A question of direction addressed to Martin.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Spoiler:

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.

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

Spoiler:

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

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