XDemonX wrote:jouldax wrote:So here's the problem -
Every time I've recommended a change to drag out the early stages of the game, it gets shot down. Traders complain it's boring, oppers don't have the patience, only the hunters are happy. In my racial evolution game, I suggested locking everyone into the racials for an entire week to force conflict. I got such blowback (A WEEK?? ARE YOU CRAZY) I stopped suggesting such things a long time ago. It makes too much sense to extend each phase of the game.
WITH THAT SAID
If there is constantly a top vet/hunter alliance, they will dominate every game. Furthermore, smaller alliances, like new kids this game, will never be able to get any traction because they'll keep dying and never be able to really make enough money to do anything. Again, sadly, it all comes down to the player base.
This point about constantly being a top vet/hunter alliance that dominates every game I will argue that this falls back on whoever is leading. Look at this way, if you're a player you join the game and most likely you just lean towards an alliance because that is what you did last game or someone messages you to join. A player will not join the game and be like "Hmmm which team should I go to make it more balanced". It is the LEADERS job to recruit. I guarantee there was no effort on (this is just an example) CIA's side to recruit any of the top players. If you, JJ Holti or ACD would have messaged me and been like "Hey Demon, could you join us this game? I think it would make it more competitive". Then I would have joined no problems. I can safely say Bouncer would have done the same.
The point I am making is effort needs to be made in recruiting. Do not expect people to equal out alliances themselves. This is why I am pushing for a draft game because that effort is clearly not there. Azn and I did put effort in to messaging players asking them if they wanted to join us which is why they're with us. None of them said "Well.. Jouldax asked me first..." People don't care who they play with, they just want someone to tell them who to join.
I agree alliances like new kids on the block will not gain traction. I would recommend increasing alliance cap. For example, right now clearly CIA is not winning this game. I would be for raising the alliance cap and having new kids on the block join CIA. Will this make a difference? maybe, maybe not. But this way CIA could potentially compete big time with another 5-10 players joining their alliance and could make the game fun for new kids on the block.
Situations like this should be done each game as this will add new life into the game once an alliance clearly has the upperhand.
I object, your honor!!
I have been messaging everyone who joins and isnt in an alliance. Most people who joined after the first week are in KGB before i even had the time to message them. And i don't bother or even want to message "new" players that are already in an alliance so I have reason to believe most players who joined after the first weeks, are returning vets who know you, AZN or bouncer and come in to play with you guys. So saying CIA doesnt gain players because no one from CIA bothered to message them, is false.
As far as ops go, I think its pretty clear KGB brought more people this round to ops then we did. We may have done 2 or 3 ops more then KGB, but we never brought 10 ppl online together. I believe that at least two times KGB had 10 people in for an op. So as far as ops go, this round KGB was clearly the better alliance.
But enough of the complaining. I still enjoy playing. I like trading and so far I had fun opping.
Maybe to give small alliances a better chance of surviving, we should do the exact opposite and make alliances smaller to, lets say, 14-15 people max. You can make sister alliances then helping each other, thats true but maybe you can diverse the alliance roles then or put people together who are mostly on at the same hours or exchange players when its better.
At CIA we have a lot of players who come on in, play for a few days and then just went inactive. We still hope they will return and don't boot them out. But if we had smaller alliances, maybe we could have gone for a "CIA training ground" and a "CIA main". Hell, if we had smaller alliances, maybe i could take my first steps in leading a smaller alliance and let the main one do the big work. But off course, this is just a rough idea and I just adapt ideas I see in other games. I do understand this game has a lot of differences then most other multiplayer games due to its mechanics.
As far as my propositions goes of which i'm fairly certain that IMHO would improve gameplay, I only have this:
- Generating money should be harder (or ships a lot more expensive)