would be to somehow further streamline the order giving process. I know I would like to fight to the death, but when it still takes upwards of half an hour to set orders in a losing battle you just quit.

2. Does this apply to #1? If so, it skews the game to the point that a country in a losing battle could possibly have a huge one time boost in resources. For instance a country that got "acquired" on Bogorov right now would start out with almost $200,000 which is more than any country on the map currently makes.

3. I remember making this proposal around the middle-end of last year and it was quickly shot down by most players as something that would slow the flow of game too much.

4. I like this idea, however, by removing daily income you're removing the need to expand, I see a lot of people keeping their capitols as their only bases and almost strictly using air strikes until people start running out of money then they get steam-rolled. It removes the positioning strategy and becomes completely mathematical. Whoever understands the attack algorithm best will go far.

On top of that, with #1, I could see many instances where an enemy could take over your allies country, ally with your enemy and you would be screwed. Once again, I think this sounds good, but the more I think about it I believe it will do more harm to the game than good.

Johnny, thanks a ton for listening and trying something out to help fix the time zone disadvantage. I hope it works well for everyone.

Any idea when it will be implemented?

I would agree that it's silly to have a design that gives an advantage to players that stay up late - you'll just chase off other players. However, the mechanics worry me a bit.

a) If I pay to build a unit, but the base or construction truck building it gets destroyed such that the unit never gets built, do I get my money back?

b) Will this delay apply to new defense turrets?

---

On the topic of abandoned countries, I've clearly benefited from this on Fulgur. I think you're going to have trouble fixing it with your solution, though. I guess we'll see.

Have you considered writing a simple AI? You'd need to keep it from getting exploited, of course. I'd suggest having an abandoned country break all treaties and alliances, and cause it to just aimlessly spam out infantry, tanks, and jeeps in all directions from all bases. It wouldn't make an effective enemy, but it'd still have to be dealt with. You'd need some way to keep people from creating fake accounts to create these spam-bots near their opponents, of course - but if you find an effective way to handle abandoned countries, I'd suggest making all worlds Closed after their creation.

Vorgse wrote on :

1. It looks good in writing, but unless you have a large enough player base where a country will be picked up by another within about 3-4 days this will make almost no impact on the game, by the time many countries would get picked up they'd already be steam-rolled.

There are several accounts created every day. I'm sure some of them would prefer to take an existing country instead of building one from scratch, especially in a world that's been running for a while.

2. Does this apply to #1?

No. Claiming a country would give you the cash the country currently has, which people will see in the list of countries that can be claimed.

3. I remember making this proposal around the middle-end of last year and it was quickly shot down by most players as something that would slow the flow of game too much.

Late play can have a serious impact on the game, so I think a solution is really needed badly. I think the trade-off will be worth it.

4. I like this idea, however, by removing daily income you're removing the need to expand

That's a good point. One obvious motivation for attacking would be that you can't win unless you take out other players, but that may not be enough. Perhaps money will only be earned once a month, but at a much higher rate. So, players will want to position themselves for a big pay-day. I'll have to give this more thought.

johnnyQ wrote on :

the biggest alliance is going to win ;-)

Sorry, I forgot to include the fact that alliances and treaties will be disabled in the little map!

Vorgse wrote on :

I think this sounds good, but the more I think about it I believe it will do more harm to the game than good.

The game overall would never switch to this income model. It's really just another variation option, like selectable spawns versus random spawns.

dburden wrote on :

a) If I pay to build a unit, but the base or construction truck building it gets destroyed such that the unit never gets built, do I get my money back?

b) Will this delay apply to new defense turrets?

---

On the topic of abandoned countries, I've clearly benefited from this on Fulgur. I think you're going to have trouble fixing it with your solution, though. I guess we'll see.

Have you considered writing a simple AI? You'd need to keep it from getting exploited, of course. I'd suggest having an abandoned country break all treaties and alliances, and cause it to just aimlessly spam out infantry, tanks, and jeeps in all directions from all bases. It wouldn't make an effective enemy, but it'd still have to be dealt with. You'd need some way to keep people from creating fake accounts to create these spam-bots near their opponents, of course - but if you find an effective way to handle abandoned countries, I'd suggest making all worlds Closed after their creation.

a) If I pay to build a unit, but the base or construction truck building it gets destroyed such that the unit never gets built, do I get my money back?

