- 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.
Spells
Submitted by Management 7/4/2012 3:49:00 PM {time} ago in Community Feedback
A thread to discuss spells. Types, costs, effects, etc. Anything related to spells.
in future games in a not so classic setting... resources should be for sale. that way those without skill can win and earn *cough* exp. you know even the odds a little. whats fun is winning and people pay for fun.
aside from that sucker man is a problem and their value vs form use.
wyrm
-------Original Message-------
Management wrote:
A thread to discuss spells. Types, costs, effects, etc. Anything related to spells.
Yes, we agree. We do feel there are some game play "balance" issues with the T-F-lessors-forms-spells relationships.
Much of which can already be addressed with altering the stats of forms and lessors or the cost of spells. Maybe after careful consideration some adjustments to the defaults are in order?
An idea that particularly intrigues me is one posted by Lord Foul (25Aug2008) in Suggestions (P.7 thread "Spell System Changes". )
Enabling more than one spell to be in effect on a region at a time.
Reasonably feasible to implement technically, drastic implications on strategy and tactics.
Having a Fury advantage would still be important and valuable, but it would dampen the ability to simply bulldoze opponents with less fury.
-------Original Message-------
wyrm419 wrote: in future games in a not so classic setting... resources should be for sale. that way those without skill can win and earn *cough* exp. you know even the odds a little. whats fun is winning and people pay for fun.
aside from that sucker man is a problem and their value vs form use.
wyrm
-------Original Message-------
Management wrote:
A thread to discuss spells. Types, costs, effects, etc. Anything related to spells.
An interesting configurable option. Currently only one spell on a region happens and it cancels the other spell.
Also intriguing when two suckers are cast and the region ID sort sequence determines which one takes effect.
You could jus tprocess the spells one at a time, and if one overrides the other in the same vein, e.g. sucker vs hand, the higher F rules. But casting a sucker at the same time as a slappy by two players would be very ineresting, and even more if the same player could cast two dis-similar spells at the same time. Think about a key sucker having a moon evader cast at the same time. I do like one spell right now, people overcastas a technique..
Also consider configuration of the spells. A karesh that can last 10 ticks, or three levels of karesh that last one, five or seven ticks based on fury spent Battle spells have configurable parameters that can not currently be changed, but if they could it could create a mix of new thoughts and games.
think about a sucker that only sucks in 50% of the forces and leaves the other 50% to go where they were, as a weak sucker, or a strong sucker that pulls in forms.
-------Original Message-------
Management wrote:
Yes, we agree. We do feel there are some game play "balance" issues with the T-F-lessors-forms-spells relationships.
Much of which can already be addressed with altering the stats of forms and lessors or the cost of spells. Maybe after careful consideration some adjustments to the defaults are in order?
An idea that particularly intrigues me is one posted by Lord Foul (25Aug2008) in Suggestions (P.7 thread "Spell System Changes". )
Enabling more than one spell to be in effect on a region at a time.
Reasonably feasible to implement technically, drastic implications on strategy and tactics.
Having a Fury advantage would still be important and valuable, but it would dampen the ability to simply bulldoze opponents with less fury.
-------Original Message-------
wyrm419 wrote: in future games in a not so classic setting... resources should be for sale. that way those without skill can win and earn *cough* exp. you know even the odds a little. whats fun is winning and people pay for fun.
aside from that sucker man is a problem and their value vs form use.
wyrm
-------Original Message-------
Management wrote:
A thread to discuss spells. Types, costs, effects, etc. Anything related to spells.
Different level spells and multiple spells on a region are ideas I like.
Otherwise, I think we should include more to be aimed at the forms or include form effects for existing spells.
Also, potentially granting the ability to have some "spells" cost T instead. But that's a different discussion me thinks. What with items and technology.
Lunar Savage
-------Original Message-------
BlueSky wrote: An interesting configurable option. Currently only one spell on a region happens and it cancels the other spell.
Also intriguing when two suckers are cast and the region ID sort sequence determines which one takes effect.
You could jus tprocess the spells one at a time, and if one overrides the other in the same vein, e.g. sucker vs hand, the higher F rules. But casting a sucker at the same time as a slappy by two players would be very ineresting, and even more if the same player could cast two dis-similar spells at the same time. Think about a key sucker having a moon evader cast at the same time. I do like one spell right now, people overcastas a technique..
Also consider configuration of the spells. A karesh that can last 10 ticks, or three levels of karesh that last one, five or seven ticks based on fury spent Battle spells have configurable parameters that can not currently be changed, but if they could it could create a mix of new thoughts and games.
think about a sucker that only sucks in 50% of the forces and leaves the other 50% to go where they were, as a weak sucker, or a strong sucker that pulls in forms.
-------Original Message-------
Management wrote:
Yes, we agree. We do feel there are some game play "balance" issues with the T-F-lessors-forms-spells relationships.
Much of which can already be addressed with altering the stats of forms and lessors or the cost of spells. Maybe after careful consideration some adjustments to the defaults are in order?
An idea that particularly intrigues me is one posted by Lord Foul (25Aug2008) in Suggestions (P.7 thread "Spell System Changes". )
Enabling more than one spell to be in effect on a region at a time.
Reasonably feasible to implement technically, drastic implications on strategy and tactics.
Having a Fury advantage would still be important and valuable, but it would dampen the ability to simply bulldoze opponents with less fury.
-------Original Message-------
wyrm419 wrote: in future games in a not so classic setting... resources should be for sale. that way those without skill can win and earn *cough* exp. you know even the odds a little. whats fun is winning and people pay for fun.
aside from that sucker man is a problem and their value vs form use.
wyrm
-------Original Message-------
Management wrote:
A thread to discuss spells. Types, costs, effects, etc. Anything related to spells.
Interesting.
Maybe not spells, but what about an entire class of "upgrades" that have similar effects as spells, but are manufactured and purchased with "T"
Weapons upgrades that increase lessor's attacks or offense. Armor upgrades that improve defense. Boats or bridges to cross water. Barriers or traps that impede an enemy's ability to enter or traverse a region. etc.
That kind of things.
Durations could vary. From 1 cycle to several to permanent.
Area of affect could vary from a specific region, to several adjoining regions, to your entire empire.
I think there's a lot of room for creative ideas along these lines.
-------Original Message-------
Lunar Savage wrote: Different level spells and multiple spells on a region are ideas I like.
Otherwise, I think we should include more to be aimed at the forms or include form effects for existing spells.
Also, potentially granting the ability to have some "spells" cost T instead. But that's a different discussion me thinks. What with items and technology.
Lunar Savage
-------Original Message-------
BlueSky wrote: An interesting configurable option. Currently only one spell on a region happens and it cancels the other spell.
Also intriguing when two suckers are cast and the region ID sort sequence determines which one takes effect.
You could jus tprocess the spells one at a time, and if one overrides the other in the same vein, e.g. sucker vs hand, the higher F rules. But casting a sucker at the same time as a slappy by two players would be very ineresting, and even more if the same player could cast two dis-similar spells at the same time. Think about a key sucker having a moon evader cast at the same time. I do like one spell right now, people overcastas a technique..
Also consider configuration of the spells. A karesh that can last 10 ticks, or three levels of karesh that last one, five or seven ticks based on fury spent Battle spells have configurable parameters that can not currently be changed, but if they could it could create a mix of new thoughts and games.
think about a sucker that only sucks in 50% of the forces and leaves the other 50% to go where they were, as a weak sucker, or a strong sucker that pulls in forms.
-------Original Message-------
Management wrote:
Yes, we agree. We do feel there are some game play "balance" issues with the T-F-lessors-forms-spells relationships.
Much of which can already be addressed with altering the stats of forms and lessors or the cost of spells. Maybe after careful consideration some adjustments to the defaults are in order?
An idea that particularly intrigues me is one posted by Lord Foul (25Aug2008) in Suggestions (P.7 thread "Spell System Changes". )
Enabling more than one spell to be in effect on a region at a time.
Reasonably feasible to implement technically, drastic implications on strategy and tactics.
Having a Fury advantage would still be important and valuable, but it would dampen the ability to simply bulldoze opponents with less fury.
-------Original Message-------
wyrm419 wrote: in future games in a not so classic setting... resources should be for sale. that way those without skill can win and earn *cough* exp. you know even the odds a little. whats fun is winning and people pay for fun.
aside from that sucker man is a problem and their value vs form use.
wyrm
-------Original Message-------
Management wrote:
A thread to discuss spells. Types, costs, effects, etc. Anything related to spells.
Bigger steamrollers... I would neither want to give or remove the. More or less advantage just because of size...
-------Original Message-------
Management wrote:
Interesting.
Maybe not spells, but what about an entire class of "upgrades" that have similar effects as spells, but are manufactured and purchased with "T"
Weapons upgrades that increase lessor's attacks or offense. Armor upgrades that improve defense. Boats or bridges to cross water. Barriers or traps that impede an enemy's ability to enter or traverse a region. etc.
That kind of things.
Durations could vary. From 1 cycle to several to permanent.
Area of affect could vary from a specific region, to several adjoining regions, to your entire empire.
I think there's a lot of room for creative ideas along these lines.
-------Original Message-------
Lunar Savage wrote: Different level spells and multiple spells on a region are ideas I like.
Otherwise, I think we should include more to be aimed at the forms or include form effects for existing spells.
Also, potentially granting the ability to have some "spells" cost T instead. But that's a different discussion me thinks. What with items and technology.
Lunar Savage
-------Original Message-------
BlueSky wrote: An interesting configurable option. Currently only one spell on a region happens and it cancels the other spell.
Also intriguing when two suckers are cast and the region ID sort sequence determines which one takes effect.
You could jus tprocess the spells one at a time, and if one overrides the other in the same vein, e.g. sucker vs hand, the higher F rules. But casting a sucker at the same time as a slappy by two players would be very ineresting, and even more if the same player could cast two dis-similar spells at the same time. Think about a key sucker having a moon evader cast at the same time. I do like one spell right now, people overcastas a technique..
Also consider configuration of the spells. A karesh that can last 10 ticks, or three levels of karesh that last one, five or seven ticks based on fury spent Battle spells have configurable parameters that can not currently be changed, but if they could it could create a mix of new thoughts and games.
think about a sucker that only sucks in 50% of the forces and leaves the other 50% to go where they were, as a weak sucker, or a strong sucker that pulls in forms.
-------Original Message-------
Management wrote:
Yes, we agree. We do feel there are some game play "balance" issues with the T-F-lessors-forms-spells relationships.
Much of which can already be addressed with altering the stats of forms and lessors or the cost of spells. Maybe after careful consideration some adjustments to the defaults are in order?
An idea that particularly intrigues me is one posted by Lord Foul (25Aug2008) in Suggestions (P.7 thread "Spell System Changes". )
Enabling more than one spell to be in effect on a region at a time.
Reasonably feasible to implement technically, drastic implications on strategy and tactics.
Having a Fury advantage would still be important and valuable, but it would dampen the ability to simply bulldoze opponents with less fury.
-------Original Message-------
wyrm419 wrote: in future games in a not so classic setting... resources should be for sale. that way those without skill can win and earn *cough* exp. you know even the odds a little. whats fun is winning and people pay for fun.
aside from that sucker man is a problem and their value vs form use.
wyrm
-------Original Message-------
Management wrote:
A thread to discuss spells. Types, costs, effects, etc. Anything related to spells.
I've never fully understood your objection to including more uses for T. Especially in the realm of new structure types, which could be advantageous to large and small empires.
Lunar Savage
-------Original Message-------
BlueSky wrote:
Bigger steamrollers... I would neither want to give or remove the. More or less advantage just because of size...
-------Original Message-------
Management wrote:
Interesting.
Maybe not spells, but what about an entire class of "upgrades" that have similar effects as spells, but are manufactured and purchased with "T"
Weapons upgrades that increase lessor's attacks or offense. Armor upgrades that improve defense. Boats or bridges to cross water. Barriers or traps that impede an enemy's ability to enter or traverse a region. etc.
That kind of things.
Durations could vary. From 1 cycle to several to permanent.
Area of affect could vary from a specific region, to several adjoining regions, to your entire empire.
I think there's a lot of room for creative ideas along these lines.
-------Original Message-------
Lunar Savage wrote: Different level spells and multiple spells on a region are ideas I like.
Otherwise, I think we should include more to be aimed at the forms or include form effects for existing spells.
Also, potentially granting the ability to have some "spells" cost T instead. But that's a different discussion me thinks. What with items and technology.
Lunar Savage
-------Original Message-------
BlueSky wrote: An interesting configurable option. Currently only one spell on a region happens and it cancels the other spell.
Also intriguing when two suckers are cast and the region ID sort sequence determines which one takes effect.
You could jus tprocess the spells one at a time, and if one overrides the other in the same vein, e.g. sucker vs hand, the higher F rules. But casting a sucker at the same time as a slappy by two players would be very ineresting, and even more if the same player could cast two dis-similar spells at the same time. Think about a key sucker having a moon evader cast at the same time. I do like one spell right now, people overcastas a technique..
Also consider configuration of the spells. A karesh that can last 10 ticks, or three levels of karesh that last one, five or seven ticks based on fury spent Battle spells have configurable parameters that can not currently be changed, but if they could it could create a mix of new thoughts and games.
think about a sucker that only sucks in 50% of the forces and leaves the other 50% to go where they were, as a weak sucker, or a strong sucker that pulls in forms.
-------Original Message-------
Management wrote:
Yes, we agree. We do feel there are some game play "balance" issues with the T-F-lessors-forms-spells relationships.
Much of which can already be addressed with altering the stats of forms and lessors or the cost of spells. Maybe after careful consideration some adjustments to the defaults are in order?
An idea that particularly intrigues me is one posted by Lord Foul (25Aug2008) in Suggestions (P.7 thread "Spell System Changes". )
Enabling more than one spell to be in effect on a region at a time.
Reasonably feasible to implement technically, drastic implications on strategy and tactics.
Having a Fury advantage would still be important and valuable, but it would dampen the ability to simply bulldoze opponents with less fury.
-------Original Message-------
wyrm419 wrote: in future games in a not so classic setting... resources should be for sale. that way those without skill can win and earn *cough* exp. you know even the odds a little. whats fun is winning and people pay for fun.
aside from that sucker man is a problem and their value vs form use.
wyrm
-------Original Message-------
Management wrote:
A thread to discuss spells. Types, costs, effects, etc. Anything related to spells.
No issue on more uses for t.
Just that F is hard to come by and its one of the challenges.
Being able t turn T to F faster (or use it for spells right now which is the same thing) specifically benefits someone with... more T..
Fury starving someone is a big tactic that goes away if you can't do it..
Its not about making it equal for everyone, its about making it to where those with the better ideas and more imagination can do better.
Heck, I am playing another game right now that I earn T if I just show up more and check on the game. I get points if I look at a neighbor and feed his crops. Not a whole lot of imagination, and I bet it can last for at least two months before its so boring it has to go..
Evernight has lasted 11 years, and for those tat still play its as much of a challenge now as it was then.
There are definately things that can be done to make it better. The nap tracker is a really good one, especially as it can benefit a player once they get started. AI games for the first comers are great. Be able to template the configuration options we have today. These are easier things to do, as the pieces are already there.
Turning it into antoher game? Might as well just make another game, there is no reason to take this one away.
-------Original Message-------
Lunar Savage wrote: I've never fully understood your objection to including more uses for T. Especially in the realm of new structure types, which could be advantageous to large and small empires.
Lunar Savage
-------Original Message-------
BlueSky wrote:
Bigger steamrollers... I would neither want to give or remove the. More or less advantage just because of size...
-------Original Message-------
Management wrote:
Interesting.
Maybe not spells, but what about an entire class of "upgrades" that have similar effects as spells, but are manufactured and purchased with "T"
Weapons upgrades that increase lessor's attacks or offense. Armor upgrades that improve defense. Boats or bridges to cross water. Barriers or traps that impede an enemy's ability to enter or traverse a region. etc.
That kind of things.
Durations could vary. From 1 cycle to several to permanent.
Area of affect could vary from a specific region, to several adjoining regions, to your entire empire.
I think there's a lot of room for creative ideas along these lines.
-------Original Message-------
Lunar Savage wrote: Different level spells and multiple spells on a region are ideas I like.
Otherwise, I think we should include more to be aimed at the forms or include form effects for existing spells.
Also, potentially granting the ability to have some "spells" cost T instead. But that's a different discussion me thinks. What with items and technology.
Lunar Savage
-------Original Message-------
BlueSky wrote: An interesting configurable option. Currently only one spell on a region happens and it cancels the other spell.
Also intriguing when two suckers are cast and the region ID sort sequence determines which one takes effect.
You could jus tprocess the spells one at a time, and if one overrides the other in the same vein, e.g. sucker vs hand, the higher F rules. But casting a sucker at the same time as a slappy by two players would be very ineresting, and even more if the same player could cast two dis-similar spells at the same time. Think about a key sucker having a moon evader cast at the same time. I do like one spell right now, people overcastas a technique..
Also consider configuration of the spells. A karesh that can last 10 ticks, or three levels of karesh that last one, five or seven ticks based on fury spent Battle spells have configurable parameters that can not currently be changed, but if they could it could create a mix of new thoughts and games.
think about a sucker that only sucks in 50% of the forces and leaves the other 50% to go where they were, as a weak sucker, or a strong sucker that pulls in forms.
-------Original Message-------
Management wrote:
Yes, we agree. We do feel there are some game play "balance" issues with the T-F-lessors-forms-spells relationships.
Much of which can already be addressed with altering the stats of forms and lessors or the cost of spells. Maybe after careful consideration some adjustments to the defaults are in order?
An idea that particularly intrigues me is one posted by Lord Foul (25Aug2008) in Suggestions (P.7 thread "Spell System Changes". )
Enabling more than one spell to be in effect on a region at a time.
Reasonably feasible to implement technically, drastic implications on strategy and tactics.
Having a Fury advantage would still be important and valuable, but it would dampen the ability to simply bulldoze opponents with less fury.
-------Original Message-------
wyrm419 wrote: in future games in a not so classic setting... resources should be for sale. that way those without skill can win and earn *cough* exp. you know even the odds a little. whats fun is winning and people pay for fun.
aside from that sucker man is a problem and their value vs form use.
wyrm
-------Original Message-------
Management wrote:
A thread to discuss spells. Types, costs, effects, etc. Anything related to spells.
And that's where we disagree. There is no challenge with the current state of T to F conversion. You either farm or sac for the constant flow. It's been pretty obvious that relying on a straight war with your enemy for fury doesn't happen anymore because people use the fury starving strategy as a crutch to cripple a bigger player.
All the ideas presented thus far would actually slow down the T to F conversion rates and force new strategies to come into play. I'll gladly ditch fury starving any day of the week, as that tactic is a contributing factor to the creation of fury farms and the cheap sacrifice spell.
The new additions aren't making it a new game. They're making it so that players don't get overly centralized around any one strategy. Offensive, it's about getting lots of F and summoning forms. Defensive, it's about trying to fury starve. It's stale. And it needs to go.
Lunar Savage
-------Original Message-------
BlueSky wrote:
No issue on more uses for t.
Just that F is hard to come by and its one of the challenges.
Being able t turn T to F faster (or use it for spells right now which is the same thing) specifically benefits someone with... more T..
Fury starving someone is a big tactic that goes away if you can't do it..
Its not about making it equal for everyone, its about making it to where those with the better ideas and more imagination can do better.
Heck, I am playing another game right now that I earn T if I just show up more and check on the game. I get points if I look at a neighbor and feed his crops. Not a whole lot of imagination, and I bet it can last for at least two months before its so boring it has to go..
Evernight has lasted 11 years, and for those tat still play its as much of a challenge now as it was then.
There are definately things that can be done to make it better. The nap tracker is a really good one, especially as it can benefit a player once they get started. AI games for the first comers are great. Be able to template the configuration options we have today. These are easier things to do, as the pieces are already there.
Turning it into antoher game? Might as well just make another game, there is no reason to take this one away.
-------Original Message-------
Lunar Savage wrote: I've never fully understood your objection to including more uses for T. Especially in the realm of new structure types, which could be advantageous to large and small empires.
Lunar Savage
-------Original Message-------
BlueSky wrote:
Bigger steamrollers... I would neither want to give or remove the. More or less advantage just because of size...
-------Original Message-------
Management wrote:
Interesting.
Maybe not spells, but what about an entire class of "upgrades" that have similar effects as spells, but are manufactured and purchased with "T"
Weapons upgrades that increase lessor's attacks or offense. Armor upgrades that improve defense. Boats or bridges to cross water. Barriers or traps that impede an enemy's ability to enter or traverse a region. etc.
That kind of things.
Durations could vary. From 1 cycle to several to permanent.
Area of affect could vary from a specific region, to several adjoining regions, to your entire empire.
I think there's a lot of room for creative ideas along these lines.
-------Original Message-------
Lunar Savage wrote: Different level spells and multiple spells on a region are ideas I like.
Otherwise, I think we should include more to be aimed at the forms or include form effects for existing spells.
Also, potentially granting the ability to have some "spells" cost T instead. But that's a different discussion me thinks. What with items and technology.
Lunar Savage
-------Original Message-------
BlueSky wrote: An interesting configurable option. Currently only one spell on a region happens and it cancels the other spell.
Also intriguing when two suckers are cast and the region ID sort sequence determines which one takes effect.
You could jus tprocess the spells one at a time, and if one overrides the other in the same vein, e.g. sucker vs hand, the higher F rules. But casting a sucker at the same time as a slappy by two players would be very ineresting, and even more if the same player could cast two dis-similar spells at the same time. Think about a key sucker having a moon evader cast at the same time. I do like one spell right now, people overcastas a technique..
Also consider configuration of the spells. A karesh that can last 10 ticks, or three levels of karesh that last one, five or seven ticks based on fury spent Battle spells have configurable parameters that can not currently be changed, but if they could it could create a mix of new thoughts and games.
think about a sucker that only sucks in 50% of the forces and leaves the other 50% to go where they were, as a weak sucker, or a strong sucker that pulls in forms.
-------Original Message-------
Management wrote:
Yes, we agree. We do feel there are some game play "balance" issues with the T-F-lessors-forms-spells relationships.
Much of which can already be addressed with altering the stats of forms and lessors or the cost of spells. Maybe after careful consideration some adjustments to the defaults are in order?
An idea that particularly intrigues me is one posted by Lord Foul (25Aug2008) in Suggestions (P.7 thread "Spell System Changes". )
Enabling more than one spell to be in effect on a region at a time.
Reasonably feasible to implement technically, drastic implications on strategy and tactics.
Having a Fury advantage would still be important and valuable, but it would dampen the ability to simply bulldoze opponents with less fury.
-------Original Message-------
wyrm419 wrote: in future games in a not so classic setting... resources should be for sale. that way those without skill can win and earn *cough* exp. you know even the odds a little. whats fun is winning and people pay for fun.
aside from that sucker man is a problem and their value vs form use.
wyrm
-------Original Message-------
Management wrote:
A thread to discuss spells. Types, costs, effects, etc. Anything related to spells.
Wow. Excellent post.
While they're all related, you actually touched on several different issues, and they're all important.
The fact that Evernight is still here, after all these year, after all the trials and tribulations it's been through, and players keep coming back, says something. Something, somewhere at the core of this thing is on target.
On the other hand, it never really took off either. While discussing the reasons for that is certainly a worthwhile discussion, the bottom line is, it didn't.
Fury starving, is was and I think should continue to be an important tactic in a skill Evernight warrior's bag of tricks.
I would love to be able to just wave a magic wand and declare, "Henceforth ye shall earn your fury the old fashioned way! VICTORY IN WAR!"
I don't have quite that much juice in my wand, so I can't do that.
In an ideal world the Fury Farm solution is for someone to step forward with an algorithm that can with a very high degree of accuracy tell the difference between a "real" battle between opponents vs a "faked" battle betweens partners (which is also impervious to players figuring out workarounds to) and (which also doesn't just lead to a cat & mouse spiral).
So I'm thinking in the meantime, until someone comes up with that detection algorithm, it's probably worthwhile to explore other ideas. And if we can leverage those ideas into additional features that add to the game in other ways at the same time, all the better.
I'm sure we're all familar with plenty of games out there that are completely mindless "time-sinks" and I'm sure those types of games a their appeal to the players who play them. But that's not the direction we see for Evernight.
We do envision a number of iterations in Evernight's future. Evernight v1, Evernight v1.5, Evernight v2.0, etc.
But along the we envision an "Evernight Classic" as a permanent fixture one way or another.
-------Original Message-------
BlueSky wrote:
No issue on more uses for t.
Just that F is hard to come by and its one of the challenges.
Being able t turn T to F faster (or use it for spells right now which is the same thing) specifically benefits someone with... more T..
Fury starving someone is a big tactic that goes away if you can't do it..
Its not about making it equal for everyone, its about making it to where those with the better ideas and more imagination can do better.
Heck, I am playing another game right now that I earn T if I just show up more and check on the game. I get points if I look at a neighbor and feed his crops. Not a whole lot of imagination, and I bet it can last for at least two months before its so boring it has to go..
Evernight has lasted 11 years, and for those tat still play its as much of a challenge now as it was then.
There are definately things that can be done to make it better. The nap tracker is a really good one, especially as it can benefit a player once they get started. AI games for the first comers are great. Be able to template the configuration options we have today. These are easier things to do, as the pieces are already there.
Turning it into antoher game? Might as well just make another game, there is no reason to take this one away.
-------Original Message-------
Lunar Savage wrote: I've never fully understood your objection to including more uses for T. Especially in the realm of new structure types, which could be advantageous to large and small empires.
Lunar Savage
-------Original Message-------
BlueSky wrote:
Bigger steamrollers... I would neither want to give or remove the. More or less advantage just because of size...
-------Original Message-------
Management wrote:
Interesting.
Maybe not spells, but what about an entire class of "upgrades" that have similar effects as spells, but are manufactured and purchased with "T"
Weapons upgrades that increase lessor's attacks or offense. Armor upgrades that improve defense. Boats or bridges to cross water. Barriers or traps that impede an enemy's ability to enter or traverse a region. etc.
That kind of things.
Durations could vary. From 1 cycle to several to permanent.
Area of affect could vary from a specific region, to several adjoining regions, to your entire empire.
I think there's a lot of room for creative ideas along these lines.
-------Original Message-------
Lunar Savage wrote: Different level spells and multiple spells on a region are ideas I like.
Otherwise, I think we should include more to be aimed at the forms or include form effects for existing spells.
Also, potentially granting the ability to have some "spells" cost T instead. But that's a different discussion me thinks. What with items and technology.
Lunar Savage
-------Original Message-------
BlueSky wrote: An interesting configurable option. Currently only one spell on a region happens and it cancels the other spell.
Also intriguing when two suckers are cast and the region ID sort sequence determines which one takes effect.
You could jus tprocess the spells one at a time, and if one overrides the other in the same vein, e.g. sucker vs hand, the higher F rules. But casting a sucker at the same time as a slappy by two players would be very ineresting, and even more if the same player could cast two dis-similar spells at the same time. Think about a key sucker having a moon evader cast at the same time. I do like one spell right now, people overcastas a technique..
Also consider configuration of the spells. A karesh that can last 10 ticks, or three levels of karesh that last one, five or seven ticks based on fury spent Battle spells have configurable parameters that can not currently be changed, but if they could it could create a mix of new thoughts and games.
think about a sucker that only sucks in 50% of the forces and leaves the other 50% to go where they were, as a weak sucker, or a strong sucker that pulls in forms.
-------Original Message-------
Management wrote:
Yes, we agree. We do feel there are some game play "balance" issues with the T-F-lessors-forms-spells relationships.
Much of which can already be addressed with altering the stats of forms and lessors or the cost of spells. Maybe after careful consideration some adjustments to the defaults are in order?
An idea that particularly intrigues me is one posted by Lord Foul (25Aug2008) in Suggestions (P.7 thread "Spell System Changes". )
Enabling more than one spell to be in effect on a region at a time.
