- Subscribers:
- Visitors:
- Players:
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.
Subbing
Submitted by BlueSky 7/4/2012 6:59:00 PM {time} ago in Community Feedback
If the game will grow, subbing will become an issue, it would not hurt to show in the citidel if someone subbed for that person as a column to the right, and who it was. But this is another philosophy question. We currently allow subs for a game, and sometimes the subs are also in that game, but it can be a real issue, which could be resolved by either not allowing someone to sub for another in the same game except if they were on the same team (or allied) Basically you have to review and set the philosophy on subbing.
Yes. Subbing is another big one on the list of things to be addressed.
Subbing has its pros & cons, but we feel the pros are worthwhile enough to make dealing with the cons a necessary chore.
We do lean strongly feeling that subbing should be more transparent to other players than it is now.
Subbing for someone who's in the same game is definitely another question in need of discussion. There's pros & cons both ways on this.
One change we definitely plan to implement as soon as we can is to enable setting sub rights on a per-game basis rather the all or nothing choice it is now.
-------Original Message-------
BlueSky wrote: If the game will grow, subbing will become an issue, it would not hurt to show in the citidel if someone subbed for that person as a column to the right, and who it was.
But this is another philosophy question.
We currently allow subs for a game, and sometimes the subs are also in that game, but it can be a real issue, which could be resolved by either not allowing someone to sub for another in the same game except if they were on the same team (or allied)
Basically you have to review and set the philosophy on subbing.
You could require the player needing a sub announce thier intent to all other players. Allow the player to decide if they want to announce who, (it must be a player in the same game, imo this prevents an outside game from having as much impact) and provide a format so the answer is available to everyone at once. Sort of...United Nations like. At which point they can either be forthcoming and ameniable to all (or a mojority or none) or get pummelled by those who weren't appeased (probably both which is realistic on a world scale...imo). In other words, make it a diplomatic part of the game that adds to it's realism and strategy.
It's just an idea that came to mind.
-------Original Message-------
Management wrote:
Yes. Subbing is another big one on the list of things to be addressed.
Subbing has its pros & cons, but we feel the pros are worthwhile enough to make dealing with the cons a necessary chore.
We do lean strongly feeling that subbing should be more transparent to other players than it is now.
Subbing for someone who's in the same game is definitely another question in need of discussion. There's pros & cons both ways on this.
One change we definitely plan to implement as soon as we can is to enable setting sub rights on a per-game basis rather the all or nothing choice it is now.
-------Original Message-------
BlueSky wrote: If the game will grow, subbing will become an issue, it would not hurt to show in the citidel if someone subbed for that person as a column to the right, and who it was.
But this is another philosophy question.
We currently allow subs for a game, and sometimes the subs are also in that game, but it can be a real issue, which could be resolved by either not allowing someone to sub for another in the same game except if they were on the same team (or allied)
Basically you have to review and set the philosophy on subbing.
Two changes for subbing that we are fairly sure we're going to go with are:
1) Enable game specific subbing.
2) Increased transparancy for the other players.
-------Original Message-------
Amyrlin wrote: You could require the player needing a sub announce thier intent to all other players. Allow the player to decide if they want to announce who, (it must be a player in the same game, imo this prevents an outside game from having as much impact) and provide a format so the answer is available to everyone at once. Sort of...United Nations like. At which point they can either be forthcoming and ameniable to all (or a mojority or none) or get pummelled by those who weren't appeased (probably both which is realistic on a world scale...imo). In other words, make it a diplomatic part of the game that adds to it's realism and strategy.
It's just an idea that came to mind.
-------Original Message-------
Management wrote:
Yes. Subbing is another big one on the list of things to be addressed.
Subbing has its pros & cons, but we feel the pros are worthwhile enough to make dealing with the cons a necessary chore.
We do lean strongly feeling that subbing should be more transparent to other players than it is now.
Subbing for someone who's in the same game is definitely another question in need of discussion. There's pros & cons both ways on this.
One change we definitely plan to implement as soon as we can is to enable setting sub rights on a per-game basis rather the all or nothing choice it is now.
-------Original Message-------
BlueSky wrote: If the game will grow, subbing will become an issue, it would not hurt to show in the citidel if someone subbed for that person as a column to the right, and who it was.
But this is another philosophy question.
We currently allow subs for a game, and sometimes the subs are also in that game, but it can be a real issue, which could be resolved by either not allowing someone to sub for another in the same game except if they were on the same team (or allied)
Basically you have to review and set the philosophy on subbing.
Could you elaborate on game specific subbing please? I have several theories on what it could be. :D
-------Original Message-------
Management wrote:
Two changes for subbing that we are fairly sure we're going to go with are:
1) Enable game specific subbing.
2) Increased transparancy for the other players.
-------Original Message-------
Amyrlin wrote: You could require the player needing a sub announce thier intent to all other players. Allow the player to decide if they want to announce who, (it must be a player in the same game, imo this prevents an outside game from having as much impact) and provide a format so the answer is available to everyone at once. Sort of...United Nations like. At which point they can either be forthcoming and ameniable to all (or a mojority or none) or get pummelled by those who weren't appeased (probably both which is realistic on a world scale...imo). In other words, make it a diplomatic part of the game that adds to it's realism and strategy.
It's just an idea that came to mind.
-------Original Message-------
Management wrote:
Yes. Subbing is another big one on the list of things to be addressed.
