These proposals are all in remedy to the problem of newer players being repeatedly raped by more powerful players. This is only an off-the-cuff "brainstorm" list. Treat it as such.
1) First, change the emphasis of the game play from the extremely strong attacking only those much weaker to attacks between players that are close to being peers; instead of a little boy being beaten by a huge man with a stick and then raped, let the man with the stick fight someone his own size.
2) Second; consider some possibilities for implementing this change:
a) Put a cap on not just the ratio between players, but the total resource point difference, especially for early in a player's development.
b) Keep the attack ratio approach you have now, but make it so that it drops off farther and sooner, and on a constant curve, not in steps, so that you have fewer complete mismatches; no player should be able to attack with complete impunity.
d) Have a "disaster" multiplier; let there always be SOME chance that an attack will completely fail, be destroyed absolutely. Have this "disaster" multiplier increase with the difference in point rank between the players. I would exclude abandoned planets from this.
c) Decrease the amount of resources that can be harvested by recycling on single attack, using a ratio based on the relative point rank of the players; so, you would be able to harvest twice as high a percentage from attacking someone with the same point rank as you as if you attack a player that is just barely within range (weaker than you). Make it work the other way, too; if you attack somebody twice as high point rank as you, you would be able to harvest twice the percentage resources from recycling. These percentages are of course suggestions; the point is, you should get rewarded for courage, for attacking someone with real strength, not for being a cowardly punk raping and robbing someone whose strength is as a little child to yours. This game does the opposite.
d) Provide a better description of the mechanics of the game, and game play, IN the game, NOT just in the forum, and IN ENGLISH, GERMAN, FRENCH, RUSSIAN, CHINESE, well, something besides just Bulgarian and English anyway....enough different languages that nearly everybody will know at least one of them. New players don't even know to look in the forum for help, or get frustrated trying to wade through it to find anything useful, and many of them just get frustrated and quit. With comprehensive gameplay help, and multiple languages, IN GAME, new players have a fighting chance to be able to actually get to PLAY the game effectively before they start getting hit.
When you make it as hard as possible for new players to find out how the actual gameplay has to work in order to survive (which is what you have done, with almost no in-game help) that alone costs you lots of potential customers that would otherwise be making you money.
e) Include a NEGATIVE multiplier on ship strength when attacking somebody who is much weaker than you are in point ranking. You could still attack them, but it would be harder to do, and you would lose more ships; this, coupled with much stronger limits on recycling debris when attacking much weaker players would discourage attacking only the weakest, and encourage more battles between people who are fairly matched.
f) include a POSITIVE multiplier in strength if you are BEING attacked by somebody who is greatly stronger than you, at least for your defensive satellites.
g)INCREASE the power, and/or decrease the cost, of defensive satellites, making them more powerful/cheaper early. Again, to make it more costly to attack only the weak.
4) Consider the profitability of the game first, instead of concentrating on making the game fun for people who have already learned how to play, and can use that knowledge to bully much weaker players.
5) Before you say that these proposals are worthless.....try running some simulations using these rule changes, and consider that the goal here is to attract a large, loyal customer base, not to serve only those players who are already knowledgeable and well-developed.
6) You say that the higher players run a risk of running out of people to attack....well, that's really tough for them. Gee. Maybe they should start again in another universe, huh. Or fight others that are strong enough to be a real test. Remember, when you have to choose between making things more fun for one player or for a hundred players, if you want to make MONEY you will pick the 100 players every time.
Please.....look at this as a business, rationally, and not just from the standpoint of somebody that likes to beat up on those who can't defend themselves. The games that make money consistently are those that allow the most players to experience the actual game play instead of just being blown up. If the players don't know (and/or can't easily and conveniently find out) that there is a way to survive and be able to play, then it drives them away. If the game is structured so that only those who have large amounts of time available can ever hope to play, it drives people away. If the game is structured so that it rewards only those who attack the weak, it drives people away. If a game is percieved (as this one is, by most folks) as being biased heavily in favor of existing players, it drives people away.
Any one of these things can kill a growing game. All of them together....its not so good. Every person who quits early is one more person you won't ever see any money from.
Also, it would be really nice if those who are supposed to be Moderators would be civil to those who write here, instead of being deliberately insulting as I have seen repeatedly after reading the posts. Treat the players who come to try to play Bulfleet as customers, not cattle; making the customers happy is how you make the most money, and the first step in doing so is treating people with respect. Saying that somebody is retarded (an IQ less than 50 were the exact words, if I recall correctly) if they don't know as much about the game as you do, or are complaining about elements of game design, is very unprofessional. So is treating somebody with scorn or disdain if they have a different opinion about how good games are designed. If you were working for someplace like IBM and treated customers like this, you'd be fired; that's because THEY WANT TO MAKE MONEY....its what they exist for.
