Jouldax - The Emerald Cut

Locked
XDemonX
Newbie Spam Artist
Posts: 657
Joined: Sat Nov 16, 2002 4:28 am
Location: Highland
Contact:

Re: Jouldax - The Emerald Cut

Post by XDemonX »

jouldax wrote:
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.
Ok, my responses to you would be as follows:

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 :D 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.
Don't get so defensive this is just feedback. The more feedback/discussion the better.

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.
This is a beat, you just can't touch.....
Image
JettJackson
Fledgling Spam Artist
Posts: 3572
Joined: Tue Mar 01, 2005 12:38 am
Location: Eastpointe MI

Re: Jouldax - The Emerald Cut

Post by JettJackson »

I really don't know why we are going backwards in the trading profits, we all discussed this in the admin channel that money was hard to come by and that the costs of deaths were getting out of hand, so why are we ignoring this discussion and going backwards?
Lead: Sesame Street, Rogue Squad

Co-Lead: Suckas, Black Sun Ascending, Wraith Squadron, Fool's Errend, Team Poker, The Phantom Order, Toxic #5

Member of: Team Pup and Suds, Nintendo Power, System Failure, Crusaders, new dawn, Cereal Killers, Armory, Armory V2, _-=`Perfection`=-_, The Guild, Ragnarok, Heimdall, United Rebels, ilLegitimate Basterds

I've seen and done it all
jouldax
Newbie Spam Artist
Posts: 582
Joined: Mon Nov 16, 2009 3:38 pm

Re: Jouldax - The Emerald Cut

Post by jouldax »

JettJackson wrote:I really don't know why we are going backwards in the trading profits, we all discussed this in the admin channel that money was hard to come by and that the costs of deaths were getting out of hand, so why are we ignoring this discussion and going backwards?

Because the majority of people I talk to on IRC, who actually outnumber the people who have posted in this thread, have requested a move towards a more strategic map with smaller routes. It's a silent majority, not a silent minority, but I can't make them speak up, so I have to fight their battles for them.

At this point, however, I'm inclined to just say screw this, put good routes in the neutrals and move ports back to at least the warps in the pgals. That way you can all get your massive money routes, trade for a week, maybe two before you move to hunters/WBs, slow the game down, then sit on your planets until the most active alliance gets enough to blow up a high level rock and the game ends. Aka, exactly how every other round that has been un-creative, has ;) off the general population, and has slowly caused attrition in this game over the past two years went.

We can't change the code, so I'm trying to come up with new ideas. It's clear you guys don't want the game to change, or at least I haven't seen any counter suggestions that make the game any different from how it's been the last few years. I'm not being defensive at all, I'm asking you to change your thinking so this game can survive. What you guys fear will happen with my map happens in every traditional game, ending with one alliance dominating.

So, now that I think about it more, maybe I'll give you exactly what you want to the extreme, so there's at least some change. Other than neutrals, most routes will be 5x and above, I'll move the ports inside the pgals in the center, and I'll remove all ports from the walled in areas so those ports, once upgraded, will yield immediate dividends and you can get into WBs in week 2. You want easier cash? Fine, I'll make it insanely easy for everyone. At least it's something different from what's been proven not to work.
XDemonX
Newbie Spam Artist
Posts: 657
Joined: Sat Nov 16, 2002 4:28 am
Location: Highland
Contact:

Re: Jouldax - The Emerald Cut

Post by XDemonX »

jouldax wrote:
JettJackson wrote:I really don't know why we are going backwards in the trading profits, we all discussed this in the admin channel that money was hard to come by and that the costs of deaths were getting out of hand, so why are we ignoring this discussion and going backwards?

Because the majority of people I talk to on IRC, who actually outnumber the people who have posted in this thread, have requested a move towards a more strategic map with smaller routes. It's a silent majority, not a silent minority, but I can't make them speak up, so I have to fight their battles for them.

At this point, however, I'm inclined to just say screw this, put good routes in the neutrals and move ports back to at least the warps in the pgals. That way you can all get your massive money routes, trade for a week, maybe two before you move to hunters/WBs, slow the game down, then sit on your planets until the most active alliance gets enough to blow up a high level rock and the game ends. Aka, exactly how every other round that has been un-creative, has ;) off the general population, and has slowly caused attrition in this game over the past two years went.

We can't change the code, so I'm trying to come up with new ideas. It's clear you guys don't want the game to change, or at least I haven't seen any counter suggestions that make the game any different from how it's been the last few years. I'm not being defensive at all, I'm asking you to change your thinking so this game can survive. What you guys fear will happen with my map happens in every traditional game, ending with one alliance dominating.