Subbing has its pros & cons, but we feel the pros are worthwhile enough to make dealing with the cons a necessary chore.
We do lean strongly feeling that subbing should be more transparent to other players than it is now.
Subbing for someone who's in the same game is definitely another question in need of discussion. There's pros & cons both ways on this.
One change we definitely plan to implement as soon as we can is to enable setting sub rights on a per-game basis rather the all or nothing choice it is now.
-------Original Message-------
BlueSky wrote: If the game will grow, subbing will become an issue, it would not hurt to show in the citidel if someone subbed for that person as a column to the right, and who it was.
But this is another philosophy question.
We currently allow subs for a game, and sometimes the subs are also in that game, but it can be a real issue, which could be resolved by either not allowing someone to sub for another in the same game except if they were on the same team (or allied)
Basically you have to review and set the philosophy on subbing.
What we mean by game specific subbing is that when you authorize someone to sub for you, you will be able to select which specific games they have acccess to.
-------Original Message-------
Amyrlin wrote: Could you elaborate on game specific subbing please? I have several theories on what it could be. :D
-------Original Message-------
Management wrote:
Two changes for subbing that we are fairly sure we're going to go with are:
1) Enable game specific subbing.
2) Increased transparancy for the other players.
-------Original Message-------
Amyrlin wrote: You could require the player needing a sub announce thier intent to all other players. Allow the player to decide if they want to announce who, (it must be a player in the same game, imo this prevents an outside game from having as much impact) and provide a format so the answer is available to everyone at once. Sort of...United Nations like. At which point they can either be forthcoming and ameniable to all (or a mojority or none) or get pummelled by those who weren't appeased (probably both which is realistic on a world scale...imo). In other words, make it a diplomatic part of the game that adds to it's realism and strategy.
It's just an idea that came to mind.
-------Original Message-------
Management wrote:
Yes. Subbing is another big one on the list of things to be addressed.
Subbing has its pros & cons, but we feel the pros are worthwhile enough to make dealing with the cons a necessary chore.
We do lean strongly feeling that subbing should be more transparent to other players than it is now.
Subbing for someone who's in the same game is definitely another question in need of discussion. There's pros & cons both ways on this.
One change we definitely plan to implement as soon as we can is to enable setting sub rights on a per-game basis rather the all or nothing choice it is now.
-------Original Message-------
BlueSky wrote: If the game will grow, subbing will become an issue, it would not hurt to show in the citidel if someone subbed for that person as a column to the right, and who it was.
But this is another philosophy question.
We currently allow subs for a game, and sometimes the subs are also in that game, but it can be a real issue, which could be resolved by either not allowing someone to sub for another in the same game except if they were on the same team (or allied)
Basically you have to review and set the philosophy on subbing.
Yup, that's simpler than I was thinking, lol.
It could be interesting (but probably not prudent) to make players only choose in game players to sub...hehe...I mean, we can't go to mars for a substitute leader in RL.
Don't you love it when your mind wanders into weird pastures? :D
-------Original Message-------
Management wrote:
What we mean by game specific subbing is that when you authorize someone to sub for you, you will be able to select which specific games they have acccess to.
-------Original Message-------
Amyrlin wrote: Could you elaborate on game specific subbing please? I have several theories on what it could be. :D
-------Original Message-------
Management wrote:
Two changes for subbing that we are fairly sure we're going to go with are:
1) Enable game specific subbing.
2) Increased transparancy for the other players.
-------Original Message-------
Amyrlin wrote: You could require the player needing a sub announce thier intent to all other players. Allow the player to decide if they want to announce who, (it must be a player in the same game, imo this prevents an outside game from having as much impact) and provide a format so the answer is available to everyone at once. Sort of...United Nations like. At which point they can either be forthcoming and ameniable to all (or a mojority or none) or get pummelled by those who weren't appeased (probably both which is realistic on a world scale...imo). In other words, make it a diplomatic part of the game that adds to it's realism and strategy.
It's just an idea that came to mind.
-------Original Message-------
Management wrote:
Yes. Subbing is another big one on the list of things to be addressed.
Subbing has its pros & cons, but we feel the pros are worthwhile enough to make dealing with the cons a necessary chore.
We do lean strongly feeling that subbing should be more transparent to other players than it is now.
Subbing for someone who's in the same game is definitely another question in need of discussion. There's pros & cons both ways on this.
One change we definitely plan to implement as soon as we can is to enable setting sub rights on a per-game basis rather the all or nothing choice it is now.
-------Original Message-------
BlueSky wrote: If the game will grow, subbing will become an issue, it would not hurt to show in the citidel if someone subbed for that person as a column to the right, and who it was.
But this is another philosophy question.
We currently allow subs for a game, and sometimes the subs are also in that game, but it can be a real issue, which could be resolved by either not allowing someone to sub for another in the same game except if they were on the same team (or allied)
Basically you have to review and set the philosophy on subbing.
Since I'm pushing vassalage as a learning tool, I'm for a special restriction on subbing in vassal games. The master should be able to see details on her subjects, including everything a sub can see, but with no ability to enter orders. It was typically important to sub in to teach new players, but a master who can enter orders for a vassal is less likely to teach and more likely to just play for the vassal. Make that impractical, and masters will teach... and successful teachers will win games with master-vassal relationships.
Narsham
Connect With Us