A question of direction addressed to Martin.

Page 1 of 2 1, 2  Next

View previous topic View next topic Go down

A question of direction addressed to Martin.

Post by Special Agent 47 on Sat Nov 06, 2010 3:49 pm

Martin, I would like to ask you something, and I hope you answer it to the best of your ability. I do not intend, nor will I ever try to hold you to your answer as an unchangeable fact, but I as a player am getting lost as to the direction and future of this game and this franchise.

I know my opinion does not matter, neither does my thought process nor reasons for believing certain things, but none the less to clear my and possibly others common misconceptions would you try to explain some things?


1. What is the overall direction and differences in the 3 existing franchises in the AW series?

I have had the impression that reset would be a fast paced game that pretty much demanded a large time commitment, but no long term damage could be done by low activity as the game resets.
The Phoenix syndrome, going down in a blaze of glory to rise again

I have always had the impression Main was the mid paced game, one that allowed benefit from more screen time but did not allow gaps that are not able to be overcome. Things such as AE, and massive armies taking heavy losses verses smaller armies when attacking them. Yet still allowing someone who has worked hard and long to simply outclass someone who is brand new or a simple pest.

I got the impression AW2 or Red Apocalypse would be based more where screen time meant less, and all players regardless of time played or daily time commitment were on a much more equal battlefield.

Are these accurate? or do you have different feelings?

2. What is "in your minds eye" the average time commitment needed to be effective on each of these games?

I played Reset when it was running and personally feel multiple log in per day were required and several hours of ingame actions throughout the day were needed to really compete.

In main it seemed when you were new you really had to be active and bank alot, and that the more time you committed the more reward you got from raiding and farming, but ultimately you could still compete with few log ins daily and limited actions(limited daily or even limited to all actions 1 time a week AKA a weekend player)

I am still not complete sure about AW but it seems one can actually log in 1 time a day for 5 or 10 minutes and remain as competitive as anyone else. Alot of screen time will give you advantages still but those with far less time commitment will still be competitive.

Are these accurate? or do you have different feelings?


With the above questions answered, if a player came to you, and stated what time commitment he could make to a game, what game would you direct him to if hes said could could commit the following amount of time to?

1. one turn a day (basicly 1 log in)

2. 1 hour a day "multiple log ins, or 1 log in with actions)

3. multiple hrs per day (multiple log ins, actions on more then 1 log in*like a school kid or working person*)

4. internet access (A person who can log in hourly, or even commit to actions hourly)

5. Insomniac with satellite linked internet (ingame 20 hrs a day)

These are just a few basic examples, and you could put more then 1 game per example.


TY for your time, if you have time to respond. If you do not that is fine as well as I really would prefer you work on the games as much as possible.
avatar
Special Agent 47
Aderan Assassin
Aderan Assassin

ID : http://www.aderanwars.com/stats.php?id=427
Alliance : [ The_Marauders ]
Number of posts : 556
Location : Preparing for my next mission.
Registration date : 2009-08-22

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: A question of direction addressed to Martin.

Post by Admin on Sat Nov 06, 2010 6:56 pm

will write up an answer shortly. coding takes hours, days, weeks. replying to a post minutes

_________________
Disclaimer:
1) You are always welcome to correct my assumptions and understanding of a situation but please do so in a logical and sound manner.
2) If I ask stupid questions it's only because sometimes people aren't smart enough to ask these themselves.
3) Being condescending to some people helps me keep my sanity when I am forced to interact with them.

I hate PR, will never engage in it and will rain destruction on all who refuse to use their brains to think before they speak.
avatar
Admin
Admin

Number of posts : 4363
Registration date : 2008-08-18

View user profile http://www.aderanwars.com

Back to top Go down

Re: A question of direction addressed to Martin.

Post by Special Agent 47 on Sat Nov 06, 2010 7:18 pm

Thank You Martin.
avatar
Special Agent 47
Aderan Assassin
Aderan Assassin

ID : http://www.aderanwars.com/stats.php?id=427
Alliance : [ The_Marauders ]
Number of posts : 556
Location : Preparing for my next mission.
Registration date : 2009-08-22

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: A question of direction addressed to Martin.

Post by Admin on Sat Nov 06, 2010 7:31 pm

ok, now as to what RA's time requirement should be, kenzu has to answer that, he's the one responsible for it.

Main my expectation would be 15-40 minutes per day, (or 5-15 mins per day and 2-3 hours each weekend)
In both cases at least 2-3 logins per day will be the aim

Reset will be the hard part, sure you'll need to be more active there, but I will try to still make it somehow that even if you cannot spend time during the week, that 2-4 logins per day will be enough to hold onto a big chunk of your income while being able to "catch up" over the weekend
~30-60 mins maybe per day tops

_________________
Disclaimer:
1) You are always welcome to correct my assumptions and understanding of a situation but please do so in a logical and sound manner.
2) If I ask stupid questions it's only because sometimes people aren't smart enough to ask these themselves.
3) Being condescending to some people helps me keep my sanity when I am forced to interact with them.

I hate PR, will never engage in it and will rain destruction on all who refuse to use their brains to think before they speak.
avatar
Admin
Admin

Number of posts : 4363
Registration date : 2008-08-18

View user profile http://www.aderanwars.com

Back to top Go down

Re: A question of direction addressed to Martin.

Post by Kenzu on Sat Nov 06, 2010 7:50 pm

Even though this isn't directed at me, I would like to answer your questions too.

Evolutions (1st round of first reset server)
6-10 log ins per day
30-120 minutes per day

Main server
2-4 log ins per day, depending on your defense level
15-30 minutes per day
(much more time for leaders people working in an alliance and people who like to trade a lot or farm actives).

Of course for you the impression might be different. You have the biggest account and thus it is no problem for you to have enough spies or enough defense to be untouchable even if you log in once a day. I am sure you experience AW completely differently than someone with average armysize.

Red Apocalypse
1-2 log ins per day (1 log in is enough, but more log ins lead to higher kuwal efficiency)
5-15 minutes should be enough for everyone, but since there are more things to do, one could spend much more time on it to work out better strategies and so on.
5 mins per day is also possible, even though it isn't as efficient.
avatar
Kenzu
Alliance Leader
Alliance Leader

Age : 29
Number of posts : 3034
Registration date : 2008-12-03

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: A question of direction addressed to Martin.

