- Subscribers:
- Visitors:
- Players:
Games Direct Message (to Do)
Community Feedback
We're listening. For players who wish to have a voice in the future of Evernight, this is the place to talk to management. This is the newsgroup we'll be actively monitoring on a daily basis.
Motivation and Reward
Submitted by Lunar Savage 7/6/2012 9:53:00 AM {time} ago in Community Feedback
Another thing I think needs to be discussed. It is sort of related to player rankings and titles. However, I feel that rankings and titles will not be enough to keep today's gamers playing the game. Sure, you can keep winning time and again to get the next rank or unlock a special title. That's great! But...in the end, it's largely aesthetic. And aesthetics do not keep players attention for too long. We need to come up with some other kind of permanent or evolving reward system to keep people wanting to play and prove their dominance. As I proposed before, I will propose it again. A system of tracking a player's own personal army that can grow and shrink over the course of several games. And an army they can carry over between games to varying degrees. For example: In the lobby, each player would have a section that details the things they have amassed for their army. Resources, lessors, forms, and structures, etc. They can then take this army, or a portion of it, into the start of a game, or more specifically a special series of games designed and geared towards long time players. We would even allow players to enter these games with just the basic starting resources if they wish to test their cunning and skill against someone who brings in a larger starting portion of their "main army". Ways to make this army grow: by finishing and winning games. Say if player A joins a game at random, say a Mag 7. If he survives the game, he gains +10% of his surviving army (or maybe just some static numbers like 50 lessors, 30 T, and 20 F). If he wins (or is in the winners circle), he gains 20% of his surviving army into his main army (or higher base static numbers). Ways to make this army shrink: by dying or finishing a game in the bottom ranks (last 3 or 4 spots). Player A would lose a static number from his main army or a percentage of it. Ways to use the main army: In the series of games where the main army can be imported in, some can have minimum import requirements on the army, and some can have no requirements (but allows import anyway). While some have a maximum import limit. And some can have really high min requirements after a time. Now, here's the catch, after importing your army into these games, you import them for good. Meaning they are subtracted from your main army because they are in the new game. You will not gain them back unless you finish the game or win. If you die or finish poorly, you lose them for good and have to start rebuilding by playing other regular games. This allows for a new way of rewarding players and keeping them interested beyond XP, ranks, and titles. And is much more engrossing and interesting for players and makes them want to stay more involved. Thoughts? Lunar Savage
you mean having everyone having unequal starting positions? Isn't it bad enough already based on the random region distribution?
I starta game with 100T vs the standard 35, and there is a definate advantage. We have run games in the past where one player gets extra resources and all of the other players in the game try to beat them. We never did find the ratio however, where multiple on one can win, but its very close to 80-90% of the total income. Multiple players with more than 90% of the resouces of a single player can beat them, but at 70% they don't have a chance..
One on one, a very small initial advantage snowballs pretty quickly as has been proven in the island duels. Expansion strategy is everything..
On your original post, I would agree, if there was another capability to provide reward that would definately help.. In th past the player recognitions helped, and the player statistics helped,but they are a significant burden to create, though such tracking managment as indicated it will do and I think it will provide another value. SOmething with enough value? I don't know what it is yet. Badges. Free months. Extra games. Special games. Recognition in a dynamic list of recent activity (king of the hill recognition).. Remember te stats Waterdios had, they were interesting. The player profiles on madnergal got old.
-------Original Message-------
Lunar Savage wrote: Another thing I think needs to be discussed. It is sort of related to player rankings and titles. However, I feel that rankings and titles will not be enough to keep today's gamers playing the game. Sure, you can keep winning time and again to get the next rank or unlock a special title. That's great!
But...in the end, it's largely aesthetic. And aesthetics do not keep players attention for too long. We need to come up with some other kind of permanent or evolving reward system to keep people wanting to play and prove their dominance.
As I proposed before, I will propose it again. A system of tracking a player's own personal army that can grow and shrink over the course of several games. And an army they can carry over between games to varying degrees.
For example:
In the lobby, each player would have a section that details the things they have amassed for their army. Resources, lessors, forms, and structures, etc. They can then take this army, or a portion of it, into the start of a game, or more specifically a special series of games designed and geared towards long time players.
We would even allow players to enter these games with just the basic starting resources if they wish to test their cunning and skill against someone who brings in a larger starting portion of their "main army".
Ways to make this army grow: by finishing and winning games. Say if player A joins a game at random, say a Mag 7. If he survives the game, he gains +10% of his surviving army (or maybe just some static numbers like 50 lessors, 30 T, and 20 F). If he wins (or is in the winners circle), he gains 20% of his surviving army into his main army (or higher base static numbers).
Ways to make this army shrink: by dying or finishing a game in the bottom ranks (last 3 or 4 spots). Player A would lose a static number from his main army or a percentage of it.
Ways to use the main army: In the series of games where the main army can be imported in, some can have minimum import requirements on the army, and some can have no requirements (but allows import anyway). While some have a maximum import limit. And some can have really high min requirements after a time.
Now, here's the catch, after importing your army into these games, you import them for good. Meaning they are subtracted from your main army because they are in the new game. You will not gain them back unless you finish the game or win. If you die or finish poorly, you lose them for good and have to start rebuilding by playing other regular games.
This allows for a new way of rewarding players and keeping them interested beyond XP, ranks, and titles. And is much more engrossing and interesting for players and makes them want to stay more involved.
Thoughts?
Lunar Savage
Again, I'm going to start berating you for narrow mindedness.
If the idea is to give admins more lead way in map creation and fix it so that we have more control over these things, we can go make custom maps for the games where people can bring forces in to make starting positions less random. Imp used to be able to determine starting home regions for all players who joined. I once made a map where every player had equal starting advantage in terms of map placement.
Also, if things go according to plan, these games will be in the 30 player range. And you know that these players are going to bring in all kinds of different starting advantages. Some will welcome the challenge of starting off handicapped. While others (and most likely many) will bring in the maximum allowed, meaning that there are others with the same advantage (balancing itself out).
Why should we disallow people wanting to give themselves a challenge?
Lunar Savage
-------Original Message-------
BlueSky wrote: you mean having everyone having unequal starting positions? Isn't it bad enough already based on the random region distribution?
I starta game with 100T vs the standard 35, and there is a definate advantage. We have run games in the past where one player gets extra resources and all of the other players in the game try to beat them. We never did find the ratio however, where multiple on one can win, but its very close to 80-90% of the total income. Multiple players with more than 90% of the resouces of a single player can beat them, but at 70% they don't have a chance..
One on one, a very small initial advantage snowballs pretty quickly as has been proven in the island duels. Expansion strategy is everything..
On your original post, I would agree, if there was another capability to provide reward that would definately help.. In th past the player recognitions helped, and the player statistics helped,but they are a significant burden to create, though such tracking managment as indicated it will do and I think it will provide another value. SOmething with enough value? I don't know what it is yet. Badges. Free months. Extra games. Special games. Recognition in a dynamic list of recent activity (king of the hill recognition).. Remember te stats Waterdios had, they were interesting. The player profiles on madnergal got old.
-------Original Message-------
Lunar Savage wrote: Another thing I think needs to be discussed. It is sort of related to player rankings and titles. However, I feel that rankings and titles will not be enough to keep today's gamers playing the game. Sure, you can keep winning time and again to get the next rank or unlock a special title. That's great!
But...in the end, it's largely aesthetic. And aesthetics do not keep players attention for too long. We need to come up with some other kind of permanent or evolving reward system to keep people wanting to play and prove their dominance.
As I proposed before, I will propose it again. A system of tracking a player's own personal army that can grow and shrink over the course of several games. And an army they can carry over between games to varying degrees.
For example:
In the lobby, each player would have a section that details the things they have amassed for their army. Resources, lessors, forms, and structures, etc. They can then take this army, or a portion of it, into the start of a game, or more specifically a special series of games designed and geared towards long time players.
We would even allow players to enter these games with just the basic starting resources if they wish to test their cunning and skill against someone who brings in a larger starting portion of their "main army".
Ways to make this army grow: by finishing and winning games. Say if player A joins a game at random, say a Mag 7. If he survives the game, he gains +10% of his surviving army (or maybe just some static numbers like 50 lessors, 30 T, and 20 F). If he wins (or is in the winners circle), he gains 20% of his surviving army into his main army (or higher base static numbers).
Ways to make this army shrink: by dying or finishing a game in the bottom ranks (last 3 or 4 spots). Player A would lose a static number from his main army or a percentage of it.
Ways to use the main army: In the series of games where the main army can be imported in, some can have minimum import requirements on the army, and some can have no requirements (but allows import anyway). While some have a maximum import limit. And some can have really high min requirements after a time.
Now, here's the catch, after importing your army into these games, you import them for good. Meaning they are subtracted from your main army because they are in the new game. You will not gain them back unless you finish the game or win. If you die or finish poorly, you lose them for good and have to start rebuilding by playing other regular games.
This allows for a new way of rewarding players and keeping them interested beyond XP, ranks, and titles. And is much more engrossing and interesting for players and makes them want to stay more involved.
Thoughts?
Lunar Savage
I am agreed to the thought of a handicap game format where resources are related to skill rating...
-------Original Message-------
Lunar Savage wrote: Again, I'm going to start berating you for narrow mindedness.
If the idea is to give admins more lead way in map creation and fix it so that we have more control over these things, we can go make custom maps for the games where people can bring forces in to make starting positions less random. Imp used to be able to determine starting home regions for all players who joined. I once made a map where every player had equal starting advantage in terms of map placement.
Also, if things go according to plan, these games will be in the 30 player range. And you know that these players are going to bring in all kinds of different starting advantages. Some will welcome the challenge of starting off handicapped. While others (and most likely many) will bring in the maximum allowed, meaning that there are others with the same advantage (balancing itself out).
Why should we disallow people wanting to give themselves a challenge?
Lunar Savage
-------Original Message-------
BlueSky wrote: you mean having everyone having unequal starting positions? Isn't it bad enough already based on the random region distribution?
I starta game with 100T vs the standard 35, and there is a definate advantage. We have run games in the past where one player gets extra resources and all of the other players in the game try to beat them. We never did find the ratio however, where multiple on one can win, but its very close to 80-90% of the total income. Multiple players with more than 90% of the resouces of a single player can beat them, but at 70% they don't have a chance..
One on one, a very small initial advantage snowballs pretty quickly as has been proven in the island duels. Expansion strategy is everything..
On your original post, I would agree, if there was another capability to provide reward that would definately help.. In th past the player recognitions helped, and the player statistics helped,but they are a significant burden to create, though such tracking managment as indicated it will do and I think it will provide another value. SOmething with enough value? I don't know what it is yet. Badges. Free months. Extra games. Special games. Recognition in a dynamic list of recent activity (king of the hill recognition).. Remember te stats Waterdios had, they were interesting. The player profiles on madnergal got old.
-------Original Message-------
Lunar Savage wrote: Another thing I think needs to be discussed. It is sort of related to player rankings and titles. However, I feel that rankings and titles will not be enough to keep today's gamers playing the game. Sure, you can keep winning time and again to get the next rank or unlock a special title. That's great!
But...in the end, it's largely aesthetic. And aesthetics do not keep players attention for too long. We need to come up with some other kind of permanent or evolving reward system to keep people wanting to play and prove their dominance.
As I proposed before, I will propose it again. A system of tracking a player's own personal army that can grow and shrink over the course of several games. And an army they can carry over between games to varying degrees.
For example:
In the lobby, each player would have a section that details the things they have amassed for their army. Resources, lessors, forms, and structures, etc. They can then take this army, or a portion of it, into the start of a game, or more specifically a special series of games designed and geared towards long time players.
We would even allow players to enter these games with just the basic starting resources if they wish to test their cunning and skill against someone who brings in a larger starting portion of their "main army".
Ways to make this army grow: by finishing and winning games. Say if player A joins a game at random, say a Mag 7. If he survives the game, he gains +10% of his surviving army (or maybe just some static numbers like 50 lessors, 30 T, and 20 F). If he wins (or is in the winners circle), he gains 20% of his surviving army into his main army (or higher base static numbers).
Ways to make this army shrink: by dying or finishing a game in the bottom ranks (last 3 or 4 spots). Player A would lose a static number from his main army or a percentage of it.
Ways to use the main army: In the series of games where the main army can be imported in, some can have minimum import requirements on the army, and some can have no requirements (but allows import anyway). While some have a maximum import limit. And some can have really high min requirements after a time.
Now, here's the catch, after importing your army into these games, you import them for good. Meaning they are subtracted from your main army because they are in the new game. You will not gain them back unless you finish the game or win. If you die or finish poorly, you lose them for good and have to start rebuilding by playing other regular games.
This allows for a new way of rewarding players and keeping them interested beyond XP, ranks, and titles. And is much more engrossing and interesting for players and makes them want to stay more involved.
Thoughts?
Lunar Savage
We're kind of splitting off in two directions here.
"Motivation/Reward" & "Map Generation/Customization"
I think both are important enough to deserve dedicated converstions. I'll kick off a new thread for Maps.
We actually have kicked around an idea somewhat similar to your "armies" idea. Not specifically "armies" but something(s) that a player could earn, build, customize, grow, etc. over time and be able to bring some portion or aspect of into games with them.
So each player can establish a uniqueness of their own.
Then of coures the obvious question is, how to do this without upsetting game balance.
This is an especially difficult question for Evernight, because even very small differences in starting conditions can have very large effects.
-------Original Message-------
Lunar Savage wrote: Again, I'm going to start berating you for narrow mindedness.
If the idea is to give admins more lead way in map creation and fix it so that we have more control over these things, we can go make custom maps for the games where people can bring forces in to make starting positions less random. Imp used to be able to determine starting home regions for all players who joined. I once made a map where every player had equal starting advantage in terms of map placement.
Also, if things go according to plan, these games will be in the 30 player range. And you know that these players are going to bring in all kinds of different starting advantages. Some will welcome the challenge of starting off handicapped. While others (and most likely many) will bring in the maximum allowed, meaning that there are others with the same advantage (balancing itself out).
Why should we disallow people wanting to give themselves a challenge?
Lunar Savage
-------Original Message-------
BlueSky wrote: you mean having everyone having unequal starting positions? Isn't it bad enough already based on the random region distribution?
I starta game with 100T vs the standard 35, and there is a definate advantage. We have run games in the past where one player gets extra resources and all of the other players in the game try to beat them. We never did find the ratio however, where multiple on one can win, but its very close to 80-90% of the total income. Multiple players with more than 90% of the resouces of a single player can beat them, but at 70% they don't have a chance..
One on one, a very small initial advantage snowballs pretty quickly as has been proven in the island duels. Expansion strategy is everything..
On your original post, I would agree, if there was another capability to provide reward that would definately help.. In th past the player recognitions helped, and the player statistics helped,but they are a significant burden to create, though such tracking managment as indicated it will do and I think it will provide another value. SOmething with enough value? I don't know what it is yet. Badges. Free months. Extra games. Special games. Recognition in a dynamic list of recent activity (king of the hill recognition).. Remember te stats Waterdios had, they were interesting. The player profiles on madnergal got old.
-------Original Message-------
Lunar Savage wrote: Another thing I think needs to be discussed. It is sort of related to player rankings and titles. However, I feel that rankings and titles will not be enough to keep today's gamers playing the game. Sure, you can keep winning time and again to get the next rank or unlock a special title. That's great!
But...in the end, it's largely aesthetic. And aesthetics do not keep players attention for too long. We need to come up with some other kind of permanent or evolving reward system to keep people wanting to play and prove their dominance.
As I proposed before, I will propose it again. A system of tracking a player's own personal army that can grow and shrink over the course of several games. And an army they can carry over between games to varying degrees.
For example:
In the lobby, each player would have a section that details the things they have amassed for their army. Resources, lessors, forms, and structures, etc. They can then take this army, or a portion of it, into the start of a game, or more specifically a special series of games designed and geared towards long time players.
We would even allow players to enter these games with just the basic starting resources if they wish to test their cunning and skill against someone who brings in a larger starting portion of their "main army".
Ways to make this army grow: by finishing and winning games. Say if player A joins a game at random, say a Mag 7. If he survives the game, he gains +10% of his surviving army (or maybe just some static numbers like 50 lessors, 30 T, and 20 F). If he wins (or is in the winners circle), he gains 20% of his surviving army into his main army (or higher base static numbers).
Ways to make this army shrink: by dying or finishing a game in the bottom ranks (last 3 or 4 spots). Player A would lose a static number from his main army or a percentage of it.
Ways to use the main army: In the series of games where the main army can be imported in, some can have minimum import requirements on the army, and some can have no requirements (but allows import anyway). While some have a maximum import limit. And some can have really high min requirements after a time.
Now, here's the catch, after importing your army into these games, you import them for good. Meaning they are subtracted from your main army because they are in the new game. You will not gain them back unless you finish the game or win. If you die or finish poorly, you lose them for good and have to start rebuilding by playing other regular games.
This allows for a new way of rewarding players and keeping them interested beyond XP, ranks, and titles. And is much more engrossing and interesting for players and makes them want to stay more involved.
Thoughts?
Lunar Savage
Aside from "points" and "titles", we do definitely intend to implement some kind of permanent ongoing rewards/incentives feature.
Something that you could continually grow/build/add-to/customize over time.
Exactly how it would be done is completely up in the air at this point.
This is definitely an area of discussion we want to hear as many ideas as possible.
-------Original Message-------
Lunar Savage wrote: Another thing I think needs to be discussed. It is sort of related to player rankings and titles. However, I feel that rankings and titles will not be enough to keep today's gamers playing the game. Sure, you can keep winning time and again to get the next rank or unlock a special title. That's great!
But...in the end, it's largely aesthetic. And aesthetics do not keep players attention for too long. We need to come up with some other kind of permanent or evolving reward system to keep people wanting to play and prove their dominance.
