Structured Environment

[DeletedUser]

Ok, first to explain myself, the following was a post I commented in the "Great Wars" thread. Yup, I am guilty, I was kinda high jacking the original posters thread, so I figured it would be more polite to start my own thread, and to continue this conversation here. But, for the record, this thread is by no means meant to insult or offend anyone or any alliance.


The comment,,, In reply to a 3 teams against 1 comment.


You ever wonder what the game designers were thinking when they didnt implement something to prevent that from happening? I mean no disrespect to any of the alliances mentioned, but really, what were these designers thinking? Of course the outcome would be obvious if all the big teams joined together, anyone can see that. But dont you think it is somewhat self destructive? For example, and I will use imaginary alliances, because my point isnt really about anyone playing but more about the logistics of the game. So, the A-Team and the B-Team form a bond and start attacking, C-team, D-Team, and so on. Well, C-Team is way out numbered and lose, so they quit, I mean after-all, why play when the odds are pitted so badly against you? And then D-Team, E-Team, and so on,,Eventually, it comes down to the only ones left are A-Team and B-Team, and the game slowly dies. And if you dont think it is possible, I can give examples of games where that is exactly what has happened, but out of respect for Grepolis, I wont mention the the ones they arent affiliated with. But, you can go into the Tribal Wars forum and read it for yourself. That is exactly what is happening. Kinda sad too because Tribal Wars is a pretty cool game. I have experienced it here myself. Many of the players in my alliance have just up and quit the game entirely because of the fact of knowing that once a big guy sets his sights on you, its over. You will end up having to start all over again. I understand these are war games, but someone needs to think about the smaller players, or this game will slowly die off too, and I for one dont want to see that happen.

Anyway, like I said, I mean no disrespect to anyone, it just makes me wonder what they were thinking when they designed these games. If it were me, I would want to try and keep the new players around, not have them quit after a few weeks because the odds are severely against them.

 

[DeletedUser]

Now, my thoughts on the matter go something like this, a more structured environment. Obviously team A with their zillion points could dominate team Z with only a minimal amount of points, so why not make it where The bigger guys are restricted to teams of their own caliber, and smaller teams do the same. Say, a million point player is restricted to not hitting anyone with less then 750,000 pts, UNLESS that 750,000pt player attacks him. Then from 750,000 down to 500,000 and from 500,000 down to 250,000 and so on. These figures are just examples, but you get the idea of what I mean. This would put more of a challenge to the game, giving the smaller guy a chance to build an army where he could actually compete against the big guy. As is stands right now, if a big player with his million points wants to attack you, and being fairly new, you have a very small army with which you can barely farm NPC`s, he can come it and wipe you out and take your city with practically no effort. Definitely not the way to attract and keep new players.

 

[DeletedUser]

Maybe you should post this in the ideas forum. The idea would be that large alliances/players must fight alliances/players with a similar point total.

I personally think this would make the game a bit more exciting, but would change it too much. If a 200k player hits a 1000k player, the bigger player could not hit the smaller one back.

 

[DeletedUser]

The idea isn't a bad one but it could be viewed as punishing success. If you need to know what I mean go back any number of threads on 'morale'.

 

[DeletedUser]

yea badnight that's what I was thinking of when I read this.

 

[DeletedUser]

This thread is fine, but does not belong in Delta forums.


Thread Moved.

 

[DeletedUser9300]

So what if a top player formed his own one-man alliance so thatt big alliances coulnd't single him out? This one-man army has the benefit of being able to prey upon alliances composed of many small players.

For example, let's say Alliance A has 100 members with 50,000 points each. (100 x 50,000 = 5,000,000 total points)

Alliance B has 20 members with 30,000 points each. (20 x 40,000 = 800,000 total points).

Alliance A wants to attack Alliance B, so A splits into 5 new alliances, each with 20 x 50,000 = 1,000,000 points. In the proposed system, these 5 'different' alliances could still attack and almost definetly take down Alliance B.


Alliance A wants to attack Alliance B, so splits into

 

[DeletedUser4013]

These issues have already been addressed by the implementation of Morale on all worlds starting from Theta onwards. Please let's not drag this argument back from the grave. It died a long time ago, and let's let it lay in peace. Thanks.

 

[DeletedUser]

These issues have already been addressed by the implementation of Morale on all worlds starting from Theta onwards. Please let's not drag this argument back from the grave. It died a long time ago, and let's let it lay in peace. Thanks.

I wasnt aware it was an argument. I thought it was just a friendly conversation about game logistics.

Anyway, Sure there are variables and "what ifs" there always is, but the point is, in a more structured environment the game could become much more challenging. For instance, Say I am the leader of Team A, and one of our members is having an issue with someone on team B, ok well that guy from team B only has 100,000 points, So I can`t attack him, the only thing I can do is send a player of his caliber to attack, and hope that the battle strategy we used was adequate enough to win. If not, then another person makes an attempt. But again, this would also have to have a set amount also, otherwise I could send everyone in the 100k range to attack. So, I send a guy, he loses, then a second, he loses, and say a third and he loses. At that point, it becomes a temporary stalemate, giving both players an opportunity to grow. Of course the team B player wants retaliation, but he cant get it,,yet,,because although we cant attack him, we can reinforce our own team mates city making it impossible for an attack. The possibilities of a structured environment are endless! Just think,,I remember this battle with this player from team B, and obviously he must be a good player to have withstood the attacks from guys of his own ranking, So I know, that once he builds up to the point where he is within my attack range, it will take strategy and clever maneuvers to beat him, not just simply overpowering him with troops.