You will not pay for objects that aren't built.

b) Will this delay apply to new defense turrets?

Yes, it will. Logging in later shouldn't give a player an advantage, so being able to build turrets that another player isn't aware of affects the game.

I think you're going to have trouble fixing it with your solution, though. I guess we'll see.

Perhaps, but I think it's worth trying. I don't like the way the worlds play out with the current system. I guess it will depend on whether or not the players are there.

Have you considered writing a simple AI?

I'd prefer to keep all players human, but it's something I can always keep in mind.

Johnny wrote on :

b) Will this delay apply to new defense turrets?

Yes, it will. Logging in later shouldn't give a player an advantage, so being able to build turrets that another player isn't aware of affects the game.

Have you considered writing a simple AI?

I'd prefer to keep all players human, but it's something I can always keep in mind.

re: turrets: fair enough, but if you can't build a turret the same time as moving, isn't the game going to degenerate into air attacks on undefended units? I suppose we'll see, but you might need to make jets more expensive (or less effective) to balance this.

re: AI: I think what worries me about having a new human take over an abandoned country is that the strategy other countries have had towards the abandoned country may have followed from the history & personality of the leader who's leaving. I'd hate to have a trusted ally replaced with a ne'er-do-well.

In particular, I'd hope there would be some very obvious warning that the country's leader has changed.

1) This is an interesting concept. My only real concern is some sort of a system where the rest of us are informed a country is being "replaced" by someone else. I'll need to see it in real application to give more feedback on this.

Would this be applicable only to worlds that are currently open? I would disagree with this if the world is closed.

2) I like this.

3) I don't see a problem with this one. Again, will have to see it in real application for feedback.

4) This is going to be odd. No alliances and treaties either. Always enjoy a good free-for-all brawl. Just one question. Will there be bombs? If so, will there be a limitation? Five million worth of bombs on the first day could seriously spin things out of control. And that's just one country.

Edicus_Rex wrote on :

LOVE IT!!!!!

I am curious as to how 5 million each will go....I forsee vast armies built... and then as people run out of money they will watch as their empires are run over.

Mad Max world....LOL Could be fun

I think this will lead to a stalemate, and will slow down many countries.

Later in the game, it will also give latecomers to the game some pretty unfair advantages too

I'm willing to give the abandoned countries thing a try. Although, admittedly, I'm thinking of bailing on Cerato, it's just too big.

I think the 5 million thing will be an interesting way to play. I'm looking forward to trying it.

Until we get a much larger, stable user base, I think the larger games will be just too big.

One thing about the ghost units Johnny, it will slow the game down even more. I think part of the problem is that the game is running a little too slowly.

One other suggestion I have would be to increase the movement of all units that move entirely within friendly territory. Instead of half the movement, then I would suggest double the regular attack movement. (i.e. not having to be on watch, prepared roads, whatever).

Thanks

Johnny wrote on :

The game overall would never switch to this income model. It's really just another variation option, like selectable spawns versus random spawns.

That makes more sense. Variety is the spice of life. I think variety will contribute to long term interest in the game as well. As you know I've always pushed for the creation of different maps with different parameters.

If there's a fixed amount of cash, the game should be limited to those who start, and close shortly after.

Or, there is another idea... Maybe have a score, where you get 1 point per sector per day. That might give enough incentive to expand, and not joining the game late...

tuvas wrote on :

If there's a fixed amount of cash, the game should be limited to those who start, and close shortly after.

The game will close at launch. Since it will only be 1024x512, I'm sure it will fill up very quickly.

I'll likely make it random spawn, as well, so friends can't work together as easily.

dburden wrote on :

re: turrets: fair enough, but if you can't build a turret the same time as moving, isn't the game going to degenerate into air attacks on undefended units?

it's already like that.

Manaco wrote on :

4) This is going to be odd. No alliances and treaties either. Always enjoy a good free-for-all brawl. Just one question. Will there be bombs? If so, will there be a limitation? Five million worth of bombs on the first day could seriously spin things out of control. And that's just one country.

if a nation buys five million worth of bombs on the first day, all you have to do is nuke their air base, and then those bombs are gone forever and they have no more money.

Or build on day 2...

Johnny wrote on :

1) I think players quitting and countries immediately disappearing is dramatically hurting the game. Players seem to often quit when facing a larger opponent, which leads to the larger player simply snowballing in size. It also doesn't really make sense, since a leader giving up wouldn't lead to the country simply vanishing. What would happen is another leader would step it to take its place.

