[Rant] About the game

Before anything else, imagine I'm writing this 2 months to 2 weeks ago. Just me being the lazy person everyone really knows I am, I never got to write it until now, but it's been on my to-do-list for that long/longer.

I'm not expecting replies, for the most part I'm not even interested in them, you've got the Ingame Development section for that, this is more of a "telling people more info so that they can act on it, because most of this is outside my ability/need to act upon this"

1) Influx of players into the game
Right now there's about 2 main groups of players here. The first group came in the first few months of the game in January when bugged all my contacts on msn to give AW a try instead of just sticking with the other games. The second is the type that, for the most part, never played these games, mostly finding this game due to the ads we started running. Of course there's the group that has played these games but only joined the game in the last several months, but the player join count per unit of time for this third group is much smaller than for the other two.

Established players on other games didn't really want to start playing the game for 3 main reasons.
- No time to play another game, despite not needing to spend anywhere as much time here than on other games where spending several hours daily to catch up with larger players is a necessary requirement.
- Not much interest in "starting over"
- Little incentive to move away from current network structures of friends/alliance setups

Basic marketing states that good news will spread through word of mouth about 2-3 times less often than bad ones. In addition to that I need to spend about 30 minutes net time to get one person to join the game, most of them wont login too often. Bottom line, I dont have the time to talk to each of my contacts personally to point out my game.
And considering people are by definition lazy, expecting that the game can grow by players telling other people about it, is ludicrous at the very least.

2) Alliances in the game
It is said that communism is flawed and that's why it failed (although that's debatable, I'm going to get into this discussion now). On the other hand, capitalism is so inherently flawed that no one has ever even attempted to do it. That's why there's not a single purely capitalist country in the world.

The results is all too obvious in games like these. Strong alliances forming, which I dislike extremely, but that's an unavoidable outcome.
Especially in an environment where resources are not scarce and there is no incentive for players to split from their alliance causing redistribution of power.
Despite me having had thoughts about coding in some AI bots that would outright wage war with the strongest players and therefore statistically attack the strongest factions in the game, a thought that's still swirling in my head only awaiting to be coded, it's not going to be a perfect solution to this issue

You guys know what will happen to the playerbase if new players see a big alliance/coalition that holds more power than all the other active ones together, basically forcing me to adopt some system of multiple galaxies so that smaller players are able to escape your influence (whoever thinks of pergatory like in sgw then please stop right now and dont insult my intellect anymore).

3) Activity in the game
Once the new farming system is tested, it will make farming much more worthwhile, so if I decide to release it then the problem outlined in 2) will become even more serious. Which really annoys me.

4) Reset Server
That's a double edged sword, the concept which in itself would require several pages of text to investigate all factors
By this I dont mean turning the current server into a reset one

when the admin has a rant about the game, you just know something is a-brew'n

slambot#4 wrote:when the admin has a rant about the game, you just know something is a-brew'n

no just pointing out the obvious flaws, basically that they should think before they act

if something were brewin then you'd find yourself with a message of the type "i'm bored of being admin, someone can take over or i'm deleting this".
Not gonna happen with me

admin, regarding the strong alliances forming... i still think you should implement the suggestion i had about the black market and A.I bots

https://aderanwars.forumotion.com/game-suggestions-f22/black-market-server-wide-judgement-day-t460.htm

ian wrote:admin, regarding the strong alliances forming... i still think you should implement the suggestion i had about the black market and A.I bots

https://aderanwars.forumotion.com/game-suggestions-f22/black-market-server-wide-judgement-day-t460.htm

already considered as source of inspiration

In case of Judgement Day, I have dibs on being John Connor.

let me be general Grievous

he is so cool can handle 4 light sabers mwhaha if you got a general like that leading your army you can't loose

But he did lose.

well because he isn't smart :p and i am so if i would be grievous i would never die and o would crush every army that is against me

except for a bearded jedi. He'd kick your ass then tear it off and make you watch as he proceeds to further kick it.

bearded jedi maybe give me a name ?

