- 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.
Standard Ruleset
Submitted by Cortex 7/13/2012 3:32:00 AM {time} ago in Community Feedback
With ruleset I mean the rules of the game itself (for example, a form loses 1/5 of his health when having negative fuel), spells, forms and regions. The current standard could use some improvement. An opinion shared by most. I would like to point out that you probably will not improve the current standard ruleset by adding more forms, spells and special rules (for exmaple, a region can now also generate F). Adding featurs would make the game more intresting but would make the standard ruleset more random. The game would shift from a tactical game to a pseudo-tactical game with a huge factor of randomness. With 10 forms , 100 spells and a dozen new features at your disposal it will make it hard to deduce what your opponent will do effectively making the game a game of dice. Ofcourse adding new spells/forms/features is critical. It allows for variety. But changing the standard ruleset should be done with utmost caution. C.
Thanks Cortex,
That's exactly what we want to do.
While we want to have and support a great deal of configuration option, at the core of it wall we want to establish a base "core" game (configuration/ruleset) that is considered the "standard" game.
So when game variants are being created, there is a standard baseline from which the game is being modified.
From there we fork a number of variants that are considered the "standard" templates. Pretty much the same as it always has been.
Which game variants make the cut to become "standard templates" will mostly be determined by player demand (player demand being mostly defined by how fast a game fills).
What we in envision is that most of the open publicly join-able games will be drawn from the pool of standard templates in proportion to player demand.
Wild and crazy variants in the main game list will still be played from time to time, but be much less common.
Where we see wild and crazy variants being more common is for smaller private player created games.
What we envision is enabling each player the ability to create and play as many solo games as they want and a limited number of small (2-5 player) private games.
It would be in these solo and private games where players would be able to configure the game options in whatever way tickles their fancy.
-------Original Message-------
Cortex wrote: With ruleset I mean the rules of the game itself (for example, a form loses 1/5 of his health when having negative fuel), spells, forms and regions. The current standard could use some improvement. An opinion shared by most.
I would like to point out that you probably will not improve the current standard ruleset by adding more forms, spells and special rules (for exmaple, a region can now also generate F).
Adding featurs would make the game more intresting but would make the standard ruleset more random. The game would shift from a tactical game to a pseudo-tactical game with a huge factor of randomness. With 10 forms , 100 spells and a dozen new features at your disposal it will make it hard to deduce what your opponent will do effectively making the game a game of dice.
Ofcourse adding new spells/forms/features is critical. It allows for variety. But changing the standard ruleset should be done with utmost caution.
C.
That's cool.
However, might I propose a special tab that holds only the wild game variants?
One tab for standard games, Hell, label it clearly "Standard Games", and then label the next one something like "Variant Gametypes". Always keeping about 1-3 games on that tab open for play?
Lunar Savage
-------Original Message-------
Management wrote:
Thanks Cortex,
That's exactly what we want to do.
While we want to have and support a great deal of configuration option, at the core of it wall we want to establish a base "core" game (configuration/ruleset) that is considered the "standard" game.
So when game variants are being created, there is a standard baseline from which the game is being modified.
From there we fork a number of variants that are considered the "standard" templates. Pretty much the same as it always has been.
Which game variants make the cut to become "standard templates" will mostly be determined by player demand (player demand being mostly defined by how fast a game fills).
What we in envision is that most of the open publicly join-able games will be drawn from the pool of standard templates in proportion to player demand.
Wild and crazy variants in the main game list will still be played from time to time, but be much less common.
Where we see wild and crazy variants being more common is for smaller private player created games.
What we envision is enabling each player the ability to create and play as many solo games as they want and a limited number of small (2-5 player) private games.
It would be in these solo and private games where players would be able to configure the game options in whatever way tickles their fancy.
-------Original Message-------
Cortex wrote: With ruleset I mean the rules of the game itself (for example, a form loses 1/5 of his health when having negative fuel), spells, forms and regions. The current standard could use some improvement. An opinion shared by most.
I would like to point out that you probably will not improve the current standard ruleset by adding more forms, spells and special rules (for exmaple, a region can now also generate F).
Adding featurs would make the game more intresting but would make the standard ruleset more random. The game would shift from a tactical game to a pseudo-tactical game with a huge factor of randomness. With 10 forms , 100 spells and a dozen new features at your disposal it will make it hard to deduce what your opponent will do effectively making the game a game of dice.