So, as proposed in the past, the game will be updated to place abandoned countries in a queue where they can be claimed by new players. To eliminate the concern about existing countries in a world "trading up" (i.e. abandoning their country and claiming a larger one as soon as it becomes available), a player who abandons a country in a world will not be able to claim a different country in that world for a period of several days (most likely three). (The player can still immediately rejoin as a new country, of course.)

Not only will this keep the worlds more dynamic and fulfilling (as I never imagined anywhere near the number of people quitting as I'm seeing), but it will also provide players with the ability to play the game in a more short-term manner.

2) Countries joining after a world has started currently receive the standard starting rate ($12,000) plus $100 for every day the world has been active. That was just an arbitrary value I decided to try initially, but I never revisited it. Since every player receives upwards of $8,000 a day, that amount needs to be adjusted dramatically. Instead of $100 for each day, the value will be $1,000. This gives players joining late a wee bit more of a fighting chance while still only being no more than 12.5% of what existing players earn. (That percentage is much smaller in practice, though, since existing countries obviously earn much more than $8,000 as they expand.)

3) In order to address the issue of players logging in later having an advantage over players who log in earlier, a change will be made to the creation process. Rather than objects being created immediately, they will instead be created as "ghost" objects (i.e. appear faded on the map) and be created during the Daily Cycle instead (after attacks are processed). So, for example, if a truck that creates a base during the day still exists when the Cycle runs, then the ghost base will become real and usable the next day. If not, then it simply will never be created. If a base creates a land unit on sector 1.2, and if that base still exists and sector 1.2 is still owned by the player, then the unit will be created and available to attack the next day.

There will be two exceptions to the delayed object creation. One will be bases on a country's own capital. The other will be air units, which will be usable for attack immediately. (They operate more as a function of an air base than as actual separate objects.)

With those changes, the time a player logs in should have no bearing on the game.

4) The new forthcoming 1024x512 map is going to also have a different money model. Instead of players starting with $12,000 and earning money each day, all players will start with a certain fixed amount of cash (probably $5,000,000) and will not earn a penny more from resources as the game plays out.

If anyone has any feedback on any of the changes listed above, please feel free to share! However, please do not use this thread to propose new ideas for the game.

1) The problem (lets assume both players are reasonably competent) is that the smaller player can't defeat the larger player unless they ally with other people and thus become the larger player. Even that depends on the allies being close enough to actually help. If there is no willing ally in proximity.. it's futile to fight the larger opponent alone. I'm guessing this is why people abandon their position.

Letting people take over the abandoned county just means they are inheriting a losing position and are still going lose. It's worth trying out though. I just don't hold out too much hope that it will really change anything.

I don't know that you need to fix it. IMO it's okay to have someone win the game.

2) A good idea but it won't be enough. It would be better to close the game sooner and let them finish sooner. Starting late is problematic in 2 ways: 1) You don't get to pick the good starting spot with lots of room to expand and a relatively safe backside. 2) You will be expanded into very quickly by those who started before you and will be presented with the problem discussed in #1.

3) You are my hero!

4) That sounds like a lot of fun. I think smaller maps could play out extremely well. A faster pace and a more tactical (less economic) game sounds very appealing!

edited 1x / 1m

1) I agree that this would probably not completely solve the problem. Someone new might get lucky by inheriting a country that has a good location and a large bank account but most countries that are abandoned are probably abandoned for a reason. Having more small maps start more often would keep people interested in staying with their country for longer because a country that can pump out hundreds of planes and take out all of your expansion units when you are only a few days in can be disheartening to a new country. Those bank rolls may never be fully realized in a small map and if they were that person is likely to take over the entire map soon anyways, and a new map could take its place.

2) sounds like a positive direction.

3) this makes sense. Although it might slow things down a bit, it will put more emphasis on strategy and less on time of day. I think jets/missiles/bombs should also be delayed in creation. All of this would place an emphasis on planning ahead at least one turn.

4) interesting idea. I like the idea of adding some sort of point system to promote grabbing some land but I see it being mostly jets and bombs with land units lasting very few turns. I also forsee a LOT of radiation near capitals even though nukes would burn through your 5,000,000 very quickly. Trying it out would be the only way to really test it all so I am willing to try out a scenario like this.