As I proposed before, I will propose it again. A system of tracking a player's own personal army that can grow and shrink over the course of several games. And an army they can carry over between games to varying degrees.
For example:
In the lobby, each player would have a section that details the things they have amassed for their army. Resources, lessors, forms, and structures, etc. They can then take this army, or a portion of it, into the start of a game, or more specifically a special series of games designed and geared towards long time players.
We would even allow players to enter these games with just the basic starting resources if they wish to test their cunning and skill against someone who brings in a larger starting portion of their "main army".
Ways to make this army grow: by finishing and winning games. Say if player A joins a game at random, say a Mag 7. If he survives the game, he gains +10% of his surviving army (or maybe just some static numbers like 50 lessors, 30 T, and 20 F). If he wins (or is in the winners circle), he gains 20% of his surviving army into his main army (or higher base static numbers).
Ways to make this army shrink: by dying or finishing a game in the bottom ranks (last 3 or 4 spots). Player A would lose a static number from his main army or a percentage of it.
Ways to use the main army: In the series of games where the main army can be imported in, some can have minimum import requirements on the army, and some can have no requirements (but allows import anyway). While some have a maximum import limit. And some can have really high min requirements after a time.
Now, here's the catch, after importing your army into these games, you import them for good. Meaning they are subtracted from your main army because they are in the new game. You will not gain them back unless you finish the game or win. If you die or finish poorly, you lose them for good and have to start rebuilding by playing other regular games.
This allows for a new way of rewarding players and keeping them interested beyond XP, ranks, and titles. And is much more engrossing and interesting for players and makes them want to stay more involved.
Thoughts?
Lunar Savage
I like it.
But only if it is implemented in a 'special series'. Allowing players to bring in rewards from other games would change every game.
-------Original Message-------
Lunar Savage wrote: Another thing I think needs to be discussed. It is sort of related to player rankings and titles. However, I feel that rankings and titles will not be enough to keep today's gamers playing the game. Sure, you can keep winning time and again to get the next rank or unlock a special title. That's great!
But...in the end, it's largely aesthetic. And aesthetics do not keep players attention for too long. We need to come up with some other kind of permanent or evolving reward system to keep people wanting to play and prove their dominance.
As I proposed before, I will propose it again. A system of tracking a player's own personal army that can grow and shrink over the course of several games. And an army they can carry over between games to varying degrees.
For example:
In the lobby, each player would have a section that details the things they have amassed for their army. Resources, lessors, forms, and structures, etc. They can then take this army, or a portion of it, into the start of a game, or more specifically a special series of games designed and geared towards long time players.
We would even allow players to enter these games with just the basic starting resources if they wish to test their cunning and skill against someone who brings in a larger starting portion of their "main army".
Ways to make this army grow: by finishing and winning games. Say if player A joins a game at random, say a Mag 7. If he survives the game, he gains +10% of his surviving army (or maybe just some static numbers like 50 lessors, 30 T, and 20 F). If he wins (or is in the winners circle), he gains 20% of his surviving army into his main army (or higher base static numbers).
Ways to make this army shrink: by dying or finishing a game in the bottom ranks (last 3 or 4 spots). Player A would lose a static number from his main army or a percentage of it.
Ways to use the main army: In the series of games where the main army can be imported in, some can have minimum import requirements on the army, and some can have no requirements (but allows import anyway). While some have a maximum import limit. And some can have really high min requirements after a time.
Now, here's the catch, after importing your army into these games, you import them for good. Meaning they are subtracted from your main army because they are in the new game. You will not gain them back unless you finish the game or win. If you die or finish poorly, you lose them for good and have to start rebuilding by playing other regular games.
This allows for a new way of rewarding players and keeping them interested beyond XP, ranks, and titles. And is much more engrossing and interesting for players and makes them want to stay more involved.
Thoughts?
Lunar Savage
That's the intent.
In a regular game, you can only earn the reward to add to your army. You can't bring in anything you earn to another regular game.
But you can bring those rewards into the "special series" of games.
So you have incentive to play the regular games (the rewards and additions to your army). Then you can use those rewards in the special games to show off everything you've earned and try to garner a win using those rewards (and potentially gain those rewards you risked in the special game back if you kick enough ass).
Lunar Savage
-------Original Message-------
ducky004 wrote: I like it.
But only if it is implemented in a 'special series'. Allowing players to bring in rewards from other games would change every game.
-------Original Message-------
Lunar Savage wrote: Another thing I think needs to be discussed. It is sort of related to player rankings and titles. However, I feel that rankings and titles will not be enough to keep today's gamers playing the game. Sure, you can keep winning time and again to get the next rank or unlock a special title. That's great!
But...in the end, it's largely aesthetic. And aesthetics do not keep players attention for too long. We need to come up with some other kind of permanent or evolving reward system to keep people wanting to play and prove their dominance.
As I proposed before, I will propose it again. A system of tracking a player's own personal army that can grow and shrink over the course of several games. And an army they can carry over between games to varying degrees.
For example:
In the lobby, each player would have a section that details the things they have amassed for their army. Resources, lessors, forms, and structures, etc. They can then take this army, or a portion of it, into the start of a game, or more specifically a special series of games designed and geared towards long time players.
We would even allow players to enter these games with just the basic starting resources if they wish to test their cunning and skill against someone who brings in a larger starting portion of their "main army".
Ways to make this army grow: by finishing and winning games. Say if player A joins a game at random, say a Mag 7. If he survives the game, he gains +10% of his surviving army (or maybe just some static numbers like 50 lessors, 30 T, and 20 F). If he wins (or is in the winners circle), he gains 20% of his surviving army into his main army (or higher base static numbers).
Ways to make this army shrink: by dying or finishing a game in the bottom ranks (last 3 or 4 spots). Player A would lose a static number from his main army or a percentage of it.
Ways to use the main army: In the series of games where the main army can be imported in, some can have minimum import requirements on the army, and some can have no requirements (but allows import anyway). While some have a maximum import limit. And some can have really high min requirements after a time.
