OMG, maybe this is crazy or impossible, or just not your thing, but I think having a persistent never ending server, in addition to the winnable game servers would be very cool, and might draw a wider audience.Originally Posted by zarkwizard
OMG, maybe this is crazy or impossible, or just not your thing, but I think having a persistent never ending server, in addition to the winnable game servers would be very cool, and might draw a wider audience.
Agreed! Part of the reason I posted that was because I seemed to be the only player doing the land grab strategy and at 150+ planets on Aruru, I felt like I was getting too far ahead of everyone. I did run into one other land grabber, but he started the process later than I and has a lot less planets.
Yeah, this is the major issue with the current system. You have already won Aruru, so what is the point in continuing for another 7 weeks? Granted, you have played this game before and no one else has, but still, you have the runaway win, no one is going to catch up to that. Even if I played aggressively, I'm not devoted enough to this game to hunt down 150 of your outposts. I think that's probably true of a lot of players, who will all just get left in the dust.
Somehow the game needs to acknowledge "micro-competition" within the larger "there can be only one" format. Not totally sure how to do that, but live scoreboards are a good start.
Doesn't this foster the type of MMO experience you were hoping for? Get together with 5 or 6 other players and take him down if you think he's going to run away with the game.
I've been thinking about alternative win conditions, but I don't have any bright ideas yet. I think the score based system is a good idea, possibly better than the current one. The problem, I think, is coming up with a system that both encourages player interaction, but also is not prone to "runaway wins," because those are annoying.
I very much like the idea of some kind of live statistics that indicate everyone's progression towards the end game, assuming you can influence the outcome as a result. Another aspect of the current system that feels less than ideal is the fact that the inevitable win is going to come out of nowhere. What I think would be really neat is if everyone received reports when a player reached certain milestones towards victory, so that they could react and maybe form alliances against that person to beat them back down, etc.
Another half-thought I had, although this would be tricky, is to give effectively defeated players some kind of "nuclear option" that would have a significant effect on the rest of the game. Again, I am trying to think of ways for all players, even the ones who aren't able or willing to be hardcore about their strategy, to have some agency in the outcome of the game. I'm not necessarily thinking they should be able to detonate their homeworld and take out half a sector, but maybe something like pledge their resources to another player or something, or allow themselves to be assimilated by the some AI Borg collective that gives them some interesting powers but removes them from victory contention.
Anyways, I think at the very least you need a scoreboard so that that everyone has some feeling of progress at the end. When only one guy can win, 149 people have to lose, and to lose a 2 month game with nothing to show for it is kind of sad. With a scoreboard, at the very least you can have micro-competitions between local players and that sort of thing. If I know I'm not going to be #1, I can at least focus my efforts on finishing ahead of my neighbors.
Agreed, and I may not win because someone could win with one of the other victory conditions. I think FINbit has 50+ planets and that gives him enough of an economic base to do big things.
I should add...I want a game where the player who plays 15 minutes a day (3 times, 5 minutes each, for instance) can hold his or her own against the land grabber strategy player who can jam out many more play sessions in the first week to sprint ahead. I think the land grabber strategy is actually a bad one for the game quality unless it's pursued by multiple players simultaneously to share the wealth. In the case of Aruru, being the first real game, people didn't think of that necessarily as an option.
Exactly. The vast majority of players are not going to be dedicated enough to pursue this strategy (this is an iPhone game after all), which means the guys that do are going to have a lock on the game. There is also a discrepancy between the way the mechanics are advertised (long form, play a few minutes a day) and the dominating land grab tactic that requires a significant investment in micromanagement. To me this is a problem.
Also, land grabbing is just another Zerg rush tactic in a different form. There are systems built in to the game to prevent homeworld zerging, so why is this form of rush sanctioned? The outcome is the same: zerging player who "knows what they're doing" shuts out other players before they have a chance to get their bearings.
A lot of talk about victory conditions but no mention of Neptune's Pride where the way to win was to be the most sociopathic diplomat (as long as you didn't fall too far behind militarily). The inclusion of such a fully featured chat system in EotE leads me to believe that the devs want us to go down this route.
In NP Raven's strategy would probably lead to him being the first player eliminated and coming in last place. But even in NP the last couple of days can become very hectic and often players will just surrender since they don't want put the time in and are happy with a podium finish.
EDIT: One thing NP has going for it is that every star you own automatically builds ships (it's a very simplified "4x" game) and there's of course a defender bonus. So if a player rarely logs in his homeworld is probably going to be better defended than a player who moves regularly and has their ships attacking. This means that attacking the homeworlds of even idle players will cost you a lot of ships which you don't want to waste in a war. So the final standings in NP are generally the winning alliance top, the idlers next, and the other players who lost wars last.
I think the strong colonies in EotE is aiming towards this but there probably needs to be a more complicated build queue for the same full effect.
Last edited by KyleMac; 06-01-2012 at 02:55 AM.
In my sector a pretty big war erupted, but I think if there are too many passive or idle in a sector it's just too easy
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote