Публикувано: нед юли 08, 2007 2:49 am
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
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