I would like to suggest my cities idea for the no income game. These cities would be the only source of income (say $5000) per turn. Multi-sector cities, you must own every sector to get credit.

That'll give the no income game some reasons to do stuff besides launch missiles.

why is everyone complaining about a nation becoming so large that it can't be defeated? i thought this was the purpose of the game. if you're on the losing end, then that's life. it's fair because you were outplayed. all this whining about not being able to stop a large nation is stupid. play the game, and if you lose, then that is what happens. if you're that large nation, you wouldn't want people throwing up asinine roadblocks to your success.

parandiac wrote on :

why is everyone complaining about a nation becoming so large that it can't be defeated? i thought this was the purpose of the game. if you're on the losing end, then that's life. it's fair because you were outplayed. all this whining about not being able to stop a large nation is stupid. play the game, and if you lose, then that is what happens. if you're that large nation, you wouldn't want people throwing up asinine roadblocks to your success.

I agree with you there.

I think a solution to ending the whining is the idea I've thrown up many times. Johnny should create many small maps repeatedly. I think a lot of whining stems from the fact if you lose on a map you have to either play Cerato, (UGH!) or wait another 4 months for a new map to start.

Then again, having multiple maps available may contribute to people just leaving rather than fighting it out.

parandiac wrote on :

why is everyone complaining about a nation becoming so large that it can't be defeated? i thought this was the purpose of the game. if you're on the losing end, then that's life. it's fair because you were outplayed. all this whining about not being able to stop a large nation is stupid. play the game, and if you lose, then that is what happens. if you're that large nation, you wouldn't want people throwing up asinine roadblocks to your success.

You are correct. A nation does need to win. The only real problem I see is that in large maps if you start far enough behind there is no real catching up which is fine. The way I see more people staying interested in the game would be to have small maps that start up frequently like once a week so that if you die you can jump into a new game in a couple days where you are not starting at a dissadvantage and allow the large/small maps to come to a conclusion naturally.

parandiac wrote on :

why is everyone complaining about a nation becoming so large that it can't be defeated? i thought this was the purpose of the game. if you're on the losing end, then that's life. it's fair because you were outplayed. all this whining about not being able to stop a large nation is stupid. play the game, and if you lose, then that is what happens. if you're that large nation, you wouldn't want people throwing up asinine roadblocks to your success.

I think the problem is more that everyone quits playing once they know they have no chance of winning, even if they have not yet technically lost. If there were a larger player-base and more maps (especially regularly released maps, like every Friday a new one starts), people quitting one map would be less of an issue because they would not be quitting the whole game/website.

Also, as mentioned earlier and elsewhere, many of these people were NOT outplayed, unless starting a week or two before someone else counts as "outplaying". How well do you think you could play chess against me if I get 7-14 moves before you get any?

No one wants to play a game where they go into it knowing that they will lose. If the game is set up such that a smaller opponent has no chance of stopping a larger opponent then no one will join maps after more than a day or two.

* * * I think the really important question here is: How long should a map be open to more people and how should it balance late entrants?

Presently there is an income boost, but that will be nearly impossible to balance because it will be different depending on map size and because it will either be less than the income increase from having actually played (in which case people can only reasonably start in the first couple days due to exponential growth), or it will be equal or greater than natural income growth (in which case you are better off waiting until later to play since a smaller area is easier to defend).

The other option at present is what EBM on Fulgur chose: more populous alliances of smaller players to challenge the less-populous alliances of larger players who started earlier (no one is larger yet because of having played better, just having started earlier or been lucky in starting location choices).

I disagree... it's not necessarily because a player plays better. Starting location and how you play the first three turns pretty much determines how big (and therefore how much income) you have. In fact, I would say that it is slightly less dependent on starting location (unless you have to have a battle pretty early).

Vorgse wrote on :

I agree with you there.

I think a solution to ending the whining is the idea I've thrown up many times. Johnny should create many small maps repeatedly. I think a lot of whining stems from the fact if you lose on a map you have to either play Cerato, (UGH!) or wait another 4 months for a new map to start.

