| Wednesday, December 30, 2015 - 08:53 am |
The state of Fearless Blue came up on chat. I'm a somewhat new player, and don't have a FB country yet, but I've seen lots of chatter on the topic, and the ideas I'm throwing around here seemed to meet with general approval on chat.
Basically, it looks like Fearless Blue is a "war world" where war never happens, because of overwhelming protection rules. You can't be attacked in your first 21 days, or if your war level is less than 3, or if your war level differs too much from the attacker's. In other words, unless you're completely careless and clueless, you can remain immune there forever, while reaping the benefits of a world with unique production options. I assume that this is the case because a lot of newbs see that it's the war world, which sounds fun, and decide to start there. A bunch of them promptly got stomped flat in the bad old days, I'm sure, and protection was added to save them from themselves.
My suggestion is to get rid of newbie protection by getting rid of the newbies. You cannot start your first country on FB. Instead, it's a reward. Start your first country on any other world, and when you hit WL6(give or take), you then have the ability to start a FB country. To encourage non-premium players to get in on the war game, also make it an exception to the usual "premium and 30 GC/month for each empire past the first" rule - your FB empire costs no GC, and can be owned in addition to your carebear empire on WG/KB/LU/GR.
This means that there'd be no newbs requiring protection left in the world, which means protection can be lifted and it can be a war world again(keep the 21 day protection, because setup does take time, but ditch the rest). You encourage good gameplay from premium and free players alike, by telling them to build a solid economy and make sure of their ability to win a war against a mildly difficult AI before throwing them in the deep end of PVP. You build a natural gameplay path for people to follow, which will help keep newbies focused. And you let a lot more players onto FB by giving the free players a chance to go there, as compared to the deeply anemic population there now, which should help revitalize it a fair bit.
I'd love to hear feedback from vets on this, particularly ones who have fought on FB, but I think it'd improve the game immensely.
| Wednesday, December 30, 2015 - 04:26 pm |
War levels are only one of the obstacles for PvP war. If I understand correctly, your suggestion includes the removal of war levels from Fearless Blue. Sure, that would be a step in the right direction.
But that leaves big obstacles throughout the worlds. Other worlds lack production of all weapons. That would continue to limit PvP war and development of war skills. The biggest obstacle to PvP is that it is too convoluted and time-consuming for 99% of players.
I've addressed a range of problems in my military reform bill.
| Wednesday, December 30, 2015 - 05:39 pm |
IMO, they should keep war levels on FB as a source of GC and a way of scaling C3 war difficulty, because an incentive to have a big FB country with a powerful military is a good thing for the game. But they should have no effect on PVP whatsoever. PVE is a source of money and familiarity with the game engine, PVP is a test of skill - they're not the same, and one shouldn't directly control the other.
As for your linked thread, it generally seems reasonable enough. That said, I actually do like that some weapons are FB-only, because one thing this game seriously lacks is differences between places. I think that's part of the reason for the lack of war - why bother fighting over a featureless plain where there's no benefit to owning this patch of ground over that patch? If you want to increase access to those weapons, have them trade on other world markets - let the interested players do the space logistics to move them, but let anyone build a military as desired without major hassles. (Also, it'd let us run airforce maintenance corps without needing a personal supply line back to FB for the 0.15 stealth bombers per month...*grumble*)
| Wednesday, December 30, 2015 - 06:06 pm |
Yes, the game tries to force players into the space program by limiting weapons production. Space has become yet another obstacle to PvP. But 99% of players avoid space as well.
| Wednesday, December 30, 2015 - 06:40 pm |
Space and world restrictions on a few weapons are no obstacle to PvP. I have a standing challenge to you on this forum somewhere to find me a single player that is being held up by one of these two things.
| Wednesday, December 30, 2015 - 08:36 pm |
I like space alot, i dont see a problem with it. I can transport a good amount of stuff at only around 100 shuttles so far. Plus with more shuttles theres more hauling rate if needed. it might cost more with things such as Space maintenance units, but its worth it and is a privilege to those who spent the time developing it and will actually use it. Space is one reason why i actually enjoy this game, its pretty awesome to have your own cargo fleet. Space is something i would say is an awesome feature.