Reasonably feasible to implement technically, drastic implications on strategy and tactics.
Having a Fury advantage would still be important and valuable, but it would dampen the ability to simply bulldoze opponents with less fury.
-------Original Message-------
wyrm419 wrote: in future games in a not so classic setting... resources should be for sale. that way those without skill can win and earn *cough* exp. you know even the odds a little. whats fun is winning and people pay for fun.
aside from that sucker man is a problem and their value vs form use.
wyrm
-------Original Message-------
Management wrote:
A thread to discuss spells. Types, costs, effects, etc. Anything related to spells.
Consider that if a nap tracker is in place, and naps can't fight each otehr without a leopard fighter, fury farms cost 25F more and require more coordination and ultimately are much harder to have..
Worse if naps can't fight each other at all, then farms are simply gone without the consdieratio of an opponent..
The options and creative thinking of how to use them is a large part of what keeps a game interesting for someone that has been here for a long time..
Keeping the admin time to a minimum is a must. Last game that I did on forever blacks in demon wars xx require admin action every day, it was a real pain if I missed a day. Doing the lion roar games is a real difficult thing especialy as a hundred regions may have to be changed. Games with random spell costs that we have run and games where spells have to change their cost like in the 10K game are easy to forget to get back in. These, and similar games tat might require admin time ongoing are really interesting to everyone else though..
-------Original Message-------
Management wrote:
Wow. Excellent post.
While they're all related, you actually touched on several different issues, and they're all important.
The fact that Evernight is still here, after all these year, after all the trials and tribulations it's been through, and players keep coming back, says something. Something, somewhere at the core of this thing is on target.
On the other hand, it never really took off either. While discussing the reasons for that is certainly a worthwhile discussion, the bottom line is, it didn't.
Fury starving, is was and I think should continue to be an important tactic in a skill Evernight warrior's bag of tricks.
I would love to be able to just wave a magic wand and declare, "Henceforth ye shall earn your fury the old fashioned way! VICTORY IN WAR!"
I don't have quite that much juice in my wand, so I can't do that.
In an ideal world the Fury Farm solution is for someone to step forward with an algorithm that can with a very high degree of accuracy tell the difference between a "real" battle between opponents vs a "faked" battle betweens partners (which is also impervious to players figuring out workarounds to) and (which also doesn't just lead to a cat & mouse spiral).
So I'm thinking in the meantime, until someone comes up with that detection algorithm, it's probably worthwhile to explore other ideas. And if we can leverage those ideas into additional features that add to the game in other ways at the same time, all the better.
I'm sure we're all familar with plenty of games out there that are completely mindless "time-sinks" and I'm sure those types of games a their appeal to the players who play them. But that's not the direction we see for Evernight.
We do envision a number of iterations in Evernight's future. Evernight v1, Evernight v1.5, Evernight v2.0, etc.
But along the we envision an "Evernight Classic" as a permanent fixture one way or another.
-------Original Message-------
BlueSky wrote:
No issue on more uses for t.
Just that F is hard to come by and its one of the challenges.
Being able t turn T to F faster (or use it for spells right now which is the same thing) specifically benefits someone with... more T..
Fury starving someone is a big tactic that goes away if you can't do it..
Its not about making it equal for everyone, its about making it to where those with the better ideas and more imagination can do better.
Heck, I am playing another game right now that I earn T if I just show up more and check on the game. I get points if I look at a neighbor and feed his crops. Not a whole lot of imagination, and I bet it can last for at least two months before its so boring it has to go..
Evernight has lasted 11 years, and for those tat still play its as much of a challenge now as it was then.
There are definately things that can be done to make it better. The nap tracker is a really good one, especially as it can benefit a player once they get started. AI games for the first comers are great. Be able to template the configuration options we have today. These are easier things to do, as the pieces are already there.
Turning it into antoher game? Might as well just make another game, there is no reason to take this one away.
-------Original Message-------
Lunar Savage wrote: I've never fully understood your objection to including more uses for T. Especially in the realm of new structure types, which could be advantageous to large and small empires.
Lunar Savage
-------Original Message-------
BlueSky wrote:
Bigger steamrollers... I would neither want to give or remove the. More or less advantage just because of size...
-------Original Message-------
Management wrote:
Interesting.
Maybe not spells, but what about an entire class of "upgrades" that have similar effects as spells, but are manufactured and purchased with "T"
Weapons upgrades that increase lessor's attacks or offense. Armor upgrades that improve defense. Boats or bridges to cross water. Barriers or traps that impede an enemy's ability to enter or traverse a region. etc.
That kind of things.
Durations could vary. From 1 cycle to several to permanent.
Area of affect could vary from a specific region, to several adjoining regions, to your entire empire.
I think there's a lot of room for creative ideas along these lines.
-------Original Message-------
Lunar Savage wrote: Different level spells and multiple spells on a region are ideas I like.
Otherwise, I think we should include more to be aimed at the forms or include form effects for existing spells.
Also, potentially granting the ability to have some "spells" cost T instead. But that's a different discussion me thinks. What with items and technology.
Lunar Savage
-------Original Message-------
BlueSky wrote: An interesting configurable option. Currently only one spell on a region happens and it cancels the other spell.
Also intriguing when two suckers are cast and the region ID sort sequence determines which one takes effect.
You could jus tprocess the spells one at a time, and if one overrides the other in the same vein, e.g. sucker vs hand, the higher F rules. But casting a sucker at the same time as a slappy by two players would be very ineresting, and even more if the same player could cast two dis-similar spells at the same time. Think about a key sucker having a moon evader cast at the same time. I do like one spell right now, people overcastas a technique..
Also consider configuration of the spells. A karesh that can last 10 ticks, or three levels of karesh that last one, five or seven ticks based on fury spent Battle spells have configurable parameters that can not currently be changed, but if they could it could create a mix of new thoughts and games.
think about a sucker that only sucks in 50% of the forces and leaves the other 50% to go where they were, as a weak sucker, or a strong sucker that pulls in forms.
-------Original Message-------
Management wrote:
Yes, we agree. We do feel there are some game play "balance" issues with the T-F-lessors-forms-spells relationships.
Much of which can already be addressed with altering the stats of forms and lessors or the cost of spells. Maybe after careful consideration some adjustments to the defaults are in order?
An idea that particularly intrigues me is one posted by Lord Foul (25Aug2008) in Suggestions (P.7 thread "Spell System Changes". )
Enabling more than one spell to be in effect on a region at a time.
Reasonably feasible to implement technically, drastic implications on strategy and tactics.
Having a Fury advantage would still be important and valuable, but it would dampen the ability to simply bulldoze opponents with less fury.
-------Original Message-------
wyrm419 wrote: in future games in a not so classic setting... resources should be for sale. that way those without skill can win and earn *cough* exp. you know even the odds a little. whats fun is winning and people pay for fun.
aside from that sucker man is a problem and their value vs form use.
wyrm
-------Original Message-------
Management wrote:
A thread to discuss spells. Types, costs, effects, etc. Anything related to spells.
Pretty big point there I think...
One possible solution to the fury farming problem would be if the 'nap tracker' made it so you can't attack NAP's at all. Then you can't farm as you can't send forces at each other.
But then you'd have to get rid of the leopard fighter, as people would simply send lessers to an adjacent region and cast it each cycle.
Basically...it's going to be really hard to find a way to stop fury farming. With it being a pretty big part of the game, players are going to find a way to make it happen.
-------Original Message-------
BlueSky wrote: Consider that if a nap tracker is in place, and naps can't fight each otehr without a leopard fighter, fury farms cost 25F more and require more coordination and ultimately are much harder to have..
Worse if naps can't fight each other at all, then farms are simply gone without the consdieratio of an opponent..
The options and creative thinking of how to use them is a large part of what keeps a game interesting for someone that has been here for a long time..
Keeping the admin time to a minimum is a must. Last game that I did on forever blacks in demon wars xx require admin action every day, it was a real pain if I missed a day. Doing the lion roar games is a real difficult thing especialy as a hundred regions may have to be changed. Games with random spell costs that we have run and games where spells have to change their cost like in the 10K game are easy to forget to get back in. These, and similar games tat might require admin time ongoing are really interesting to everyone else though..
-------Original Message-------
Management wrote:
Wow. Excellent post.
While they're all related, you actually touched on several different issues, and they're all important.
The fact that Evernight is still here, after all these year, after all the trials and tribulations it's been through, and players keep coming back, says something. Something, somewhere at the core of this thing is on target.
On the other hand, it never really took off either. While discussing the reasons for that is certainly a worthwhile discussion, the bottom line is, it didn't.
Fury starving, is was and I think should continue to be an important tactic in a skill Evernight warrior's bag of tricks.
I would love to be able to just wave a magic wand and declare, "Henceforth ye shall earn your fury the old fashioned way! VICTORY IN WAR!"
I don't have quite that much juice in my wand, so I can't do that.
In an ideal world the Fury Farm solution is for someone to step forward with an algorithm that can with a very high degree of accuracy tell the difference between a "real" battle between opponents vs a "faked" battle betweens partners (which is also impervious to players figuring out workarounds to) and (which also doesn't just lead to a cat & mouse spiral).
So I'm thinking in the meantime, until someone comes up with that detection algorithm, it's probably worthwhile to explore other ideas. And if we can leverage those ideas into additional features that add to the game in other ways at the same time, all the better.
I'm sure we're all familar with plenty of games out there that are completely mindless "time-sinks" and I'm sure those types of games a their appeal to the players who play them. But that's not the direction we see for Evernight.
We do envision a number of iterations in Evernight's future. Evernight v1, Evernight v1.5, Evernight v2.0, etc.
But along the we envision an "Evernight Classic" as a permanent fixture one way or another.
-------Original Message-------
BlueSky wrote:
No issue on more uses for t.
Just that F is hard to come by and its one of the challenges.
Being able t turn T to F faster (or use it for spells right now which is the same thing) specifically benefits someone with... more T..
Fury starving someone is a big tactic that goes away if you can't do it..
Its not about making it equal for everyone, its about making it to where those with the better ideas and more imagination can do better.
Heck, I am playing another game right now that I earn T if I just show up more and check on the game. I get points if I look at a neighbor and feed his crops. Not a whole lot of imagination, and I bet it can last for at least two months before its so boring it has to go..
Evernight has lasted 11 years, and for those tat still play its as much of a challenge now as it was then.
There are definately things that can be done to make it better. The nap tracker is a really good one, especially as it can benefit a player once they get started. AI games for the first comers are great. Be able to template the configuration options we have today. These are easier things to do, as the pieces are already there.
Turning it into antoher game? Might as well just make another game, there is no reason to take this one away.
-------Original Message-------
Lunar Savage wrote: I've never fully understood your objection to including more uses for T. Especially in the realm of new structure types, which could be advantageous to large and small empires.
Lunar Savage
-------Original Message-------
BlueSky wrote:
Bigger steamrollers... I would neither want to give or remove the. More or less advantage just because of size...
-------Original Message-------
Management wrote:
Interesting.
Maybe not spells, but what about an entire class of "upgrades" that have similar effects as spells, but are manufactured and purchased with "T"
Weapons upgrades that increase lessor's attacks or offense. Armor upgrades that improve defense. Boats or bridges to cross water. Barriers or traps that impede an enemy's ability to enter or traverse a region. etc.
That kind of things.
Durations could vary. From 1 cycle to several to permanent.
Area of affect could vary from a specific region, to several adjoining regions, to your entire empire.
I think there's a lot of room for creative ideas along these lines.
-------Original Message-------
Lunar Savage wrote: Different level spells and multiple spells on a region are ideas I like.
Otherwise, I think we should include more to be aimed at the forms or include form effects for existing spells.
Also, potentially granting the ability to have some "spells" cost T instead. But that's a different discussion me thinks. What with items and technology.
Lunar Savage
-------Original Message-------
BlueSky wrote: An interesting configurable option. Currently only one spell on a region happens and it cancels the other spell.
Also intriguing when two suckers are cast and the region ID sort sequence determines which one takes effect.
You could jus tprocess the spells one at a time, and if one overrides the other in the same vein, e.g. sucker vs hand, the higher F rules. But casting a sucker at the same time as a slappy by two players would be very ineresting, and even more if the same player could cast two dis-similar spells at the same time. Think about a key sucker having a moon evader cast at the same time. I do like one spell right now, people overcastas a technique..
Also consider configuration of the spells. A karesh that can last 10 ticks, or three levels of karesh that last one, five or seven ticks based on fury spent Battle spells have configurable parameters that can not currently be changed, but if they could it could create a mix of new thoughts and games.
think about a sucker that only sucks in 50% of the forces and leaves the other 50% to go where they were, as a weak sucker, or a strong sucker that pulls in forms.
-------Original Message-------
Management wrote:
Yes, we agree. We do feel there are some game play "balance" issues with the T-F-lessors-forms-spells relationships.
Much of which can already be addressed with altering the stats of forms and lessors or the cost of spells. Maybe after careful consideration some adjustments to the defaults are in order?
An idea that particularly intrigues me is one posted by Lord Foul (25Aug2008) in Suggestions (P.7 thread "Spell System Changes". )
Enabling more than one spell to be in effect on a region at a time.
Reasonably feasible to implement technically, drastic implications on strategy and tactics.
Having a Fury advantage would still be important and valuable, but it would dampen the ability to simply bulldoze opponents with less fury.
-------Original Message-------
wyrm419 wrote: in future games in a not so classic setting... resources should be for sale. that way those without skill can win and earn *cough* exp. you know even the odds a little. whats fun is winning and people pay for fun.
aside from that sucker man is a problem and their value vs form use.
wyrm
-------Original Message-------
Management wrote:
A thread to discuss spells. Types, costs, effects, etc. Anything related to spells.
This is why I am leary of ideas that try to "enforce" it by technical means of some sort.
That just leads to players becoming more creative finding ways to do it anyway.
I don't want to try to "force" players to do (or not do) anything.
I prefer ideas that come in the form of giving players more choices.
-------Original Message-------
ducky004 wrote: Pretty big point there I think...