Post by Special Agent 47 on Sat Nov 06, 2010 8:05 pm

Kenzu wrote:Even though this isn't directed at me, I would like to answer your questions too.

Evolutions (1st round of first reset server)
6-10 log ins per day
30-120 minutes per day

Main server
2-4 log ins per day, depending on your defense level
15-30 minutes per day
(much more time for leaders people working in an alliance and people who like to trade a lot or farm actives).

Of course for you the impression might be different. You have the biggest account and thus it is no problem for you to have enough spies or enough defense to be untouchable even if you log in once a day. I am sure you experience AW completely differently than someone with average armysize.

Red Apocalypse
1-2 log ins per day (1 log in is enough, but more log ins lead to higher kuwal efficiency)
5-15 minutes should be enough for everyone, but since there are more things to do, one could spend much more time on it to work out better strategies and so on.
5 mins per day is also possible, even though it isn't as efficient.

I do not mind you answering, and I agree I experience AW much differently then the average player.

While I did not get the response I hoped for from either of you, and admins response was hard to counter, Kenzu has expressed the situation I feel is My personal problem. Main requires to little a time commitment and reset requires to much. Not to mention Reset does just that, it resets.

As mentioned above by kenzu, the average player is possibly and approximately committed to these times per game

1. reset = 120 min or 2 hrs daily
2. main = 30 min or 1/2 hr daily
3 AW2 = 15 min or 1/4 hr daily


I hope that in the future a game can be directed more in the field of 1 to 2 hr daily commitment. As it stands a 30 minutes per day commitment is not enough to keep the interest, spark, or thrill of the game alive long term. Where main fails reset does well but again not everyone wants to lose everything they have worked for every 3 months.

I have come to realize a good portion of my problems with this franchise is just that, MY problem. I need a game that can entertain me for more then 30 minutes a day, and is not a reset game. That is why main is becoming boring, and AW2 has been boring from the start to me.

Guess maybe its time for myself and others who feel as I do to find a new franchise to commit my time, effort, and money to. IDK.
avatar
Special Agent 47
Aderan Assassin
Aderan Assassin

ID : http://www.aderanwars.com/stats.php?id=427
Alliance : [ The_Marauders ]
Number of posts : 556
Location : Preparing for my next mission.
Registration date : 2009-08-22

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: A question of direction addressed to Martin.

Post by Kenzu on Sat Nov 06, 2010 9:05 pm

I'm not done answering all of your posts. I usually do it in more steps.

I think that since Evolutions started as a more time intensive game, it should remain time intensive and satisfy the needs of people who like to spend more time on a game, like you say 1-2 hours each day. I have nothing against it.

SA47, what do you personally think about a game that resets once per year?

Or what about not a complete reset, but for example when reset should come, instead of reseting everything, the population and UP will be halved, or decreased to 10%, and only accounts that would fall below reset values would be reset. This means that you working hard in one round would give you a benefit in the next round.

And one more question.
If a game that would satisfy your needs would be released. Say you can spend 1-3 hours on it each day, probably AT production could be not 50 or 100 per day, but 300 or 500. I believe simply curbing AT production and maybe income production alone would not be enough. What other updates would you wish for such game?
avatar
Kenzu
Alliance Leader
Alliance Leader

Age : 29
Number of posts : 3034
Registration date : 2008-12-03

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: A question of direction addressed to Martin.

Post by Special Agent 47 on Sat Nov 06, 2010 9:49 pm

Kenzu wrote:I'm not done answering all of your posts. I usually do it in more steps.

I think that since Evolutions started as a more time intensive game, it should remain time intensive and satisfy the needs of people who like to spend more time on a game, like you say 1-2 hours each day. I have nothing against it.

SA47, what do you personally think about a game that resets once per year?
Chaos did just that, and like Q I did not play it very much. I have no stomach for resets of any kind. When a game ends I move on and that's just how I feel as a player. I do not think that any MMORPG could ever hold my attention for multiple rounds.

Or what about not a complete reset, but for example when reset should come, instead of reseting everything, the population and UP will be halved, or decreased to 10%, and only accounts that would fall below reset values would be reset. This means that you working hard in one round would give you a benefit in the next round.
I have often said this very thing for games grown to massive such as SGW, but there is no silver bullet. The problem comes in when someone sells 50% of their size before reset. I think this is a possible and viable idea, but its mainly based in the playerbase and if they will accept it. I personally would play this type of game if the rewards were carried from round to round. My advantage for long term play may be cut, but its cut the same as everyone else, and it is still a significant advantage for the next round. Another main problem you will find is those who bought resources with $$. Few will buy resources that will be taken back, so that's an issue that would have to be dealt with.


And one more question.
If a game that would satisfy your needs would be released. Say you can spend 1-3 hours on it each day, probably AT production could be not 50 or 100 per day, but 300 or 500. I believe simply curbing AT production and maybe income production alone would not be enough. What other updates would you wish for such game?
I honestly do not understand what your getting at? I don't understand the question. I see no need for a game that can hold my attention for 2 maybe 3 hrs a day to have to produce 300 to 500 AT per day? Why can't you just make farming 1 AT and no ST cost? limit it in another fashion. To farm you can hit only 1 time, but to raid you can put 20 AT in and it equals 20 hits or something similar? If your going to produce 300 to 500 AT per day then it will need to cost 50 to 100 AT to do a war time action? We are still seeing this issue from 2 totally different view points, and we can not seems to see what the other is saying.

As for my idea of a game, well Martin has it, but I'll try to type up a good desription to send to you, it will take a few days to find it all on SGW forums.

avatar
Special Agent 47
Aderan Assassin
Aderan Assassin

ID : http://www.aderanwars.com/stats.php?id=427
Alliance : [ The_Marauders ]
Number of posts : 556
Location : Preparing for my next mission.
Registration date : 2009-08-22

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: A question of direction addressed to Martin.

Post by Kenzu on Sun Nov 07, 2010 10:51 am

Special Agent 47 wrote:
Kenzu wrote:I'm not done answering all of your posts. I usually do it in more steps.

I think that since Evolutions started as a more time intensive game, it should remain time intensive and satisfy the needs of people who like to spend more time on a game, like you say 1-2 hours each day. I have nothing against it.

SA47, what do you personally think about a game that resets once per year?
Chaos did just that, and like Q I did not play it very much. I have no stomach for resets of any kind. When a game ends I move on and that's just how I feel as a player. I do not think that any MMORPG could ever hold my attention for multiple rounds.

Or what about not a complete reset, but for example when reset should come, instead of reseting everything, the population and UP will be halved, or decreased to 10%, and only accounts that would fall below reset values would be reset. This means that you working hard in one round would give you a benefit in the next round.
I have often said this very thing for games grown to massive such as SGW, but there is no silver bullet. The problem comes in when someone sells 50% of their size before reset. I think this is a possible and viable idea, but its mainly based in the playerbase and if they will accept it. I personally would play this type of game if the rewards were carried from round to round. My advantage for long term play may be cut, but its cut the same as everyone else, and it is still a significant advantage for the next round. Another main problem you will find is those who bought resources with $$. Few will buy resources that will be taken back, so that's an issue that would have to be dealt with.

What is the problem if someone sell 50% of their size before reset? Whatever he sold, each 2 units will become 1, so the person getting it will be getting an advantage, so if a person sold it for cash, then the price he sold it to would have to be adjusted to find a seller. (This is a player to player issue)
Now to the game related issue.
Obviously there would be 2 choices, either it's forbidden to transfer resources between each other, OR there would be a limit how much can be transfered (absolute limit, or a smart transfer ratio). This would prevent unfair advantages.

I don't see a problem with buying resources for cash.
Obviously 1 AT in a non reseting game is more worth than in a reseting game. There are a couple possibilities how this problem can be solved:
1) Increase the number of AT per 1$ donated (obviously this will lead to less revenue, because allowing people to donate as much as in main would harm the game if much more AT is donated per $)
2) Accept lower revenue and be happy about it.



And one more question.
If a game that would satisfy your needs would be released. Say you can spend 1-3 hours on it each day, probably AT production could be not 50 or 100 per day, but 300 or 500. I believe simply curbing AT production and maybe income production alone would not be enough. What other updates would you wish for such game?
I honestly do not understand what your getting at? I don't understand the question. I see no need for a game that can hold my attention for 2 maybe 3 hrs a day to have to produce 300 to 500 AT per day? Why can't you just make farming 1 AT and no ST cost? limit it in another fashion. To farm you can hit only 1 time, but to raid you can put 20 AT in and it equals 20 hits or something similar? If your going to produce 300 to 500 AT per day then it will need to cost 50 to 100 AT to do a war time action? We are still seeing this issue from 2 totally different view points, and we can not seems to see what the other is saying.

As for my idea of a game, well Martin has it, but I'll try to type up a good desription to send to you, it will take a few days to find it all on SGW forums.


Do you mean that you don't want wars to cost too much in terms of AT?
As you might know I am hoping to have war related missions cost only 1 AT per mission. I believe Wars should be restricted by ST and your military forces, not by costs related to AT.

How about each massing mission costs 0 AT and 5 ST
and each farming/raiding mission costs 1 AT and 0 ST

Would that solve the problem?

People can be very active this way and farm to their hearts content
avatar
Kenzu
Alliance Leader
Alliance Leader

Age : 29
Number of posts : 3034
Registration date : 2008-12-03

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: A question of direction addressed to Martin.

Post by Special Agent 47 on Sun Nov 07, 2010 1:01 pm

Special Agent 47 wrote:
Kenzu wrote:

What is the problem if someone sell 50% of their size before reset? Whatever he sold, each 2 units will become 1, so the person getting it will be getting an advantage, so if a person sold it for cash, then the price he sold it to would have to be adjusted to find a seller. (This is a player to player issue)
I made that statement due to a past experience so let me explain. I was once in a Star Trek based MMORPG and myself and another gentleman got into a very nasty and heated conflict. I had him in almost every respect account structure wise and he knew it. His last attempt to topple me was that he sold 3/4 of his army size which was the second largest in the game. He used the funds to win multiple military conflicts against me but ultimately failed the war due to not having an economy to sustain long term conflict. Then the Admin did a "soft reset" where everyone was cut to just 10% of their current size. The real problem was the piss poor administration who did such things without prior notice.

I am sure here everything would be well documented as to when a reset or rollback was coming therefore that particular issue would be already be resolved.

The other problem would be taken care of if a system such as PTR was in place. In the above mentioned game some knew what was about to happen. There were about 10 to 15 player who dumped all their UU onto 1 account and after the soft reset the account was even larger then the pre reset largest account. The plan was perfectly executed other than the fact that they had created an account with size rivaling mine, but the account set up was so weak the account never was able to effectively challenge anyone. So a PTR system could stop things like this from happening, where multiple account all funnel resource to 1 account just before reset.



Now to the game related issue.
Obviously there would be 2 choices, either it's forbidden to transfer resources between each other, OR there would be a limit how much can be transfered (absolute limit, or a smart transfer ratio). This would prevent unfair advantages.

I have often felt no P2P transfers is a viable option, and with the anonymity of GM as it is it makes it something very easy to do, but there is an underlying problem with that as well. Think about this, lets say an alliance of 25 members waits until 2 days before reset and then 20 of them dump their entire account population into GM, with their 5 largest account primed with massive amount of Kewal to buy all the UU on market. This bypasses the PTR system and can allow for accounts to double or triple in size and that to is an issue that would have to be resolved in some way.




I don't see a problem with buying resources for cash.
Obviously 1 AT in a non reseting game is more worth than in a reseting game. There are a couple possibilities how this problem can be solved:
1) Increase the number of AT per 1$ donated (obviously this will lead to less revenue, because allowing people to donate as much as in main would harm the game if much more AT is donated per $)
2) Accept lower revenue and be happy about it.