Try some of these changes, or ones similar, in one universe. Tinker with it. Stuff that works, keep; stuff that doesn't, don't use. If you find that suddenly you get a huge subscription to that new universe with rule changes to reward peer battles, and to penalize bullying (attacking only those that can't defend themselves), then you will profit greatly.
Hardluck
Proposed rule changes for next universe restart
See red for comments
You shouldnt comment on the 'buisiness' of a game unless if your the CFO of the game -.-Hardluck написа:QUOTE(Hardluck @ Jul 7 2007, 08:49 PM) These proposals are all in remedy to the problem of newer players being repeatedly raped by more powerful players. This is only an off-the-cuff "brainstorm" list. Treat it as such.
1) First, change the emphasis of the game play from the extremely strong attacking only those much weaker to attacks between players that are close to being peers; instead of a little boy being beaten by a huge man with a stick and then raped, let the man with the stick fight someone his own size.
saven and dont keep too much rez on a planet at one time...
2) Second; consider some possibilities for implementing this change:
a) Put a cap on not just the ratio between players, but the total resource point difference, especially for early in a player's development.
No no no no no!!!! then It would be impossible to attack people.
b) Keep the attack ratio approach you have now, but make it so that it drops off farther and sooner, and on a constant curve, not in steps, so that you have fewer complete mismatches; no player should be able to attack with complete impunity.
See 1)
d) Have a "disaster" multiplier; let there always be SOME chance that an attack will completely fail, be destroyed absolutely. Have this "disaster" multiplier increase with the difference in point rank between the players. I would exclude abandoned planets from this.
Randomness is not stratgey
c) Decrease the amount of resources that can be harvested by recycling on single attack, using a ratio based on the relative point rank of the players; so, you would be able to harvest twice as high a percentage from attacking someone with the same point rank as you as if you attack a player that is just barely within range (weaker than you). Make it work the other way, too; if you attack somebody twice as high point rank as you, you would be able to harvest twice the percentage resources from recycling. These percentages are of course suggestions; the point is, you should get rewarded for courage, for attacking someone with real strength, not for being a cowardly punk raping and robbing someone whose strength is as a little child to yours. This game does the opposite.
Nope, the RF are fine as they are, most attacks arent worth it w/o the RF being that size
d) Provide a better description of the mechanics of the game, and game play, IN the game, NOT just in the forum, and IN ENGLISH, GERMAN, FRENCH, RUSSIAN, CHINESE, well, something besides just Bulgarian and English anyway....enough different languages that nearly everybody will know at least one of them. New players don't even know to look in the forum for help, or get frustrated trying to wade through it to find anything useful, and many of them just get frustrated and quit. With comprehensive gameplay help, and multiple languages, IN GAME, new players have a fighting chance to be able to actually get to PLAY the game effectively before they start getting hit.
This, is a good idea.
When you make it as hard as possible for new players to find out how the actual gameplay has to work in order to survive (which is what you have done, with almost no in-game help) that alone costs you lots of potential customers that would otherwise be making you money.
I doubt this game was made Purley for the purpose of making a quick buck
e) Include a NEGATIVE multiplier on ship strength when attacking somebody who is much weaker than you are in point ranking. You could still attack them, but it would be harder to do, and you would lose more ships; this, coupled with much stronger limits on recycling debris when attacking much weaker players would discourage attacking only the weakest, and encourage more battles between people who are fairly matched.
hehe, We beat you on that one, next round in Uni 1, there will be a thing called Morale
f) include a POSITIVE multiplier in strength if you are BEING attacked by somebody who is greatly stronger than you, at least for your defensive satellites.
See e)
g)INCREASE the power, and/or decrease the cost, of defensive satellites, making them more powerful/cheaper early. Again, to make it more costly to attack only the weak.
again, this makes it too easy
4) Consider the profitability of the game first, instead of concentrating on making the game fun for people who have already learned how to play, and can use that knowledge to bully much weaker players.
See d)
5) Before you say that these proposals are worthless.....try running some simulations using these rule changes, and consider that the goal here is to attract a large, loyal customer base, not to serve only those players who are already knowledgeable and well-developed.
see d)
6) You say that the higher players run a risk of running out of people to attack....well, that's really tough for them. Gee. Maybe they should start again in another universe, huh. Or fight others that are strong enough to be a real test. Remember, when you have to choose between making things more fun for one player or for a hundred players, if you want to make MONEY you will pick the 100 players every time.
see d for money coment and... only the strong surivie
Please.....look at this as a business, rationally, and not just from the standpoint of somebody that likes to beat up on those who can't defend themselves. The games that make money consistently are those that allow the most players to experience the actual game play instead of just being blown up. If the players don't know (and/or can't easily and conveniently find out) that there is a way to survive and be able to play, then it drives them away. If the game is structured so that only those who have large amounts of time available can ever hope to play, it drives people away. If the game is structured so that it rewards only those who attack the weak, it drives people away. If a game is percieved (as this one is, by most folks) as being biased heavily in favor of existing players, it drives people away.