One possible solution to the fury farming problem would be if the 'nap tracker' made it so you can't attack NAP's at all. Then you can't farm as you can't send forces at each other.
But then you'd have to get rid of the leopard fighter, as people would simply send lessers to an adjacent region and cast it each cycle.
Basically...it's going to be really hard to find a way to stop fury farming. With it being a pretty big part of the game, players are going to find a way to make it happen.
-------Original Message-------
BlueSky wrote: Consider that if a nap tracker is in place, and naps can't fight each otehr without a leopard fighter, fury farms cost 25F more and require more coordination and ultimately are much harder to have..
Worse if naps can't fight each other at all, then farms are simply gone without the consdieratio of an opponent..
The options and creative thinking of how to use them is a large part of what keeps a game interesting for someone that has been here for a long time..
Keeping the admin time to a minimum is a must. Last game that I did on forever blacks in demon wars xx require admin action every day, it was a real pain if I missed a day. Doing the lion roar games is a real difficult thing especialy as a hundred regions may have to be changed. Games with random spell costs that we have run and games where spells have to change their cost like in the 10K game are easy to forget to get back in. These, and similar games tat might require admin time ongoing are really interesting to everyone else though..
-------Original Message-------
Management wrote:
Wow. Excellent post.
While they're all related, you actually touched on several different issues, and they're all important.
The fact that Evernight is still here, after all these year, after all the trials and tribulations it's been through, and players keep coming back, says something. Something, somewhere at the core of this thing is on target.
On the other hand, it never really took off either. While discussing the reasons for that is certainly a worthwhile discussion, the bottom line is, it didn't.
Fury starving, is was and I think should continue to be an important tactic in a skill Evernight warrior's bag of tricks.
I would love to be able to just wave a magic wand and declare, "Henceforth ye shall earn your fury the old fashioned way! VICTORY IN WAR!"
I don't have quite that much juice in my wand, so I can't do that.
In an ideal world the Fury Farm solution is for someone to step forward with an algorithm that can with a very high degree of accuracy tell the difference between a "real" battle between opponents vs a "faked" battle betweens partners (which is also impervious to players figuring out workarounds to) and (which also doesn't just lead to a cat & mouse spiral).
So I'm thinking in the meantime, until someone comes up with that detection algorithm, it's probably worthwhile to explore other ideas. And if we can leverage those ideas into additional features that add to the game in other ways at the same time, all the better.
I'm sure we're all familar with plenty of games out there that are completely mindless "time-sinks" and I'm sure those types of games a their appeal to the players who play them. But that's not the direction we see for Evernight.
We do envision a number of iterations in Evernight's future. Evernight v1, Evernight v1.5, Evernight v2.0, etc.
But along the we envision an "Evernight Classic" as a permanent fixture one way or another.
-------Original Message-------
BlueSky wrote:
No issue on more uses for t.
Just that F is hard to come by and its one of the challenges.
Being able t turn T to F faster (or use it for spells right now which is the same thing) specifically benefits someone with... more T..
Fury starving someone is a big tactic that goes away if you can't do it..
Its not about making it equal for everyone, its about making it to where those with the better ideas and more imagination can do better.
Heck, I am playing another game right now that I earn T if I just show up more and check on the game. I get points if I look at a neighbor and feed his crops. Not a whole lot of imagination, and I bet it can last for at least two months before its so boring it has to go..
Evernight has lasted 11 years, and for those tat still play its as much of a challenge now as it was then.
There are definately things that can be done to make it better. The nap tracker is a really good one, especially as it can benefit a player once they get started. AI games for the first comers are great. Be able to template the configuration options we have today. These are easier things to do, as the pieces are already there.
Turning it into antoher game? Might as well just make another game, there is no reason to take this one away.
-------Original Message-------
Lunar Savage wrote: I've never fully understood your objection to including more uses for T. Especially in the realm of new structure types, which could be advantageous to large and small empires.
Lunar Savage
-------Original Message-------
BlueSky wrote:
Bigger steamrollers... I would neither want to give or remove the. More or less advantage just because of size...
-------Original Message-------
Management wrote:
Interesting.
Maybe not spells, but what about an entire class of "upgrades" that have similar effects as spells, but are manufactured and purchased with "T"
Weapons upgrades that increase lessor's attacks or offense. Armor upgrades that improve defense. Boats or bridges to cross water. Barriers or traps that impede an enemy's ability to enter or traverse a region. etc.
That kind of things.
Durations could vary. From 1 cycle to several to permanent.
Area of affect could vary from a specific region, to several adjoining regions, to your entire empire.
I think there's a lot of room for creative ideas along these lines.
-------Original Message-------
Lunar Savage wrote: Different level spells and multiple spells on a region are ideas I like.
Otherwise, I think we should include more to be aimed at the forms or include form effects for existing spells.
Also, potentially granting the ability to have some "spells" cost T instead. But that's a different discussion me thinks. What with items and technology.
Lunar Savage
-------Original Message-------
BlueSky wrote: An interesting configurable option. Currently only one spell on a region happens and it cancels the other spell.
Also intriguing when two suckers are cast and the region ID sort sequence determines which one takes effect.
You could jus tprocess the spells one at a time, and if one overrides the other in the same vein, e.g. sucker vs hand, the higher F rules. But casting a sucker at the same time as a slappy by two players would be very ineresting, and even more if the same player could cast two dis-similar spells at the same time. Think about a key sucker having a moon evader cast at the same time. I do like one spell right now, people overcastas a technique..
Also consider configuration of the spells. A karesh that can last 10 ticks, or three levels of karesh that last one, five or seven ticks based on fury spent Battle spells have configurable parameters that can not currently be changed, but if they could it could create a mix of new thoughts and games.
think about a sucker that only sucks in 50% of the forces and leaves the other 50% to go where they were, as a weak sucker, or a strong sucker that pulls in forms.
-------Original Message-------
Management wrote:
Yes, we agree. We do feel there are some game play "balance" issues with the T-F-lessors-forms-spells relationships.
Much of which can already be addressed with altering the stats of forms and lessors or the cost of spells. Maybe after careful consideration some adjustments to the defaults are in order?
An idea that particularly intrigues me is one posted by Lord Foul (25Aug2008) in Suggestions (P.7 thread "Spell System Changes". )
Enabling more than one spell to be in effect on a region at a time.
Reasonably feasible to implement technically, drastic implications on strategy and tactics.
Having a Fury advantage would still be important and valuable, but it would dampen the ability to simply bulldoze opponents with less fury.
-------Original Message-------
wyrm419 wrote: in future games in a not so classic setting... resources should be for sale. that way those without skill can win and earn *cough* exp. you know even the odds a little. whats fun is winning and people pay for fun.
aside from that sucker man is a problem and their value vs form use.
wyrm
-------Original Message-------
Management wrote:
A thread to discuss spells. Types, costs, effects, etc. Anything related to spells.
At this point, we've haven't yet really had a chance to get very deep into the Admin interface.
Most of our time has been working on identifying and solving the issues required to port the lobby interface & game play from classic asp/iis6/sql2000 to asp.net/iis7.5/sql2012
Our initial focus at the moment is to make sure the game play functionality works correctly.
Then we'll come back around a deal with the admin interfaces. That'll be when we'll have a better undertanding of the admin interface issues.
The ideas and suggetions from all of those who have been using them all these years ar important, so keep 'em coming.
I'll start a thread just for Admin Interface.
-------Original Message-------
BlueSky wrote: Consider that if a nap tracker is in place, and naps can't fight each otehr without a leopard fighter, fury farms cost 25F more and require more coordination and ultimately are much harder to have..
Worse if naps can't fight each other at all, then farms are simply gone without the consdieratio of an opponent..
The options and creative thinking of how to use them is a large part of what keeps a game interesting for someone that has been here for a long time..
Keeping the admin time to a minimum is a must. Last game that I did on forever blacks in demon wars xx require admin action every day, it was a real pain if I missed a day. Doing the lion roar games is a real difficult thing especialy as a hundred regions may have to be changed. Games with random spell costs that we have run and games where spells have to change their cost like in the 10K game are easy to forget to get back in. These, and similar games tat might require admin time ongoing are really interesting to everyone else though..
-------Original Message-------
Management wrote:
Wow. Excellent post.
While they're all related, you actually touched on several different issues, and they're all important.
The fact that Evernight is still here, after all these year, after all the trials and tribulations it's been through, and players keep coming back, says something. Something, somewhere at the core of this thing is on target.
On the other hand, it never really took off either. While discussing the reasons for that is certainly a worthwhile discussion, the bottom line is, it didn't.
Fury starving, is was and I think should continue to be an important tactic in a skill Evernight warrior's bag of tricks.
I would love to be able to just wave a magic wand and declare, "Henceforth ye shall earn your fury the old fashioned way! VICTORY IN WAR!"
I don't have quite that much juice in my wand, so I can't do that.
In an ideal world the Fury Farm solution is for someone to step forward with an algorithm that can with a very high degree of accuracy tell the difference between a "real" battle between opponents vs a "faked" battle betweens partners (which is also impervious to players figuring out workarounds to) and (which also doesn't just lead to a cat & mouse spiral).
So I'm thinking in the meantime, until someone comes up with that detection algorithm, it's probably worthwhile to explore other ideas. And if we can leverage those ideas into additional features that add to the game in other ways at the same time, all the better.
I'm sure we're all familar with plenty of games out there that are completely mindless "time-sinks" and I'm sure those types of games a their appeal to the players who play them. But that's not the direction we see for Evernight.
We do envision a number of iterations in Evernight's future. Evernight v1, Evernight v1.5, Evernight v2.0, etc.
But along the we envision an "Evernight Classic" as a permanent fixture one way or another.
-------Original Message-------
BlueSky wrote:
No issue on more uses for t.
Just that F is hard to come by and its one of the challenges.
Being able t turn T to F faster (or use it for spells right now which is the same thing) specifically benefits someone with... more T..
Fury starving someone is a big tactic that goes away if you can't do it..
Its not about making it equal for everyone, its about making it to where those with the better ideas and more imagination can do better.
Heck, I am playing another game right now that I earn T if I just show up more and check on the game. I get points if I look at a neighbor and feed his crops. Not a whole lot of imagination, and I bet it can last for at least two months before its so boring it has to go..
Evernight has lasted 11 years, and for those tat still play its as much of a challenge now as it was then.
There are definately things that can be done to make it better. The nap tracker is a really good one, especially as it can benefit a player once they get started. AI games for the first comers are great. Be able to template the configuration options we have today. These are easier things to do, as the pieces are already there.
Turning it into antoher game? Might as well just make another game, there is no reason to take this one away.
-------Original Message-------
Lunar Savage wrote: I've never fully understood your objection to including more uses for T. Especially in the realm of new structure types, which could be advantageous to large and small empires.
Lunar Savage
-------Original Message-------
BlueSky wrote:
Bigger steamrollers... I would neither want to give or remove the. More or less advantage just because of size...
-------Original Message-------
Management wrote:
Interesting.
Maybe not spells, but what about an entire class of "upgrades" that have similar effects as spells, but are manufactured and purchased with "T"
Weapons upgrades that increase lessor's attacks or offense. Armor upgrades that improve defense. Boats or bridges to cross water. Barriers or traps that impede an enemy's ability to enter or traverse a region. etc.
That kind of things.
Durations could vary. From 1 cycle to several to permanent.
Area of affect could vary from a specific region, to several adjoining regions, to your entire empire.
I think there's a lot of room for creative ideas along these lines.
-------Original Message-------
Lunar Savage wrote: Different level spells and multiple spells on a region are ideas I like.
Otherwise, I think we should include more to be aimed at the forms or include form effects for existing spells.
Also, potentially granting the ability to have some "spells" cost T instead. But that's a different discussion me thinks. What with items and technology.
Lunar Savage
-------Original Message-------
BlueSky wrote: An interesting configurable option. Currently only one spell on a region happens and it cancels the other spell.
Also intriguing when two suckers are cast and the region ID sort sequence determines which one takes effect.
You could jus tprocess the spells one at a time, and if one overrides the other in the same vein, e.g. sucker vs hand, the higher F rules. But casting a sucker at the same time as a slappy by two players would be very ineresting, and even more if the same player could cast two dis-similar spells at the same time. Think about a key sucker having a moon evader cast at the same time. I do like one spell right now, people overcastas a technique..
Also consider configuration of the spells. A karesh that can last 10 ticks, or three levels of karesh that last one, five or seven ticks based on fury spent Battle spells have configurable parameters that can not currently be changed, but if they could it could create a mix of new thoughts and games.
think about a sucker that only sucks in 50% of the forces and leaves the other 50% to go where they were, as a weak sucker, or a strong sucker that pulls in forms.
-------Original Message-------
Management wrote:
Yes, we agree. We do feel there are some game play "balance" issues with the T-F-lessors-forms-spells relationships.
Much of which can already be addressed with altering the stats of forms and lessors or the cost of spells. Maybe after careful consideration some adjustments to the defaults are in order?
An idea that particularly intrigues me is one posted by Lord Foul (25Aug2008) in Suggestions (P.7 thread "Spell System Changes". )
Enabling more than one spell to be in effect on a region at a time.
Reasonably feasible to implement technically, drastic implications on strategy and tactics.
Having a Fury advantage would still be important and valuable, but it would dampen the ability to simply bulldoze opponents with less fury.
-------Original Message-------
wyrm419 wrote: in future games in a not so classic setting... resources should be for sale. that way those without skill can win and earn *cough* exp. you know even the odds a little. whats fun is winning and people pay for fun.
aside from that sucker man is a problem and their value vs form use.
wyrm
-------Original Message-------
Management wrote:
A thread to discuss spells. Types, costs, effects, etc. Anything related to spells.
Simply ally with another player outside of the enforced interface.
The risk of being backstabbed (which exists in the current game anyway) is more than made up for by the utility of being able to farm when others can't.
In fact, the harder it is to farm, the higher the advantage gained by doing so...
Narsham
-------Original Message-------
ducky004 wrote: Pretty big point there I think...