I personally think 1 AT in a nonreset is worth More then 1 AT in a reset game. What I earn with that 1AT in main will be with me from now on and will keep yielding me profit from that point on, where as a reset game yields me profit for the 3, 6, or 12 months or until it is removed

As for 1 and 2, I don't understand the reasoning for 1, so I can not comment, but 2 I agree. This may sound harsh and like a stabb at Admin but it is not, Its just a common misconception I have and have not been able to shake. Most franchises with multiple games always tend to have their "bread and butter" game. The one game that attracts the largest % of players. Its the 1 game that gets the most of the Admins time. It is also the $$ work horse for the entire franchise creating the most revenue. So for me it would be natural to have 1 or more other games in a franchise that can not even make the franchise any money at all. Look at ascended in SGW. Yes its basically a dead game but it has its diehard fans who still play it even tho it has been 4 yrs with only 2 update that an only be classed as catastrophically bad. I hate to keep referencing SGW but its to good an example so I will. You have main which is the workhorse of the franchise. It creates the most interest, it creates the most revenue, and it gets the most attention from admin in the form of updates. Then there is Quantum. It is a sound game with a die hard following. It is also designed in a wat that main player who have more time then main allows can play it as a secondary game, or even Q players play main as a secondary game. Q generates its own revenue not tied to main, but it is much smaller. Every three months a new wave begins building off the basis of the last game. Elements get added, removed, reused, or adjusted as needed. There is also Chaos, which resets yearly. It creates its own revenue separate from main. I think it creates the least because it is designed so that multiple SS packs do not really give an advantage, where in Q buying multiple packs per round does. Since Chaos is 1 yr long and multiple packs are useless the revenue is less. The game still boasts a playerbase of diehards as well. In AW you buy SS and its for all games, and you are forced into existence in all games. If you have no desire to play main you still have to create an account and log in just to get SS in other games. This is something I hope is corrected in the near future.

Anyway, I have gotten off track a bit, as for #2 that should not be an issue to lose possibly revenue in 1 game if it creates a niche for player who want less emphasis on real currency effecting accounts.




Do you mean that you don't want wars to cost too much in terms of AT?
As you might know I am hoping to have war related missions cost only 1 AT per mission. I believe Wars should be restricted by ST and your military forces, not by costs related to AT.

How about each massing mission costs 0 AT and 5 ST
and each farming/raiding mission costs 1 AT and 0 ST

Would that solve the problem?

People can be very active this way and farm to their hearts content

I just can not seem to get you to understand what I am saying. I want wars to have meaning. I want wars to have cost. I want wars to be done in a way so they can actually be won. So basically what you keep pitching to me, as above, is the complete and total opposite of what I want. I do not want to see server wars that last 2 or 3 yrs. I do not want to see 1 account being able to harass or even hold hostage entire alliances because its impossible to win a war. So no, all your ideas of cheapening wars to the point they are utterly meaningless because you can carry on multiple wars for extended periods of time with no long term negative effect will NOT solve the problem.

When you can separate apples from oranges, and therefore can look at two completely different actions that produce completely different results then come back and maybe we can continue this conversation. As it stands now you can not see what I am saying nor what I and asking for, and I do not understand your reasoning for wanting to cheapen wars to meaningless status. Its not going to breed activity like you want. If you can't win a war then its SGW all over again. If you want blind manic button pushing with no long term effect for half cocked impulse decisions then go play reset. Leave some strategy for atleast 1 game in the franchise.


Why does asking for more time consuming mundane account building actions mean cheap and meaningless war to you? War is the opposite of account building in ever form and fashion.

avatar
Special Agent 47
Aderan Assassin
Aderan Assassin

ID : http://www.aderanwars.com/stats.php?id=427
Alliance : [ The_Marauders ]
Number of posts : 556
Location : Preparing for my next mission.
Registration date : 2009-08-22

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: A question of direction addressed to Martin.

Post by kingkongfan1 on Sun Nov 07, 2010 1:25 pm

Spoiler:
Special Agent 47 wrote:
Special Agent 47 wrote:
Kenzu wrote:

What is the problem if someone sell 50% of their size before reset? Whatever he sold, each 2 units will become 1, so the person getting it will be getting an advantage, so if a person sold it for cash, then the price he sold it to would have to be adjusted to find a seller. (This is a player to player issue)
I made that statement due to a past experience so let me explain. I was once in a Star Trek based MMORPG and myself and another gentleman got into a very nasty and heated conflict. I had him in almost every respect account structure wise and he knew it. His last attempt to topple me was that he sold 3/4 of his army size which was the second largest in the game. He used the funds to win multiple military conflicts against me but ultimately failed the war due to not having an economy to sustain long term conflict. Then the Admin did a "soft reset" where everyone was cut to just 10% of their current size. The real problem was the piss poor administration who did such things without prior notice.

I am sure here everything would be well documented as to when a reset or rollback was coming therefore that particular issue would be already be resolved.

The other problem would be taken care of if a system such as PTR was in place. In the above mentioned game some knew what was about to happen. There were about 10 to 15 player who dumped all their UU onto 1 account and after the soft reset the account was even larger then the pre reset largest account. The plan was perfectly executed other than the fact that they had created an account with size rivaling mine, but the account set up was so weak the account never was able to effectively challenge anyone. So a PTR system could stop things like this from happening, where multiple account all funnel resource to 1 account just before reset.



Now to the game related issue.
Obviously there would be 2 choices, either it's forbidden to transfer resources between each other, OR there would be a limit how much can be transfered (absolute limit, or a smart transfer ratio). This would prevent unfair advantages.

I have often felt no P2P transfers is a viable option, and with the anonymity of GM as it is it makes it something very easy to do, but there is an underlying problem with that as well. Think about this, lets say an alliance of 25 members waits until 2 days before reset and then 20 of them dump their entire account population into GM, with their 5 largest account primed with massive amount of Kewal to buy all the UU on market. This bypasses the PTR system and can allow for accounts to double or triple in size and that to is an issue that would have to be resolved in some way.