So, now that I think about it more, maybe I'll give you exactly what you want to the extreme, so there's at least some change. Other than neutrals, most routes will be 5x and above, I'll move the ports inside the pgals in the center, and I'll remove all ports from the walled in areas so those ports, once upgraded, will yield immediate dividends and you can get into WBs in week 2. You want easier cash? Fine, I'll make it insanely easy for everyone. At least it's something different from what's been proven not to work.
Jouldax, again this is just feedback and discussion. You ask for our opinions and after we gave them to you. I am sorry that your "silent majority" won't speak up in a game that NEEDS feedback. I would love to hear arguments on why people believe this map style will work. I am open to new ideas. I am up for change in the game but ANY change does not always mean it will be good change. I do as well as others appreciate the time and effort you put into these map ideas. Again, I cannot stress that these are just our opinions. We are just trying to give you different outlooks.

The game needs action. I was a pretty active hunter/defender. Simply what I see happening is players will simply not move if myself or Sergei is on CPL. Why? because you're in fact making people work harder for experience and money so deaths will hurt a lot more. Before, if you died trading or clearing it wasn't a huge deal. Especially in trading because you could twice-over cover the cost of your trader by one day of trading. On a 1-3x you will be lucky to make 2m/4k a day. There will be no reason at all to risk a death or players will get frustrated when they die because they won't be able to get ahead.

If you truly have a large following that believes this map style will help the game and increase activity go ahead and implement it. I'll give it a legitimate play to see if it can keep my interest. I am down for improvements in the game that will make it better. Just make sure you ask yourself this before you start the game:

A) Will you need to perform joint ops to achieve a PB/PR?
B) Will you need tsupport/funding from alliances outside of your own?
C) If your entire alliance isn't 100% active at least every other day will your alliance be crippled and unable to compete?
D) Will you be frustrated having to spend several days in a trader in order to fund ONE warbird?

If your answer is YES to any of those questions above then you must change something in your design.
This is a beat, you just can't touch.....
Image
JettJackson
Fledgling Spam Artist
Posts: 3572
Joined: Tue Mar 01, 2005 12:38 am
Location: Eastpointe MI

Re: Jouldax - The Emerald Cut

Post by JettJackson »

jouldax wrote:
JettJackson wrote:I really don't know why we are going backwards in the trading profits, we all discussed this in the admin channel that money was hard to come by and that the costs of deaths were getting out of hand, so why are we ignoring this discussion and going backwards?

Because the majority of people I talk to on IRC, who actually outnumber the people who have posted in this thread, have requested a move towards a more strategic map with smaller routes. It's a silent majority, not a silent minority, but I can't make them speak up, so I have to fight their battles for them.

At this point, however, I'm inclined to just say screw this, put good routes in the neutrals and move ports back to at least the warps in the pgals. That way you can all get your massive money routes, trade for a week, maybe two before you move to hunters/WBs, slow the game down, then sit on your planets until the most active alliance gets enough to blow up a high level rock and the game ends. Aka, exactly how every other round that has been un-creative, has ;) off the general population, and has slowly caused attrition in this game over the past two years went.

We can't change the code, so I'm trying to come up with new ideas. It's clear you guys don't want the game to change, or at least I haven't seen any counter suggestions that make the game any different from how it's been the last few years. I'm not being defensive at all, I'm asking you to change your thinking so this game can survive. What you guys fear will happen with my map happens in every traditional game, ending with one alliance dominating.

So, now that I think about it more, maybe I'll give you exactly what you want to the extreme, so there's at least some change. Other than neutrals, most routes will be 5x and above, I'll move the ports inside the pgals in the center, and I'll remove all ports from the walled in areas so those ports, once upgraded, will yield immediate dividends and you can get into WBs in week 2. You want easier cash? Fine, I'll make it insanely easy for everyone. At least it's something different from what's been proven not to work.
Look I don't know why you are taking offense to the opinions and criticisms, especially when you asked those on here to bring up things that they didn't like. We are already splitting up because of your suggestion to do so but then you are taking this chance to put in things that we highly disapprove of with reason and when questioned you are getting mad. XDX brought up good reasoning that if you put in limited routes you are going to end up with one alliance dominating for sure, whoever hits first is going to dominate because the other alliance is not going to have the ability to fix the issue with any sort of ease. People complained about my maps being too boring but at the end of the day they were balanced and fair and didn't have limited money. I mean I have to be honest if this is a majority's thought that routes need to be 3x or lower I would love to hear from these players because everyone I know who plays this game does not like trading BS low cash routes and trading all game. They like opping and hunting and fighting.
Lead: Sesame Street, Rogue Squad