As for FB, this stuffs pretty pointless ideas as most people dont want to waste the Time and Assets for war which is the reality of it. Only to gain for some but if not whats really the point? blood and assets down the drain, fun i guess to some. Lowering war levels means more easy targets and more people having to defend themselves. not bad and would make more sense but, maybe a couple countrys protected by war levels might be ransacked hehe aswell as other people would just develop and be ready to fight at low war levels which could also just lead to people leveling up more for gc's/cash since lower war level would no longer serve purpose. Though possibly still leading to the "stalemate FB" some people complain about.
P.S: there is good land to be owned in simcountry!
| Wednesday, December 30, 2015 - 08:57 pm |
You hit the real reason PvP is not more common. It comes down to incentive. In PvP, either one player losses assets and one gains or both players can lose assets. That is about it. My suggestion for "Total War" in this forum tried to address this by adding gold coin incentives to PvP. You can get coins by doing a lot of different things but not by risking your assets in PvP.
| Wednesday, December 30, 2015 - 11:41 pm |
Yeah, but I didn't have anything interesting to add to the discussion on PVP incentives. (Or at least, nothing within the realm of possibility, given the lack of dev resources).
That said, I'm totally down for a change on the incentives side as well. Or, how about this - inflicting casualties in PVP converts your workers staffing your military into professional soldiers and officers. Make the conversion rate low enough that you won't just get fake wars to spam them, but make it something players can create themselves, instead of the current occasional GM supply.
| Wednesday, December 30, 2015 - 11:59 pm |
Actually, I'll expand on that. To throw some numbers out there, currently the GM prices population at 6 GC per million, and SC$ at 30 billion per GC, while a stack of 10,000 soldiers or 3,000 officers is worth 6-8 GC. So say that for every 5 million casualties or trillion SC$ worth of damage you do to a player country, you get a stack of each. There's no arbitrage possibilities, at least not unless their price gets up over 15 GC per stack(god forbid).
For comparison, the recent Aries/Zen/Zentrino vs Blackeyes war, if we assume all involved averaged Q500 with their forces and ignore ammo destruction, would have given A/Z/Z 20 stacks of each and BE 18 stacks of each. Not enough to compensate for the damage done, of course(it never would be in so evenly matched a war), but the winners would have at least been able to get 260+ GC worth of professionals to help make the war seem a bit less tragic.
| Thursday, December 31, 2015 - 03:26 am |
After some discussion in chat, it seems my damage-based idea wouldn't work properly without a lot of work on the dev's part. I assumed the damage numbers in warfare were for destroyed weapons, but apparently I was wrong. Shame, I liked the principle there.
| Thursday, December 31, 2015 - 06:43 am |
for the record the jv team is on fb without war protection awaiting its cheerleader to arrive
| Friday, January 1, 2016 - 04:01 pm |
Regarding the lack of economic incentives for war, PvP wars were once common, without any special economic incentives. During the first half of the history of this game, PvP was frequent. There are numerous forum posts about that frequent PvP.
Then what happened to PvP? Obstacles!
The game introduced more and more obstacles to PvP. War levels, military units, supply units, restrictions on weapons production, limited forts became unlimited again. As a result, PvP plummeted and is now rare.
For most of a decade we've heard promises that the game will introduce mining of natural resources for select regions. That's supposed to provide economic incentives for war. That seems years from being ready. It will take longer if programmers divert time to other incentive schemes.
But what about the obstacles to PvP? Jonni already recognized a need to simplify logistics and maybe make some reductions. That's the way to cut some obstacles. That's the purpose of my military reform bill.
| Friday, January 1, 2016 - 04:58 pm |
Madoff, I assume you are simply so wrong on this because you are not a war player. You are a free player who only runs an enterprise. I agree with some of your obstacles, like war levels. War levels again need to be loosened, for sure. I suggested this on another thread:
"1. War levels offer no protection on FB. New empires are offered 21 days war protection. War levels still exist to offer the gold coin awards.