I don't see a problem with buying resources for cash.
Obviously 1 AT in a non reseting game is more worth than in a reseting game. There are a couple possibilities how this problem can be solved:
1) Increase the number of AT per 1$ donated (obviously this will lead to less revenue, because allowing people to donate as much as in main would harm the game if much more AT is donated per $)
2) Accept lower revenue and be happy about it.

I personally think 1 AT in a nonreset is worth More then 1 AT in a reset game. What I earn with that 1AT in main will be with me from now on and will keep yielding me profit from that point on, where as a reset game yields me profit for the 3, 6, or 12 months or until it is removed

As for 1 and 2, I don't understand the reasoning for 1, so I can not comment, but 2 I agree. This may sound harsh and like a stabb at Admin but it is not, Its just a common misconception I have and have not been able to shake. Most franchises with multiple games always tend to have their "bread and butter" game. The one game that attracts the largest % of players. Its the 1 game that gets the most of the Admins time. It is also the $$ work horse for the entire franchise creating the most revenue. So for me it would be natural to have 1 or more other games in a franchise that can not even make the franchise any money at all. Look at ascended in SGW. Yes its basically a dead game but it has its diehard fans who still play it even tho it has been 4 yrs with only 2 update that an only be classed as catastrophically bad. I hate to keep referencing SGW but its to good an example so I will. You have main which is the workhorse of the franchise. It creates the most interest, it creates the most revenue, and it gets the most attention from admin in the form of updates. Then there is Quantum. It is a sound game with a die hard following. It is also designed in a wat that main player who have more time then main allows can play it as a secondary game, or even Q players play main as a secondary game. Q generates its own revenue not tied to main, but it is much smaller. Every three months a new wave begins building off the basis of the last game. Elements get added, removed, reused, or adjusted as needed. There is also Chaos, which resets yearly. It creates its own revenue separate from main. I think it creates the least because it is designed so that multiple SS packs do not really give an advantage, where in Q buying multiple packs per round does. Since Chaos is 1 yr long and multiple packs are useless the revenue is less. The game still boasts a playerbase of diehards as well. In AW you buy SS and its for all games, and you are forced into existence in all games. If you have no desire to play main you still have to create an account and log in just to get SS in other games. This is something I hope is corrected in the near future.

Anyway, I have gotten off track a bit, as for #2 that should not be an issue to lose possibly revenue in 1 game if it creates a niche for player who want less emphasis on real currency effecting accounts.




Do you mean that you don't want wars to cost too much in terms of AT?
As you might know I am hoping to have war related missions cost only 1 AT per mission. I believe Wars should be restricted by ST and your military forces, not by costs related to AT.

How about each massing mission costs 0 AT and 5 ST
and each farming/raiding mission costs 1 AT and 0 ST

Would that solve the problem?

People can be very active this way and farm to their hearts content

I just can not seem to get you to understand what I am saying. I want wars to have meaning. I want wars to have cost. I want wars to be done in a way so they can actually be won. So basically what you keep pitching to me, as above, is the complete and total opposite of what I want. I do not want to see server wars that last 2 or 3 yrs. I do not want to see 1 account being able to harass or even hold hostage entire alliances because its impossible to win a war. So no, all your ideas of cheapening wars to the point they are utterly meaningless because you can carry on multiple wars for extended periods of time with no long term negative effect will NOT solve the problem.

When you can separate apples from oranges, and therefore can look at two completely different actions that produce completely different results then come back and maybe we can continue this conversation. As it stands now you can not see what I am saying nor what I and asking for, and I do not understand your reasoning for wanting to cheapen wars to meaningless status. Its not going to breed activity like you want. If you can't win a war then its SGW all over again. If you want blind manic button pushing with no long term effect for half cocked impulse decisions then go play reset. Leave some strategy for atleast 1 game in the franchise.


Why does asking for more time consuming mundane account building actions mean cheap and meaningless war to you? War is the opposite of account building in ever form and fashion.


the parts I highlighted, & underlined, I agree with 110%...
avatar
kingkongfan1
Coalition Officer
Coalition Officer

ID : kingkongfan1(98)
Alliance : [The Marauder's Imperium]
Age : 49
Number of posts : 1387
Location : Skull Island
Registration date : 2010-01-28

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: A question of direction addressed to Martin.

Post by Admin on Sun Nov 07, 2010 2:06 pm

Ok, might be just me, but I see a serious conflict between cheap(er) wars and meaningful wars

My train of thought on allowing 50% of soldiers to be wounded in regular battle is that there would be more incentive to make just a few attacks to help persuade people during negotiations.

Back then before the weapons update it was meaningless to make just one or two assaults on someone to show that you're being serious because while the defense weapons were fully repaired, the attacker suffered horrible ratios (4:1 or even 5:1). You needed to completely destroy a defense to break even. Now you lose in a ratio of 5:4

Ultimately I would like to see that people would not be worried about the cost of making one assault mission on someone who has been farming your officer alongside a pm.
There is little practical difference between halving the % killed during assault missions, or having half the units recover again, but I think there might be a psychological difference to some people.

So I think the real question isn't about "expensive war" or "more frequent war", but rather about "what is war". I think having regular skirmishes which in 80% of cases will be, sabotage weapons a bit or drop a defense by 20-30% would help more than the usual all out war campaign that happens once a year.

_________________
Disclaimer:
1) You are always welcome to correct my assumptions and understanding of a situation but please do so in a logical and sound manner.
2) If I ask stupid questions it's only because sometimes people aren't smart enough to ask these themselves.
3) Being condescending to some people helps me keep my sanity when I am forced to interact with them.

I hate PR, will never engage in it and will rain destruction on all who refuse to use their brains to think before they speak.
avatar
Admin
Admin

Number of posts : 4363
Registration date : 2008-08-18

View user profile http://www.aderanwars.com

Back to top Go down

Re: A question of direction addressed to Martin.

Post by Kenzu on Sun Nov 07, 2010 2:32 pm

In that case it wouldnt be a bad idea to change the fighting system completely, so that it doesnt matter at all if you attack once or multiple times and still are as successful, just like on Red Apocalypse.

This will give the incentive to make "persuade" people through a couple attacks.
Instead of seing total wars, I'd also prefer to see much more small conflicts on AW.
avatar
Kenzu
Alliance Leader
Alliance Leader

Age : 29
Number of posts : 3034
Registration date : 2008-12-03

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: A question of direction addressed to Martin.