Ofcourse adding new spells/forms/features is critical. It allows for variety. But changing the standard ruleset should be done with utmost caution.
C.
That's the kind of idea that falls under the limitation of the size of the player base.
There can only be so many currently running and open to join games as there are players available and willing to join them.
-------Original Message-------
Lunar Savage wrote: That's cool.
However, might I propose a special tab that holds only the wild game variants?
One tab for standard games, Hell, label it clearly "Standard Games", and then label the next one something like "Variant Gametypes". Always keeping about 1-3 games on that tab open for play?
Lunar Savage
-------Original Message-------
Management wrote:
Thanks Cortex,
That's exactly what we want to do.
While we want to have and support a great deal of configuration option, at the core of it wall we want to establish a base "core" game (configuration/ruleset) that is considered the "standard" game.
So when game variants are being created, there is a standard baseline from which the game is being modified.
From there we fork a number of variants that are considered the "standard" templates. Pretty much the same as it always has been.
Which game variants make the cut to become "standard templates" will mostly be determined by player demand (player demand being mostly defined by how fast a game fills).
What we in envision is that most of the open publicly join-able games will be drawn from the pool of standard templates in proportion to player demand.
Wild and crazy variants in the main game list will still be played from time to time, but be much less common.
Where we see wild and crazy variants being more common is for smaller private player created games.
What we envision is enabling each player the ability to create and play as many solo games as they want and a limited number of small (2-5 player) private games.
It would be in these solo and private games where players would be able to configure the game options in whatever way tickles their fancy.
-------Original Message-------
Cortex wrote: With ruleset I mean the rules of the game itself (for example, a form loses 1/5 of his health when having negative fuel), spells, forms and regions. The current standard could use some improvement. An opinion shared by most.
I would like to point out that you probably will not improve the current standard ruleset by adding more forms, spells and special rules (for exmaple, a region can now also generate F).
Adding featurs would make the game more intresting but would make the standard ruleset more random. The game would shift from a tactical game to a pseudo-tactical game with a huge factor of randomness. With 10 forms , 100 spells and a dozen new features at your disposal it will make it hard to deduce what your opponent will do effectively making the game a game of dice.
Ofcourse adding new spells/forms/features is critical. It allows for variety. But changing the standard ruleset should be done with utmost caution.
C.
Well, we're pretty much at a our rock bottom right now in terms of player base.
And we usually have 1-3 wild variants in the field at any time.
Seems to work thus far.
Lunar Savage
-------Original Message-------
Management wrote:
That's the kind of idea that falls under the limitation of the size of the player base.
There can only be so many currently running and open to join games as there are players available and willing to join them.
-------Original Message-------
Lunar Savage wrote: That's cool.
However, might I propose a special tab that holds only the wild game variants?
One tab for standard games, Hell, label it clearly "Standard Games", and then label the next one something like "Variant Gametypes". Always keeping about 1-3 games on that tab open for play?
Lunar Savage
-------Original Message-------
Management wrote:
Thanks Cortex,
That's exactly what we want to do.
While we want to have and support a great deal of configuration option, at the core of it wall we want to establish a base "core" game (configuration/ruleset) that is considered the "standard" game.
So when game variants are being created, there is a standard baseline from which the game is being modified.
From there we fork a number of variants that are considered the "standard" templates. Pretty much the same as it always has been.
Which game variants make the cut to become "standard templates" will mostly be determined by player demand (player demand being mostly defined by how fast a game fills).
What we in envision is that most of the open publicly join-able games will be drawn from the pool of standard templates in proportion to player demand.
Wild and crazy variants in the main game list will still be played from time to time, but be much less common.
Where we see wild and crazy variants being more common is for smaller private player created games.
What we envision is enabling each player the ability to create and play as many solo games as they want and a limited number of small (2-5 player) private games.
It would be in these solo and private games where players would be able to configure the game options in whatever way tickles their fancy.
-------Original Message-------
Cortex wrote: With ruleset I mean the rules of the game itself (for example, a form loses 1/5 of his health when having negative fuel), spells, forms and regions. The current standard could use some improvement. An opinion shared by most.
I would like to point out that you probably will not improve the current standard ruleset by adding more forms, spells and special rules (for exmaple, a region can now also generate F).