Now, here's the catch, after importing your army into these games, you import them for good. Meaning they are subtracted from your main army because they are in the new game. You will not gain them back unless you finish the game or win. If you die or finish poorly, you lose them for good and have to start rebuilding by playing other regular games.
This allows for a new way of rewarding players and keeping them interested beyond XP, ranks, and titles. And is much more engrossing and interesting for players and makes them want to stay more involved.
Thoughts?
Lunar Savage
any game where the players start in unequal positions, on top of the unequal conditions of the random starting positions is a real concern.
Though you could use skill rating to develop a handicap, where better players get less resources than worse players, or worse players get more resources... Resources perhaps defined as earning one less T per land, or x% of the total T income based on skill rating.
Skill rating is a pretty accurate measure of skill, tough it is very dependent on who is in the game you play. It would also be the "value" that would be used in the idea you raise to "gain" points, since it is geared with exactly that intent when foul created it. It fairly accurately measures how well you stacked up against your opponents in a game, and allows for each players skill.
-------Original Message-------
Lunar Savage wrote: That's the intent.
In a regular game, you can only earn the reward to add to your army. You can't bring in anything you earn to another regular game.
But you can bring those rewards into the "special series" of games.
So you have incentive to play the regular games (the rewards and additions to your army). Then you can use those rewards in the special games to show off everything you've earned and try to garner a win using those rewards (and potentially gain those rewards you risked in the special game back if you kick enough ass).
Lunar Savage
-------Original Message-------
ducky004 wrote: I like it.
But only if it is implemented in a 'special series'. Allowing players to bring in rewards from other games would change every game.
-------Original Message-------
Lunar Savage wrote: Another thing I think needs to be discussed. It is sort of related to player rankings and titles. However, I feel that rankings and titles will not be enough to keep today's gamers playing the game. Sure, you can keep winning time and again to get the next rank or unlock a special title. That's great!
But...in the end, it's largely aesthetic. And aesthetics do not keep players attention for too long. We need to come up with some other kind of permanent or evolving reward system to keep people wanting to play and prove their dominance.
As I proposed before, I will propose it again. A system of tracking a player's own personal army that can grow and shrink over the course of several games. And an army they can carry over between games to varying degrees.
For example:
In the lobby, each player would have a section that details the things they have amassed for their army. Resources, lessors, forms, and structures, etc. They can then take this army, or a portion of it, into the start of a game, or more specifically a special series of games designed and geared towards long time players.
We would even allow players to enter these games with just the basic starting resources if they wish to test their cunning and skill against someone who brings in a larger starting portion of their "main army".
Ways to make this army grow: by finishing and winning games. Say if player A joins a game at random, say a Mag 7. If he survives the game, he gains +10% of his surviving army (or maybe just some static numbers like 50 lessors, 30 T, and 20 F). If he wins (or is in the winners circle), he gains 20% of his surviving army into his main army (or higher base static numbers).
Ways to make this army shrink: by dying or finishing a game in the bottom ranks (last 3 or 4 spots). Player A would lose a static number from his main army or a percentage of it.
Ways to use the main army: In the series of games where the main army can be imported in, some can have minimum import requirements on the army, and some can have no requirements (but allows import anyway). While some have a maximum import limit. And some can have really high min requirements after a time.
Now, here's the catch, after importing your army into these games, you import them for good. Meaning they are subtracted from your main army because they are in the new game. You will not gain them back unless you finish the game or win. If you die or finish poorly, you lose them for good and have to start rebuilding by playing other regular games.
This allows for a new way of rewarding players and keeping them interested beyond XP, ranks, and titles. And is much more engrossing and interesting for players and makes them want to stay more involved.
Thoughts?
Lunar Savage
I don't see how it's a concern if it's confined to one series of games that is rather optional. We're not forcing players to join these games. It's just something they can do if they feel like risking the cool stuff they've gained or want a different challenge to experience.
And as I recall, the skill rating system was based on the True Skill calculation method, no? That system has been proven to be highly inaccurate in other games and many companies have abandoned it.
As for basing resource income on skill rating, that would be an interesting system, provided again, it's optional and only used in certain formats. Would also put some more emphasis back into skill rating if you really want to keep it around. Personally, I've never found skill rating to be even remotely important.
Lunar Savage
-------Original Message-------
BlueSky wrote: any game where the players start in unequal positions, on top of the unequal conditions of the random starting positions is a real concern.
Though you could use skill rating to develop a handicap, where better players get less resources than worse players, or worse players get more resources... Resources perhaps defined as earning one less T per land, or x% of the total T income based on skill rating.
Skill rating is a pretty accurate measure of skill, tough it is very dependent on who is in the game you play. It would also be the "value" that would be used in the idea you raise to "gain" points, since it is geared with exactly that intent when foul created it. It fairly accurately measures how well you stacked up against your opponents in a game, and allows for each players skill.
-------Original Message-------
Lunar Savage wrote: That's the intent.
In a regular game, you can only earn the reward to add to your army. You can't bring in anything you earn to another regular game.
But you can bring those rewards into the "special series" of games.
So you have incentive to play the regular games (the rewards and additions to your army). Then you can use those rewards in the special games to show off everything you've earned and try to garner a win using those rewards (and potentially gain those rewards you risked in the special game back if you kick enough ass).
Lunar Savage
-------Original Message-------
ducky004 wrote: I like it.
But only if it is implemented in a 'special series'. Allowing players to bring in rewards from other games would change every game.
-------Original Message-------
Lunar Savage wrote: Another thing I think needs to be discussed. It is sort of related to player rankings and titles. However, I feel that rankings and titles will not be enough to keep today's gamers playing the game. Sure, you can keep winning time and again to get the next rank or unlock a special title. That's great!
But...in the end, it's largely aesthetic. And aesthetics do not keep players attention for too long. We need to come up with some other kind of permanent or evolving reward system to keep people wanting to play and prove their dominance.
As I proposed before, I will propose it again. A system of tracking a player's own personal army that can grow and shrink over the course of several games. And an army they can carry over between games to varying degrees.
