Don't get so defensive this is just feedback. The more feedback/discussion the better.jouldax wrote:Ok, my responses to you would be as follows:Got a few texts about this game so I thought i'd pop in and give some feedback. I'll address each one of your points.
1. Alliance size is too small for this kind of setup. Why are you making money HARDER to achieve. Getting numbers for op is clearly a problem and now you are adding in the factor of having money much more difficult to come by. By making traders/defenders travel farther to routes you are wasting their turns. These ports will also be much easier for other alliances to come by and ruin since they are not protected in mines. Again, there is no reason to take out ports in pgals.
2. I've been playing this game for over 12 years. I really don't know what you're talking about a 1x being the "norm" there have only ever been a few traders who traded a 1x as their main route and those were ones who were terrified of dying so they hid on that. Have you ever traded a 1x? It is the most annoying thing in the world. The amount of clicking in insane to do on a daily/ every other day bases. I'm sure even Holy will get bored of trading if he has to use a 1x. You again are trying to take more money out of the game. a 1x produces little to no money. This is a alliance based game and has no room for someone to worthlessly trade a "1x". I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you were using a 1x as a example and not really expecting people to trade a 1x. A 3x is more realistic as a 3x3x2x2 was a average route. Again, little to no money will be made with this. All you're doing is making people play conservative because money will be much harder to come by. I can already see JJ flipping out now at people who die because it took 10 days for one person to trade enough money for one WB.
3. Solo players already have a hard enough time and usually go inactive. Now, they will just go inactive farther. Some people prefer to play alone and would prefer not to be FORCED into a alliance to play this game.
4. Out of everything, this is the one thing I can agree with. But nerfing routes to a point where it is USELESS to trade in racial isn't a smart play for a game with a playerbase so limited.
Overall, poor map design/concept. Some of these ideas would be great if you had a playerbase to support it but it isn't. I foresee this being a short round with barely any action.
1. I raised the cap to 12 vets and 4 newbies. I'm not sure why everyone keeps overlooking that. Also, it's not HARDER to achieve, it just takes maybe an extra week. For those of you that have actually been paying attention, the game is most active in the early and middle stages, and then dies when everyone is parked on rocks. This has been the most prominent feedback I've received as well. As for defending ports in pgals, this was another major complaint. Now you actually have to defend your ports a little more (there will be ports inside the walled off areas, so you can use those and not have anyone just walk up to them). Again, another major piece of feedback I received.
2. Yes, I was using hyperbole. Back in the day, 1-3x was absolutely the norm, but it doesn't mean I'm going to make all the routes 1x. That would be crazy. I'm not trying to destroy the game, I'm just trying to lengthen the trading phase. It also forces teams to be more stategic about PRs (again, I've given you more people, so don't complain you can't get enough; we busted level 9's with 7 last game). Furthermore, NOT EVERY ROUTE IS GOING TO BE A 1-3X!!! I said it would be the norm. I'm not going to have 7x's in racials and I'm sure there will be some ok money routes to start in the neutrals. Give me a little credit.
3/4 since they're related. I'm not going to nerf racials to be useless. Maybe there will be a 4x in one. Maybe it will have a nice link to a port right outside that races warp. Solo players are already basically inactive or extinct, but it should be rightfully a lot harder for them to get to number one ESPECIALLY if their main plan is to trade racials. You can choose to look at that as forcing them to change, or you can look at it, as I prefer to do, as rewarding teamwork. Plenty of unwritten alliances have been made in the FFA game, and those seem to work just fine.
As for the map, the design is mostly based off of suggestions from your former alliance, XDX, and I've taken enough from people wanting me to change the game even more drastically. However, we don't have the players for that. I'd be happy to step aside as mapmaker if someone could come up with anything halfway creative instead of the circle jerk hunter rape maps that follow the standard rush cash, hunt for a week, get to planets, and clear back and forth until you can maybe bust a rock and the game ends formula.
Even last game was a struggle for cash. Not because the routes were so bad, but because the amount of players made it difficult. Realistically your entire alliance is not going to trade. You can't expect 4 newbies to be very useful. Anything your 4 newbies do (even if you have 4 newbies) is just pure bonus. You increased the vet cap by 3 players but are nerfing routes to a amount worth more than 3 extra players trading.
Just to me, this map style is going to make people play more conservatively. Which in my opinion is terrible for the game. Why does the game usually lead to a game ending PB? Opping is probably the most exciting thing in SMR. Solely it leads to "game ending" because of money issues. Here is a breakdown of what happens (again in my opinion)
1. Players works ass off to get everyone in traders
2. Alliances start to move to hunters
3. Aliances claim galaxies
4. Mines
5. Port building/port opping
6. Light planet busting
7. Money hoarding
8. Heavy mining
9. Heavy planet busting
10. Alliance A get wrecked in PB. Alliance B keeps opping because they live. Alliance A is forced to trade to repair mine/ship cost. Alliance A can never get back to where they are.
11. Alliance B goes inactive
12. Alliance A goes inactive.
Okay so thats a basic setup of what happend this game. I can personally say i traded a lot longer than i normally ever do because we NEEDED money. My alliance can vouch for that because I probably complained everyday on how much i hate trading.
Your proposed map, you want to increase the amount of time for alliances to trade. Here is how it plays out (potentially)
1. Alliance trades to get everyone traders
2. One lucky person will MAYBE get to hunt, but arming up their ship costs a trader a day of trading.
3. Alliances grab some planets but can't afford to build yet.
4. Building start, but no mines so the builder has to sleep in fed
5. Port building is #1 priority even over building planet
6. Some warbirds are put together
7. Ops to bust other alliance's ports
8. Heavy planet building begins.
9. two out of the 4 alliances decide to play from fed.
10. Other alliances decide not to sleep on planets because its too expensive if they die.
11. inactivity starts because of frustration from trading.
12. One alliance will dominate
13. Total inactivity.
On the flip side, there won't be barely any mines. So players who really hate mines will love this game. But again main key I can foresee happening is alliances realizing it will be more effective to just play from fed. A death will be too heavy.