Adding featurs would make the game more intresting but would make the standard ruleset more random. The game would shift from a tactical game to a pseudo-tactical game with a huge factor of randomness. With 10 forms , 100 spells and a dozen new features at your disposal it will make it hard to deduce what your opponent will do effectively making the game a game of dice.
Ofcourse adding new spells/forms/features is critical. It allows for variety. But changing the standard ruleset should be done with utmost caution.
C.
I can certainly agree that we're pretty much at rock bottom in terms of player base.
But "seems to work" in certainly more than a little subjective.
Such small games taking so long to fill?
I'm thinking that's a little more broken than working.
-------Original Message-------
Lunar Savage wrote: Well, we're pretty much at a our rock bottom right now in terms of player base.
And we usually have 1-3 wild variants in the field at any time.
Seems to work thus far.
Lunar Savage
-------Original Message-------
Management wrote:
That's the kind of idea that falls under the limitation of the size of the player base.
There can only be so many currently running and open to join games as there are players available and willing to join them.
-------Original Message-------
Lunar Savage wrote: That's cool.
However, might I propose a special tab that holds only the wild game variants?
One tab for standard games, Hell, label it clearly "Standard Games", and then label the next one something like "Variant Gametypes". Always keeping about 1-3 games on that tab open for play?
Lunar Savage
-------Original Message-------
Management wrote:
Thanks Cortex,
That's exactly what we want to do.
While we want to have and support a great deal of configuration option, at the core of it wall we want to establish a base "core" game (configuration/ruleset) that is considered the "standard" game.
So when game variants are being created, there is a standard baseline from which the game is being modified.
From there we fork a number of variants that are considered the "standard" templates. Pretty much the same as it always has been.
Which game variants make the cut to become "standard templates" will mostly be determined by player demand (player demand being mostly defined by how fast a game fills).
What we in envision is that most of the open publicly join-able games will be drawn from the pool of standard templates in proportion to player demand.
Wild and crazy variants in the main game list will still be played from time to time, but be much less common.
Where we see wild and crazy variants being more common is for smaller private player created games.
What we envision is enabling each player the ability to create and play as many solo games as they want and a limited number of small (2-5 player) private games.
It would be in these solo and private games where players would be able to configure the game options in whatever way tickles their fancy.
-------Original Message-------
Cortex wrote: With ruleset I mean the rules of the game itself (for example, a form loses 1/5 of his health when having negative fuel), spells, forms and regions. The current standard could use some improvement. An opinion shared by most.
I would like to point out that you probably will not improve the current standard ruleset by adding more forms, spells and special rules (for exmaple, a region can now also generate F).
Adding featurs would make the game more intresting but would make the standard ruleset more random. The game would shift from a tactical game to a pseudo-tactical game with a huge factor of randomness. With 10 forms , 100 spells and a dozen new features at your disposal it will make it hard to deduce what your opponent will do effectively making the game a game of dice.
Ofcourse adding new spells/forms/features is critical. It allows for variety. But changing the standard ruleset should be done with utmost caution.
C.
Last game I made filled inside of 3 days. ;) Or was it 2? I can't remember.
Lunar Savage
-------Original Message-------
Management wrote:
I can certainly agree that we're pretty much at rock bottom in terms of player base.
But "seems to work" in certainly more than a little subjective.
Such small games taking so long to fill?
I'm thinking that's a little more broken than working.
-------Original Message-------
Lunar Savage wrote: Well, we're pretty much at a our rock bottom right now in terms of player base.
And we usually have 1-3 wild variants in the field at any time.
Seems to work thus far.
Lunar Savage
-------Original Message-------
Management wrote:
That's the kind of idea that falls under the limitation of the size of the player base.
There can only be so many currently running and open to join games as there are players available and willing to join them.
-------Original Message-------
Lunar Savage wrote: That's cool.
However, might I propose a special tab that holds only the wild game variants?
One tab for standard games, Hell, label it clearly "Standard Games", and then label the next one something like "Variant Gametypes". Always keeping about 1-3 games on that tab open for play?
Lunar Savage
-------Original Message-------
Management wrote:
Thanks Cortex,
That's exactly what we want to do.
While we want to have and support a great deal of configuration option, at the core of it wall we want to establish a base "core" game (configuration/ruleset) that is considered the "standard" game.
So when game variants are being created, there is a standard baseline from which the game is being modified.
From there we fork a number of variants that are considered the "standard" templates. Pretty much the same as it always has been.