Co-Lead: Suckas, Black Sun Ascending, Wraith Squadron, Fool's Errend, Team Poker, The Phantom Order, Toxic #5

Member of: Team Pup and Suds, Nintendo Power, System Failure, Crusaders, new dawn, Cereal Killers, Armory, Armory V2, _-=`Perfection`=-_, The Guild, Ragnarok, Heimdall, United Rebels, ilLegitimate Basterds

I've seen and done it all
jouldax
Newbie Spam Artist
Posts: 582
Joined: Mon Nov 16, 2009 3:38 pm

Re: Jouldax - The Emerald Cut

Post by jouldax »

The game needs action. I was a pretty active hunter/defender. Simply what I see happening is players will simply not move if myself or Sergei is on CPL. Why? because you're in fact making people work harder for experience and money so deaths will hurt a lot more. Before, if you died trading or clearing it wasn't a huge deal. Especially in trading because you could twice-over cover the cost of your trader by one day of trading. On a 1-3x you will be lucky to make 2m/4k a day. There will be no reason at all to risk a death or players will get frustrated when they die because they won't be able to get ahead.
So maybe this is where my perception differs from yours. I agree with you entirely about people not moving when you or sergei hit cpl and about the lack of action, but I disagree that more cash made those deaths acceptable. If that were the case, there would have been more kills/deaths in this game than previous rounds, and up until some recent suicides, that hasn't been accurate.

I can certainly appreciate that money being harder to come by COULD make people more cautious, but, on the other hand, if you want to progress in the game you MUST trade. Plenty of traders would just sit and let turns slightly overflow while waiting for hunters to disappear from CPL. I can't promise that more team effort would force them to trade in this game either, but at least it might make fed alliances less likely. I do intend, regardless, to keep racial routes weaker (do not read = untradeable) so you have to venture further out for the reward. This is why I was trying to implement some sort of fed penalty because I don't know if I can come up with enough incentive for someone to trade while you're on CPL. No one is going to trade a 1x, but they might trade a 3x until their team can establish a better port system.

As for your points:
A) Will you need to perform joint ops to achieve a PB/PR?
B) Will you need tsupport/funding from alliances outside of your own?
C) If your entire alliance isn't 100% active at least every other day will your alliance be crippled and unable to compete?
D) Will you be frustrated having to spend several days in a trader in order to fund ONE warbird?
A. No, that shouldn't be necessary with a 16 player cap assuming I keep planets the same or swap some gens for hangars
B. You shouldn't; it might just take an extra week to get into all the ships you want
C. No; the game builds slowly and decent strategists will be able to maximize returns as the port situation develops. Also, a slower start doesn't allow one alliance to build a massive lead on funds while other teams work their strategies out
D. I should hope not. This was first and foremost a trading game. Will you get your hunter as fast as you'd like? Maybe not, although maybe that's also a good thing. If your whole alliance, all 16 players, traded and depo'd decent routes on this map for 1 day, you'd have enough for a few warbirds.

Let me reiterate: I AM NOT MAKING ALL ROUTES 1-3X. I just think good routes should be fewer and farther between and maybe not have any real cash cow routes to begin with. This doesn't mean I'm going to gimp every route. Anyway, this may all be moot if I just go the entire opposite direction and make cash really easy to obtain. That's certainly a way to test as well, and since you guys are the only ones giving feedback on the board, we might as well test in that direction first.
JettJackson
Fledgling Spam Artist
Posts: 3572
Joined: Tue Mar 01, 2005 12:38 am
Location: Eastpointe MI

Re: Jouldax - The Emerald Cut

Post by JettJackson »

jouldax wrote:
I can certainly appreciate that money being harder to come by COULD make people more cautious, but, on the other hand, if you want to progress in the game you MUST trade. Plenty of traders would just sit and let turns slightly overflow while waiting for hunters to disappear from CPL. I can't promise that more team effort would force them to trade in this game either, but at least it might make fed alliances less likely. I do intend, regardless, to keep racial routes weaker (do not read = untradeable) so you have to venture further out for the reward. This is why I was trying to implement some sort of fed penalty because I don't know if I can come up with enough incentive for someone to trade while you're on CPL. No one is going to trade a 1x, but they might trade a 3x until their team can establish a better port system.