For example:
In the lobby, each player would have a section that details the things they have amassed for their army. Resources, lessors, forms, and structures, etc. They can then take this army, or a portion of it, into the start of a game, or more specifically a special series of games designed and geared towards long time players.
We would even allow players to enter these games with just the basic starting resources if they wish to test their cunning and skill against someone who brings in a larger starting portion of their "main army".
Ways to make this army grow: by finishing and winning games. Say if player A joins a game at random, say a Mag 7. If he survives the game, he gains +10% of his surviving army (or maybe just some static numbers like 50 lessors, 30 T, and 20 F). If he wins (or is in the winners circle), he gains 20% of his surviving army into his main army (or higher base static numbers).
Ways to make this army shrink: by dying or finishing a game in the bottom ranks (last 3 or 4 spots). Player A would lose a static number from his main army or a percentage of it.
Ways to use the main army: In the series of games where the main army can be imported in, some can have minimum import requirements on the army, and some can have no requirements (but allows import anyway). While some have a maximum import limit. And some can have really high min requirements after a time.
Now, here's the catch, after importing your army into these games, you import them for good. Meaning they are subtracted from your main army because they are in the new game. You will not gain them back unless you finish the game or win. If you die or finish poorly, you lose them for good and have to start rebuilding by playing other regular games.
This allows for a new way of rewarding players and keeping them interested beyond XP, ranks, and titles. And is much more engrossing and interesting for players and makes them want to stay more involved.
Thoughts?
Lunar Savage
I don't know what tru skill means.. The sill rating system is based off of the ame algorithms usd in chess ratingz calculations.
Beat someone better you go up a bit. Beat an easy opponent go up less or not at all... I have worked out the formulas in the calculator to see how players will do at any point in a game...
-------Original Message-------
Lunar Savage wrote: I don't see how it's a concern if it's confined to one series of games that is rather optional. We're not forcing players to join these games. It's just something they can do if they feel like risking the cool stuff they've gained or want a different challenge to experience.
And as I recall, the skill rating system was based on the True Skill calculation method, no? That system has been proven to be highly inaccurate in other games and many companies have abandoned it.
As for basing resource income on skill rating, that would be an interesting system, provided again, it's optional and only used in certain formats. Would also put some more emphasis back into skill rating if you really want to keep it around. Personally, I've never found skill rating to be even remotely important.
Lunar Savage
-------Original Message-------
BlueSky wrote: any game where the players start in unequal positions, on top of the unequal conditions of the random starting positions is a real concern.
Though you could use skill rating to develop a handicap, where better players get less resources than worse players, or worse players get more resources... Resources perhaps defined as earning one less T per land, or x% of the total T income based on skill rating.
Skill rating is a pretty accurate measure of skill, tough it is very dependent on who is in the game you play. It would also be the "value" that would be used in the idea you raise to "gain" points, since it is geared with exactly that intent when foul created it. It fairly accurately measures how well you stacked up against your opponents in a game, and allows for each players skill.
-------Original Message-------
Lunar Savage wrote: That's the intent.
In a regular game, you can only earn the reward to add to your army. You can't bring in anything you earn to another regular game.
But you can bring those rewards into the "special series" of games.
So you have incentive to play the regular games (the rewards and additions to your army). Then you can use those rewards in the special games to show off everything you've earned and try to garner a win using those rewards (and potentially gain those rewards you risked in the special game back if you kick enough ass).
Lunar Savage
-------Original Message-------
ducky004 wrote: I like it.
But only if it is implemented in a 'special series'. Allowing players to bring in rewards from other games would change every game.
-------Original Message-------
Lunar Savage wrote: Another thing I think needs to be discussed. It is sort of related to player rankings and titles. However, I feel that rankings and titles will not be enough to keep today's gamers playing the game. Sure, you can keep winning time and again to get the next rank or unlock a special title. That's great!
But...in the end, it's largely aesthetic. And aesthetics do not keep players attention for too long. We need to come up with some other kind of permanent or evolving reward system to keep people wanting to play and prove their dominance.
As I proposed before, I will propose it again. A system of tracking a player's own personal army that can grow and shrink over the course of several games. And an army they can carry over between games to varying degrees.
For example:
In the lobby, each player would have a section that details the things they have amassed for their army. Resources, lessors, forms, and structures, etc. They can then take this army, or a portion of it, into the start of a game, or more specifically a special series of games designed and geared towards long time players.
We would even allow players to enter these games with just the basic starting resources if they wish to test their cunning and skill against someone who brings in a larger starting portion of their "main army".
Ways to make this army grow: by finishing and winning games. Say if player A joins a game at random, say a Mag 7. If he survives the game, he gains +10% of his surviving army (or maybe just some static numbers like 50 lessors, 30 T, and 20 F). If he wins (or is in the winners circle), he gains 20% of his surviving army into his main army (or higher base static numbers).
Ways to make this army shrink: by dying or finishing a game in the bottom ranks (last 3 or 4 spots). Player A would lose a static number from his main army or a percentage of it.
Ways to use the main army: In the series of games where the main army can be imported in, some can have minimum import requirements on the army, and some can have no requirements (but allows import anyway). While some have a maximum import limit. And some can have really high min requirements after a time.
Now, here's the catch, after importing your army into these games, you import them for good. Meaning they are subtracted from your main army because they are in the new game. You will not gain them back unless you finish the game or win. If you die or finish poorly, you lose them for good and have to start rebuilding by playing other regular games.
This allows for a new way of rewarding players and keeping them interested beyond XP, ranks, and titles. And is much more engrossing and interesting for players and makes them want to stay more involved.
Thoughts?
Lunar Savage
My understanding is "tru skill" is just a name (maybe trademark) of a skill rating algorithm designed specficially for multiplayer games.
I do believe for awhile it was the algorithm that Halo used for it's xblox live matchmaking. Whether or not they still use it, I don't know.
Whether it's accurate or not, I don't know, but I seem to recall plenty of argument on both sides.
What other games may have used it, I don't know.
-------Original Message-------
BlueSky wrote:
I don't know what tru skill means.. The sill rating system is based off of the ame algorithms usd in chess ratingz calculations.