Which game variants make the cut to become "standard templates" will mostly be determined by player demand (player demand being mostly defined by how fast a game fills).
What we in envision is that most of the open publicly join-able games will be drawn from the pool of standard templates in proportion to player demand.
Wild and crazy variants in the main game list will still be played from time to time, but be much less common.
Where we see wild and crazy variants being more common is for smaller private player created games.
What we envision is enabling each player the ability to create and play as many solo games as they want and a limited number of small (2-5 player) private games.
It would be in these solo and private games where players would be able to configure the game options in whatever way tickles their fancy.
-------Original Message-------
Cortex wrote: With ruleset I mean the rules of the game itself (for example, a form loses 1/5 of his health when having negative fuel), spells, forms and regions. The current standard could use some improvement. An opinion shared by most.
I would like to point out that you probably will not improve the current standard ruleset by adding more forms, spells and special rules (for exmaple, a region can now also generate F).
Adding featurs would make the game more intresting but would make the standard ruleset more random. The game would shift from a tactical game to a pseudo-tactical game with a huge factor of randomness. With 10 forms , 100 spells and a dozen new features at your disposal it will make it hard to deduce what your opponent will do effectively making the game a game of dice.
Ofcourse adding new spells/forms/features is critical. It allows for variety. But changing the standard ruleset should be done with utmost caution.
C.
There are the specials..
-------Original Message-------
Lunar Savage wrote: Last game I made filled inside of 3 days. ;) Or was it 2? I can't remember.
Lunar Savage
-------Original Message-------
Management wrote:
I can certainly agree that we're pretty much at rock bottom in terms of player base.
But "seems to work" in certainly more than a little subjective.
Such small games taking so long to fill?
I'm thinking that's a little more broken than working.
-------Original Message-------
Lunar Savage wrote: Well, we're pretty much at a our rock bottom right now in terms of player base.
And we usually have 1-3 wild variants in the field at any time.
Seems to work thus far.
Lunar Savage
-------Original Message-------
Management wrote:
That's the kind of idea that falls under the limitation of the size of the player base.
There can only be so many currently running and open to join games as there are players available and willing to join them.
-------Original Message-------
Lunar Savage wrote: That's cool.
However, might I propose a special tab that holds only the wild game variants?
One tab for standard games, Hell, label it clearly "Standard Games", and then label the next one something like "Variant Gametypes". Always keeping about 1-3 games on that tab open for play?
Lunar Savage
-------Original Message-------
Management wrote:
Thanks Cortex,
That's exactly what we want to do.
While we want to have and support a great deal of configuration option, at the core of it wall we want to establish a base "core" game (configuration/ruleset) that is considered the "standard" game.
So when game variants are being created, there is a standard baseline from which the game is being modified.
From there we fork a number of variants that are considered the "standard" templates. Pretty much the same as it always has been.
Which game variants make the cut to become "standard templates" will mostly be determined by player demand (player demand being mostly defined by how fast a game fills).
What we in envision is that most of the open publicly join-able games will be drawn from the pool of standard templates in proportion to player demand.
Wild and crazy variants in the main game list will still be played from time to time, but be much less common.
Where we see wild and crazy variants being more common is for smaller private player created games.
What we envision is enabling each player the ability to create and play as many solo games as they want and a limited number of small (2-5 player) private games.
It would be in these solo and private games where players would be able to configure the game options in whatever way tickles their fancy.
-------Original Message-------
Cortex wrote: With ruleset I mean the rules of the game itself (for example, a form loses 1/5 of his health when having negative fuel), spells, forms and regions. The current standard could use some improvement. An opinion shared by most.
I would like to point out that you probably will not improve the current standard ruleset by adding more forms, spells and special rules (for exmaple, a region can now also generate F).
Adding featurs would make the game more intresting but would make the standard ruleset more random. The game would shift from a tactical game to a pseudo-tactical game with a huge factor of randomness. With 10 forms , 100 spells and a dozen new features at your disposal it will make it hard to deduce what your opponent will do effectively making the game a game of dice.
Ofcourse adding new spells/forms/features is critical. It allows for variety. But changing the standard ruleset should be done with utmost caution.
C.
Just out of curiousity...when are you going to collect this data? As far as player demand being determined...