Any one of these things can kill a growing game. All of them together....its not so good. Every person who quits early is one more person you won't ever see any money from.
Also, it would be really nice if those who are supposed to be Moderators would be civil to those who write here, instead of being deliberately insulting as I have seen repeatedly after reading the posts. Treat the players who come to try to play Bulfleet as customers, not cattle; making the customers happy is how you make the most money, and the first step in doing so is treating people with respect. Saying that somebody is retarded (an IQ less than 50 were the exact words, if I recall correctly) if they don't know as much about the game as you do, or are complaining about elements of game design, is very unprofessional. So is treating somebody with scorn or disdain if they have a different opinion about how good games are designed. If you were working for someplace like IBM and treated customers like this, you'd be fired; that's because THEY WANT TO MAKE MONEY....its what they exist for.
Try some of these changes, or ones similar, in one universe. Tinker with it. Stuff that works, keep; stuff that doesn't, don't use. If you find that suddenly you get a huge subscription to that new universe with rule changes to reward peer battles, and to penalize bullying (attacking only those that can't defend themselves), then you will profit greatly.
Hardluck
Последна промяна от Mottmon на нед юли 08, 2007 3:27 am, променено общо 1 път.
[quote=""Hardluck""]d) Provide a better description of the mechanics of the game, and game play, IN the game, NOT just in the forum, and IN ENGLISH, GERMAN, FRENCH, RUSSIAN, CHINESE, well, something besides just Bulgarian and English anyway....enough different languages that nearly everybody will know at least one of them. New players don't even know to look in the forum for help, or get frustrated trying to wade through it to find anything useful, and many of them just get frustrated and quit. With comprehensive gameplay help, and multiple languages, IN GAME, new players have a fighting chance to be able to actually get to PLAY the game effectively before they start getting hit.[/quote]
Working on a new and more developed guide actually, once it's all complete I'll submit it to the Admins (In both english and french)
Working on a new and more developed guide actually, once it's all complete I'll submit it to the Admins (In both english and french)
These proposals are all in remedy to the problem of newer players being repeatedly raped by more powerful players. This is only an off-the-cuff "brainstorm" list. Treat it as such.
1) First, change the emphasis of the game play from the extremely strong attacking only those much weaker to attacks between players that are close to being peers; instead of a little boy being beaten by a huge man with a stick and then raped, let the man with the stick fight someone his own size.
saven and dont keep too much rez on a planet at one time...
Yes, you can do that. Unfortunately, it places huge limits on the ability of most players to play the game; it only works if you can predict when you are able to play, on a reliable schedule, and drives away players that want to be able to just sit down, log on, and play the game whenever they want. And since most new players have no idea what that even MEANS...it does not address the problem at hand; preventing newer, lower rank players from being constantly attacked by players that they have no possible defense against.
You are used to things as they are; you know how to play the game as it is, and have succeeded. As is often the case, those who are successful in a system say that the system is fine; no system is moved towards change by those that already profit from it, unless it is to make changes that tilt things even more in their favor.
You know, the way American corporations do, around the world.
2) Second; consider some possibilities for implementing this change:
a) Put a cap on not just the ratio between players, but the total resource point difference, especially for early in a player's development.
No no no no no!!!! then It would be impossible to attack people.
No, it would not be impossible to attack people. It would only change WHO you could attack, when. It would be less easy, though, to farm the weakest players for resources, because you wouldn't be ABLE to unless you were relatively low level yourself. I am sure that the more powerful players find that an awful idea; fight people who can actually FIGHT BACK? HEAVENS, we can't have THAT!
b) Keep the attack ratio approach you have now, but make it so that it drops off farther and sooner, and on a constant curve, not in steps, so that you have fewer complete mismatches; no player should be able to attack with complete impunity.
See 1)
This would not make attacking other players impossible, it would just change who you could attack, and when. You would not be able to attack some of the players that you probably can now. That is the point, and my purpose here; to take some of the pressure off of the lower level players.
d) Have a "disaster" multiplier; let there always be SOME chance that an attack will completely fail, be destroyed absolutely. Have this "disaster" multiplier increase with the difference in point rank between the players. I would exclude abandoned planets from this.
Randomness is not stratgey
Randomness is, or can be, a strategy; actually, Sun Tsu counsels randomness as a military strategy, at least in terms of how your deployments appear to an enemy. This however isn't about strategy, but about the mechanics of game play.
Randomness always exists in war. It is the "fog of war" that Clausewitz speaks of, that makes overly complicated plans into wrecks, that changes the battlefield unpredictably....the nail, if you would allow the illustration, of the old childs tale, "For want of a nail, a shoe was lost; for want of a shoe, a horse was lost; for want of a horse, a rider was lost; for want of a rider, the message was lost; for want of a message, the battle was lost; for want of a battle, the war was lost; for want of a war, the kingdom was lost. And all for want of a horseshoe nail"
In this case, since I am looking at ways to limit or discourage (by making it less profitable) attacking players that are helpless compared to the more experieinced players, the topic is gameplay, not strategy.