Say Obi Wan, but any bearded Jedi would do.

well obi wan kenobi has he's weaknesses :p his fighting form need alot of space i will be easy to get him killed in smaller spaces. in close combat grievous is dangerous his only weakness is not to be able to use the force

Yoda rules the world!!!

cut the spam guys

Admin wrote:Before anything else, imagine I'm writing this 2 months to 2 weeks ago. Just me being the lazy person everyone really knows I am, I never got to write it until now, but it's been on my to-do-list for that long/longer.

I'm not expecting replies, for the most part I'm not even interested in them, you've got the Ingame Development section for that, this is more of a "telling people more info so that they can act on it, because most of this is outside my ability/need to act upon this"

1) Influx of players into the game
Right now there's about 2 main groups of players here. The first group came in the first few months of the game in January when bugged all my contacts on msn to give AW a try instead of just sticking with the other games. The second is the type that, for the most part, never played these games, mostly finding this game due to the ads we started running. Of course there's the group that has played these games but only joined the game in the last several months, but the player join count per unit of time for this third group is much smaller than for the other two.

Established players on other games didn't really want to start playing the game for 3 main reasons.
- No time to play another game, despite not needing to spend anywhere as much time here than on other games where spending several hours daily to catch up with larger players is a necessary requirement.
- Not much interest in "starting over"
- Little incentive to move away from current network structures of friends/alliance setups

Basic marketing states that good news will spread through word of mouth about 2-3 times less often than bad ones. In addition to that I need to spend about 30 minutes net time to get one person to join the game, most of them wont login too often. Bottom line, I dont have the time to talk to each of my contacts personally to point out my game.
And considering people are by definition lazy, expecting that the game can grow by players telling other people about it, is ludicrous at the very least.

2) Alliances in the game
It is said that communism is flawed and that's why it failed (although that's debatable, I'm going to get into this discussion now). On the other hand, capitalism is so inherently flawed that no one has ever even attempted to do it. That's why there's not a single purely capitalist country in the world.

The results is all too obvious in games like these. Strong alliances forming, which I dislike extremely, but that's an unavoidable outcome.
Especially in an environment where resources are not scarce and there is no incentive for players to split from their alliance causing redistribution of power.
Despite me having had thoughts about coding in some AI bots that would outright wage war with the strongest players and therefore statistically attack the strongest factions in the game, a thought that's still swirling in my head only awaiting to be coded, it's not going to be a perfect solution to this issue

You guys know what will happen to the playerbase if new players see a big alliance/coalition that holds more power than all the other active ones together, basically forcing me to adopt some system of multiple galaxies so that smaller players are able to escape your influence (whoever thinks of pergatory like in sgw then please stop right now and dont insult my intellect anymore).

3) Activity in the game
Once the new farming system is tested, it will make farming much more worthwhile, so if I decide to release it then the problem outlined in 2) will become even more serious. Which really annoys me.

4) Reset Server
That's a double edged sword, the concept which in itself would require several pages of text to investigate all factors

Being the largest army size in the game I want to say something.

First off, I have always respected you, and still do. And if you choose this path then so be it, but I want it known that it displeases me greatly, nor do I find it fair in any sense of the word. There will ALWAYS be new people. There will ALWAYS be smaller people. If you choose to punish me for growing, then stop ALL selling of UU. It sucks to be punished for growing, to see others passing you by in stats and strength by selling UU to remain little to avoid these "Big Man Punishments". Why do you promote growth and the importance of growing, and then cut the legs out from under those who grow? I mean look how much your choking the larger accounts now with AE, which I find a good system, even if people drasticly smaller then me have more income. Now I am to be bashed for size to? Whats the incentive to grow?

Yes I am the largest not entirely by my own hand, you know exactly how I am as large as I am, I don't hide it, I don't denie it. On the same note I have BENT OVER BACKWARDS not not use my size in any way to harm the health of the game. Even when my friends were being battered by someone who WAS way out of line. Now you tell me that it is fear of MY actions as a "Big Guy" that worries you?

Yes I am a little bit pissed right now, so I'll stop here, calm down, and read over it some more. I know you are reasonable, senseable, and want the same thing I want, whats best for the game and its health.

I will accept what ever you decide, I have no choice, but you reset, and everyone who has paid you $$ had better get compensated. This game was advertised as a non resetable, and many of us supported YOU and the launch of this game expecting Long Term enjoyability and playtime. Many of us supported you so you could advertise to draw new players. Was all that a waste on our behalves?

And secondly, if being "big" is what gets you punished, then this server will play hell because what I can not sell to raise the average account size, will be murdered against every defense I can find. I'll drag all the army sizes down to your "acceptable" level if need be. I will not idlely sit by and be punished over and over for someone elses actions, Not when I have tried to hard to protect the fragile nature of a new game.

No disrespect intended, but I think you Should be intrested in the Honest replies made, if you not intrested then your not the Admin I believed you to be.

And as for "things outside your control" yeah, the biggest problem in all games like this is the "human" element. But it also Sucks to see an admin helping his brother, defending the same person whos doing exactly what you say you don't want us "big guys" doing. Kenzu's smashing of some accounts was TOTALLY out of line and you openly supported him as the games admin, and now your wanting to bash me because I'm bigger then him, yet I chose to stay my hand against him? When I can/could single handely wipe out his entire alliance by my self?

And @ kenzu, this was your message to me

"Will you please set me to peace, or do you still hold a grudge against me?"


This was my reply to you

"Relation (Yours/Theirs): Neutral / Peace

As you see the setting is neutral, I never knew I had a grudge against you, please explain why I have a grudge?

I have no reason to set you to peace, we are not friends, we do not trade, and your alliance is my number 1 farming grounds. Not to mention I do not like your diplomatic stance nor the way you and your alliance have abused friends of mine. All 3 of those you and your alliance have bullied are alliance mate in another game.

Luckly for you, I don't do cross server wars. So I remain neutral untill such time as a setting of peace, or of war is appropriate.

And I do expect an explination of why I have a grudge against you?"

As far as I knew me and you never crossed paths nor had dealing with one another but let me clarify 2 things

1. I farm 0 defense farms, I don't hit live defenses unless by mistake, inside or outside your alliance.
2. I no longer need an explination, because now I have a reason to have a grudge. You and your precious alliance will enjoy my generousity when it comes to removing my UU to avoid the "Big Boy" punishments. You will recieve wave after wave of them.


Oh, and one last thing, I am a four year veteran and "established" player on TGW. I came here in hopes of a new and better game, so your veiws on why "established" players are not correct. All 3 of your points is EXACTLY why I came here. But if I want to be punished for growing, for being big, for being powerful, for allieing myself with ACTIVE, likeminded people, Then I can go back to TGW and accomplish all of that.


Bahhh.

*Walks away feeling spent*

Admin wrote:
4) Reset Server
That's a double edged sword, the concept which in itself would require several pages of text to investigate all factors

This isnt cool, would really suck for everyone who has supported you and this game thus far. I hope you think this through as I doubt many will stay if they are not compensated.

Nomad wrote:

Admin wrote:
4) Reset Server
That's a double edged sword, the concept which in itself would require several pages of text to investigate all factors

This isnt cool, would really suck for everyone who has supported you and this game thus far. I hope you think this through as I doubt many will stay if they are not compensated.

haven't read your reply yet, will do it later.

I meant with this a second server, obviously not resetting this current one

wot would like me to do admin quit playing closing my alliance down just so your brother can rule well it just so happens i have been thinking about quiting any way and if i do i will be taking a few members from my alliance with me i no this for a facted as they are my rl friends if i quit they will. this will change every thing on the server just the way u wont it by the sounds of things or do i battle on and change my mind and play on but wot i have just read dose not help me think this

The inherent problem is that of human nature and sociability. If 2 relatively evenly matched accounts get into a dispute, they either mass each other into the ground, or make peace. The former is how grudges form and the latter(chosen by most due to mathematical sense) forms alliances.

The problem with these games is, and has been since my exposure to them 8 or 9 ish years ago, the delicate balance between too many and too few restrictions.

I feel that you're doing a great job with the restrictions as it is. The main problem is that the average player with average power(or even above average power) isn't as active \ stringent as they could be with their actions. You know this to be true, as it is how people like us and Jay, and poppy, etc can overcome people multiple times over.

You put in great mechanisms to allow for equally active players to be governed by, but that isn't the case. The case is that you'll have 5-10 hyperactive players, 10-50 semi-active players, and the rest are casual or inactive.