One possible solution to the fury farming problem would be if the 'nap tracker' made it so you can't attack NAP's at all. Then you can't farm as you can't send forces at each other.
But then you'd have to get rid of the leopard fighter, as people would simply send lessers to an adjacent region and cast it each cycle.
Basically...it's going to be really hard to find a way to stop fury farming. With it being a pretty big part of the game, players are going to find a way to make it happen.
-------Original Message-------
BlueSky wrote: Consider that if a nap tracker is in place, and naps can't fight each otehr without a leopard fighter, fury farms cost 25F more and require more coordination and ultimately are much harder to have..
Worse if naps can't fight each other at all, then farms are simply gone without the consdieratio of an opponent..
The options and creative thinking of how to use them is a large part of what keeps a game interesting for someone that has been here for a long time..
Keeping the admin time to a minimum is a must. Last game that I did on forever blacks in demon wars xx require admin action every day, it was a real pain if I missed a day. Doing the lion roar games is a real difficult thing especialy as a hundred regions may have to be changed. Games with random spell costs that we have run and games where spells have to change their cost like in the 10K game are easy to forget to get back in. These, and similar games tat might require admin time ongoing are really interesting to everyone else though..
-------Original Message-------
Management wrote:
Wow. Excellent post.
While they're all related, you actually touched on several different issues, and they're all important.
The fact that Evernight is still here, after all these year, after all the trials and tribulations it's been through, and players keep coming back, says something. Something, somewhere at the core of this thing is on target.
On the other hand, it never really took off either. While discussing the reasons for that is certainly a worthwhile discussion, the bottom line is, it didn't.
Fury starving, is was and I think should continue to be an important tactic in a skill Evernight warrior's bag of tricks.
I would love to be able to just wave a magic wand and declare, "Henceforth ye shall earn your fury the old fashioned way! VICTORY IN WAR!"
I don't have quite that much juice in my wand, so I can't do that.
In an ideal world the Fury Farm solution is for someone to step forward with an algorithm that can with a very high degree of accuracy tell the difference between a "real" battle between opponents vs a "faked" battle betweens partners (which is also impervious to players figuring out workarounds to) and (which also doesn't just lead to a cat & mouse spiral).
So I'm thinking in the meantime, until someone comes up with that detection algorithm, it's probably worthwhile to explore other ideas. And if we can leverage those ideas into additional features that add to the game in other ways at the same time, all the better.
I'm sure we're all familar with plenty of games out there that are completely mindless "time-sinks" and I'm sure those types of games a their appeal to the players who play them. But that's not the direction we see for Evernight.
We do envision a number of iterations in Evernight's future. Evernight v1, Evernight v1.5, Evernight v2.0, etc.
But along the we envision an "Evernight Classic" as a permanent fixture one way or another.
-------Original Message-------
BlueSky wrote:
No issue on more uses for t.
Just that F is hard to come by and its one of the challenges.
Being able t turn T to F faster (or use it for spells right now which is the same thing) specifically benefits someone with... more T..
Fury starving someone is a big tactic that goes away if you can't do it..
Its not about making it equal for everyone, its about making it to where those with the better ideas and more imagination can do better.
Heck, I am playing another game right now that I earn T if I just show up more and check on the game. I get points if I look at a neighbor and feed his crops. Not a whole lot of imagination, and I bet it can last for at least two months before its so boring it has to go..
Evernight has lasted 11 years, and for those tat still play its as much of a challenge now as it was then.
There are definately things that can be done to make it better. The nap tracker is a really good one, especially as it can benefit a player once they get started. AI games for the first comers are great. Be able to template the configuration options we have today. These are easier things to do, as the pieces are already there.
Turning it into antoher game? Might as well just make another game, there is no reason to take this one away.
-------Original Message-------
Lunar Savage wrote: I've never fully understood your objection to including more uses for T. Especially in the realm of new structure types, which could be advantageous to large and small empires.
Lunar Savage
-------Original Message-------
BlueSky wrote:
Bigger steamrollers... I would neither want to give or remove the. More or less advantage just because of size...
-------Original Message-------
Management wrote:
Interesting.
Maybe not spells, but what about an entire class of "upgrades" that have similar effects as spells, but are manufactured and purchased with "T"
Weapons upgrades that increase lessor's attacks or offense. Armor upgrades that improve defense. Boats or bridges to cross water. Barriers or traps that impede an enemy's ability to enter or traverse a region. etc.
That kind of things.
Durations could vary. From 1 cycle to several to permanent.
Area of affect could vary from a specific region, to several adjoining regions, to your entire empire.
I think there's a lot of room for creative ideas along these lines.
-------Original Message-------
Lunar Savage wrote: Different level spells and multiple spells on a region are ideas I like.
Otherwise, I think we should include more to be aimed at the forms or include form effects for existing spells.
Also, potentially granting the ability to have some "spells" cost T instead. But that's a different discussion me thinks. What with items and technology.
Lunar Savage
-------Original Message-------
BlueSky wrote: An interesting configurable option. Currently only one spell on a region happens and it cancels the other spell.
Also intriguing when two suckers are cast and the region ID sort sequence determines which one takes effect.
You could jus tprocess the spells one at a time, and if one overrides the other in the same vein, e.g. sucker vs hand, the higher F rules. But casting a sucker at the same time as a slappy by two players would be very ineresting, and even more if the same player could cast two dis-similar spells at the same time. Think about a key sucker having a moon evader cast at the same time. I do like one spell right now, people overcastas a technique..
Also consider configuration of the spells. A karesh that can last 10 ticks, or three levels of karesh that last one, five or seven ticks based on fury spent Battle spells have configurable parameters that can not currently be changed, but if they could it could create a mix of new thoughts and games.
think about a sucker that only sucks in 50% of the forces and leaves the other 50% to go where they were, as a weak sucker, or a strong sucker that pulls in forms.
-------Original Message-------
Management wrote:
Yes, we agree. We do feel there are some game play "balance" issues with the T-F-lessors-forms-spells relationships.
Much of which can already be addressed with altering the stats of forms and lessors or the cost of spells. Maybe after careful consideration some adjustments to the defaults are in order?
An idea that particularly intrigues me is one posted by Lord Foul (25Aug2008) in Suggestions (P.7 thread "Spell System Changes". )
Enabling more than one spell to be in effect on a region at a time.
Reasonably feasible to implement technically, drastic implications on strategy and tactics.
Having a Fury advantage would still be important and valuable, but it would dampen the ability to simply bulldoze opponents with less fury.
-------Original Message-------
wyrm419 wrote: in future games in a not so classic setting... resources should be for sale. that way those without skill can win and earn *cough* exp. you know even the odds a little. whats fun is winning and people pay for fun.
aside from that sucker man is a problem and their value vs form use.
wyrm
-------Original Message-------
Management wrote:
A thread to discuss spells. Types, costs, effects, etc. Anything related to spells.
I like the idea of casting spells that - persist more than one tick, just like the BBs - apply to lessors not regions, so if it persists, it will follow them around.
I have often wanted to cast more than one spell on a region, but appreciate the limitation. Limitations are what forces us to be creative with the tools at hand. For someone with a lot of F, a suckerman + KB would become a sledgehammer to beat your opponents with.
-------Original Message-------
BlueSky wrote: An interesting configurable option. Currently only one spell on a region happens and it cancels the other spell.
Also intriguing when two suckers are cast and the region ID sort sequence determines which one takes effect.
You could jus tprocess the spells one at a time, and if one overrides the other in the same vein, e.g. sucker vs hand, the higher F rules. But casting a sucker at the same time as a slappy by two players would be very ineresting, and even more if the same player could cast two dis-similar spells at the same time. Think about a key sucker having a moon evader cast at the same time. I do like one spell right now, people overcastas a technique..
Also consider configuration of the spells. A karesh that can last 10 ticks, or three levels of karesh that last one, five or seven ticks based on fury spent Battle spells have configurable parameters that can not currently be changed, but if they could it could create a mix of new thoughts and games.
think about a sucker that only sucks in 50% of the forces and leaves the other 50% to go where they were, as a weak sucker, or a strong sucker that pulls in forms.
-------Original Message-------
Management wrote:
Yes, we agree. We do feel there are some game play "balance" issues with the T-F-lessors-forms-spells relationships.
Much of which can already be addressed with altering the stats of forms and lessors or the cost of spells. Maybe after careful consideration some adjustments to the defaults are in order?
An idea that particularly intrigues me is one posted by Lord Foul (25Aug2008) in Suggestions (P.7 thread "Spell System Changes". )
Enabling more than one spell to be in effect on a region at a time.
Reasonably feasible to implement technically, drastic implications on strategy and tactics.
Having a Fury advantage would still be important and valuable, but it would dampen the ability to simply bulldoze opponents with less fury.
-------Original Message-------
wyrm419 wrote: in future games in a not so classic setting... resources should be for sale. that way those without skill can win and earn *cough* exp. you know even the odds a little. whats fun is winning and people pay for fun.
aside from that sucker man is a problem and their value vs form use.
wyrm
-------Original Message-------
Management wrote:
A thread to discuss spells. Types, costs, effects, etc. Anything related to spells.
ON the sucker, it can always be set to a new value if you think its too low of a cost? Its pretty high as it is, and we have had some games where it has been put both lower and higher.
There have been many discussions of some interesting spells I hope we can remember some of them.
A spell to do a double jump might be a way to implement that feature, but it would have to be expensive, and you might have to cast the spell on both regions, it would have to raise the question of you ahving to own both regions or not.. I don't recommend this one.
Capability to turn a spell off for a game. We do this today by making it cost prohibitive.
I have done games where the last BB fury configuration is an offset from top player fury at some tick. Not sure if this can be automated (10K series, currently in play)..
Form settings should configure if a form is subject to movement spells, e.g. TS, hand, or sucker.
Capability to sacrifice a form for fury.
Optional spells that can be included in a game by the game creator, same as having some spells defaulted off.
-----Original Message-------
wyrm419 wrote: in future games in a not so classic setting... resources should be for sale. that way those without skill can win and earn *cough* exp. you know even the odds a little. whats fun is winning and people pay for fun.
aside from that sucker man is a problem and their value vs form use.
wyrm
-------Original Message-------
Management wrote:
A thread to discuss spells. Types, costs, effects, etc. Anything related to spells.
Yeah, I do lean towards thinking that the suckerman seems to be a broken spell. More than a little overpowered, but simply adjusting the cost doesn't seem to be a satisfactory solution.
Maybe if support for multiple spells on a region in effect at the same time is implemented that would help.
Or maybe if the effect graduated somehow? Proportional to how much fury was spent?
The suckerman spell deserves an entire conversation all to itself.
-------Original Message-------
BlueSky wrote: ON the sucker, it can always be set to a new value if you think its too low of a cost? Its pretty high as it is, and we have had some games where it has been put both lower and higher.
There have been many discussions of some interesting spells I hope we can remember some of them.
A spell to do a double jump might be a way to implement that feature, but it would have to be expensive, and you might have to cast the spell on both regions, it would have to raise the question of you ahving to own both regions or not.. I don't recommend this one.
Capability to turn a spell off for a game. We do this today by making it cost prohibitive.
I have done games where the last BB fury configuration is an offset from top player fury at some tick. Not sure if this can be automated (10K series, currently in play)..
Form settings should configure if a form is subject to movement spells, e.g. TS, hand, or sucker.
Capability to sacrifice a form for fury.
Optional spells that can be included in a game by the game creator, same as having some spells defaulted off.
-----Original Message-------
wyrm419 wrote: in future games in a not so classic setting... resources should be for sale. that way those without skill can win and earn *cough* exp. you know even the odds a little. whats fun is winning and people pay for fun.
aside from that sucker man is a problem and their value vs form use.
wyrm
-------Original Message-------
Management wrote:
A thread to discuss spells. Types, costs, effects, etc. Anything related to spells.
If the Suckerman was a graduated spell, I wager that other than the early game, people would just opt for the most powerful version most of the time.
The problem is that there is no other spell that adversely effects movement in such a harsh manner. We have spells that keep others out of a region and spells that allow players to bypass one another. But the suckerman completely stomps a mud hole in tactical decision making. It's like using a nuke and giving your opponent (and any potential peaceful neighbors) the middle finger all at once. This spell also favors the bigger players and makes it too easy for them to just plow through everything.
Bigger empires should be harder to maintain (see Rome for an example), but in this game, we see the opposite effect. You grow big, then BOOM! You can own everything in your path and you have almost nothing to worry about.
I propose that Suckerman be changed to something along the lines of moving only a percentage of the forces in each region around it, forms included. At random. Kind of like a dunes region has a 10% chance of killing each individual lessor in the region. Suckerman has a 75% chance of moving each individual force in neighboring regions. And each unit is calculated individually. Including forms.
This knocks the suckerman down a peg, while still retaining it's value and giving a fighting chance to the non-caster.
Lunar Savage
-------Original Message-------
Management wrote:
Yeah, I do lean towards thinking that the suckerman seems to be a broken spell. More than a little overpowered, but simply adjusting the cost doesn't seem to be a satisfactory solution.
Maybe if support for multiple spells on a region in effect at the same time is implemented that would help.
Or maybe if the effect graduated somehow? Proportional to how much fury was spent?
The suckerman spell deserves an entire conversation all to itself.
-------Original Message-------
BlueSky wrote: ON the sucker, it can always be set to a new value if you think its too low of a cost? Its pretty high as it is, and we have had some games where it has been put both lower and higher.
There have been many discussions of some interesting spells I hope we can remember some of them.
A spell to do a double jump might be a way to implement that feature, but it would have to be expensive, and you might have to cast the spell on both regions, it would have to raise the question of you ahving to own both regions or not.. I don't recommend this one.
Capability to turn a spell off for a game. We do this today by making it cost prohibitive.
I have done games where the last BB fury configuration is an offset from top player fury at some tick. Not sure if this can be automated (10K series, currently in play)..
Form settings should configure if a form is subject to movement spells, e.g. TS, hand, or sucker.
Capability to sacrifice a form for fury.
Optional spells that can be included in a game by the game creator, same as having some spells defaulted off.