Beat someone better you go up a bit. Beat an easy opponent go up less or not at all... I have worked out the formulas in the calculator to see how players will do at any point in a game...
-------Original Message-------
Lunar Savage wrote: I don't see how it's a concern if it's confined to one series of games that is rather optional. We're not forcing players to join these games. It's just something they can do if they feel like risking the cool stuff they've gained or want a different challenge to experience.
And as I recall, the skill rating system was based on the True Skill calculation method, no? That system has been proven to be highly inaccurate in other games and many companies have abandoned it.
As for basing resource income on skill rating, that would be an interesting system, provided again, it's optional and only used in certain formats. Would also put some more emphasis back into skill rating if you really want to keep it around. Personally, I've never found skill rating to be even remotely important.
Lunar Savage
-------Original Message-------
BlueSky wrote: any game where the players start in unequal positions, on top of the unequal conditions of the random starting positions is a real concern.
Though you could use skill rating to develop a handicap, where better players get less resources than worse players, or worse players get more resources... Resources perhaps defined as earning one less T per land, or x% of the total T income based on skill rating.
Skill rating is a pretty accurate measure of skill, tough it is very dependent on who is in the game you play. It would also be the "value" that would be used in the idea you raise to "gain" points, since it is geared with exactly that intent when foul created it. It fairly accurately measures how well you stacked up against your opponents in a game, and allows for each players skill.
-------Original Message-------
Lunar Savage wrote: That's the intent.
In a regular game, you can only earn the reward to add to your army. You can't bring in anything you earn to another regular game.
But you can bring those rewards into the "special series" of games.
So you have incentive to play the regular games (the rewards and additions to your army). Then you can use those rewards in the special games to show off everything you've earned and try to garner a win using those rewards (and potentially gain those rewards you risked in the special game back if you kick enough ass).
Lunar Savage
-------Original Message-------
ducky004 wrote: I like it.
But only if it is implemented in a 'special series'. Allowing players to bring in rewards from other games would change every game.
-------Original Message-------
Lunar Savage wrote: Another thing I think needs to be discussed. It is sort of related to player rankings and titles. However, I feel that rankings and titles will not be enough to keep today's gamers playing the game. Sure, you can keep winning time and again to get the next rank or unlock a special title. That's great!
But...in the end, it's largely aesthetic. And aesthetics do not keep players attention for too long. We need to come up with some other kind of permanent or evolving reward system to keep people wanting to play and prove their dominance.
As I proposed before, I will propose it again. A system of tracking a player's own personal army that can grow and shrink over the course of several games. And an army they can carry over between games to varying degrees.
For example:
In the lobby, each player would have a section that details the things they have amassed for their army. Resources, lessors, forms, and structures, etc. They can then take this army, or a portion of it, into the start of a game, or more specifically a special series of games designed and geared towards long time players.
We would even allow players to enter these games with just the basic starting resources if they wish to test their cunning and skill against someone who brings in a larger starting portion of their "main army".
Ways to make this army grow: by finishing and winning games. Say if player A joins a game at random, say a Mag 7. If he survives the game, he gains +10% of his surviving army (or maybe just some static numbers like 50 lessors, 30 T, and 20 F). If he wins (or is in the winners circle), he gains 20% of his surviving army into his main army (or higher base static numbers).
Ways to make this army shrink: by dying or finishing a game in the bottom ranks (last 3 or 4 spots). Player A would lose a static number from his main army or a percentage of it.
Ways to use the main army: In the series of games where the main army can be imported in, some can have minimum import requirements on the army, and some can have no requirements (but allows import anyway). While some have a maximum import limit. And some can have really high min requirements after a time.
Now, here's the catch, after importing your army into these games, you import them for good. Meaning they are subtracted from your main army because they are in the new game. You will not gain them back unless you finish the game or win. If you die or finish poorly, you lose them for good and have to start rebuilding by playing other regular games.
This allows for a new way of rewarding players and keeping them interested beyond XP, ranks, and titles. And is much more engrossing and interesting for players and makes them want to stay more involved.
Thoughts?
Lunar Savage
Ah. No that does not sound like what we have beyond the idea that both may use the same obvious type of algorithm....
-------Original Message-------
Management wrote:
My understanding is "tru skill" is just a name (maybe trademark) of a skill rating algorithm designed specficially for multiplayer games.
I do believe for awhile it was the algorithm that Halo used for it's xblox live matchmaking. Whether or not they still use it, I don't know.
Whether it's accurate or not, I don't know, but I seem to recall plenty of argument on both sides.
What other games may have used it, I don't know.
-------Original Message-------
BlueSky wrote:
I don't know what tru skill means.. The sill rating system is based off of the ame algorithms usd in chess ratingz calculations.
Beat someone better you go up a bit. Beat an easy opponent go up less or not at all... I have worked out the formulas in the calculator to see how players will do at any point in a game...
-------Original Message-------
Lunar Savage wrote: I don't see how it's a concern if it's confined to one series of games that is rather optional. We're not forcing players to join these games. It's just something they can do if they feel like risking the cool stuff they've gained or want a different challenge to experience.
And as I recall, the skill rating system was based on the True Skill calculation method, no? That system has been proven to be highly inaccurate in other games and many companies have abandoned it.
As for basing resource income on skill rating, that would be an interesting system, provided again, it's optional and only used in certain formats. Would also put some more emphasis back into skill rating if you really want to keep it around. Personally, I've never found skill rating to be even remotely important.
Lunar Savage
-------Original Message-------
BlueSky wrote: any game where the players start in unequal positions, on top of the unequal conditions of the random starting positions is a real concern.
Though you could use skill rating to develop a handicap, where better players get less resources than worse players, or worse players get more resources... Resources perhaps defined as earning one less T per land, or x% of the total T income based on skill rating.
Skill rating is a pretty accurate measure of skill, tough it is very dependent on who is in the game you play. It would also be the "value" that would be used in the idea you raise to "gain" points, since it is geared with exactly that intent when foul created it. It fairly accurately measures how well you stacked up against your opponents in a game, and allows for each players skill.