If you are trying to say that you just don't like the idea of a random element in this game, I understand. I just disagree.
c) Decrease the amount of resources that can be harvested by recycling on single attack, using a ratio based on the relative point rank of the players; so, you would be able to harvest twice as high a percentage from attacking someone with the same point rank as you as if you attack a player that is just barely within range (weaker than you). Make it work the other way, too; if you attack somebody twice as high point rank as you, you would be able to harvest twice the percentage resources from recycling. These percentages are of course suggestions; the point is, you should get rewarded for courage, for attacking someone with real strength, not for being a cowardly punk raping and robbing someone whose strength is as a little child to yours. This game does the opposite.
Nope, the RF are fine as they are, most attacks arent worth it w/o the RF being that size
"Most attacks aren't worth it without the RF being that size"; oh, come on, bud; you can effectively play this game without a single thing gained from raiding active players. You can't get as big as fast, perhaps, but you CAN do it. You don't HAVE to attack other players for resources; you PREFER to, because there is essentially no cost to you; you can recycle the debris after the battle, and come out ahead, and they can't do a thing about it. They can't even slow you down.
Again, those that profit from a system tend to support it.
d) Provide a better description of the mechanics of the game, and game play, IN the game, NOT just in the forum, and IN ENGLISH, GERMAN, FRENCH, RUSSIAN, CHINESE, well, something besides just Bulgarian and English anyway....enough different languages that nearly everybody will know at least one of them. New players don't even know to look in the forum for help, or get frustrated trying to wade through it to find anything useful, and many of them just get frustrated and quit. With comprehensive gameplay help, and multiple languages, IN GAME, new players have a fighting chance to be able to actually get to PLAY the game effectively before they start getting hit.
This, is a good idea.
THanks :D
When you make it as hard as possible for new players to find out how the actual gameplay has to work in order to survive (which is what you have done, with almost no in-game help) that alone costs you lots of potential customers that would otherwise be making you money.
I doubt this game was made Purley for the purpose of making a quick buck
Perhaps not; that doesn't mean that economics doesn't come into how games are built. Perhaps this is a hobby for him, and not a business? Ah...that's right; I'm not supposed comment unless I am the CFO? *sigh*
e) Include a NEGATIVE multiplier on ship strength when attacking somebody who is much weaker than you are in point ranking. You could still attack them, but it would be harder to do, and you would lose more ships; this, coupled with much stronger limits on recycling debris when attacking much weaker players would discourage attacking only the weakest, and encourage more battles between people who are fairly matched.
hehe, We beat you on that one, next round in Uni 1, there will be a thing called Morale
Kool :D I can't wait to see how it works; maybe it will be enough, or at least help.
f) include a POSITIVE multiplier in strength if you are BEING attacked by somebody who is greatly stronger than you, at least for your defensive satellites.
See e)
g)INCREASE the power, and/or decrease the cost, of defensive satellites, making them more powerful/cheaper early. Again, to make it more costly to attack only the weak.
again, this makes it too easy
Not if my goal is to do just that; make the game easier to play for beginning players. Whether it would make things TOO easy has to do with just how much of a change is made, unless, of course, you think that the system is perfect as it is. I do not.
4) Consider the profitability of the game first, instead of concentrating on making the game fun for people who have already learned how to play, and can use that knowledge to bully much weaker players.
See d)
5) Before you say that these proposals are worthless.....try running some simulations using these rule changes, and consider that the goal here is to attract a large, loyal customer base, not to serve only those players who are already knowledgeable and well-developed.
see d)
6) You say that the higher players run a risk of running out of people to attack....well, that's really tough for them. Gee. Maybe they should start again in another universe, huh. Or fight others that are strong enough to be a real test. Remember, when you have to choose between making things more fun for one player or for a hundred players, if you want to make MONEY you will pick the 100 players every time.
see d for money coment and... only the strong surivie
Success in this game would not seem to have anything to do with strength; rather, it depends heavily on either getting powerful early (in the life of the universe; being one of the first persons into that universe), having very large amounts of time to play the game, on a regular and predictable schedule, and being able to find out on your own (rather from game help or files) how to survive the months until you actually can defend yourself. That's not strength. Niether is it strength to attack only those that you know you can destroy with no risk.
Please.....look at this as a business, rationally, and not just from the standpoint of somebody that likes to beat up on those who can't defend themselves. The games that make money consistently are those that allow the most players to experience the actual game play instead of just being blown up. If the players don't know (and/or can't easily and conveniently find out) that there is a way to survive and be able to play, then it drives them away. If the game is structured so that only those who have large amounts of time available can ever hope to play, it drives people away. If the game is structured so that it rewards only those who attack the weak, it drives people away. If a game is percieved (as this one is, by most folks) as being biased heavily in favor of existing players, it drives people away.
Any one of these things can kill a growing game. All of them together....its not so good. Every person who quits early is one more person you won't ever see any money from.
Also, it would be really nice if those who are supposed to be Moderators would be civil to those who write here, instead of being deliberately insulting as I have seen repeatedly after reading the posts. Treat the players who come to try to play Bulfleet as customers, not cattle; making the customers happy is how you make the most money, and the first step in doing so is treating people with respect. Saying that somebody is retarded (an IQ less than 50 were the exact words, if I recall correctly) if they don't know as much about the game as you do, or are complaining about elements of game design, is very unprofessional. So is treating somebody with scorn or disdain if they have a different opinion about how good games are designed. If you were working for someplace like IBM and treated customers like this, you'd be fired; that's because THEY WANT TO MAKE MONEY....its what they exist for.
Try some of these changes, or ones similar, in one universe. Tinker with it. Stuff that works, keep; stuff that doesn't, don't use. If you find that suddenly you get a huge subscription to that new universe with rule changes to reward peer battles, and to penalize bullying (attacking only those that can't defend themselves), then you will profit greatly.
Hardluck
I think there is a cultural difference, here. In the US, we are used to having a constitutional protection that gives us free speech. Although the current administration of the US has no respect for this, for our culture it is considered very important; the phrase, "I disagree with what you say, but I would fight to the death for your right to say it" comes to mind. Unless and until I am banned for speaking my mind, I shall continue to do so....even though I notice that the attacks on my planet escalated after my original comments about the unbalanced game play.
As far as the comments in red are concerned.....
The whole POINT of this exercise is to make it easier for new players to get well into the game play and get HOOKED on it before that start getting hit by attacks every day that they can't do anything about except run away. So that they stay. So that the game grows. So that the company makes money.
I may not be a CFO, but I do know games. I've seen others ("Rogue Trader" comes to mind) that were ruined by the type of gameplay I see here, where the emphasis is an bullying and destroying new players, not on fighting those near or at your level of play. Perhaps this will not happen with Bulfleet; perhaps there are enough people who are into that kind of gameplay to make it sell.
I don't think so. I think that unless these problems are addressed successfully, that it will fade, and that would be sad, because the OTHER elements of gameplay here are (so far as I can see) excellent.
Glad to hear about the new manual coming. Glad to see that you have the "Morale" modifier coming, and can't wait to see how it works in practice. It may be enough; I don't know.
Peer-to-peer combat sells, though; people in general are more proud of defeating an able enemy than one that has no power or skills. [/color]
1) First, change the emphasis of the game play from the extremely strong attacking only those much weaker to attacks between players that are close to being peers; instead of a little boy being beaten by a huge man with a stick and then raped, let the man with the stick fight someone his own size.
saven and dont keep too much rez on a planet at one time...
Yes, you can do that. Unfortunately, it places huge limits on the ability of most players to play the game; it only works if you can predict when you are able to play, on a reliable schedule, and drives away players that want to be able to just sit down, log on, and play the game whenever they want. And since most new players have no idea what that even MEANS...it does not address the problem at hand; preventing newer, lower rank players from being constantly attacked by players that they have no possible defense against.
You are used to things as they are; you know how to play the game as it is, and have succeeded. As is often the case, those who are successful in a system say that the system is fine; no system is moved towards change by those that already profit from it, unless it is to make changes that tilt things even more in their favor.
You know, the way American corporations do, around the world.
2) Second; consider some possibilities for implementing this change:
a) Put a cap on not just the ratio between players, but the total resource point difference, especially for early in a player's development.
No no no no no!!!! then It would be impossible to attack people.
No, it would not be impossible to attack people. It would only change WHO you could attack, when. It would be less easy, though, to farm the weakest players for resources, because you wouldn't be ABLE to unless you were relatively low level yourself. I am sure that the more powerful players find that an awful idea; fight people who can actually FIGHT BACK? HEAVENS, we can't have THAT!
b) Keep the attack ratio approach you have now, but make it so that it drops off farther and sooner, and on a constant curve, not in steps, so that you have fewer complete mismatches; no player should be able to attack with complete impunity.
See 1)
This would not make attacking other players impossible, it would just change who you could attack, and when. You would not be able to attack some of the players that you probably can now. That is the point, and my purpose here; to take some of the pressure off of the lower level players.
d) Have a "disaster" multiplier; let there always be SOME chance that an attack will completely fail, be destroyed absolutely. Have this "disaster" multiplier increase with the difference in point rank between the players. I would exclude abandoned planets from this.
Randomness is not stratgey
Randomness is, or can be, a strategy; actually, Sun Tsu counsels randomness as a military strategy, at least in terms of how your deployments appear to an enemy. This however isn't about strategy, but about the mechanics of game play.
Randomness always exists in war. It is the "fog of war" that Clausewitz speaks of, that makes overly complicated plans into wrecks, that changes the battlefield unpredictably....the nail, if you would allow the illustration, of the old childs tale, "For want of a nail, a shoe was lost; for want of a shoe, a horse was lost; for want of a horse, a rider was lost; for want of a rider, the message was lost; for want of a message, the battle was lost; for want of a battle, the war was lost; for want of a war, the kingdom was lost. And all for want of a horseshoe nail"
In this case, since I am looking at ways to limit or discourage (by making it less profitable) attacking players that are helpless compared to the more experieinced players, the topic is gameplay, not strategy.
If you are trying to say that you just don't like the idea of a random element in this game, I understand. I just disagree.
c) Decrease the amount of resources that can be harvested by recycling on single attack, using a ratio based on the relative point rank of the players; so, you would be able to harvest twice as high a percentage from attacking someone with the same point rank as you as if you attack a player that is just barely within range (weaker than you). Make it work the other way, too; if you attack somebody twice as high point rank as you, you would be able to harvest twice the percentage resources from recycling. These percentages are of course suggestions; the point is, you should get rewarded for courage, for attacking someone with real strength, not for being a cowardly punk raping and robbing someone whose strength is as a little child to yours. This game does the opposite.
Nope, the RF are fine as they are, most attacks arent worth it w/o the RF being that size
"Most attacks aren't worth it without the RF being that size"; oh, come on, bud; you can effectively play this game without a single thing gained from raiding active players. You can't get as big as fast, perhaps, but you CAN do it. You don't HAVE to attack other players for resources; you PREFER to, because there is essentially no cost to you; you can recycle the debris after the battle, and come out ahead, and they can't do a thing about it. They can't even slow you down.
Again, those that profit from a system tend to support it.
d) Provide a better description of the mechanics of the game, and game play, IN the game, NOT just in the forum, and IN ENGLISH, GERMAN, FRENCH, RUSSIAN, CHINESE, well, something besides just Bulgarian and English anyway....enough different languages that nearly everybody will know at least one of them. New players don't even know to look in the forum for help, or get frustrated trying to wade through it to find anything useful, and many of them just get frustrated and quit. With comprehensive gameplay help, and multiple languages, IN GAME, new players have a fighting chance to be able to actually get to PLAY the game effectively before they start getting hit.
This, is a good idea.
THanks :D
When you make it as hard as possible for new players to find out how the actual gameplay has to work in order to survive (which is what you have done, with almost no in-game help) that alone costs you lots of potential customers that would otherwise be making you money.
I doubt this game was made Purley for the purpose of making a quick buck
Perhaps not; that doesn't mean that economics doesn't come into how games are built. Perhaps this is a hobby for him, and not a business? Ah...that's right; I'm not supposed comment unless I am the CFO? *sigh*
e) Include a NEGATIVE multiplier on ship strength when attacking somebody who is much weaker than you are in point ranking. You could still attack them, but it would be harder to do, and you would lose more ships; this, coupled with much stronger limits on recycling debris when attacking much weaker players would discourage attacking only the weakest, and encourage more battles between people who are fairly matched.
hehe, We beat you on that one, next round in Uni 1, there will be a thing called Morale
Kool :D I can't wait to see how it works; maybe it will be enough, or at least help.
f) include a POSITIVE multiplier in strength if you are BEING attacked by somebody who is greatly stronger than you, at least for your defensive satellites.
See e)
g)INCREASE the power, and/or decrease the cost, of defensive satellites, making them more powerful/cheaper early. Again, to make it more costly to attack only the weak.
again, this makes it too easy
Not if my goal is to do just that; make the game easier to play for beginning players. Whether it would make things TOO easy has to do with just how much of a change is made, unless, of course, you think that the system is perfect as it is. I do not.
4) Consider the profitability of the game first, instead of concentrating on making the game fun for people who have already learned how to play, and can use that knowledge to bully much weaker players.
See d)
5) Before you say that these proposals are worthless.....try running some simulations using these rule changes, and consider that the goal here is to attract a large, loyal customer base, not to serve only those players who are already knowledgeable and well-developed.
see d)
6) You say that the higher players run a risk of running out of people to attack....well, that's really tough for them. Gee. Maybe they should start again in another universe, huh. Or fight others that are strong enough to be a real test. Remember, when you have to choose between making things more fun for one player or for a hundred players, if you want to make MONEY you will pick the 100 players every time.
see d for money coment and... only the strong surivie
Success in this game would not seem to have anything to do with strength; rather, it depends heavily on either getting powerful early (in the life of the universe; being one of the first persons into that universe), having very large amounts of time to play the game, on a regular and predictable schedule, and being able to find out on your own (rather from game help or files) how to survive the months until you actually can defend yourself. That's not strength. Niether is it strength to attack only those that you know you can destroy with no risk.
Please.....look at this as a business, rationally, and not just from the standpoint of somebody that likes to beat up on those who can't defend themselves. The games that make money consistently are those that allow the most players to experience the actual game play instead of just being blown up. If the players don't know (and/or can't easily and conveniently find out) that there is a way to survive and be able to play, then it drives them away. If the game is structured so that only those who have large amounts of time available can ever hope to play, it drives people away. If the game is structured so that it rewards only those who attack the weak, it drives people away. If a game is percieved (as this one is, by most folks) as being biased heavily in favor of existing players, it drives people away.
Any one of these things can kill a growing game. All of them together....its not so good. Every person who quits early is one more person you won't ever see any money from.
Also, it would be really nice if those who are supposed to be Moderators would be civil to those who write here, instead of being deliberately insulting as I have seen repeatedly after reading the posts. Treat the players who come to try to play Bulfleet as customers, not cattle; making the customers happy is how you make the most money, and the first step in doing so is treating people with respect. Saying that somebody is retarded (an IQ less than 50 were the exact words, if I recall correctly) if they don't know as much about the game as you do, or are complaining about elements of game design, is very unprofessional. So is treating somebody with scorn or disdain if they have a different opinion about how good games are designed. If you were working for someplace like IBM and treated customers like this, you'd be fired; that's because THEY WANT TO MAKE MONEY....its what they exist for.
Try some of these changes, or ones similar, in one universe. Tinker with it. Stuff that works, keep; stuff that doesn't, don't use. If you find that suddenly you get a huge subscription to that new universe with rule changes to reward peer battles, and to penalize bullying (attacking only those that can't defend themselves), then you will profit greatly.
Hardluck
[color=#0000FF]An interesting comment; I have no right to comment unless its MY game, or I run the company, or close to it?Mottmon написа:QUOTE(Mottmon @ Jul 8 2007, 04:25 AM)See red for comments
You shouldnt comment on the 'buisiness' of a game unless if your the CFO of the game -.-
I think there is a cultural difference, here. In the US, we are used to having a constitutional protection that gives us free speech. Although the current administration of the US has no respect for this, for our culture it is considered very important; the phrase, "I disagree with what you say, but I would fight to the death for your right to say it" comes to mind. Unless and until I am banned for speaking my mind, I shall continue to do so....even though I notice that the attacks on my planet escalated after my original comments about the unbalanced game play.
As far as the comments in red are concerned.....
The whole POINT of this exercise is to make it easier for new players to get well into the game play and get HOOKED on it before that start getting hit by attacks every day that they can't do anything about except run away. So that they stay. So that the game grows. So that the company makes money.
I may not be a CFO, but I do know games. I've seen others ("Rogue Trader" comes to mind) that were ruined by the type of gameplay I see here, where the emphasis is an bullying and destroying new players, not on fighting those near or at your level of play. Perhaps this will not happen with Bulfleet; perhaps there are enough people who are into that kind of gameplay to make it sell.
I don't think so. I think that unless these problems are addressed successfully, that it will fade, and that would be sad, because the OTHER elements of gameplay here are (so far as I can see) excellent.
Glad to hear about the new manual coming. Glad to see that you have the "Morale" modifier coming, and can't wait to see how it works in practice. It may be enough; I don't know.
Peer-to-peer combat sells, though; people in general are more proud of defeating an able enemy than one that has no power or skills. [/color]
Последна промяна от Hardluck на нед юли 08, 2007 7:32 am, променено общо 1 път.
Hardluck написа:QUOTE(Hardluck @ Jul 8 2007, 06:24 AM) hehe, We beat you on that one, next round in Uni 1, there will be a thing called Morale
Kool :D I can't wait to see how it works; maybe it will be enough, or at least help.
There is a new gameplay element by the battles: Motivation.
The motivation of your fleet depends on the strength of the victim. If you are attacking someone weaker than you your fleet won't be so motivated, than if you attack someone stronger. There is a way to encourage your Generals to be more motivated in battle by promising them bonuses if they win.
The motivation in based on a percentage difference between the two players. For example if someone on 40 000 points attacks someone on 20 000 the motivation will be 25% to 75% (thats the greatest difference, there is no way to fall under 25. If they engage in a battle with the following motivation, the defender will receive half of the motivation benefit as Attack bonus.
In this case he will receive 25% attack (75% - 25% = 50% devided by 2 = 25% Attack)
When sending an attack fleet the player can promises his Generals a bonus in Nanocredits for greater motivation. Please note that the player will receive his credits back if he loses the battle, because he won't need to pay any bonuses. The defender can define rules for motivation from the motivation menu.
This menu allows you to set different conditions for motivation, depending on the strength of the enemy. Select how many credits you can promise to your generals for motivation, if someone attacks one of your planets with greater total base attack of all his ships than the condition you will point.
(Example: if someone attacks you with 10 Scouts, his total base attack will be 10x350 = 3500. If you set a condition for 20 Credits for attacks above 3000 Total base attack, this condition will activate for this battle.)
[b][color=#006600]There's always something waiting at the end of the road.
If you arenot willing to see what it is, you probably shouldnot at there at the first place.[/color][/b]
If you arenot willing to see what it is, you probably shouldnot at there at the first place.[/color][/b]
One thing that may be done would be adding an "emergency state" that you would activate when you get attacked but only if no fleets are away, no buildings or ships production and no researches in progress. That "emergency state" would include a menu in which you would set the cargo to keep according to the transport ships you own. That way you may choose to play a little bit only and to stay protected, but the slow growing when doing so would prevent abuses. However, you'd still lose all the satellites around.
Well it's just an idea ;-)
Well it's just an idea ;-)
Jack написа:QUOTE(Jack @ Jul 8 2007, 10:08 AM)There is a new gameplay element by the battles: Motivation.
The motivation of your fleet depends on the strength of the victim. If you are attacking someone weaker than you your fleet won't be so motivated, than if you attack someone stronger. There is a way to encourage your Generals to be more motivated in battle by promising them bonuses if they win.
The motivation in based on a percentage difference between the two players. For example if someone on 40 000 points attacks someone on 20 000 the motivation will be 25% to 75% (thats the greatest difference, there is no way to fall under 25. If they engage in a battle with the following motivation, the defender will receive half of the motivation benefit as Attack bonus.
In this case he will receive 25% attack (75% - 25% = 50% devided by 2 = 25% Attack)
When sending an attack fleet the player can promises his Generals a bonus in Nanocredits for greater motivation. Please note that the player will receive his credits back if he loses the battle, because he won't need to pay any bonuses. The defender can define rules for motivation from the motivation menu.
This menu allows you to set different conditions for motivation, depending on the strength of the enemy. Select how many credits you can promise to your generals for motivation, if someone attacks one of your planets with greater total base attack of all his ships than the condition you will point.
(Example: if someone attacks you with 10 Scouts, his total base attack will be 10x350 = 3500. If you set a condition for 20 Credits for attacks above 3000 Total base attack, this condition will activate for this battle.)
This may help; however, I don't like the idea that somebody can eliminate the negative effect of attacking a much weaker opponent just by spending real world cash; that's paying for a victory, and looks an awful lot like when somebody "fixes" the outcome of a sporting contest in the real world, for profit. I'd be much more in favor of a system that also gives you a positive boost of morale when the smaller player attacks the greater. I truly hope that the amount of "morale" available for purchase by cash will be minimal.
Thanks for posting these details! I appreciate it greatly!
Hardluck
Here we go again.
I did my fleetsave, and then couldn't get to my computer in time, and found all my ships at my main planet destroyed again. Of course, as always, the attacker used recycle and vacuumed up all the debris; sure would be nice if there were some INSTRUCTIONS on using recyclers, by the way; I tried repeatedly and they never worked in recycle mode.
I started an alliance when I began this game, because I could see that newer players like myself needed help to defend themselves; however, because we aren't allowed to station ships at allies planets, the alliance was useless for the purpose of defense; all but one of those players have since left the game.
Count up the number of players over 5000 points....even just in my universe, number 3. Not very many, are there?
Gee.....no WONDER the guys with high rank have "no one to attack": they already drove most of the other players out of the game.
The only reason I am still here is that in this universe or the next, I will find a way to get revenge.
Hardluck
I did my fleetsave, and then couldn't get to my computer in time, and found all my ships at my main planet destroyed again. Of course, as always, the attacker used recycle and vacuumed up all the debris; sure would be nice if there were some INSTRUCTIONS on using recyclers, by the way; I tried repeatedly and they never worked in recycle mode.
I started an alliance when I began this game, because I could see that newer players like myself needed help to defend themselves; however, because we aren't allowed to station ships at allies planets, the alliance was useless for the purpose of defense; all but one of those players have since left the game.
Count up the number of players over 5000 points....even just in my universe, number 3. Not very many, are there?
Gee.....no WONDER the guys with high rank have "no one to attack": they already drove most of the other players out of the game.
The only reason I am still here is that in this universe or the next, I will find a way to get revenge.
Hardluck
Aw, man, come on... The fact is that this game requires good timing. You have to coordinate your ship movements well. That's one of the fun parts of the game. As you've noticed, you can't just fleetsave for some arbitrary amount of time. You have to find a planet and a speed setting that works out to the x number of hours you will be away. And you have to return to meet your fleet on time. I've lost a few cargoships that way, too, but I'm not complaining. It's nobody's fault I can't schedule myself better.
What is it that you want? That no one attack you at all? But the game is PvP! How can they change that? Even if they lowered the attack range, would you be happier if someone still attacked you and destroyed your ships?
This is not a casual game. It's like complaining that American football is too rough.
What is it that you want? That no one attack you at all? But the game is PvP! How can they change that? Even if they lowered the attack range, would you be happier if someone still attacked you and destroyed your ships?
This is not a casual game. It's like complaining that American football is too rough.