-----Original Message-------
wyrm419 wrote: in future games in a not so classic setting... resources should be for sale. that way those without skill can win and earn *cough* exp. you know even the odds a little. whats fun is winning and people pay for fun.
aside from that sucker man is a problem and their value vs form use.
wyrm
-------Original Message-------
Management wrote:
A thread to discuss spells. Types, costs, effects, etc. Anything related to spells.
That's kind of what I was thinking with the idea of making it graduated. I'd also think adjusting the cost at the same time would be in order.
The cost to get the 100% effect could be set fairly high, without making it an entirely all or nothing deal of simply raising the cost alone.
So for example, if you spend 50% of the max cost, only 50% of the lessors in range would be affected.
Alternatively, maybe only the number of lessors up to the amount of fury spent (or some proportion) would be effected?
So for example, if a big stack of 600 enemy lessors is coming your way, casting a 160 suckerman will only affect 160 of them. If you wanted to ensure getting all 600 of them, you'd have to spend 600.
Or maybe lessor types could gain varying degrees of "resistance" to (enemy) movement spells? Crusaders having little or no resistance, amra have a little more, etc.
Or maybe an reasonably affordable counter-spell that give some degree of movement spell resistance?
-------Original Message-------
Lunar Savage wrote: If the Suckerman was a graduated spell, I wager that other than the early game, people would just opt for the most powerful version most of the time.
The problem is that there is no other spell that adversely effects movement in such a harsh manner. We have spells that keep others out of a region and spells that allow players to bypass one another. But the suckerman completely stomps a mud hole in tactical decision making. It's like using a nuke and giving your opponent (and any potential peaceful neighbors) the middle finger all at once. This spell also favors the bigger players and makes it too easy for them to just plow through everything.
Bigger empires should be harder to maintain (see Rome for an example), but in this game, we see the opposite effect. You grow big, then BOOM! You can own everything in your path and you have almost nothing to worry about.
I propose that Suckerman be changed to something along the lines of moving only a percentage of the forces in each region around it, forms included. At random. Kind of like a dunes region has a 10% chance of killing each individual lessor in the region. Suckerman has a 75% chance of moving each individual force in neighboring regions. And each unit is calculated individually. Including forms.
This knocks the suckerman down a peg, while still retaining it's value and giving a fighting chance to the non-caster.
Lunar Savage
-------Original Message-------
Management wrote:
Yeah, I do lean towards thinking that the suckerman seems to be a broken spell. More than a little overpowered, but simply adjusting the cost doesn't seem to be a satisfactory solution.
Maybe if support for multiple spells on a region in effect at the same time is implemented that would help.
Or maybe if the effect graduated somehow? Proportional to how much fury was spent?
The suckerman spell deserves an entire conversation all to itself.
-------Original Message-------
BlueSky wrote: ON the sucker, it can always be set to a new value if you think its too low of a cost? Its pretty high as it is, and we have had some games where it has been put both lower and higher.
There have been many discussions of some interesting spells I hope we can remember some of them.
A spell to do a double jump might be a way to implement that feature, but it would have to be expensive, and you might have to cast the spell on both regions, it would have to raise the question of you ahving to own both regions or not.. I don't recommend this one.
Capability to turn a spell off for a game. We do this today by making it cost prohibitive.
I have done games where the last BB fury configuration is an offset from top player fury at some tick. Not sure if this can be automated (10K series, currently in play)..
Form settings should configure if a form is subject to movement spells, e.g. TS, hand, or sucker.
Capability to sacrifice a form for fury.
Optional spells that can be included in a game by the game creator, same as having some spells defaulted off.
-----Original Message-------
wyrm419 wrote: in future games in a not so classic setting... resources should be for sale. that way those without skill can win and earn *cough* exp. you know even the odds a little. whats fun is winning and people pay for fun.
aside from that sucker man is a problem and their value vs form use.
wyrm
-------Original Message-------
Management wrote:
A thread to discuss spells. Types, costs, effects, etc. Anything related to spells.
There is dissection here. It's a good spell and can be countered. Required when forms are around.. Don't toss the baby with the bath water...
-------Original Message-------
Lunar Savage wrote: If the Suckerman was a graduated spell, I wager that other than the early game, people would just opt for the most powerful version most of the time.
The problem is that there is no other spell that adversely effects movement in such a harsh manner. We have spells that keep others out of a region and spells that allow players to bypass one another. But the suckerman completely stomps a mud hole in tactical decision making. It's like using a nuke and giving your opponent (and any potential peaceful neighbors) the middle finger all at once. This spell also favors the bigger players and makes it too easy for them to just plow through everything.
Bigger empires should be harder to maintain (see Rome for an example), but in this game, we see the opposite effect. You grow big, then BOOM! You can own everything in your path and you have almost nothing to worry about.
I propose that Suckerman be changed to something along the lines of moving only a percentage of the forces in each region around it, forms included. At random. Kind of like a dunes region has a 10% chance of killing each individual lessor in the region. Suckerman has a 75% chance of moving each individual force in neighboring regions. And each unit is calculated individually. Including forms.
This knocks the suckerman down a peg, while still retaining it's value and giving a fighting chance to the non-caster.
Lunar Savage
-------Original Message-------
Management wrote:
Yeah, I do lean towards thinking that the suckerman seems to be a broken spell. More than a little overpowered, but simply adjusting the cost doesn't seem to be a satisfactory solution.
Maybe if support for multiple spells on a region in effect at the same time is implemented that would help.
Or maybe if the effect graduated somehow? Proportional to how much fury was spent?
The suckerman spell deserves an entire conversation all to itself.
-------Original Message-------
BlueSky wrote: ON the sucker, it can always be set to a new value if you think its too low of a cost? Its pretty high as it is, and we have had some games where it has been put both lower and higher.
There have been many discussions of some interesting spells I hope we can remember some of them.
A spell to do a double jump might be a way to implement that feature, but it would have to be expensive, and you might have to cast the spell on both regions, it would have to raise the question of you ahving to own both regions or not.. I don't recommend this one.
Capability to turn a spell off for a game. We do this today by making it cost prohibitive.
I have done games where the last BB fury configuration is an offset from top player fury at some tick. Not sure if this can be automated (10K series, currently in play)..
Form settings should configure if a form is subject to movement spells, e.g. TS, hand, or sucker.
Capability to sacrifice a form for fury.
Optional spells that can be included in a game by the game creator, same as having some spells defaulted off.
-----Original Message-------
wyrm419 wrote: in future games in a not so classic setting... resources should be for sale. that way those without skill can win and earn *cough* exp. you know even the odds a little. whats fun is winning and people pay for fun.
aside from that sucker man is a problem and their value vs form use.
wyrm
-------Original Message-------
Management wrote:
A thread to discuss spells. Types, costs, effects, etc. Anything related to spells.
Again, I agree with BlueSky. Part of the challenge is to anticipate when your opponent is going to cast the suckerman. Of course, if you have no F, anticipating it doesn't do you any good.
Adding a spell ... I'd be OK with a low F cost spell that makes your lessors immune to movement spells. But it would also cost future T. Maybe it would cause 20% of the lessors it was cast on to die each tick for the next five ticks. Or maybe it would reduce the lessors offense / defense ratings.
-------Original Message-------
BlueSky wrote: There is dissection here. It's a good spell and can be countered. Required when forms are around.. Don't toss the baby with the bath water...
-------Original Message-------
Lunar Savage wrote: If the Suckerman was a graduated spell, I wager that other than the early game, people would just opt for the most powerful version most of the time.
The problem is that there is no other spell that adversely effects movement in such a harsh manner. We have spells that keep others out of a region and spells that allow players to bypass one another. But the suckerman completely stomps a mud hole in tactical decision making. It's like using a nuke and giving your opponent (and any potential peaceful neighbors) the middle finger all at once. This spell also favors the bigger players and makes it too easy for them to just plow through everything.
Bigger empires should be harder to maintain (see Rome for an example), but in this game, we see the opposite effect. You grow big, then BOOM! You can own everything in your path and you have almost nothing to worry about.
I propose that Suckerman be changed to something along the lines of moving only a percentage of the forces in each region around it, forms included. At random. Kind of like a dunes region has a 10% chance of killing each individual lessor in the region. Suckerman has a 75% chance of moving each individual force in neighboring regions. And each unit is calculated individually. Including forms.
This knocks the suckerman down a peg, while still retaining it's value and giving a fighting chance to the non-caster.
Lunar Savage
-------Original Message-------
Management wrote:
Yeah, I do lean towards thinking that the suckerman seems to be a broken spell. More than a little overpowered, but simply adjusting the cost doesn't seem to be a satisfactory solution.
Maybe if support for multiple spells on a region in effect at the same time is implemented that would help.
Or maybe if the effect graduated somehow? Proportional to how much fury was spent?
The suckerman spell deserves an entire conversation all to itself.
-------Original Message-------
BlueSky wrote: ON the sucker, it can always be set to a new value if you think its too low of a cost? Its pretty high as it is, and we have had some games where it has been put both lower and higher.
There have been many discussions of some interesting spells I hope we can remember some of them.
A spell to do a double jump might be a way to implement that feature, but it would have to be expensive, and you might have to cast the spell on both regions, it would have to raise the question of you ahving to own both regions or not.. I don't recommend this one.
Capability to turn a spell off for a game. We do this today by making it cost prohibitive.
I have done games where the last BB fury configuration is an offset from top player fury at some tick. Not sure if this can be automated (10K series, currently in play)..
Form settings should configure if a form is subject to movement spells, e.g. TS, hand, or sucker.
Capability to sacrifice a form for fury.
Optional spells that can be included in a game by the game creator, same as having some spells defaulted off.
-----Original Message-------
wyrm419 wrote: in future games in a not so classic setting... resources should be for sale. that way those without skill can win and earn *cough* exp. you know even the odds a little. whats fun is winning and people pay for fun.
aside from that sucker man is a problem and their value vs form use.
wyrm
-------Original Message-------
Management wrote:
A thread to discuss spells. Types, costs, effects, etc. Anything related to spells.
The problem is the lack of effective counters:
1. Overbid the Suckerman. You also need to predict where it will be cast.
2. Overbid the Suckerman with another movement spell. You don't need to know where it will be cast. Unless you overbid with another Suckerman, you are either scattering your army with an Optic Terror, or freezing it in place with a HoN.
3. Sacrifice your lessers.
1 and 2 with a Suckerman are the only ways to keep momentum going. Otherwise, you're elongating the war. The pattern of Suckerman into an army of lessers to earn F, followed by Sacrificing the army to prevent it from itself being Suckered, isn't particularly interesting tactically, IMO.
In effect, it means that lesser armies need to be small and dispersed as a counter to Suckerman... which strengthens forms still further.
Narsham
-------Original Message-------
old_ugly wrote: Again, I agree with BlueSky. Part of the challenge is to anticipate when your opponent is going to cast the suckerman. Of course, if you have no F, anticipating it doesn't do you any good.
Adding a spell ... I'd be OK with a low F cost spell that makes your lessors immune to movement spells. But it would also cost future T. Maybe it would cause 20% of the lessors it was cast on to die each tick for the next five ticks. Or maybe it would reduce the lessors offense / defense ratings.
-------Original Message-------
BlueSky wrote: There is dissection here. It's a good spell and can be countered. Required when forms are around.. Don't toss the baby with the bath water...
-------Original Message-------
Lunar Savage wrote: If the Suckerman was a graduated spell, I wager that other than the early game, people would just opt for the most powerful version most of the time.
The problem is that there is no other spell that adversely effects movement in such a harsh manner. We have spells that keep others out of a region and spells that allow players to bypass one another. But the suckerman completely stomps a mud hole in tactical decision making. It's like using a nuke and giving your opponent (and any potential peaceful neighbors) the middle finger all at once. This spell also favors the bigger players and makes it too easy for them to just plow through everything.
Bigger empires should be harder to maintain (see Rome for an example), but in this game, we see the opposite effect. You grow big, then BOOM! You can own everything in your path and you have almost nothing to worry about.
I propose that Suckerman be changed to something along the lines of moving only a percentage of the forces in each region around it, forms included. At random. Kind of like a dunes region has a 10% chance of killing each individual lessor in the region. Suckerman has a 75% chance of moving each individual force in neighboring regions. And each unit is calculated individually. Including forms.
This knocks the suckerman down a peg, while still retaining it's value and giving a fighting chance to the non-caster.
Lunar Savage
-------Original Message-------
Management wrote:
Yeah, I do lean towards thinking that the suckerman seems to be a broken spell. More than a little overpowered, but simply adjusting the cost doesn't seem to be a satisfactory solution.
Maybe if support for multiple spells on a region in effect at the same time is implemented that would help.
Or maybe if the effect graduated somehow? Proportional to how much fury was spent?
The suckerman spell deserves an entire conversation all to itself.
-------Original Message-------
BlueSky wrote: ON the sucker, it can always be set to a new value if you think its too low of a cost? Its pretty high as it is, and we have had some games where it has been put both lower and higher.
There have been many discussions of some interesting spells I hope we can remember some of them.
A spell to do a double jump might be a way to implement that feature, but it would have to be expensive, and you might have to cast the spell on both regions, it would have to raise the question of you ahving to own both regions or not.. I don't recommend this one.
Capability to turn a spell off for a game. We do this today by making it cost prohibitive.
I have done games where the last BB fury configuration is an offset from top player fury at some tick. Not sure if this can be automated (10K series, currently in play)..
Form settings should configure if a form is subject to movement spells, e.g. TS, hand, or sucker.
Capability to sacrifice a form for fury.
Optional spells that can be included in a game by the game creator, same as having some spells defaulted off.
-----Original Message-------
wyrm419 wrote: in future games in a not so classic setting... resources should be for sale. that way those without skill can win and earn *cough* exp. you know even the odds a little. whats fun is winning and people pay for fun.
aside from that sucker man is a problem and their value vs form use.
wyrm
-------Original Message-------
Management wrote:
A thread to discuss spells. Types, costs, effects, etc. Anything related to spells.
Yes. There needs to be a Rock-Paper-Scissors (Lizard-Spock) aspect to spell casting.
-------Original Message-------
Narsham wrote: The problem is the lack of effective counters:
1. Overbid the Suckerman. You also need to predict where it will be cast.
2. Overbid the Suckerman with another movement spell. You don't need to know where it will be cast. Unless you overbid with another Suckerman, you are either scattering your army with an Optic Terror, or freezing it in place with a HoN.
3. Sacrifice your lessers.
1 and 2 with a Suckerman are the only ways to keep momentum going. Otherwise, you're elongating the war. The pattern of Suckerman into an army of lessers to earn F, followed by Sacrificing the army to prevent it from itself being Suckered, isn't particularly interesting tactically, IMO.
In effect, it means that lesser armies need to be small and dispersed as a counter to Suckerman... which strengthens forms still further.
Narsham
-------Original Message-------
old_ugly wrote: Again, I agree with BlueSky. Part of the challenge is to anticipate when your opponent is going to cast the suckerman. Of course, if you have no F, anticipating it doesn't do you any good.
Adding a spell ... I'd be OK with a low F cost spell that makes your lessors immune to movement spells. But it would also cost future T. Maybe it would cause 20% of the lessors it was cast on to die each tick for the next five ticks. Or maybe it would reduce the lessors offense / defense ratings.
-------Original Message-------
BlueSky wrote: There is dissection here. It's a good spell and can be countered. Required when forms are around.. Don't toss the baby with the bath water...
-------Original Message-------
Lunar Savage wrote: If the Suckerman was a graduated spell, I wager that other than the early game, people would just opt for the most powerful version most of the time.
The problem is that there is no other spell that adversely effects movement in such a harsh manner. We have spells that keep others out of a region and spells that allow players to bypass one another. But the suckerman completely stomps a mud hole in tactical decision making. It's like using a nuke and giving your opponent (and any potential peaceful neighbors) the middle finger all at once. This spell also favors the bigger players and makes it too easy for them to just plow through everything.
Bigger empires should be harder to maintain (see Rome for an example), but in this game, we see the opposite effect. You grow big, then BOOM! You can own everything in your path and you have almost nothing to worry about.
I propose that Suckerman be changed to something along the lines of moving only a percentage of the forces in each region around it, forms included. At random. Kind of like a dunes region has a 10% chance of killing each individual lessor in the region. Suckerman has a 75% chance of moving each individual force in neighboring regions. And each unit is calculated individually. Including forms.
This knocks the suckerman down a peg, while still retaining it's value and giving a fighting chance to the non-caster.
Lunar Savage
-------Original Message-------
Management wrote:
Yeah, I do lean towards thinking that the suckerman seems to be a broken spell. More than a little overpowered, but simply adjusting the cost doesn't seem to be a satisfactory solution.
Maybe if support for multiple spells on a region in effect at the same time is implemented that would help.
Or maybe if the effect graduated somehow? Proportional to how much fury was spent?
The suckerman spell deserves an entire conversation all to itself.
-------Original Message-------
BlueSky wrote: ON the sucker, it can always be set to a new value if you think its too low of a cost? Its pretty high as it is, and we have had some games where it has been put both lower and higher.
There have been many discussions of some interesting spells I hope we can remember some of them.
A spell to do a double jump might be a way to implement that feature, but it would have to be expensive, and you might have to cast the spell on both regions, it would have to raise the question of you ahving to own both regions or not.. I don't recommend this one.
Capability to turn a spell off for a game. We do this today by making it cost prohibitive.
I have done games where the last BB fury configuration is an offset from top player fury at some tick. Not sure if this can be automated (10K series, currently in play)..
Form settings should configure if a form is subject to movement spells, e.g. TS, hand, or sucker.
Capability to sacrifice a form for fury.
Optional spells that can be included in a game by the game creator, same as having some spells defaulted off.
-----Original Message-------
wyrm419 wrote: in future games in a not so classic setting... resources should be for sale. that way those without skill can win and earn *cough* exp. you know even the odds a little. whats fun is winning and people pay for fun.
aside from that sucker man is a problem and their value vs form use.
wyrm
-------Original Message-------
Management wrote:
A thread to discuss spells. Types, costs, effects, etc. Anything related to spells.
I do think it's good just where it is... You can whiff it...
-------Original Message-------
Management wrote:
Yeah, I do lean towards thinking that the suckerman seems to be a broken spell. More than a little overpowered, but simply adjusting the cost doesn't seem to be a satisfactory solution.
Maybe if support for multiple spells on a region in effect at the same time is implemented that would help.
Or maybe if the effect graduated somehow? Proportional to how much fury was spent?
The suckerman spell deserves an entire conversation all to itself.
-------Original Message-------
BlueSky wrote: ON the sucker, it can always be set to a new value if you think its too low of a cost? Its pretty high as it is, and we have had some games where it has been put both lower and higher.
There have been many discussions of some interesting spells I hope we can remember some of them.
A spell to do a double jump might be a way to implement that feature, but it would have to be expensive, and you might have to cast the spell on both regions, it would have to raise the question of you ahving to own both regions or not.. I don't recommend this one.
Capability to turn a spell off for a game. We do this today by making it cost prohibitive.
I have done games where the last BB fury configuration is an offset from top player fury at some tick. Not sure if this can be automated (10K series, currently in play)..
Form settings should configure if a form is subject to movement spells, e.g. TS, hand, or sucker.
Capability to sacrifice a form for fury.
Optional spells that can be included in a game by the game creator, same as having some spells defaulted off.
-----Original Message-------
wyrm419 wrote: in future games in a not so classic setting... resources should be for sale. that way those without skill can win and earn *cough* exp. you know even the odds a little. whats fun is winning and people pay for fun.
aside from that sucker man is a problem and their value vs form use.
wyrm
-------Original Message-------
Management wrote:
A thread to discuss spells. Types, costs, effects, etc. Anything related to spells.
Ah, so, you want a f2p game with micro transactions? That's fine. But, the problem is, if you have this for every game, it becomes pay to win. That's not fun for people who would prefer to just play strategically and not sink a lot of money into a game. There are many inherent dangers in pay to win and it turns more gamers off than it does on.
Lunar Savage
-------Original Message-------
wyrm419 wrote: in future games in a not so classic setting... resources should be for sale. that way those without skill can win and earn *cough* exp. you know even the odds a little. whats fun is winning and people pay for fun.
aside from that sucker man is a problem and their value vs form use.
wyrm
-------Original Message-------
Management wrote:
A thread to discuss spells. Types, costs, effects, etc. Anything related to spells.
We are interested in exploring ideas for micro transactions. Either in addition to subscriptions or in place of them.
However, I lean against ideas that would lead towards being able to "buy" a win.
Winning like that may be fun for that player, but I'm fairly certain that would be rather unfun for all the other players in the game.
-------Original Message-------
Lunar Savage wrote: Ah, so, you want a f2p game with micro transactions? That's fine. But, the problem is, if you have this for every game, it becomes pay to win. That's not fun for people who would prefer to just play strategically and not sink a lot of money into a game. There are many inherent dangers in pay to win and it turns more gamers off than it does on.
Lunar Savage
-------Original Message-------
wyrm419 wrote: in future games in a not so classic setting... resources should be for sale. that way those without skill can win and earn *cough* exp. you know even the odds a little. whats fun is winning and people pay for fun.
aside from that sucker man is a problem and their value vs form use.
wyrm
-------Original Message-------
Management wrote:
A thread to discuss spells. Types, costs, effects, etc. Anything related to spells.
I would agree. No money. No betting points except under special rules. It's not about the big jackpot due to luck...
-------Original Message-------
Lunar Savage wrote: Ah, so, you want a f2p game with micro transactions? That's fine. But, the problem is, if you have this for every game, it becomes pay to win. That's not fun for people who would prefer to just play strategically and not sink a lot of money into a game. There are many inherent dangers in pay to win and it turns more gamers off than it does on.
Lunar Savage
-------Original Message-------
wyrm419 wrote: in future games in a not so classic setting... resources should be for sale. that way those without skill can win and earn *cough* exp. you know even the odds a little. whats fun is winning and people pay for fun.
aside from that sucker man is a problem and their value vs form use.
wyrm
-------Original Message-------
Management wrote:
A thread to discuss spells. Types, costs, effects, etc. Anything related to spells.
The phrase: "pay to win" is not in my vocabulary. I am opposed to any senario that would give an in-game advantage to one player over another based on something purchased. We have had in-depth discussions on the future monetization strategy and we'll eventually settle on something that will work for all.
:)
-------Original Message-------
glaxono wrote: The phrase: "pay to win" is not in my vocabulary. I am opposed to any senario that would give an in-game advantage to one player over another based on something purchased. We have had in-depth discussions on the future monetization strategy and we'll eventually settle on something that will work for all.
It just occurred to me, there may be some limited scenarios where I wouldn't object to the idea of "purchasing" in-game advantages.
For example, a single player vs. AI, or team vs. AI format.
If someone wants to use their wallet to pile abuse on an AI opponent, that I would be open to considering.
-------Original Message-------
Lunar Savage wrote: Ah, so, you want a f2p game with micro transactions? That's fine. But, the problem is, if you have this for every game, it becomes pay to win. That's not fun for people who would prefer to just play strategically and not sink a lot of money into a game. There are many inherent dangers in pay to win and it turns more gamers off than it does on.
Lunar Savage
-------Original Message-------
wyrm419 wrote: in future games in a not so classic setting... resources should be for sale. that way those without skill can win and earn *cough* exp. you know even the odds a little. whats fun is winning and people pay for fun.
aside from that sucker man is a problem and their value vs form use.
wyrm
-------Original Message-------
Management wrote:
A thread to discuss spells. Types, costs, effects, etc. Anything related to spells.
That actually is pretty freaking brilliant. I would be all for allowing players to purchase a win against A.I. opponents. No one really gets hurt in that scenario.
In fact, you could run a whole game series involving the A.I. opponents that changes over the course of time. Giving players more incentive to follow it and participate. Which may in turn eventually make them want to spend money on it so they ensure their survival.
Actually, combine that with rewards for the "main army" idea I posted in the Motivation and Rewards thread, and you may have something here.
Lunar Savage
-------Original Message-------
Management wrote:
It just occurred to me, there may be some limited scenarios where I wouldn't object to the idea of "purchasing" in-game advantages.
For example, a single player vs. AI, or team vs. AI format.
If someone wants to use their wallet to pile abuse on an AI opponent, that I would be open to considering.
-------Original Message-------
Lunar Savage wrote: Ah, so, you want a f2p game with micro transactions? That's fine. But, the problem is, if you have this for every game, it becomes pay to win. That's not fun for people who would prefer to just play strategically and not sink a lot of money into a game. There are many inherent dangers in pay to win and it turns more gamers off than it does on.
Lunar Savage
-------Original Message-------
wyrm419 wrote: in future games in a not so classic setting... resources should be for sale. that way those without skill can win and earn *cough* exp. you know even the odds a little. whats fun is winning and people pay for fun.
aside from that sucker man is a problem and their value vs form use.
wyrm
-------Original Message-------
Management wrote:
A thread to discuss spells. Types, costs, effects, etc. Anything related to spells.
For the record, I don't mean buying additions the "main army".
I mean using the A.I. games as another way of winning/earning rewards to your "main army".
If you happen to purchase your way to victory against the A.I. for those rewards, then so be it. Or perhaps those that do purchase bonuses against the A.I. take a smaller reward for the win.
Lunar Savage
-------Original Message-------
Lunar Savage wrote: That actually is pretty freaking brilliant. I would be all for allowing players to purchase a win against A.I. opponents. No one really gets hurt in that scenario.
In fact, you could run a whole game series involving the A.I. opponents that changes over the course of time. Giving players more incentive to follow it and participate. Which may in turn eventually make them want to spend money on it so they ensure their survival.
Actually, combine that with rewards for the "main army" idea I posted in the Motivation and Rewards thread, and you may have something here.
Lunar Savage
-------Original Message-------
Management wrote:
It just occurred to me, there may be some limited scenarios where I wouldn't object to the idea of "purchasing" in-game advantages.
For example, a single player vs. AI, or team vs. AI format.
If someone wants to use their wallet to pile abuse on an AI opponent, that I would be open to considering.
-------Original Message-------
Lunar Savage wrote: Ah, so, you want a f2p game with micro transactions? That's fine. But, the problem is, if you have this for every game, it becomes pay to win. That's not fun for people who would prefer to just play strategically and not sink a lot of money into a game. There are many inherent dangers in pay to win and it turns more gamers off than it does on.
Lunar Savage
-------Original Message-------
wyrm419 wrote: in future games in a not so classic setting... resources should be for sale. that way those without skill can win and earn *cough* exp. you know even the odds a little. whats fun is winning and people pay for fun.
aside from that sucker man is a problem and their value vs form use.
wyrm
-------Original Message-------
Management wrote:
A thread to discuss spells. Types, costs, effects, etc. Anything related to spells.
:)
-------Original Message-------
Management wrote:
It just occurred to me, there may be some limited scenarios where I wouldn't object to the idea of "purchasing" in-game advantages.
For example, a single player vs. AI, or team vs. AI format.
If someone wants to use their wallet to pile abuse on an AI opponent, that I would be open to considering.
-------Original Message-------
Lunar Savage wrote: Ah, so, you want a f2p game with micro transactions? That's fine. But, the problem is, if you have this for every game, it becomes pay to win. That's not fun for people who would prefer to just play strategically and not sink a lot of money into a game. There are many inherent dangers in pay to win and it turns more gamers off than it does on.
Lunar Savage
-------Original Message-------
wyrm419 wrote: in future games in a not so classic setting... resources should be for sale. that way those without skill can win and earn *cough* exp. you know even the odds a little. whats fun is winning and people pay for fun.
aside from that sucker man is a problem and their value vs form use.
wyrm
-------Original Message-------
Management wrote:
A thread to discuss spells. Types, costs, effects, etc. Anything related to spells.
New spells, more spells better spells are all fun. Giving gms better access to the traditionals and creative new design is what you need to keep people happy.
We need more players to have better diversity in game selections. I think everyone has been saying that we need more players. If you want more players maybe you could advertise to groups instead of just single player thinking. You could have macs and you could have people that play in both.
Id advertise selling a multiple accounts in one package, with one master account to classrooms and such. Maybe the government will help you pay lol.
G360
-------Original Message-------
Management wrote:
A thread to discuss spells. Types, costs, effects, etc. Anything related to spells.
Suckerman and Sacrifice is a game-breaker in high-resources duel games. It reduces the game tactical complexity to mere sucking and saccing. Careful and well-prepared advancements are usually trumped on by hidden forts for the sole purpose of sucking.
Cortex.
-------Original Message-------
Management wrote:
A thread to discuss spells. Types, costs, effects, etc. Anything related to spells.
I've never personally played any duel format games, but I can certainly imagine that tactics in a duel game could be different than tactics in larger multiplayer games.
Since only two players are involved, I'm thinking pretty much any variants or modifications both players want to try out and agree to should be fine.
-------Original Message-------
Cortex wrote: Suckerman and Sacrifice is a game-breaker in high-resources duel games. It reduces the game tactical complexity to mere sucking and saccing. Careful and well-prepared advancements are usually trumped on by hidden forts for the sole purpose of sucking.
Cortex.
-------Original Message-------
Management wrote:
A thread to discuss spells. Types, costs, effects, etc. Anything related to spells.
would be cool to be able to set duels up on a waiting list. (this allows for the players to come and leave as they please if the game isnt filling fast enough)
would also be cool to be able as a player to be able to turn off spells or increase starting resources turn on NN, Up the native count, ect. from somewhere other than the admin panel. Game info would display the changes and you could join or not.
Would be GREAT to be able to cede victory with a click. just throw in the towel.
wyrm.
-------Original Message-------
Management wrote:
I've never personally played any duel format games, but I can certainly imagine that tactics in a duel game could be different than tactics in larger multiplayer games.
Since only two players are involved, I'm thinking pretty much any variants or modifications both players want to try out and agree to should be fine.
-------Original Message-------
Cortex wrote: Suckerman and Sacrifice is a game-breaker in high-resources duel games. It reduces the game tactical complexity to mere sucking and saccing. Careful and well-prepared advancements are usually trumped on by hidden forts for the sole purpose of sucking.
Cortex.
-------Original Message-------
Management wrote:
A thread to discuss spells. Types, costs, effects, etc. Anything related to spells.
Agreed on all.
Especially...well, all of it lol. Allowing the players to set the game options means you can play a different duel every time. The way it is now, it's pretty much the same thing over and over(especially island duel).
And being able to 'throw in the towel' would be a wonderful addition.
-------Original Message-------
wyrm419 wrote: would be cool to be able to set duels up on a waiting list. (this allows for the players to come and leave as they please if the game isnt filling fast enough)
would also be cool to be able as a player to be able to turn off spells or increase starting resources turn on NN, Up the native count, ect. from somewhere other than the admin panel. Game info would display the changes and you could join or not.
Would be GREAT to be able to cede victory with a click. just throw in the towel.
wyrm.
-------Original Message-------
Management wrote:
I've never personally played any duel format games, but I can certainly imagine that tactics in a duel game could be different than tactics in larger multiplayer games.
Since only two players are involved, I'm thinking pretty much any variants or modifications both players want to try out and agree to should be fine.
-------Original Message-------
Cortex wrote: Suckerman and Sacrifice is a game-breaker in high-resources duel games. It reduces the game tactical complexity to mere sucking and saccing. Careful and well-prepared advancements are usually trumped on by hidden forts for the sole purpose of sucking.
Cortex.
-------Original Message-------
Management wrote:
A thread to discuss spells. Types, costs, effects, etc. Anything related to spells.
It's still way too early to make timeline estimates, but putting the ability to make and configure small games (2-5 players) right into the hands of the players who want to play them is an idea we like and will probably pursue when it's practical to do so.
-------Original Message-------
ducky004 wrote: Agreed on all.
Especially...well, all of it lol. Allowing the players to set the game options means you can play a different duel every time. The way it is now, it's pretty much the same thing over and over(especially island duel).
And being able to 'throw in the towel' would be a wonderful addition.
-------Original Message-------
wyrm419 wrote: would be cool to be able to set duels up on a waiting list. (this allows for the players to come and leave as they please if the game isnt filling fast enough)
would also be cool to be able as a player to be able to turn off spells or increase starting resources turn on NN, Up the native count, ect. from somewhere other than the admin panel. Game info would display the changes and you could join or not.
Would be GREAT to be able to cede victory with a click. just throw in the towel.
wyrm.
-------Original Message-------
Management wrote:
I've never personally played any duel format games, but I can certainly imagine that tactics in a duel game could be different than tactics in larger multiplayer games.
Since only two players are involved, I'm thinking pretty much any variants or modifications both players want to try out and agree to should be fine.
-------Original Message-------
Cortex wrote: Suckerman and Sacrifice is a game-breaker in high-resources duel games. It reduces the game tactical complexity to mere sucking and saccing. Careful and well-prepared advancements are usually trumped on by hidden forts for the sole purpose of sucking.
Cortex.
-------Original Message-------
Management wrote:
A thread to discuss spells. Types, costs, effects, etc. Anything related to spells.
How about a modified Karash Backwards spell. When the battle is over, if you won, you are awarded with as many "new" lessers as the KB form killed. And (perhaps) if you lose, your opponent gets his killed lessers back.
There's probably a whole class of battle spells you could put together that would be "win big" or "lose big" but it's never a wash.
So this is like a "turn traitor" spell? If you run the spell, for 5 ticks a portion of the opposing forces equivalent to some formula turn traitor and fight foryou?
WIth spell layering it might even be better...
If there were only 10 opposing lessors, you could possibly turn them all in one tick and one lessor would beat them like with a karesh, but at the end they would belong to you..
I would think it might cost 130F to cast? More? Its definately at least as powerful as a karesh, and maybe more so??
-------Original Message-------
old_ugly wrote: How about a modified Karash Backwards spell. When the battle is over, if you won, you are awarded with as many "new" lessers as the KB form killed. And (perhaps) if you lose, your opponent gets his killed lessers back.
There's probably a whole class of battle spells you could put together that would be "win big" or "lose big" but it's never a wash.
That's a different twist on it, and I like it.
The theme I was thinking was awards for winning (over and above gaining the region) and punishment for losing (your opponent gets the award).
-------Original Message-------
BlueSky wrote: So this is like a "turn traitor" spell? If you run the spell, for 5 ticks a portion of the opposing forces equivalent to some formula turn traitor and fight foryou?
WIth spell layering it might even be better...
If there were only 10 opposing lessors, you could possibly turn them all in one tick and one lessor would beat them like with a karesh, but at the end they would belong to you..
I would think it might cost 130F to cast? More? Its definately at least as powerful as a karesh, and maybe more so??
-------Original Message-------
old_ugly wrote: How about a modified Karash Backwards spell. When the battle is over, if you won, you are awarded with as many "new" lessers as the KB form killed. And (perhaps) if you lose, your opponent gets his killed lessers back.
There's probably a whole class of battle spells you could put together that would be "win big" or "lose big" but it's never a wash.
Most players use just a few spells, and those spells very frequently. for example, if you have a size advantage, it can be very effective to suckerman your forces forward...
An interesting, and game-changing setting would be if every player has a certain number of every spell (except for BBs).
For example, you have 5 Suckerman vouchers. They are paid for, you don't need F for them (but you could add some F on it to make stronger than other spells casted at the same region, and the spell with the most additional F would be executed. means a Head of Nergal with 10 F would beat a Suckerman with 5 F).
Once you have used you 5 Suckerman, you don't have that option anymore... and your foes know that.
This game system would favor smaller empires, and requires a good game strategy, as you don't want to use your last spell too early, or you become vulnerable...
A interesting side effect would be that all kind of spells would be used frequently (when did you see the last Jaws of Life? ;-)).
Quad
I like this idea. EN is about managing your budget - this is another aspect of that.
-------Original Message-------
Quaddrex wrote: Most players use just a few spells, and those spells very frequently. for example, if you have a size advantage, it can be very effective to suckerman your forces forward...
An interesting, and game-changing setting would be if every player has a certain number of every spell (except for BBs).
For example, you have 5 Suckerman vouchers. They are paid for, you don't need F for them (but you could add some F on it to make stronger than other spells casted at the same region, and the spell with the most additional F would be executed. means a Head of Nergal with 10 F would beat a Suckerman with 5 F).
Once you have used you 5 Suckerman, you don't have that option anymore... and your foes know that.
This game system would favor smaller empires, and requires a good game strategy, as you don't want to use your last spell too early, or you become vulnerable...
A interesting side effect would be that all kind of spells would be used frequently (when did you see the last Jaws of Life? ;-)).
Quad
Another variation ... "Hunger Games" format - where instead of F, when you take a region you get a "voucher" for a spell. You just hope it's the spell you need.
-------Original Message-------
Quaddrex wrote: Most players use just a few spells, and those spells very frequently. for example, if you have a size advantage, it can be very effective to suckerman your forces forward...
An interesting, and game-changing setting would be if every player has a certain number of every spell (except for BBs).
For example, you have 5 Suckerman vouchers. They are paid for, you don't need F for them (but you could add some F on it to make stronger than other spells casted at the same region, and the spell with the most additional F would be executed. means a Head of Nergal with 10 F would beat a Suckerman with 5 F).
Once you have used you 5 Suckerman, you don't have that option anymore... and your foes know that.
This game system would favor smaller empires, and requires a good game strategy, as you don't want to use your last spell too early, or you become vulnerable...
A interesting side effect would be that all kind of spells would be used frequently (when did you see the last Jaws of Life? ;-)).
Quad
These are kick ass ideas.
Lunar Savage
-------Original Message-------
old_ugly wrote: Another variation ... "Hunger Games" format - where instead of F, when you take a region you get a "voucher" for a spell. You just hope it's the spell you need.
-------Original Message-------
Quaddrex wrote: Most players use just a few spells, and those spells very frequently. for example, if you have a size advantage, it can be very effective to suckerman your forces forward...
An interesting, and game-changing setting would be if every player has a certain number of every spell (except for BBs).
For example, you have 5 Suckerman vouchers. They are paid for, you don't need F for them (but you could add some F on it to make stronger than other spells casted at the same region, and the spell with the most additional F would be executed. means a Head of Nergal with 10 F would beat a Suckerman with 5 F).
Once you have used you 5 Suckerman, you don't have that option anymore... and your foes know that.
This game system would favor smaller empires, and requires a good game strategy, as you don't want to use your last spell too early, or you become vulnerable...
A interesting side effect would be that all kind of spells would be used frequently (when did you see the last Jaws of Life? ;-)).
Quad
A very interesting concept. It would certainly provide a temporary benefit to a smaller empire, perhaps even make it survive two or three ticks longer than it otherwise would, but at the end of the day, the T income would become a more powerful motivation, especially as saccing or fury farming would not be necessary at all, since the only need for fury would be black betweens I guess..
It would be a very good test if we could every do such a game where this could be put into play..
-------Original Message-------
Quaddrex wrote: Most players use just a few spells, and those spells very frequently. for example, if you have a size advantage, it can be very effective to suckerman your forces forward...
An interesting, and game-changing setting would be if every player has a certain number of every spell (except for BBs).
For example, you have 5 Suckerman vouchers. They are paid for, you don't need F for them (but you could add some F on it to make stronger than other spells casted at the same region, and the spell with the most additional F would be executed. means a Head of Nergal with 10 F would beat a Suckerman with 5 F).
Once you have used you 5 Suckerman, you don't have that option anymore... and your foes know that.
This game system would favor smaller empires, and requires a good game strategy, as you don't want to use your last spell too early, or you become vulnerable...
A interesting side effect would be that all kind of spells would be used frequently (when did you see the last Jaws of Life? ;-)).
Quad
Balance out spells and vouchers.
A spell useful in every situation should have very few vouchers (Suckerman, Optic Terror, Hand of Nergal).
A spell either useful very rarely or of limited utility compared with other spells should have lots of vouchers or unlimited vouchers.
OR borrow a concept from Ultracorps. The more times a spell is case, the higher the minimum cost becomes. The fewer, the less. So a spell nobody uses for the first 15 cycles would be very cheap indeed. I think this may have been suggested in the past.
BlueSky's point about smaller empires is well-taken. Another option is that whenever you cast a spell affecting another player's lessers, you lose one use of that spell and the other player gains a use.
I don't know how you'd handle situations where, say, multiple people's lessers get Suckermanned into the same region.
But it would mean that using a spell against another player hands them a weapon they may be able to use against you.
Another alternative would be a "cooldown" period. If I cast a Suckerman in cycle 13, I can't cast another until cycle 15. If I cast three Suckerman spells in cycle 13, I can't cast another until cycle 17. Some spells could have 0 cooldown.
Narsham
-------Original Message-------
BlueSky wrote: A very interesting concept. It would certainly provide a temporary benefit to a smaller empire, perhaps even make it survive two or three ticks longer than it otherwise would, but at the end of the day, the T income would become a more powerful motivation, especially as saccing or fury farming would not be necessary at all, since the only need for fury would be black betweens I guess..
It would be a very good test if we could every do such a game where this could be put into play..
-------Original Message-------
Quaddrex wrote: Most players use just a few spells, and those spells very frequently. for example, if you have a size advantage, it can be very effective to suckerman your forces forward...
An interesting, and game-changing setting would be if every player has a certain number of every spell (except for BBs).
For example, you have 5 Suckerman vouchers. They are paid for, you don't need F for them (but you could add some F on it to make stronger than other spells casted at the same region, and the spell with the most additional F would be executed. means a Head of Nergal with 10 F would beat a Suckerman with 5 F).
Once you have used you 5 Suckerman, you don't have that option anymore... and your foes know that.
This game system would favor smaller empires, and requires a good game strategy, as you don't want to use your last spell too early, or you become vulnerable...
A interesting side effect would be that all kind of spells would be used frequently (when did you see the last Jaws of Life? ;-)).
Quad
Connect With Us