An Open Letter to the SMR Community

[Hobbs]

Well, this degenerated again. Oh well.

You're the one who often makes the blanket statement of more turns means more activity, when it is simply not true. Too many turns and most people cannot actually spend them and hence give up trying and so have turns but do not/can not use them, there needs to be few enough that people crave just a extra few more turns and will wait impatiently for them, the moment people think they have enough then that's too many - you need to leave them always wanting a little bit more to keep them hooked.

The key then is to lower the turn cap and never have it go above 600 turns, which means that people would have to use it or lose it when it comes to turns.

JJ: Accuses page of making blanket statements, then makes a blanket statement.

[JettJackson]

Well, this degenerated again. Oh well.

You're the one who often makes the blanket statement of more turns means more activity, when it is simply not true. Too many turns and most people cannot actually spend them and hence give up trying and so have turns but do not/can not use them, there needs to be few enough that people crave just a extra few more turns and will wait impatiently for them, the moment people think they have enough then that's too many - you need to leave them always wanting a little bit more to keep them hooked.

The key then is to lower the turn cap and never have it go above 600 turns, which means that people would have to use it or lose it when it comes to turns.

JJ: Accuses page of making blanket statements, then makes a blanket statement.

How is what I said a blanket statement, it's exactly why Jester wants a smaller cap for his map to begin with and having less turns causes people to have to strategize instead of just going out and blowing everything up

[Freon22]

I don't know if this is on topic for this thread "An Open Letter to the SMR Community" so I will word it like so. lol

Dear SMR Community,
I think that map size, turn rate, and max turns should be related with each other. So as the map size gets smaller so would the turn rate and max turns. As the map gets larger so would the turn rate and max turns. Now this would only balance one part of the game there are still other areas that need work.

Freon22

PS: Before anyone comes up with how about the amount of players within a game? Answer, You have to have a balance game before you will have players to un-balance things.

[buttsack]

A lot of people are going to be against this, but I think another draft round could really shake things up a bit. However, instead of voting for leaders like last time, 2 people who are not typically leaders of an alliance would be the "leader" as far as picking their roster goes. Then they can draft accordingly for strong players who are able to help lead an alliance, and then fill their roster as they see fit. It should not be done in the open, in #smr, or anywhere but privately between the 2 leaders and Page, that way you cant be getting PMs from people for this or that during the draft.

I had fun with the last draft round, there were lots of people to talk to in chat, and lots of action in the game. Without this, or some other option, I don't think you will be able to prevent having one team at a huge competitive disadvantage next game. No one wants to change the way that they entertain themselves playing a game in order to entertain themselves less... you can plead all you'd like but it's moot. The only way of doing anything about the current competitive unbalance, and the future of the competitive SMR balance, is to change the structures or codes of a game to foster a different atmosphere. That could be a draft round or a severe nerf on game speed, or a nerf on the DC which could cause people to stop playing, or many other things.

[Jester-]

I don't know about a draft round, but the current alliance caps are LAME. Lets just go back to 30 vets and 10 newbies? Seriously i get 3-4 people in chat at max and we're active. So tired of this round just from the no social activity aspect. I can deal with dieing, losing or whatever you want to call it. When you have no one on your own team to interact with against the behemoth that is orca's "team" you start not wanting to play. We need bigger caps

[Holti]

I"m in favor of a middle ground. I like having more alliances, rather than just two. But as stated before, we have a lot of vets going solo because there was no room at the inn.

I think someone suggested a 17 vet cap? I'd be happy with that.

[JettJackson]

A lot of people are going to be against this, but I think another draft round could really shake things up a bit. However, instead of voting for leaders like last time, 2 people who are not typically leaders of an alliance would be the "leader" as far as picking their roster goes. Then they can draft accordingly for strong players who are able to help lead an alliance, and then fill their roster as they see fit. It should not be done in the open, in #smr, or anywhere but privately between the 2 leaders and Page, that way you cant be getting PMs from people for this or that during the draft.

I had fun with the last draft round, there were lots of people to talk to in chat, and lots of action in the game. Without this, or some other option, I don't think you will be able to prevent having one team at a huge competitive disadvantage next game. No one wants to change the way that they entertain themselves playing a game in order to entertain themselves less... you can plead all you'd like but it's moot. The only way of doing anything about the current competitive unbalance, and the future of the competitive SMR balance, is to change the structures or codes of a game to foster a different atmosphere. That could be a draft round or a severe nerf on game speed, or a nerf on the DC which could cause people to stop playing, or many other things.

Personally I like the thought of another draft round, but I'd like to save that for the Late Spring/Summer months when the game tends to be a little less active. A draft round would help keep that activity up. However we will definitely take this idea into consideration.