The balancing of a game such as this is very hard and very delicate. I believe that as I've started coding one a while back in my spare time. My ideas that haven't already been implemented on this server are few. I still have some, but they aren't exactly balancing issues.



Now on to some other issues:

Bots) How do you define who they attack?

If by army size, those larger players will sell their UU to regain power and avoid bot attacks(or if the bots are attackable they will be sat on).

If by military power then we will have a bunch of economic giants and a few big farmers who will risk the bots.

If by activity then it will promote inactivity.

My only thought on this right now is have them notice how many 'war missions' have been used against players with similar AE as the account and if they don't meet said requirements then they get targeted.

This doesn't address the issue of discouraging growth, but it at least helps improve upon the idea of bots.



About discouraging growth, I honestly think that AE is a GREAT limiting factor, and it is very similar to what I plan to use\used in my games.

My only thoughts on this matter is that it needs to be GOOD to grow your army. I don't know how to encourage this in the current market. The only factor that supports this is that of low UU costs(caused by AE in the first place).

I think that if you made an addition whereas if you recruit a player and they make it to below 100% AE and maintain that for a set period of time then you get a discount on your own AE decrease. Like If I recruit 1-5 players I get a 3% discount per player, then from 6-10 I get 2% per player, and from then on I get 1% per player. This of course would hit a maximum at say 50%.

This could be permanent or last for the duration of a 10$ SS. (ie; 6months?). If permanent then you would need to offer some sort of additional bonus once they reached this new requirement. (ie; some sort of UU bonus, or ST bonus?)

I feel it's a valid suggestion as it is a GOOD incentive to grow AND to get new players into the game.

In the end I don't know if it will really FIX things, but I feel it could drastically improve the relative situation.

I'm sure I will have more to say later, however I am at work and this is all I have time to type atm.

that and being shot in the heart... oh fatal flaws...

reaper wrote:wot would like me to do admin quit playing closing my alliance down just so your brother can rule

what makes you think that his alliance wasn't included in the list? and personally nope, i've seen worse things happening when one alliance dominated, so for now, i'm not expecting anything from you in particular, nor anyone else.

Ok anyways, I kinda felt the intentional ambiguity of the post might cause troubles, although to what extent really surprised me.
So, point by point.


Reset Server:
I'd never reset the main server without everyone's permission.
Why would I do that? Seriously, do I look like george or the other guys that did it?

What I meant by the part is that making a reset server would obviously lessen the effects of long term players, although I would still consider some factors so that people who keep playing are a bit better off than the ones who start playing (i.e. instead of full reset, your 1 mil army is turned into a 70 uu one instead of the 50 starting uu one)
So new players have a chance of competing, possibly drawing in more players who might play
I also considered it to make wars easier to make it more active. Since people would have something to do on it, they might play it or even both servers, however that might split up the active player base partially though.
Etc.
That's why a double edged sword

The actual point of this topic:
People realizing that spending some time working on their msn contacts to bring them to this game might have a very positive effect after a few months.
Due to social clusters a large amount of players might be possible to attract to this game who have both experience and the interest in playing this game. Once they see the options here, grow, form their own alliances and present some input to really promote wars, this could really become a successful game.
Which basically adresses points 1 and 2.

The "me not being interested":
The issue is that very often people like to write an opinion (not referring to specific people as I know good amount of people this doesn't apply to) just so that they have the feeling of having said and done "something" without actually having to decide on anything. Delegating responsibility, so to speak.
Point was that I wanted people to talk less but think more and maybe some good topics/posts in the suggestion area would arise from that.

SA your own post:
Now, throwing your weight around can be done constructively .
If someone offends/annoys you then massing them is a normal reaction, but there's a lot that can be done afterwards which helps the game long term anyway, such as sending a pm (if you know said player is obviously not experienced enough to know it yet) about why you did it and give them some good advice for the future, yes i'm preaching and almost likely something most people know, especially you. But throwing around your weight can be done in good and bad ways. And holding back again might not always be the best option.

its simple AI bots should attack everyone above the average army size and that will be like everyone that is active and depending on your AE you get a higher chance they attack you

Why not have AI bots attack totally at random with an attack power that is related to your economic power? That would prevent bias against giants.

and we're right back at where we started