Then again, having multiple maps available may contribute to people just leaving rather than fighting it out.

as you stated, the issue with releasing a lot of maps is that if someone gets crushed on one map or is having a bad go of it, they'll just quit and move to another map. it'll domino-effect until everyone just moves around to a map they feel comfortable on and stop playing other maps. and if someone moves around until they are the dominant player on a single map, we might as well all just get our own blank maps and slowly fill them in without having to fight other people.

perhaps smaller maps are the way to go. ankylo wasn't so bad. cerato is pretty daunting. i know i have contributed to new players leaving by nuking anyone that started a nation near me. there are larger nations that i will duke it out with, but i'd rather roll the little guys before they can become a pain.

i have no issues with people taking over abandoned nations. maybe the game should be changed so that when you resign, you just lose control of that nation instead of it getting deleted. if someone wants to take up a nation that was abandoned, then i'm all for it. somebody will get some enjoyment out of playing in that position- whether it is completely on the defensive, or it's a good nation that just was "expired."

which brings up inactive nations. i think they should go into the same pool as abandoned nations. instead of getting deleted, they become available for someone else (who doesn't already have a nation on that map) to take over.

LCCX wrote on :

1. I think the problem is more that everyone quits playing once they know they have no chance of winning, even if they have not yet technically lost. If there were a larger player-base and more maps (especially regularly released maps, like every Friday a new one starts), people quitting one map would be less of an issue because they would not be quitting the whole game/website.

2. Also, as mentioned earlier and elsewhere, many of these people were NOT outplayed, unless starting a week or two before someone else counts as "outplaying". How well do you think you could play chess against me if I get 7-14 moves before you get any?

3. No one wants to play a game where they go into it knowing that they will lose. If the game is set up such that a smaller opponent has no chance of stopping a larger opponent then no one will join maps after more than a day or two.

1. if maps are released every friday, then people that had a few units destroyed and can't form an alliance due to poor playing ability, bad position, being a death magnet... will just leave and move to a different map. as vorgase and i both discussed, people will just leave if they have the option to move somewhere where they aren't getting crushed.

when MCXA was fighting Brotherhood of Nod on the Ankylo map, things were exciting. betrayals and backroom deals were happening, but it was clear that the alliance lines would be redrawn on future maps. borogov ended up being exactly that, except there were a couple other alliances in the mix that fractured the ability of one alliance to win out. from the looks of it, there are about four or five people left there, which means big players in both major alliances ended up leaving for maps that were less cluttered. which means a lot of people left before them, and made cluttered maps.

Cerato retained Nod, but MCXA was finished. even on borogov, the members of MCXA were different.

quitting a map is fine, but joining a map like Cerato at this stage, or even a month ago was a death wish, and i told people that on the forum. it's useless to join a map like that and expect anything less that getting stomped.

2. except many of them were outplayed. there were 150 or so nations on cerato at it's start. 278 have been destroyed, and 78 remain. most of those starting 150 were outplayed. people that joined weeks or months were outplayed, since they had very little chance of taking anyone else on with any reasonable success. your chess metaphor is broken. why would i even join a game like that? seems pretty dumb, right? so does joining cerato six months after it starts.

3. correct. why play a game where you know you will lose. if people believe that they have a fighting chance on cerato, then feel free to join. i don't know if you noticed that the objective of the game is in the title- big nations should't get a handicap because they are big. people should realize that starting on a map with someone that has a million sectors is downright stupid. this game isn't "welfare triumph." if you can't hack it, stay off the map. cerato is a beginning nation's nightmare, so they should probably start on a new map or play in the sandbox until they figure out what units do.

hamstringing big nations just because you aren't able to kill them in three turns is about the dumbest suggestion i have seen on these board, but i keep seeing it. little nations are not welcome on developed maps unless they are willing to get rolled.

OgreMkV wrote on :

I disagree... it's not necessarily because a player plays better. Starting location and how you play the first three turns pretty much determines how big (and therefore how much income) you have. In fact, I would say that it is slightly less dependent on starting location (unless you have to have a battle pretty early).

starting location is a huge factor. i started on an island on ankylo and it screwed up my growth in a big way. i was new and didn't realize that sea travel would take a bit. the first few turns are important, but not if you are in close proximity to several other people and it becomes a free-for-all... or if you start on a small island.

on cerato, i started in the lead, but after a few days, i fell back to second. i fell to third when i got into a war with several of my immediate neighbours. after i outplayed them, i got back on top of growing my nation and then boomed up to first place, and expanded faster and farther than anyone else. a lot of that had to do with Nod all dropping their nations right next to each other. sure, they could help each other in a fight, but they screwed themselves as far as growth went.

the fact still remains: people will get outplayed and will lose. if you choose to join a map like cerato six months after it starts, then good luck. pretty much all the maps are hostile to new players right now. if three new maps were released every month, and players were reduced to only having three nations across all the maps, i think that would be a better fix than crying about the little guy not getting a chance against a goliath nation.

parandiac wrote on :

which brings up inactive nations. i think they should go into the same pool as abandoned nations. instead of getting deleted, they become available for someone else (who doesn't already have a nation on that map) to take over.