Post by seaborgium on Sun Nov 07, 2010 3:37 pm

You keep saying kenzu that you want to see more small wars/skrimishes yet your empire/allinace policy says other wise. So I find half of what you are saying about war to be odd, close to unbelievable.

So I say either change your stance in your alliance/empire policy or stay out of the war mechanics/ideas.

seaborgium
2nd in Command
2nd in Command

Number of posts : 2551
Registration date : 2009-10-06

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: A question of direction addressed to Martin.

Post by Special Agent 47 on Sun Nov 07, 2010 8:02 pm

Admin wrote:Ok, might be just me, but I see a serious conflict between cheap(er) wars and meaningful wars

My train of thought on allowing 50% of soldiers to be wounded in regular battle is that there would be more incentive to make just a few attacks to help persuade people during negotiations.

Back then before the weapons update it was meaningless to make just one or two assaults on someone to show that you're being serious because while the defense weapons were fully repaired, the attacker suffered horrible ratios (4:1 or even 5:1). You needed to completely destroy a defense to break even. Now you lose in a ratio of 5:4

Ultimately I would like to see that people would not be worried about the cost of making one assault mission on someone who has been farming your officer alongside a pm.
There is little practical difference between halving the % killed during assault missions, or having half the units recover again, but I think there might be a psychological difference to some people.

So I think the real question isn't about "expensive war" or "more frequent war", but rather about "what is war". I think having regular skirmishes which in 80% of cases will be, sabotage weapons a bit or drop a defense by 20-30% would help more than the usual all out war campaign that happens once a year.

I'll respond to this, but let me say this first. How do I ask about an increase in the ability to to more mundane actions such as farming, raiding, and trading, no matter the cost, as long as there are more available actions to consume a large amount of time? Remove anything remotely related to war in your answer please. We still seem to be going in two completely opposite directions.


Now to respond the the above. Your idea and what you think is a good "senerio" is very valid. Sadly I do not know anyone with any experience at this type of game stupid enough to use this type of strategy. I personally am firm set in the idea that if I was to give a "warning" shot such as that, the result would be simple. The attacker fires a few warning shots, and the defender then levels the attacker with a full on slaughter. Thats exactly what I would do.


Bouncing this stuff back and forth between us let me try a suggestion that may or may not allow both of us a glimpse at what we really want. I want more total actions available per day. You seems to want for "mini wars" or conflict just shy of war. So how about you make an adjustment to 2 aspects of the game to allow both. I suggest this be tied to relations, tho it does not have to be. I think it would add depth and use to the relations themselves.

1. Remove or reduce certain cost to the mundane actions of the game. This could be in the sense of raiding and farming, and could even be spread to other things like trading. Why is a non SS player limited to 16 trades per week when a SS player can trade every second of every minute of every day? Perhaps create a non SS player trade center similar to the GM but who's trades are heavily taxed, or take time to complete. Possible make it so 10K men are traded per turn instead of instantly or something?

2. Create a new function/attack. This would simply be called "attack". It would be very similar to the attacks we use now, and similar in cost and damage. This is the attacks that we could do as you and Kenzu are wanting to do. To make them cheaper, less effective, and easier to recover from. These would be your "warning shot" type of attacks. These are the types of conflicts injured soldiers come home from, you can use the wounded idea and the hospital idea.

3. Now make it so that use must declare a state of war to open up the most devastating attacks at your disposal. This would be the attacks such as Destruction, assassinations, and could be tied to the use of the Air Force as well. No nation will rally up their air force just to rob a bank. These are the attacks no one comes home from alive, atleast not in any condition to ever fight again. This means full scale hard fought war will carry the same heavy cost it always has.

If you are set to peace then no war actions can happen. But those who are set to peace can possibly have a bonus to trade? or a reduction in the GM tax they must pay to use the GM or the non SS GM if it was created?

If your neutral all attacks would be available.

If you set war then the "war based" attacks become more damaging to both strike and defense. This results in quicker battles fought with fewer AT/ST so more rounds can be fought.


Summery, I am asking for more "Account building actions" be made available, and more and/or better trade option given to non SS players in hopes of increasing activity.

To accommodate more war type conflict per the administration desire then separate "warning shot" type attacks from "Account Destroying" type war attacks.

This accomplishes both our goals. Gives more available daily actions, and give you a range of attacks that can pack a mean punch but not cripple accounts for months like a complete massing.
avatar
Special Agent 47
Aderan Assassin
Aderan Assassin

ID : http://www.aderanwars.com/stats.php?id=427
Alliance : [ The_Marauders ]
Number of posts : 556
Location : Preparing for my next mission.
Registration date : 2009-08-22

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: A question of direction addressed to Martin.

Post by Manleva on Mon Nov 08, 2010 2:13 am

In many ways I find myself in agreement with SA47. There are however some things I will strongly disagree with or look at in a different manner.

SA47 has said that he doesn't like reset servers because everything get reset back to zero, a point that has been raised by others.

I look at it in a different way with every round being a new game. The reset round was a good starting point but to many of the existing mechanics from main were ported over so what we saw was not much different.

I would suggest if you want a truly competitive reset game that will attract and hold players attention while giving them plenty of action then it is the basic economics that you need to look at. Look at restricting income so that players have to Farm and Raid to increase their account.

This takes things from both Mai, Reset, RA and other games.

Basically start with some units, Military and non Military and some base buildings. Add a need to construct buildings to house more units. Economic units need to produce enough income to cover upkeep costs and make some profit but not sufficient profit for players to be able to save for upgrades without limiting their account growth in other areas. Restrict/Cap ST's and reduce income per turn when cap is reached. This provides a reason for Active players to use them as well as offering a protection mechanism for lesser active players.

Bank growth becomes dependent on construction. Cap Alliance size to 15 or 20 but allow for 30 as active player numbers increase. Limit the amount of actions one player can take against another individual player in a 24 Hr period.

