XDemonX's Continuous Update Discussion

Discussions about everything, SMR related or not.
XDemonX
Newbie Spam Artist
Posts: 657
Joined: Sat Nov 16, 2002 4:28 am
Location: Highland
Contact:

Re: XDemonX's Continuous Update Discussion

Post by XDemonX »

jouldax wrote:Your post is misleading, however, and poorly worded if not also off base. People play with who they want to play with. Sure, you would join us on occasion to make the game more competitive. However, people want to play with their friends. We recruited people we wanted to help, for example. I can't take that away from anyway. Furthermore, what you're basically suggesting is a draft round every game. We really only have enough players to field 2 competitive teams with large alliance caps. The game, however, will get very stale very quickly with just 2 teams competing, even if you swap players between rounds. The REAL solution, which would go against my first point, would be to cap teams by HoF ranking. For example, Team A can only have 3 players of point score >A, 5 players from A-B, etc. This would force teams to disband and try new combinations. However, all of this is essentially moot anyhow given the lack of new players and the current player base.

And for the record, in terms of the longevity of this game, I think Holti has done probably the best job I've seen in cultivating old vets or newbies and getting them interested.
That suggestion won't work. The playerscore system is flawed. Holy is considered the best player in the game. Essentially what you're suggesting is a draft. Back to my point, I understand you recruited people who you want to help. It wouldn't have hurt to reach other to some vets. I think a couple of us that got into your alliance would have made a pretty big improvement. Again, your opping activity is there.. That is great. You just need a few more supplement pieces.

I agree that it might be an occasional thing. But you never know, I could build a better relation with Holti, you, ACD (do I dare say JJ?) that could lead me to want to play with you guys more often. I am willing to try that and "mix things up" if you guys are willing to also. Again, my point was to put more effort in recruiting that's it.

This is all just constructive criticism I am not pointing fingers at anyone. This is just a discussion.

So back to my suggestion, you do not think that supplementing CIA with 5+ more members would not help your situation at all?
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 Continuous Update Discussion

Post by XDemonX »

If you guys could find a time to meet in IRC where we could discuss these points in a real time basis that would be a lot more productive.
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 Continuous Update Discussion

Post by JettJackson »

I think you are misguided in your thoughts of recruting, I know I message people as they join as does Holti, acd and Jouldax. The fact is though you guys recruited all of the best players before the game stuffing your alliance full leaving minimal to be recruited. Should we have recruited people before the game, maybe but this alliance wasn't meant to be super serious requiring full recruiting before it started. The point is though we weren't left wi th much to recruit by the time the game started.
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: XDemonX's Continuous Update Discussion

Post by jouldax »

Honestly, I think a potential solution as I've texted to XDX is a competition committee. Take as many top vets as are willing to participate and essentially assign them to alliances once the normal teams form. I would be willing to participate and it would allow most people to play with others they might not have previously. There's certainly a question of how many would be willing to do this and if they'd play nice with others once they got into some of these cliques, but at this point, I think it's worth a shot rather than have endless draft rounds.
XDemonX
Newbie Spam Artist
Posts: 657
Joined: Sat Nov 16, 2002 4:28 am
Location: Highland
Contact:

Re: XDemonX's Continuous Update Discussion

Post by XDemonX »

jouldax wrote:Honestly, I think a potential solution as I've texted to XDX is a competition committee. Take as many top vets as are willing to participate and essentially assign them to alliances once the normal teams form. I would be willing to participate and it would allow most people to play with others they might not have previously. There's certainly a question of how many would be willing to do this and if they'd play nice with others once they got into some of these cliques, but at this point, I think it's worth a shot rather than have endless draft rounds.
^^This

I would participate in this as a "floater" this would not limit people who hate draft games but still give it an opportunity to make it balanced. We don't need a large amount of players to be "floaters" possibly 3-5 players would be enough.. As even though people think our alliance is "stuffed with vets" I feel 2-3 people CIA's direction would make a world of difference.
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 Continuous Update Discussion

Post by Aendar »

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

Re: XDemonX's Continuous Update Discussion

Post by XDemonX »

Aender,

The point I am making is recruiting was not done prior to the game. Azn and I messaged multiple players as the game ended saying "What are your plans for next game?" pretty much every play we messaged said "I have no idea" people just want direction. Jouldax already explained reasoning for that so no need to keep expanding on this point.

We have tried the smaller alliance thing. Problem is getting strong leaders to step up is difficult. As you saw with the upcoming draft game, we can't find a strong leader to lead against Bouncer.

I am hoping Jouldax will get this multi thing approved as this may solve several problems.
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 Continuous Update Discussion

Post by Aendar »

Well,

I guess both KGB and CIA members were both asked from theri own member base. The same question was asked in CIA last round to our members.
ACD
Posts: 13
Joined: Wed Jan 07, 2009 5:16 pm

Re: XDemonX's Continuous Update Discussion

Post by ACD »

To: Xadlouj (7) Date: 28/11/2014 8:49:20 PM Report this message to an admin Blacklist Player Reply
Join Us!
Feel the wrath of a fed alliance inside of you.

I did ask you to join us, in a joke kind of manner yes.
But I still asked.


But as to the rest of this thread. I agree with everything fully. I wasnt to keen on the multi suggestion but reading through what you said in your first post has turned my opinion on it fully. Also with the feature update like Restarting Over, Personal coloured name , etc....
I would happily donate to get some of these features.
And dare I say it is there another race we can bring in to the fold? A race with maybe a scanner that can 2 sectors away or something Or can actually scan the sector as whole and see ship ratings.
I dunno, just giving food for thought on how to bring something new or upgrade part of the game.
ACD
Posts: 13
Joined: Wed Jan 07, 2009 5:16 pm

Re: XDemonX's Continuous Update Discussion

Post by ACD »

Also on the note of multi's, Will they have to be the same race?
If so I suggest they be limited to just their Racial Ships.
And I really like Bouncers idea of separating Enemies and Alliance members on the current sector.
Like Within your alliance, Their should be an option called War. On here it should give you an option to declare war on another alliance, setup peace treaties or NAP's for money or just by neutral agreement. ( Yes, stealing this idea from TC )
It should also show that if you are at war, that you can see all past battles between alliances. Like Combat logs. But shows Battles as whole.
Just an idea.
Post Reply