I agree there, but I think if that's the case Johnny should look at shortening the amount of time before an inactive country gets bumped. On some of these smaller maps if you're gone for a week or two it might as well be a lifetime. I think after 2-3 weeks of inactivity you should get bumped. Maybe even 10 days.

Is it really so bad of a thing for players to choose a map they feel comfortable in? If there were 10 tiny worlds, just big enough for 10 players. that's 100 different players, if everyone chooses to be exclusively on one world. Obviously that won't be the case, so I'll boil it down to 50 players, with each player using two worlds. (I play on 2 atm)

Imagine if the first tiny world came out and the 100 players just jumped in. What the heck do you think would happen? People are going to die left and right. Just look at Fulgur. All the dead players can just wait 1-2 weeks for next world, jump in, and hope they survive this time. If not, third world in another 1-2 weeks. The cycle repeats. It's even possible that the first world (if tiny) would be finished long before there would be enough worlds for 10 or less players.

edited 1x / 1m

Manaco wrote on :

Is it really so bad of a thing for players to choose a map they feel comfortable in? If there were 10 tiny worlds, just big enough for 10 players. that's 100 different players, if everyone chooses to be exclusively on one world. Obviously that won't be the case, so I'll boil it down to 50 players, with each player using two worlds. (I play on 2 atm)

Imagine if the first tiny world came out and the 100 players just jumped in. What the heck do you think would happen? People are going to die left and right. Just look at Fulgur. All the dead players can just wait 1-2 weeks for next world, jump in, and hope they survive this time. If not, third world in another 1-2 weeks. The cycle repeats. It's even possible that the first world (if tiny) would be finished long before there would be enough worlds for 10 or less players.

i don't think that anyone is arguing against this idea, manaco. the issue is people complaining because the big nations/alliances on these worlds are crushing their opponents/enemies.

and then the people losing are crying.

i have no issues with there being more maps. i have several issues with pandering to the complainers.

There can only be one victor, whether it's a solo country or an alliance. It's that simple.

parandiac wrote on :

the fact still remains: people will get outplayed and will lose. if you choose to join a map like cerato six months after it starts, then good luck. pretty much all the maps are hostile to new players right now. if three new maps were released every month, and players were reduced to only having three nations across all the maps, i think that would be a better fix than crying about the little guy not getting a chance against a goliath nation.

Being new to the game this is exactly the type of ideas that would keep me around. I am currently playing in the Sandbox and attempted Cerato just to test out a different form of expansion. I knew I was not going to win to begin with because of the giants. I got almost everything I wanted out of that test except my early war, which was quelched just a turn after the first blows were dealt. I actually expected to be wiped earlier so thank you to the large nations that let me survive for a few days for practice.

Johnny, doesn't the suggestion of Ghost Units make invading another country by sea incredibly hard and costly? They'll have an entire turn to notice the truck that landed, which won't be able to build a base or defense on time. My suggestion to avoid this is that when you build something with a truck, even if the truck is destroyed, it will be built the next day.

Johnny wrote on :

3) In order to address the issue of players logging in later having an advantage over players who log in earlier, a change will be made to the creation process. Rather than objects being created immediately, they will instead be created as "ghost" objects (i.e. appear faded on the map) and be created during the Daily Cycle instead (after attacks are processed). So, for example, if a truck that creates a base during the day still exists when the Cycle runs, then the ghost base will become real and usable the next day. If not, then it simply will never be created. If a base creates a land unit on sector 1.2, and if that base still exists and sector 1.2 is still owned by the player, then the unit will be created and available to attack the next day.

I have a few questions about this.

1) do our enemies see our "ghost" units? If not your back to invisible units with a slight delay (which may work out idk). If they can see ghost units i see a lot of target of new land bases 6 missiles guarantees now new land units tomorrow.