Try setting a Target on alliance power as the point at which the round finishes and set it that only one alliance can win not an empire. Restrict actions between players based on their power and only allow attacks if the range of 50% greater to 50% lower than the attackers power.

Carry nothing over between rounds and disallow the selling of reset accounts. SS should be basic and be no more than non SS players can get in other ways. eg. SS players get all or some of the bonuses from voting while non SS players only get them by voting.

So basically you have to attack to grow, You have to be the most powerful alliance to win and as you approach the winning post others will be trying to stop you and get there themselves.

Now SA47, is that enough action in a 3 month period. Just think of the work it will take to organize 30 people globally to get the win while numerous others are doing exactly the same to stop you.

It also provides for both the truly active and the not so active as I has seen groups of less active smaller players have more fun and get more enjoyment that the extremely active players who are in the most powerful alliances.

Oh and have a week between the end of the round and the start of the next one because the most active players will need to catch up on their sleep.
avatar
Manleva
Aderan Assassin
Aderan Assassin

ID : 999
Alliance : TMI
Age : 59
Number of posts : 659
Location : New Zealand
Registration date : 2009-08-17

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: A question of direction addressed to Martin.

Post by Admin on Mon Nov 08, 2010 2:22 am

the only issue i have is the "you have to attack to grow"

if you steal enemy income, which you suggested not to be high, then by definition you wont get to steal much
if you steal something they cannot touch, or even go as far as to reward people for destroying stuff, then friends will band together massing each other, building as much as possible to be massed as cheaply as possible by the attacker to maximize profit

this is the only issue that's been bugging me for the last 2 years

_________________
Disclaimer:
1) You are always welcome to correct my assumptions and understanding of a situation but please do so in a logical and sound manner.
2) If I ask stupid questions it's only because sometimes people aren't smart enough to ask these themselves.
3) Being condescending to some people helps me keep my sanity when I am forced to interact with them.

I hate PR, will never engage in it and will rain destruction on all who refuse to use their brains to think before they speak.
avatar
Admin
Admin

Number of posts : 4363
Registration date : 2008-08-18

View user profile http://www.aderanwars.com

Back to top Go down

Re: A question of direction addressed to Martin.

Post by Special Agent 47 on Mon Nov 08, 2010 2:30 am

Let me clarify Manleva, I do not like reset games personally. I enjoy long term playing, as my time is limited. The game, or the reset server, was just fine. I had no issues with it. I did think 4 times speed was to much, but overall the mechanics of the game were perfect for the game, the game was just not perfect for me. I knew I could not play it, and did not try for that reason.


As for banding together, I don't care. If it works go for it. Sadly from what I could tell, I came into reset in the last month so I only played for 1/3 of the time it was up. I made it to rank 21 or so. That tells me there was not even 30 players in the entire game.

@ Admin,,,, I think like you do.
avatar
Special Agent 47
Aderan Assassin
Aderan Assassin

ID : http://www.aderanwars.com/stats.php?id=427
Alliance : [ The_Marauders ]
Number of posts : 556
Location : Preparing for my next mission.
Registration date : 2009-08-22

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: A question of direction addressed to Martin.

Post by Manleva on Mon Nov 08, 2010 10:08 am

Admin wrote:the only issue i have is the "you have to attack to grow"

if you steal enemy income, which you suggested not to be high, then by definition you wont get to steal much
if you steal something they cannot touch, or even go as far as to reward people for destroying stuff, then friends will band together massing each other, building as much as possible to be massed as cheaply as possible by the attacker to maximize profit

this is the only issue that's been bugging me for the last 2 years

I suppose it's really a matter of Balancing Income with Cost and also balancing Unit losses in comparison to how much is stolen.

At the start of every round the only player there were those that registered (not the right word activated may be better) so there were no Inactives. There were in addition 4 AI accounts who's Kuwal (we called it Gold) was reset every Turn These acted as a source of extra income for all players when they started. Because there was a limit of only being able to attack someone down to 50% of your power they very quickly fell out of range. This limiting of the attack range also countered the issues of feeding other accounts, the only resources available were Gold and limited mercenary pool from which additional units could be purchased every turn on a first come first served basis. This meant that for one player to have the possibility of feeding another then they also needed to be active and as the only resource that could be stolen was gold it could also be stolen by anyone else and since they had to be active then they may as well play their own account.

Also building costs increased for each level of building required from memory the first level was 50,000 and each successive level increased in cost up to level 20. Friends banding together and massing each other was not something that worked as you could not attack your own alliance members. Additionally you had to join an alliance before reaching a set power and once past that power level could only leave to create your own alliance. This prevented players hopping between alliances in the latter stages of the game just to get the win.

Increasing need for more gold also meant that the safe level that could be held increased as the players grew in power. There were no ST only AT which you received at the rate of 1 per turn so you received 48 per day (Voting provided an additional 7 AT per day) At were also coped at 999 and after this you started to lose income (note Income not Gold on hand or in the bank) Players were also protected until they won an attack or killed a set number of units in battle.

There was no player to player trading of any sort and no additional advantages for those who donated. Donators received 5 additional AT while those who did not donate had to Vote to get them. To get the additional 2 AT everyone had to vote, Donators also had advertising turned off. Non donators were able to turn advertising off as well but to do this they had to load an advertising page a number of times before the feature was activated and then it only lasted until the player logged out.

Sorry it was a little bit disjointed. One thing not covered her is costs in real money terms ie hosting etc. This was a totally free game where every player was treated equally, those who donated received nothing that any other player could not get in some other way. The game has finished because the owner had other RL concerns that needed his attention and while many offers of assistance both to running the game and financial were made it was his game and he was unwilling to either give it up or sell it. Many players assumed cost was a major factor but the forum that was associated with the game is still up and running and he's still paying for it because it was not a free forum.

The question here I suppose is for you to answer for yourself (ie I don't want or need an answer) is how much you need the income from SS, Cash market etc. to keep the game running and then balancing the reward you give to those who donate compared to those who do not or cannot.

avatar
Manleva
Aderan Assassin
Aderan Assassin

ID : 999
Alliance : TMI
Age : 59
Number of posts : 659
Location : New Zealand
Registration date : 2009-08-17

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: A question of direction addressed to Martin.