2. War level 3 is reverted to be like 1 and 2 and is unable to declare or be declared on by other players.
3. All players war level 4+ are free to declare or be declared on by other players."
However, the reason players were able to have assets they were simply able to throw at other players and not worry about it was due to the system of unlimited C3 raiding. I believe the change to this system was warranted, as it made raising money by econ look silly, but it needed to be replaced by something in the PvP arena. For those unfamiliar with the state of c3 raiding back then, I describe it this way on another thread:
"It was not too long ago, that for very little effort, you could be rolling in cash by raiding the set defenses of a computer opponent. Defenses that would never change, that offered no challenge, and was repeatable until the button mashing numbed your fingers.
With very little knowledge, a short guide would be sufficient, players could generate $40 trillion in an hour (being conservative). This amount of generated wealth dwarfed what was possible to be made in any other way in the game. This game cash could then been converted into gold coins. "
As to your suggestions, I still challenge you. I want you to find me the player waiting for your one of your suggestions before attempting PvP.
| Wednesday, January 6, 2016 - 09:01 am |
I think new players should be allowed to start on any world they choose. It's already clearly obvious when you select a world, that if you choose FB it's the WAR WORLD. It couldn't be more clear than it already is. Have we seen there is an issue of anybody complaining they didn't notice they were on the war world ??
The only change I'd make on the war world is to remove WL protections. I don't think WL should allow for protection on ANY worlds, because if I understand this correctly, other worlds already allow your leader nation to be in indefinite secured mode? Is it not enough that a leader nation has an invincibility forcefield? As it is now an entire small collection of nations can also hide behind such an invisible impenetrable barrier up to a certain point (that is, up to WL3 or 4 and above)?? I don't think war level zero and above should be granted protection based on WL alone. I think WL should merely be a visual indicator of a player's proven level of ability [against c3].
I think a player beginning his first leader country on the war world should be granted 1 real month of temporary protection to figure things out.
I think the only protection granted on a war world should be temporary war protection that requires gold coins, which allows for people who are not going to log in for awhile temporary war protection, or for people who can drop the coin. I don't see any issue with temporary war protection as it already is.
I find it interesting OP implies theres too many restrictions, and his solution is to change it into a restrictive world exclusive only to people who have proven themselves against AI. What about people who have no interest in proving themselves against AI on another world? What if new player had no interest in other worlds? Are you supposing that new player should be forced to play on a world he would rather not have a presence on, just so he can gain access to the world he would have rather been on in the first place? Is it not enough new player probably paid to play game, or was likely referred to game by paying player who would like new player to join on same world? Is it not unlikely that new player would decide to not be new player if he had only desired to be on war world in the first place? Some are initially drawn to econ and others military aspects of the game. It is a multiplayer geopolitical simulation game after all that allows potentially disastrous interaction with other players. Would new player be moreso surprised or amused if he was destroyed in short time on WAR WORLD? Why do you suppose we need to force new player through experiences [against machine AI] if he'd rather not, but would rather go straight towards [albeit potentially fatal] interactions with players in multiplayer game? Is it not an open ended massively multiplayer online game, or would you rather it be a more linear multiplayer game where access to all worlds are unlocked in a tiered approach not unlike leveling a character on a MMORPG but rather based on WL or game level? Regardless of these points, what is wrong with allowing a new player to join the war world and attack or be attacked by another player? Is it not . . . a WAR WORLD ??
I also find it interesting OP is writing from a world with indefinite secured mode and opinionated about world he has no presence on being too dull. I admit the war world is not as active as I had expected. Again I'll summarize with that I think the answer is to remove WL protection, not to restrict the war world to only veteran players. It's already the least populated world in the system after all.
