XDemonX's Desert Oasis

Storm
Posts: 13
Joined: Thu Jul 28, 2011 10:55 pm
Location: here

Re: XDemonX's Desert Oasis

Post by Storm »

I'll play with whomever asks me to join them...or in Azn's case, threatens to kill me. Problem is, I'm usually not asked about joining a different alliance, I just end up in the same alliance again by default.

The map looks interesting, but I thought one complaint about last round WAS about CA/UNO being too close to the pgal? I like the idea of experimenting with different map styles, it does make things interesting in how you'll defend your territory each round.

But...you can only please some of the people some of the time...there's never going to be a map that everyone loves, there will always be something that someone doesn't like. Human nature.
Incognito
Quiet One
Posts: 397
Joined: Fri May 05, 2006 11:59 pm
Location: Pennsylvania
Contact:

Re: XDemonX's Desert Oasis

Post by Incognito »

If no one else wants to lead in the draft game, I'll do it. But I'd rather not be on the committee then. Seldum can make the map.
I+N+C+O+G+N+I+T+O=Not you

I took a calculated risk. Unfortunately, I am bad at math.
Kessler
Quiet One
Posts: 24
Joined: Mon Jan 05, 2004 10:54 am

Re: XDemonX's Desert Oasis

Post by Kessler »

I don't have the interest to play this game anymore. I come to talk to the people. Those that make my ignore list, well, that just lessens my annoyance. I help people when needed, but, I don't play this alone anymore. I will spend my time building in the sandbox, or running with the guild in DDO. Occasionally, I come out of retirement to op. But, after that, its back to something else. This game has lost a lot more then it has gained or retained. I haven't logged into this WebBoard since I was an admin. And if you didn't know I was an admin, then it has been a long time. So, with all that being said, Do what you want, I just can't be bothered anymore.


This message posted under duress to keep xDx from raging on my fellow alliance mates.

Thank You for your time. (snicker)
Kessler
Former member : Ingenious!, Fool's Errand, Quiet Riot, Crusaders, Controlled Anarchy, F.U.N., System Failure, Sesame Street, -=Shadow=-, Dark Knights, Rain of Death, TLS

Always Smoothe as Silk
jouldax
Newbie Spam Artist
Posts: 582
Joined: Mon Nov 16, 2009 3:38 pm

Re: XDemonX's Desert Oasis

Post by jouldax »

Sadly, Hugh, I think we all agree this game has lost a lot more than it has gained. We are trying for a refresh through Astax but that will take a lot of time. I would like to believe that this new admin team has at least pushed for more changes and has at least tried new things over the past few months with the hopes of salvaging this game we all care a lot about. I would also hope that you, too, continue to be a part of the effort. Map discussion is great but we need to expand our player base to really get back to where we all want to be. Playing endless draft rounds with the same 30 people, no matter what map it is, won't change a thing. Hopefully we can generate new, free marketing ideas and implement things like multis.
Richard
Posts: 1
Joined: Mon Nov 24, 2014 5:05 am

Re: XDemonX's Desert Oasis

Post by Richard »

Hi guys, I figured I would weigh in on this because I too like this game very much, and would like to see our numbers increase. I'm just getting back to the game after quitting about a decade ago, so I'm not aware of all the attempts that have already been made to enhance the number of players. I actually like this map quite a bit. I think that, in general, maps should be structured to make it extremely difficult to op from fed. Probably my favorite part about this map is that it appears to make it cost prohibitive to do so (given the huge desert galaxies). Also, I think planets should be moved back to 70. It appears that lvl 45 planets are just too easy to bust & this can lead to people playing from fed the whole game. I just think that is sort of boring.

My understanding is that smr experimented with newbie/beginner player only galaxies for a while. Why was that abandoned? That seems like a fairly easy fix to protect those players from vets early on. Also, have we discussed the possibility of reducing the penalties of dying for new players? It seems to me that if the penalties aren't very severe for new players dying, then they won't get so discouraged when they inevitably do die.
XDemonX
Newbie Spam Artist
Posts: 657
Joined: Sat Nov 16, 2002 4:28 am
Location: Highland
Contact:

Re: XDemonX's Desert Oasis

Post by XDemonX »

jouldax wrote:Sadly, Hugh, I think we all agree this game has lost a lot more than it has gained. We are trying for a refresh through Astax but that will take a lot of time. I would like to believe that this new admin team has at least pushed for more changes and has at least tried new things over the past few months with the hopes of salvaging this game we all care a lot about. I would also hope that you, too, continue to be a part of the effort. Map discussion is great but we need to expand our player base to really get back to where we all want to be. Playing endless draft rounds with the same 30 people, no matter what map it is, won't change a thing. Hopefully we can generate new, free marketing ideas and implement things like multis.
It's a process. You certainly are not helping the game by rolling out maps like this. Reason I keep driving the point of how important maps are is because this is actually something that can be changed. Admin team does nothing but cry "we don't have a coder so changes can't happen so the game will forever suck" yet, you're not taking advantage of low hanging fruit which is map creation.

Poor Hugh doesn't have much to do this game so I am afraid it is going to be extremely hard to keep him playing. I usually trick him to playing by dangling hopes of planet building, route building and having a huge mine field to defend. Here are points below that were proven true yesterday.

No point in building planets.
Under 30 minutes it took you guys to arm up from fed, clear our mines and bust our lander. Right now, there is zero benefit to own planets especially when you can fully arm in 30 turns.

No point in mining.
Yes, mining probably stopped you from taking the last planet. But you still managed to take 67% of our planets, take out the entire minefield and kill our fleet with 1 op.

No point in building a route.
We are just building a route now trying to salvage some sort of fun. You guys didn't even attempt to build a planet. Racial routes are so good there that isn't really a point to build a route.. especially because it is not safe to land on planets.


I did tell Azn several times it was worthless to land. It doesn't really matter because we have way more money than we can spend. What bothers me is you guys are crying "omg we are just a casual alliance you guys are way too good we can't compete you guys are ruining the game we need this map". Yet, you managed to put together bigger numbers in an op than we have had all game.

Worst part is.. It truly is sad to get that sort of opping activity from both ends and we are stuck on this worthless map. I guarantee opping activity will go down once you start doing back to back to back to back port raids because there is NOTHING else left to do in the game. Our activity has gone down drastically because it is boring as crap shooting ports.. Activity is really going to go down now that people are finally realizing how fcking stupid this map is.
This is a beat, you just can't touch.....
Image
XDemonX
Newbie Spam Artist
Posts: 657
Joined: Sat Nov 16, 2002 4:28 am
Location: Highland
Contact:

Re: XDemonX's Desert Oasis

Post by XDemonX »

From: Travdan! (1) Date: 24/11/2014 11:04:58 AM Report this message to an admin Blacklist Player Reply

Hey XDX. Of course I'd love for it to be easier to build and maintain real strongholds. I appreciate the effort you are making to improve the game for people who really like to play (and not just casually log in every once in a while).

I'm not even sure I have a webboard login anymore, so let me just give you my comments here, and you're welcome to cite them in your thread:

* There should be several extremely defensible, but low profit planet galaxies. i.e. a place where an alliance that doesn't have a lot of resources can park without fear of getting wiped out in a single op. A high port density will make it easy to stock planets, but hard to build good routes.

* There should be one or two lucrative, centralized planet galaxies. Securing these galaxies will provide a goal for the more ambitious alliances. It should have strategic value (i.e. maybe have the only level 5 weapon shops there so that holding these galaxies gives you a combat advantage) as well as a low port density with good opportunity for profit/exp. It should be harder to secure these galaxies (high risk, high reward)
This is a beat, you just can't touch.....
Image
Aendar
Quiet One
Posts: 58
Joined: Mon Sep 22, 2014 10:07 am

Re: XDemonX's Desert Oasis

Post by Aendar »

@xDx

Some remarks I have after our last op. Its not meant to be some kind of criticism. I only want your opinion or strategic views on how things are possible with the changes you want:

You call out for maps where it shouldn'te be possible to bust them with a single op and do several ops to actually get to a planet. I think you mean 1 op to clear the mine field, 1 op to attack the planet and then yet another op to finish the planet bust.

So thats 3 ops. Yesterday I saw my turns get eaten away while mine sweeping and I couldn't even finish the second planet bust, I'm pretty sure most others were low on turns to. Since the 21st, or even some days before. There have been several attempts to clear the mines. Only one person in KGB getting of the lander planet can rebuild the whole mine field. So if it would be easier to put a minefield that takes more sectors to reach a planet, by the time we clear it and save up turns again for a new op two days after, the mine field is there again. So what do you suggest then?

AFAIK its so easy to lay so many mines all scattered around the planets, making it easier to put up a minefield and defend, will make planets practically unbustable because we will never reach it or we will reach it but have so low turns, we will be able to take a few shots and then have to abort. Next time the mine field is there again and in 2 days of good building, the planet will have its defenses back up again.
XDemonX
Newbie Spam Artist
Posts: 657
Joined: Sat Nov 16, 2002 4:28 am
Location: Highland
Contact:

Re: XDemonX's Desert Oasis

Post by XDemonX »

Aendar wrote:@xDx

Some remarks I have after our last op. Its not meant to be some kind of criticism. I only want your opinion or strategic views on how things are possible with the changes you want:

You call out for maps where it shouldn'te be possible to bust them with a single op and do several ops to actually get to a planet. I think you mean 1 op to clear the mine field, 1 op to attack the planet and then yet another op to finish the planet bust.

So thats 3 ops. Yesterday I saw my turns get eaten away while mine sweeping and I couldn't even finish the second planet bust, I'm pretty sure most others were low on turns to. Since the 21st, or even some days before. There have been several attempts to clear the mines. Only one person in KGB getting of the lander planet can rebuild the whole mine field. So if it would be easier to put a minefield that takes more sectors to reach a planet, by the time we clear it and save up turns again for a new op two days after, the mine field is there again. So what do you suggest then?

AFAIK its so easy to lay so many mines all scattered around the planets, making it easier to put up a minefield and defend, will make planets practically unbustable because we will never reach it or we will reach it but have so low turns, we will be able to take a few shots and then have to abort. Next time the mine field is there again and in 2 days of good building, the planet will have its defenses back up again.
Aender,

As I stated before, planets have never been "unbustable". It should take more than 1 op to clear a minefield and take 2 planets (especially since there is only 3). A lot of times, with a well developed minefield you get 1 guess at which planet is the lander and usually only have turns to take 1 planet. You guys cleared our entire galaxy, killed our entire fleet and took 2 planets while arming from fed. We were building, seeding, and mining as soon as planets were habitable. So a week's worth of building, mining ect only took you guys ~30 minutes to take out.

I have been a part and led many ops where all we did the entire op was clear mines to prep to take a planet. We had quite a bit of mines down and you were able to take 2 planets. We are not going to be able to take back both planets and get enough mines down to come close to stopping you from taking 2 planets again.

You guys won't even land on planets. You all headed back to fed. Our alliance will now play from fed. Both alliances will play from fed maybe we op every once in a while to bust the empty planets.

One person cannot rebuild the minefield. It requires a lot of people to come out and seed and also requires a lot of money. As I stated before with this layout Cost of mines > benefit of mines. If I were leading all hardcore like I wouldn't mine and I would have my alliance play from fed which is what exactly you guys are doing. Again, 30 minutes is all it took for you guys to get to the lander and bust it. There is no chance for us to get enough on to even come close to defending that.
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: XDemonX's Desert Oasis

Post by JettJackson »

XDemonX wrote:
From: Travdan! (1) Date: 24/11/2014 11:04:58 AM Report this message to an admin Blacklist Player Reply

Hey XDX. Of course I'd love for it to be easier to build and maintain real strongholds. I appreciate the effort you are making to improve the game for people who really like to play (and not just casually log in every once in a while).

I'm not even sure I have a webboard login anymore, so let me just give you my comments here, and you're welcome to cite them in your thread:

* There should be several extremely defensible, but low profit planet galaxies. i.e. a place where an alliance that doesn't have a lot of resources can park without fear of getting wiped out in a single op. A high port density will make it easy to stock planets, but hard to build good routes.

* There should be one or two lucrative, centralized planet galaxies. Securing these galaxies will provide a goal for the more ambitious alliances. It should have strategic value (i.e. maybe have the only level 5 weapon shops there so that holding these galaxies gives you a combat advantage) as well as a low port density with good opportunity for profit/exp. It should be harder to secure these galaxies (high risk, high reward)

The concern I have with having a bunch of planet galaxies is there is a much better chance of never busting a lander. If an alliance has 10 planets you have a 1 in 10 shot of busting them for example. I do like the idea of planet galaxies having some strategic value though that he mentioned, but I wouldn't be for having many planet galaxies unless the player base decided to jump ten fold overnight.
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
Locked