Post by Disco_Vader on Mon Nov 08, 2010 6:06 pm

Spoiler:
Special Agent 47 wrote:... I want more total actions available per day. You seems to want for "mini wars" or conflict just shy of war. So how about you make an adjustment to 2 aspects of the game to allow both. I suggest this be tied to relations, tho it does not have to be. I think it would add depth and use to the relations themselves.

1. Remove or reduce certain cost to the mundane actions of the game. This could be in the sense of raiding and farming, and could even be spread to other things like trading. Why is a non SS player limited to 16 trades per week when a SS player can trade every second of every minute of every day? Perhaps create a non SS player trade center similar to the GM but who's trades are heavily taxed, or take time to complete. Possible make it so 10K men are traded per turn instead of instantly or something?

2. Create a new function/attack. This would simply be called "attack". It would be very similar to the attacks we use now, and similar in cost and damage. This is the attacks that we could do as you and Kenzu are wanting to do. To make them cheaper, less effective, and easier to recover from. These would be your "warning shot" type of attacks. These are the types of conflicts injured soldiers come home from, you can use the wounded idea and the hospital idea.

3. Now make it so that use must declare a state of war to open up the most devastating attacks at your disposal. This would be the attacks such as Destruction, assassinations, and could be tied to the use of the Air Force as well. No nation will rally up their air force just to rob a bank. These are the attacks no one comes home from alive, atleast not in any condition to ever fight again. This means full scale hard fought war will carry the same heavy cost it always has.

If you are set to peace then no war actions can happen. But those who are set to peace can possibly have a bonus to trade? or a reduction in the GM tax they must pay to use the GM or the non SS GM if it was created?

If your neutral all attacks would be available.

If you set war then the "war based" attacks become more damaging to both strike and defense. This results in quicker battles fought with fewer AT/ST so more rounds can be fought.

Summery, I am asking for more "Account building actions" be made available, and more and/or better trade option given to non SS players in hopes of increasing activity.

To accommodate more war type conflict per the administration desire then separate "warning shot" type attacks from "Account Destroying" type war attacks.

This accomplishes both our goals. Gives more available daily actions, and give you a range of attacks that can pack a mean punch but not cripple accounts for months like a complete massing.

I thought I'd chime in and say I really like SA47's suggestions here. Casual attacking and serious attacking. I like it. I also like the greater implications to setting relation status, tying it in with trading.
avatar
Disco_Vader
Aderan Farmer
Aderan Farmer

Number of posts : 98
Registration date : 2009-08-31

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: A question of direction addressed to Martin.

Post by Admin on Mon Nov 08, 2010 7:01 pm

then again we'd have the other camp who'd want relations to be purely symbolical.

_________________
Disclaimer:
1) You are always welcome to correct my assumptions and understanding of a situation but please do so in a logical and sound manner.
2) If I ask stupid questions it's only because sometimes people aren't smart enough to ask these themselves.
3) Being condescending to some people helps me keep my sanity when I am forced to interact with them.

I hate PR, will never engage in it and will rain destruction on all who refuse to use their brains to think before they speak.
avatar
Admin
Admin

Number of posts : 4363
Registration date : 2008-08-18

View user profile http://www.aderanwars.com

Back to top Go down

Re: A question of direction addressed to Martin.

Post by Manleva on Mon Nov 08, 2010 7:26 pm

Linking Relation status to Trading is an obvious step, after all who trades with someone that they are at war with.

Factoring this into the GM where Trades are anonymous though not impossible would take some thought to get the coding right.
avatar
Manleva
Aderan Assassin
Aderan Assassin

ID : 999
Alliance : TMI
Age : 59
Number of posts : 659
Location : New Zealand
Registration date : 2009-08-17

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: A question of direction addressed to Martin.

Post by Admin on Mon Nov 08, 2010 7:30 pm

I think we're straying off the original intent of the topic, question was about time investment into main. I could split the suggestion posts though

_________________
Disclaimer:
1) You are always welcome to correct my assumptions and understanding of a situation but please do so in a logical and sound manner.
2) If I ask stupid questions it's only because sometimes people aren't smart enough to ask these themselves.
3) Being condescending to some people helps me keep my sanity when I am forced to interact with them.

I hate PR, will never engage in it and will rain destruction on all who refuse to use their brains to think before they speak.
avatar
Admin
Admin

Number of posts : 4363
Registration date : 2008-08-18

View user profile http://www.aderanwars.com

Back to top Go down

Re: A question of direction addressed to Martin.

Post by Manleva on Mon Nov 08, 2010 8:07 pm

To help bring this back on topic perhaps you can give us some idea as to how long you have been working on Reset and RA.

I get the impression that many think that you my have only started on them very recently to the detriment of Main but this may not be the case and it's a good opportunity to lay some of these fears to rest.
avatar
Manleva
Aderan Assassin
Aderan Assassin

ID : 999
Alliance : TMI
Age : 59
Number of posts : 659
Location : New Zealand
Registration date : 2009-08-17

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: A question of direction addressed to Martin.

Post by Special Agent 47 on Mon Nov 08, 2010 8:25 pm

Admin wrote:I think we're straying off the original intent of the topic, question was about time investment into main. I could split the suggestion posts though

Well to honest, 1/2 of the original topic has never addressed

1. What is the overall direction and differences in the 3 existing franchises in the AW series?

As for the "other camp" wanting purely symbolic relations, are these real players or just playing devil's advocate?

This thread was not based on just the aspects of time commitment, but also a question and which games will be stratigic, which will be more repeated button mashing, which will be more trade oriented, those types of things. Just seems the second question was picked up on even tho the first was far more important to me.
avatar
Special Agent 47
Aderan Assassin
Aderan Assassin

ID : http://www.aderanwars.com/stats.php?id=427
Alliance : [ The_Marauders ]
Number of posts : 556
Location : Preparing for my next mission.
Registration date : 2009-08-22

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: A question of direction addressed to Martin.

Post by Sponsored content


Sponsored content


Back to top Go down

Page 1 of 2 1, 2  Next

View previous topic View next topic Back to top

- Similar topics

 
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum