Casual Worlds/settings - Pros and Cons lets discuss.

Silver Witch

Strategos
Guys I think it would be worth having a full discussion of this here. Ive spoken to a number of players about how they feel these worlds are working and ive got good and bad feedback but I think it would be worth having a discussion separate from the world specific discussions in Naucratis.

Personally I like the concept of a world where no one can be rimmed, where attacking is forcibly limited to similar sized players and where the world will go on indefinitely.

I am not so sure about 20%. The principle is good but to me this seems too low to provide flexibility for general fighting and it makes the taking of inactives/friendly swaps impossible. I would have liked an opt out option to allow for players who want to be more adventurous - perhaps time limited to say a week so players can change their minds.

I also personally like something to win so although an end game cannot be part of an endless world I would have liked other specific goals with benefits to pop up so that there was something to work towards - say every 6 months. Technically that sounds like an idea (so wrong section) but im just throwing it out there at this stage.

Anyway if you have a view - lets hear it :)
 

Rachel.L

Phrourach
Guys I think it would be worth having a full discussion of this here.

Personally I like the concept of a world where no one can be rimmed, where attacking is forcibly limited ... and where the world will go on indefinitely.

I am not so sure about 20%.

SW, thanks for starting the discussion. I think on beta and in other threads the good and bad of this idea have been brought forward but might need to be flushed out.

I've seen several vets discuss alliances where they want to teach less experienced players more than the mechanics and this can't be done while fighting for an endgame. A proper casual world might be the place. The counter argument is that the current system doesn't prepare for "real" or "live" server tactics because of the 20% or other missing pieces. There have been complaints about having no one to attack, no anchors on farm islands only rocks, and speed being too slow for learners. (Not sure about this since it's been so long since I was in that spot.) Some of these are easy to change if desired.

Another use for these servers is a "live" beta for alliances to test working together, ops, new mechanics or other inno implementations before applying these to their main game. They can play in teams (groups within one alliance) since the cap is large and figure out issues.

I'm sure there are other ways to play the casual world, when a few tweaks are made. My starting two cents.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

DeletedUser36697

Guest
Sounds like a great idea. An improved Hyperborea.. It would be worth while asking folks in that world what improvements they would like..
- the attack % would need to be looked at closely...if you cant lose your city or your troops, why a restriction on attacks? Morale changes/adjustments should be able to look after that issue of bullying smaller folks....there also needs to be an upper thresh hold limit where morale is a minimal disruption..
IE. 500,000 point player needs less morale protection from a 1,000,000 point player...that player(500,00) should more capable of defending than say a 75,000 player
-increase world speeds..lots... it keeps the play moving... a "fire and forget CS" is boring. Hyperborea has a 48 hours CS sailing limit
smiley_emoticons_daumendreh2.gif

-bring in all the new gods.. let folks play with them learn how to use them
-ensure all facets of the game-play, building, attacks and so on are the same as every other world..
-offer some form of incentives for newcomers to get involved and then game-play rewards for staying in...
 

Raydium88

Strategos
I liked the concept for these type of worlds. Providing new players and those who seek a more relaxed gameplay experience a platform to play in, is quite sound.

The issue that makes it quite unplayable is the 20% restriction. The concept to which I agree is a nice distinctive feature for this casual concept, ends up being too restrictive and does not provide new players with an enjoyable representation of the game. Is way too frustrating... some have suggested to increase it to 40%. I agree it would probably make these worlds more flexible and provide ppl more options so they aren't stuck wondering... "now what?"

I do like the idea of no endgame for the most part. Some could argue it being aimless and I understand there's no real sense of achievement in these worlds. And for some... that's ok. So long as the world is endless, you could add a mini milestone every so often, as suggested on top post. I quite like that idea just so there's something more to the world than just drifting along...
 

DeletedUser54775

Guest
I love the way it is. No need to have endgame and no need to change the restrictions. Players have to be creative now rather than chasing smaller targets.
 

DeletedUser36510

Guest
It is a good idea but the problem is when you also wants to attack someone. other bigger players can not support you to get a city but in defense other bigger players can support. so it looks like sim play.

After all this is a WAR game and you should not make it child game. so it is good to have some world without end game but there should be more worlds where players who understand the meaning of playing a war game can play.

I quit for a few years and now i want to play again but there is no world where i can play in it because i want to play a war game and not sim worlds. So if stays like this i will quit again. There is no fun in this kind of game.

So if you want to do it like this, there should be lot of worlds where each type of player can play in a world he/she likes.
So hopefully there will be a normal revolt world soon.
 
Top