-------Original Message-------
Lunar Savage wrote: That's the intent.
In a regular game, you can only earn the reward to add to your army. You can't bring in anything you earn to another regular game.
But you can bring those rewards into the "special series" of games.
So you have incentive to play the regular games (the rewards and additions to your army). Then you can use those rewards in the special games to show off everything you've earned and try to garner a win using those rewards (and potentially gain those rewards you risked in the special game back if you kick enough ass).
Lunar Savage
-------Original Message-------
ducky004 wrote: I like it.
But only if it is implemented in a 'special series'. Allowing players to bring in rewards from other games would change every game.
-------Original Message-------
Lunar Savage wrote: Another thing I think needs to be discussed. It is sort of related to player rankings and titles. However, I feel that rankings and titles will not be enough to keep today's gamers playing the game. Sure, you can keep winning time and again to get the next rank or unlock a special title. That's great!
But...in the end, it's largely aesthetic. And aesthetics do not keep players attention for too long. We need to come up with some other kind of permanent or evolving reward system to keep people wanting to play and prove their dominance.
As I proposed before, I will propose it again. A system of tracking a player's own personal army that can grow and shrink over the course of several games. And an army they can carry over between games to varying degrees.
For example:
In the lobby, each player would have a section that details the things they have amassed for their army. Resources, lessors, forms, and structures, etc. They can then take this army, or a portion of it, into the start of a game, or more specifically a special series of games designed and geared towards long time players.
We would even allow players to enter these games with just the basic starting resources if they wish to test their cunning and skill against someone who brings in a larger starting portion of their "main army".
Ways to make this army grow: by finishing and winning games. Say if player A joins a game at random, say a Mag 7. If he survives the game, he gains +10% of his surviving army (or maybe just some static numbers like 50 lessors, 30 T, and 20 F). If he wins (or is in the winners circle), he gains 20% of his surviving army into his main army (or higher base static numbers).
Ways to make this army shrink: by dying or finishing a game in the bottom ranks (last 3 or 4 spots). Player A would lose a static number from his main army or a percentage of it.
Ways to use the main army: In the series of games where the main army can be imported in, some can have minimum import requirements on the army, and some can have no requirements (but allows import anyway). While some have a maximum import limit. And some can have really high min requirements after a time.
Now, here's the catch, after importing your army into these games, you import them for good. Meaning they are subtracted from your main army because they are in the new game. You will not gain them back unless you finish the game or win. If you die or finish poorly, you lose them for good and have to start rebuilding by playing other regular games.
This allows for a new way of rewarding players and keeping them interested beyond XP, ranks, and titles. And is much more engrossing and interesting for players and makes them want to stay more involved.
Thoughts?
Lunar Savage
One option is to combine this idea with the idea of having "historical" scenarios where you play out conflicts in the world's past or present.
Link stat tracking to these scenarios and you can create some interesting synergies. Maybe the game tracks the religion you declare most frequently and uses that to set your role in the "historical" scenarios, for example? Then you can create rewards which offer you more flexibility when playing in that format (like being able to build temples which allow you to choose those religions instead of your "default" religion")...
Then the key becomes either finding a way to balance out the advantages in the series, or some kind of game handicap for the victory condition. Maybe if team Bork is at 75% of team Chron, Bork players receive bonus points at end game or an artificial boost in their citadel ranking?
I hate to even bring this up, but the other common MMO persistent reward system relates to clans, guilds and the like.
Narsham
-------Original Message-------
Lunar Savage wrote: That's the intent.
In a regular game, you can only earn the reward to add to your army. You can't bring in anything you earn to another regular game.
But you can bring those rewards into the "special series" of games.
So you have incentive to play the regular games (the rewards and additions to your army). Then you can use those rewards in the special games to show off everything you've earned and try to garner a win using those rewards (and potentially gain those rewards you risked in the special game back if you kick enough ass).
Lunar Savage
-------Original Message-------
ducky004 wrote: I like it.
But only if it is implemented in a 'special series'. Allowing players to bring in rewards from other games would change every game.
-------Original Message-------
Lunar Savage wrote: Another thing I think needs to be discussed. It is sort of related to player rankings and titles. However, I feel that rankings and titles will not be enough to keep today's gamers playing the game. Sure, you can keep winning time and again to get the next rank or unlock a special title. That's great!
But...in the end, it's largely aesthetic. And aesthetics do not keep players attention for too long. We need to come up with some other kind of permanent or evolving reward system to keep people wanting to play and prove their dominance.
As I proposed before, I will propose it again. A system of tracking a player's own personal army that can grow and shrink over the course of several games. And an army they can carry over between games to varying degrees.
For example:
In the lobby, each player would have a section that details the things they have amassed for their army. Resources, lessors, forms, and structures, etc. They can then take this army, or a portion of it, into the start of a game, or more specifically a special series of games designed and geared towards long time players.
We would even allow players to enter these games with just the basic starting resources if they wish to test their cunning and skill against someone who brings in a larger starting portion of their "main army".
Ways to make this army grow: by finishing and winning games. Say if player A joins a game at random, say a Mag 7. If he survives the game, he gains +10% of his surviving army (or maybe just some static numbers like 50 lessors, 30 T, and 20 F). If he wins (or is in the winners circle), he gains 20% of his surviving army into his main army (or higher base static numbers).
Ways to make this army shrink: by dying or finishing a game in the bottom ranks (last 3 or 4 spots). Player A would lose a static number from his main army or a percentage of it.
Ways to use the main army: In the series of games where the main army can be imported in, some can have minimum import requirements on the army, and some can have no requirements (but allows import anyway). While some have a maximum import limit. And some can have really high min requirements after a time.
Now, here's the catch, after importing your army into these games, you import them for good. Meaning they are subtracted from your main army because they are in the new game. You will not gain them back unless you finish the game or win. If you die or finish poorly, you lose them for good and have to start rebuilding by playing other regular games.
This allows for a new way of rewarding players and keeping them interested beyond XP, ranks, and titles. And is much more engrossing and interesting for players and makes them want to stay more involved.
Thoughts?
Lunar Savage
Connect With Us