P.S. Thank you Gibbowo for moving this thread and not closing it. The conversation started in Delta, so that was why I had it there. I thought you would prefer it there,,my bad,,,

 

[DeletedUser4013]

The thing is Darkslayer, is that points do not represent military strength, only the level of the city itself. So just because a player has fewer points than another does not mean that he can't compete against a larger point player. It happens all the time. Most of the time though it is opportunistic attacks when the smaller attacks the larger since he can gain more resources. Plus, if you had a game environment set up where you as an alliance leader could only send one player at a time to attack this smaller player, what would be the point of the alliance? Other than support, there would be no reason to have one since many, if not all, conduct coordinated attacks on other players.

 

[DeletedUser]

The thing is Darkslayer, is that points do not represent military strength, only the level of the city itself. So just because a player has fewer points than another does not mean that he can't compete against a larger point player. It happens all the time. Most of the time though it is opportunistic attacks when the smaller attacks the larger since he can gain more resources. Plus, if you had a game environment set up where you as an alliance leader could only send one player at a time to attack this smaller player, what would be the point of the alliance? Other than support, there would be no reason to have one since many, if not all, conduct coordinated attacks on other players.

Well, I guess I didnt explain it in depth as much as I should have then. What I meant was, If only one player was attacking, THEN I could only send one of equal strength, but if it were two, then two, and so on. Making it more of a challenge then simply sending ten heavy hitters to take out a guy with a minimal amount of troops. If it is my team doing the attack, I can only send one initially, but as the defender gets reinforced by his team mates, I can then increase the strike force. I hope that makes my thoughts a little clearer.

As far as the morale thing goes, that is something totally different. And I dont blame the players for voting it down. What I mean is, if a soldier has 10 attack points, then he should ALWAYS have 10 attack points, not,well maybe this time he will have 20 or maybe he will have zero, that kind of equation never figures into battle strategies.

Maybe you should post this in the ideas forum. The idea would be that large alliances/players must fight alliances/players with a similar point total.

I personally think this would make the game a bit more exciting, but would change it too much. If a 200k player hits a 1000k player, the bigger player could not hit the smaller one back.

If the 1000k player attacks first, then he becomes the "Offensive player" and of course the 200K player could then retaliate. Which in itself brings another challenge if you think about it. The smaller guy, moves in, attacks, and then has to use defensive strategies for x amount of time,,,say,,24hrs to avoid getting slaughtered by the bigger guy.

 

[DeletedUser4013]

So what you are saying is that you would like to see a more balanced attack/defend system where the two strengths are the same. Attack = Defense? But this game is already Defence heavy and favors the defender over the attacker. Plus, without knowing what your alliance members have for ABP and DBP, you will find it hard to send or retaliate against attacks. I think this could have merit as an idea, and perhaps you should consider starting a thread over in that section to get people's feedback, but right now it needs a lot more thought to be put into it to make it manageable.

 

[DeletedUser]

Even if the devs do a thorough re-designing of the game Spartan Elites will still tilt the favor to the defenders *facepalm*

 

[DeletedUser]

So what you are saying is that you would like to see a more balanced attack/defend system where the two strengths are the same. Attack = Defense? But this game is already Defence heavy and favors the defender over the attacker. Plus, without knowing what your alliance members have for ABP and DBP, you will find it hard to send or retaliate against attacks. I think this could have merit as an idea, and perhaps you should consider starting a thread over in that section to get people's feedback, but right now it needs a lot more thought to be put into it to make it manageable.

I agree, it would take research and development to tweak it to perfection (If that is even possible) lol But yes, that is exactly what I am saying. But honestly, I have no clue where to start a thread about it. I started it in Delta, and Gibbowo moved it here, so I thought this was the place to talk about it.

And llolcatz, be nice, or I am taking back those rep points,,,LOL

 

[DeletedUser]

Just sayin the truth, can't fight the truth now can you?

Back on topic.

 

[DeletedUser4013]

...But honestly, I have no clue where to start a thread about it. I started it in Delta, and Gibbowo moved it here, so I thought this was the place to talk about it.

Darkslayer, if you go to the Ideas section, there is a sticky thread there that explains how to lay out your idea. If you are not sure what to do after reading the threads there, contact Eclipse by PM

 

[DeletedUser]

Well, I checked out the Ideas thread, and honestly after reading what Eclipse stated,,as in,

DONT POST THIS!
DONT POST THAT!
NO REFERENCES TO THIS
NO REFERENCES TO THAT!
YOUR THREAD WILL BE DELETED IMMEDIATELY WITH NO FURTHER EXPLANATION!!

So, from the sound of all that, they are not really interested anyway,,,

 

[DeletedUser4013]

Well, I checked out the Ideas thread, and honestly after reading what Eclipse stated,,as in,

DONT POST THIS!
DONT POST THAT!
NO REFERENCES TO THIS
NO REFERENCES TO THAT!
YOUR THREAD WILL BE DELETED IMMEDIATELY WITH NO FURTHER EXPLANATION!!

So, from the sound of all that, they are not really interested anyway,,,

Eclipse is not that mean. He posted a lot of that to make sure that people weren't posting the same idea more than once and also to let people know what is and what is not changeable.

 

[DeletedUser]

i think of eclipse as a nice mod who is out there for the good of us all (messages posted in this thread may not be the opinion of the author the authors fingers or his keyboard)

 

[DeletedUser]

Eclipse is a really nice mod who has loads of great ideas to improve this game (yes it is possible)