This already happens now, that people don't trade when certain players come on. Also the expectation that people will offer up a team effort is a bit misguided, as it doesn't happen now, so the expectation that there will be a radical shift overnight isn't going to happen.

How is a team supposed to establish a better port system? By busting routes? If that is the case, how long do you think it would take to make lets say 300 million for warbirds for an op/unoing for a large PR op of course assuming you can get enough to op? on 3x with everyone trading and no hunting, probably 3-4 weeks. Is there a reason for slowing the game down that much to even get started? I really don't see the merit of forcing everyone in the game to trade low routes and completely eliminate interaction.
Lead: Sesame Street, Rogue Squad

Co-Lead: Suckas, Black Sun Ascending, Wraith Squadron, Fool's Errend, Team Poker, The Phantom Order, Toxic #5

Member of: Team Pup and Suds, Nintendo Power, System Failure, Crusaders, new dawn, Cereal Killers, Armory, Armory V2, _-=`Perfection`=-_, The Guild, Ragnarok, Heimdall, United Rebels, ilLegitimate Basterds

I've seen and done it all
jouldax
Newbie Spam Artist
Posts: 582
Joined: Mon Nov 16, 2009 3:38 pm

Re: Jouldax - The Emerald Cut

Post by jouldax »

Look I don't know why you are taking offense to the opinions and criticisms, especially when you asked those on here to bring up things that they didn't like. We are already splitting up because of your suggestion to do so but then you are taking this chance to put in things that we highly disapprove of with reason and when questioned you are getting mad.


I'm not taking offense to anything that is said here. I asked for feedback and I appreciate you all giving it. Unfortunately, all 3 of you are from the same mold and want the game to remain true to its original form that follows a set path to end-game. I'm trying to pass along what's been said to me on IRC and some of the interesting suggestions I've received that change the game from its current format.
XDX brought up good reasoning that if you put in limited routes you are going to end up with one alliance dominating for sure, whoever hits first is going to dominate because the other alliance is not going to have the ability to fix the issue with any sort of ease. People complained about my maps being too boring but at the end of the day they were balanced and fair and didn't have limited money.
The routes won't be so limited that one alliance can control them all. Oh, and if you didn't notice, most of the good local routes end up getting hunted by the best alliance anyhow, so that's not really going to change with this new plan. What could change, however, is the line of thinking as to how to build routes and when to PR.

As for your maps, I won't even get into the amount of complaining I heard about them and the fact that, as with most things you suggest, they totally favored your alliance and your hunters. They were hunter maps, not trader maps, and had no real elements of strategy. Anyone can make a "balanced" map that's generic, has equal routes and is wide open for the most active team to win. As you may have noticed last game, the rest of the players decided to gang up against you because they were tired of your team constantly winning at the same map, with the same formula, with the same game plan, and while you'll argue they failed to learn, the truth is, you have the experience and always lead the most active alliance. That is entirely off topic, however, and we can discuss that some other time.
I mean I have to be honest if this is a majority's thought that routes need to be 3x or lower I would love to hear from these players because everyone I know who plays this game does not like trading BS low cash routes and trading all game. They like opping and hunting and fighting.
No one is saying that the routes all need to be 3X or lower...for crying out loud, that's not what I'm proposing. I'm saying that 3x will be the norm, not the exception, as it's been in the past. Also, YOU like opping, hunting and fighting. I think a fair share of people do as well. Some other people like trading and PRing (I don't count that as opping). You can't hunt without traders to hunt, you can't op without real competition, and you can't fight once you destroy a fleet quickly and the other side decides it's not worth it to fight you again on those terms. I'm doing everything in my power to encourage activity and a level playing field which are the two ingredients to getting people more interested in this game again.
XDemonX
Newbie Spam Artist
Posts: 657
Joined: Sat Nov 16, 2002 4:28 am
Location: Highland
Contact:

Re: Jouldax - The Emerald Cut

Post by XDemonX »

We are going in circles here. We need more people to input some feedback.
This is a beat, you just can't touch.....
Image
Holti
Quiet One
Posts: 399
Joined: Tue Jan 18, 2011 3:30 pm

Re: Jouldax - The Emerald Cut

Post by Holti »

I truly think that JJ should make the map and round as he sees fit, and we'll see how active it is. I don't think Jouldax should take the blame for making a map to JJ's liking, when Jouldax doesn't think it's a good idea. Jouldax will get the blame that he does not deserve if the map fails, Jouldax should only take the blame for a map *he* created, not a map catered to someone else.
Locked