Because now, there's only a few options of games to choose from. But in the 'good old days', ToT's were extremely active(haven't seen one in forever), FFAs, even ToCs didn't take 'too' long to fill...
Right now though? You can see how it is...
-------Original Message-------
Management wrote:
Thanks Cortex,
That's exactly what we want to do.
While we want to have and support a great deal of configuration option, at the core of it wall we want to establish a base "core" game (configuration/ruleset) that is considered the "standard" game.
So when game variants are being created, there is a standard baseline from which the game is being modified.
From there we fork a number of variants that are considered the "standard" templates. Pretty much the same as it always has been.
Which game variants make the cut to become "standard templates" will mostly be determined by player demand (player demand being mostly defined by how fast a game fills).
What we in envision is that most of the open publicly join-able games will be drawn from the pool of standard templates in proportion to player demand.
Wild and crazy variants in the main game list will still be played from time to time, but be much less common.
Where we see wild and crazy variants being more common is for smaller private player created games.
What we envision is enabling each player the ability to create and play as many solo games as they want and a limited number of small (2-5 player) private games.
It would be in these solo and private games where players would be able to configure the game options in whatever way tickles their fancy.
-------Original Message-------
Cortex wrote: With ruleset I mean the rules of the game itself (for example, a form loses 1/5 of his health when having negative fuel), spells, forms and regions. The current standard could use some improvement. An opinion shared by most.
I would like to point out that you probably will not improve the current standard ruleset by adding more forms, spells and special rules (for exmaple, a region can now also generate F).
Adding featurs would make the game more intresting but would make the standard ruleset more random. The game would shift from a tactical game to a pseudo-tactical game with a huge factor of randomness. With 10 forms , 100 spells and a dozen new features at your disposal it will make it hard to deduce what your opponent will do effectively making the game a game of dice.
Ofcourse adding new spells/forms/features is critical. It allows for variety. But changing the standard ruleset should be done with utmost caution.
C.
Good question.
The quick answer is we collect the data as it is generated.
But I think the gist of your question is really how much data can you really collect from a small player base?
And yes of course, the amount of data available, variety of data available, and speed at which it can be collected is proportional to the size of the player base providing the data.
At the end of the day though, all you can do is try to make the best decisions you can based on the information you have available.
Observer the results, get feedback, incorporate the new information, make new decisions, and repeat the cycle over and over again.
-------Original Message-------
ducky004 wrote: Just out of curiousity...when are you going to collect this data? As far as player demand being determined...
Because now, there's only a few options of games to choose from. But in the 'good old days', ToT's were extremely active(haven't seen one in forever), FFAs, even ToCs didn't take 'too' long to fill...
Right now though? You can see how it is...
-------Original Message-------
Management wrote:
Thanks Cortex,
That's exactly what we want to do.
While we want to have and support a great deal of configuration option, at the core of it wall we want to establish a base "core" game (configuration/ruleset) that is considered the "standard" game.
So when game variants are being created, there is a standard baseline from which the game is being modified.
From there we fork a number of variants that are considered the "standard" templates. Pretty much the same as it always has been.
Which game variants make the cut to become "standard templates" will mostly be determined by player demand (player demand being mostly defined by how fast a game fills).
What we in envision is that most of the open publicly join-able games will be drawn from the pool of standard templates in proportion to player demand.
Wild and crazy variants in the main game list will still be played from time to time, but be much less common.
Where we see wild and crazy variants being more common is for smaller private player created games.
What we envision is enabling each player the ability to create and play as many solo games as they want and a limited number of small (2-5 player) private games.
It would be in these solo and private games where players would be able to configure the game options in whatever way tickles their fancy.
-------Original Message-------
Cortex wrote: With ruleset I mean the rules of the game itself (for example, a form loses 1/5 of his health when having negative fuel), spells, forms and regions. The current standard could use some improvement. An opinion shared by most.
I would like to point out that you probably will not improve the current standard ruleset by adding more forms, spells and special rules (for exmaple, a region can now also generate F).
Adding featurs would make the game more intresting but would make the standard ruleset more random. The game would shift from a tactical game to a pseudo-tactical game with a huge factor of randomness. With 10 forms , 100 spells and a dozen new features at your disposal it will make it hard to deduce what your opponent will do effectively making the game a game of dice.
Ofcourse adding new spells/forms/features is critical. It allows for variety. But changing the standard ruleset should be done with utmost caution.
C.
Connect With Us