2) if you build a ghost unit when do your funds get used. assuming immediately do you get them back if any of your conditions prevent it from being built?

3) (more of a comment then a question) If you going for simplicity of play this pretty much destroys that. If this is how the unit create works you have just made what should be the simplest part of the game and added 2-3 days and 2-3 layers of uncertainty about whether or not you infantry well ever even get to exist much less figuring out what to do with them.

Just to point out that i keep saying that time issue isn't a big deal you guys might assume i set my attacks at the crack of night I actually have everything set most days by Noon. Minus bored tinkering at work.

Also Johnny All the other things mentioned EPIC! I would love to see somebody pick up a dead country and run with it. (3 days on some maps may still be to short but I like the idea).

Dman

BlakeDS wrote on :

Johnny, doesn't the suggestion of Ghost Units make invading another country by sea incredibly hard and costly? They'll have an entire turn to notice the truck that landed, which won't be able to build a base or defense on time. My suggestion to avoid this is that when you build something with a truck, even if the truck is destroyed, it will be built the next day.

That's not a bad compromise actually. I am strongly in favor of making build actions part of the update, but the concern that it makes it "too easy to kill trucks with air power before they can actually do anything" is a valid concern.

So, based on your suggestion it might work as follows:
- You need the truck or base to issue the build order. The unit is "ghosted" until the update.
- When the update processes the builds it checks to see if you still own the square (and is empty of friendly units). If so, the build goes through even if the original truck or base is destroyed.

I included base-built units in my example without your consent. :) Let me know if you think that makes sense or not.

Overall I like it. It prevents the "3:50 am hero" problem without making it too easy (or at least easier than it is now) to stagnate the game with air power.

edited 2x / 4m

Love the ability to pick up dead countries after a delay. I am about to get my ass kicked on Cerato. Which I am ok with since I joined it rather than sandbox to learn how to play.

I am not sure I like giving newly formed countries monetary help on creation. You are small and started in 1812. You better hope your Switzerland in Europe otherwise you are going to get swallowed.

I dislike the ghost unit idea in any form but I don't have a better solution to suggest to prevent the 3AM-3:50 sniper since a 3:50 sniper won't finish their turn. In general setting my troops early in the day has no bearing on my overall advancement on a map, just localized action. That may change in the next fight.

I love the city idea.

The $5,000,000 starting cash will be an interesting variant.

After playing on several maps, I like the smaller maps much better than one that will take a year to complete. Fast and furious action.

Also note: An alliance of many states has an advantage over a larger state of equal size because of the starting boost of cash. Imagine that coupled with the $5,000,000 starting cash. sounds like fun.

-IC

Barnacleez wrote on :

If there is no willing ally in proximity.. it's futile to fight the larger opponent alone. I'm guessing this is why people abandon their position.

Not necessarily. I think a good strategy is more effective than many people realize. Having said that, I agree that's mostly true. If it were me, though, I'd want to hang on and do as much damage to the guy destroying me as I can so the next guy has a better chance of defeating him.

I don't know that you need to fix it. IMO it's okay to have someone win the game.

Absolutely! I don't want people to get the impression that someone winning is bad. I just want that victory to be earned, as opposed to just eating up sectors because the entire map is vacated before him.

2) A good idea but it won't be enough.

That's probably true, but it's more about giving latecomers a chance to play the game for a bit, even if it's just to play around or have an impact.

wacaggie wrote on :

Having more small maps start more often would keep people interested in staying with their country for longer because...

I worry about having too many worlds. I think one reason people are so quick to abandon a country is because they have another country in a different world.

Trying it out would be the only way to really test it all so I am willing to try out a scenario like this.

Agreed. I think it'll be very interesting to see how people play a world like that!

Vorgse wrote on :

Johnny should create many small maps repeatedly.

If the minimap (1024x512) works well, I could see doing one of those weekly. They'll fill up and end more quickly.

parandiac wrote on :

which brings up inactive nations. i think they should go into the same pool as abandoned nations. instead of getting deleted, they become available for someone else (who doesn't already have a nation on that map) to take over.

Definitely. I believe that's how I explained it in the abandoned countries thread, but perhaps I never clarified.

Global Triumph

Thread

Messages / 1 to 50 of 65

Message Board

Categories

Search