Since we're going to be so authoritative on how the worlds should be structured, lets just make war illegal while we're at it. That'll solve a resolve a lot of issues in regards to who is authorized to war who when and where. . . .Why not just throw the entire war system out because. . . it may hurt new players ? ? oohh wait, isn't that why they call it the "Infantry" that fights in a WAR ? ?
| Wednesday, January 6, 2016 - 06:51 pm |
Newbies don't know the game very well. Letting them dive into the pool and break their neck is not a good way of increasing the population of this game, which frankly should be the first goal of the devs - a game can handle dated graphics, but not the feeling that it's a multiplayer game with no people. The idea of war is appealing, but the reality of being a war player in SC who isn't just going to ragequit once they attack someone with three tank battalions and get nuked to dust is that you need to have a big economy and solid backing before you can play seriously. If you can't beat the computer, you have no business fighting humans.
I'm not saying we should restrict it just because - I'm certainly not anti-war. I'm trying to work this into a system that will both make it *easier* to get properly established on the war world(because seriously, getting your WL up is trivial if you can read a guide, and if not you shouldn't be there in the first place, but 30 GC/month and requiring premium to maintain a FB presence is lame), and that will provide an actual in-game training path to new players who want to fight. This is as much about easing that transition as it is about looking for excuses to get rid of various kinds of protection on FB.
Also, while my world may have war protection for my main, I have an empire now with some 60 million people out of WP, and a fair bit of assets too(mostly military, for obvious reasons). I'm hardly ducking war. If you want me on FB, I'll be there soon enough, but in the meantime I'm talking to people who are there, and came to this conclusion. I've never been shy about game design, and this seems like a big improvement in a lot of directions, and easy for the devs to implement as well.
| Wednesday, January 6, 2016 - 08:56 pm |
This game is virtual, nobody actually gets hurt.
And yeah I find it ironic that your leader country has permanent secured mode and you say "I'm hardly ducking war"
But on the same note I certainly don't blame you in the least bit for taking advantage of the game mechanics, I would do the same (In fact I am DOING the same with temporary secured mode with my leader country)
But again this is a geopolitical simulation. War happens, and that means people lose wars too, and sometimes those are new people. At the end of the day they can turn off the computer if they get their feelings ohh so hurt for experiencing results from [virtual] WAR that didn't go in their favor on the WAR WORLD. I suspect that will encourage at first a emotion of disappointment soon followed by an emotion of revenge that will actually lead to fuel more participation and learning of the war system.
If you want to have a safer experience with protections from war, you have all other worlds to choose from. I think the war world is TOO restrictive as it is with permanent empire-wide WL protection from zero to 3 or 4 because you are clearly warned in the world descriptions before you claim a presence there that it is the WAR WORLD. As well by the time you get to WL 3 or 4 you should already have an idea of what to expect anyway.
I don't see how in any way encountering war or losing war on the WAR WORLD is going to run off new players. Isn't that why they selected the WAR WORLD in the first place? It's why I did. I was surprised to learn only after I rised in the war levels that I was unable to be attacked before I had done so. I didn't know what I was getting into and that seemed exciting, because I was well aware it is only a game. I had initially and mistakenly invested in defensive forces rather than offensive forces as I was expecting, as a new player, to be attacked and destroyed by a veteran player and so as such would not have been surprised in the least bit when it would of happened. Just as happens when you begin playing ANY game for the first time, you are usually swiftly defeated by the more experienced players. So I am speaking from experience as a player who began on the WAR WORLD. I found it was a lot more restrictive than I had anticipated during initial country selection process. I think it would be A LOT more interesting if it fully lived up to it's reputation as the WAR WORLD in that dealing with war should be expected if you are on it.
I hope you see the logic I've presented before you here as superior to your reasoning and why I think your proposal is in my opinion, albeit well meaning, ultimately illogical, and perhaps. . .even come around to agree with my perspective? Who knows hahaha. Of course I also hope the devs see my counter to your proposal and agree with me. I do not expect that however as I actually expect most people to disagree with me as usual. Thanks for allowing me this opportunity to outline these points on how to improve the mechanics of the WAR WORLD. I appreciate that you care about the best for my world as I do.