Fundamental Incentive Brainstorming

[Dax]

l had said this previously, but there appears to be no unison in that philosophy.

[Dimitar]

remove gardening.

[Coruba]

If I am allowed to put my two cents in and like Max I am also uncontactable I play cos I love playing the start. It is really the only time I have any chance for any period of time to compete against the very best players on an even footing.

I work, have a family and have a sport which takes up a lot of my spare time so therefore my time is limited so obviously being zeroed for me is basically game over and then I wait for next round start.

So what would I like to see as a casual gamer?
- Shorter rounds (allows me to play the best part of the game more often)
- Multiple Accounts (I would like to see how different units when matched with others work out. Very difficult usually in alliance play when you are restricted with time restraints)
- More Routes - (Can never have too many imo)
- Option to mix and match routes - (Don't want to increase the limit one can have though)

Outside of that I think the game is perfect. The big one for me really is having to wait so long in between round starts.

Another option is having a score that once one alliance reaches there is an automatic restart.

Hope that helps

Coruba

[LuckySports]

I don't see multiple accounts ever being allowed. When you open a window for potential abuse, they'll make a barn door out of it. Mixing and matching routes would be complicated, and cause a lot of potential balance issues.

Other than that, I can't disagree too much with the other comments.

[Dax]

Originally Posted by LuckySports

I don't see multiple accounts ever being allowed. When you open a window for potential abuse, they'll make a barn door out of it. Mixing and matching routes would be complicated, and cause a lot of potential balance issues.

Other than that, I can't disagree too much with the other comments.

Same opinions as Lucky, really. Although I personally am always irritated by round start, I know it's a big point for a fair portion of the veteran players, and I can say for fact that the rounds are much too long now with so few people around. Maybe if we verge nearer to a "heyday" playerbase, I will ask for the rounds to be restored to their current length (as there is more to do).

[tobapopalos]

I just thought of this, so it might be a terrible idea, but I want to get it down in writing now before I forget. And even if you all hate it, it might have something good in it which we can rip out and use.

So a major problem we have is that a lot of people hate getting zeroed. It is kind of annoying if you spend an entire round ranked 20th and then get killed on the last day, leaving you with nothing to show for 75 days of hard work.

Which is what got me thinking...what if score was not the same as rank? What if you accumulated points for your rank over the course of a round, by having a large score, and you get more points for being higher ranked, and getting zeroed doesn't immediately ruin that. If you go from 10 bil score to 1 bil score by getting zeroed, your rank points might decrease slowly over time until it matches your new score. And if you rebuild quickly your rank would hardly go down at all. The idea being that this would be a more accurate representation of your skill which can't decimated in 1 tick.

Also, other things could contribute to your rank, so you can't just get to the top purely by flakking solos, and it might add more competition for the top. An alliance could win rank 1 score inside a week but they might not dominate the top 20 in rank.

I haven't really thought this through entirely, and it could be drivel. If so, I apologise. It's basically just a skeleton atm and needs quite a bit of meatiness added.


EDIT: I forgot to mention that this would also encourage fights as your troop score would be less important.

[Elevnos]

As I suggested a while ago, the possibility for another world, ran with AIs that can be created by anybody. Would be pretty cool if we got some instructions on how to script them

[Ogluk]

Originally Posted by tobapopalos

I just thought of this, so it might be a terrible idea, but I want to get it down in writing now before I forget. And even if you all hate it, it might have something good in it which we can rip out and use.

So a major problem we have is that a lot of people hate getting zeroed. It is kind of annoying if you spend an entire round ranked 20th and then get killed on the last day, leaving you with nothing to show for 75 days of hard work.

Which is what got me thinking...what if score was not the same as rank? What if you accumulated points for your rank over the course of a round, by having a large score, and you get more points for being higher ranked, and getting zeroed doesn't immediately ruin that. If you go from 10 bil score to 1 bil score by getting zeroed, your rank points might decrease slowly over time until it matches your new score. And if you rebuild quickly your rank would hardly go down at all. The idea being that this would be a more accurate representation of your skill which can't decimated in 1 tick.

Also, other things could contribute to your rank, so you can't just get to the top purely by flakking solos, and it might add more competition for the top. An alliance could win rank 1 score inside a week but they might not dominate the top 20 in rank.

I haven't really thought this through entirely, and it could be drivel. If so, I apologise. It's basically just a skeleton atm and needs quite a bit of meatiness added.

That's actually not a bad idea, could potentially work in Eff/honour/fame (if they're kept) into aswell, to create a proper points influenced by a handful of factors rather than just one finite score, means there'd be multiple ways of playing for points, all equal and working, and hopefully not with a totally incomprehensible way of working it out, a la the old Alliance points

[Dimitar]

Could just have an 'average score' deciding your final rank. So someone who's moving around ranks 20-40 all round long will finish higher than someone who's sitting around at rank 150 for weeks, saving seeds and planting up to get rank 15 in the end

[CFalcon]

I like, very much.

Could, or should, it be tied into other game mechanics in any way? I mean, the reason valuation rules and effectiveness is a side show, is that valuation directly impacts on other stats and mechanics.

[tobapopalos]

Originally Posted by Ogluk

hopefully not with a totally incomprehensible way of working it out, a la the old Alliance points

That was my initial worry. It would have to be something we all agree on and accept, rather than the opaque, confusing, mess which was alliance points.

[Dax]

I concur. Good call, Toby.

[tobapopalos]

Originally Posted by CFalcon

I like, very much.

Could, or should, it be tied into other game mechanics in any way? I mean, the reason valuation rules and effectiveness is a side show, is that valuation directly impacts on other stats and mechanics.

I'm hoping we change effectiveness and h/f, and if by some miracle this idea is implemented, I think they should all be tied together, rather than just a random mish-mash of seperate rankings. I think score should still be the main contributor to rank, but maybe effectiveness and h/f could add smaller amounts to your ranking points.

Like I said, I only just thought of this, so I haven't got all the answers

[Davs]

Originally Posted by tobapopalos

I'm hoping we change effectiveness and h/f, and if by some miracle this idea is implemented, I think they should all be tied together, rather than just a random mish-mash of seperate rankings. I think score should still be the main contributor to rank, but maybe effectiveness and h/f could add smaller amounts to your ranking points.

Like I said, I only just thought of this, so I haven't got all the answers

Perhaps give stats a contribution to it as well? Nothing major as, let's be honest, no one really gives a damn about stats, but it would be nice to have the stats make a slightly larger impact on how players go through a round, rather than just giving some people a little trophy icon next to their name in portal...

[tobapopalos]

Half the stats are awarded for failing horribly. I don't think that should increase rank.