Here is next concept I am looking at to improve the game.

1. Rankings are based on SCORE. Has nothing to do with EXP or combat.

2. SCORE is based on points earned each turn by capturing Castles, Gemponds, Mines, Quarries and Woodmills. (Casltes = 50 points, Gemponds = +20 points, others = +10 points per turn).

3. Gems, Metal, Stone, Wood no longer exist as resources.

4. All things are purchased by Gold only. Gold is still gained by techs and goldmines and castles. Gold is the only real resource.


This is a big change in the way games are ranked.
Its no longer about who can kill the most troops, but rather who can hold onto these key resources buildings (gemponds are huge bonuses) for the longest time.

Those that sit back and build up forces miss out on earning points as they would only have their own resource buildings earning them points. It becomes very important to go out an capture, and HOLD, as many as possible for as long as possible.

Using only GOLD as a resource also simplifies the mechanics alot, making it easier to balance things, and calculate what you need and can afford while playing.
It also allows greater control of techs and future developments without having to worry about 5 different resources.

The most exciting part IMO is the new scoring though, and the way it changes the dynamic of the game.

Last Edited : Thursday, 9 October 2008 - 15:47

I don't think this is going to be liked (i.e. at least the scoring part).

Last Edited : Wednesday, 8 October 2008 - 21:27

huh? i dont get it TR.

can we keep posts constructive and on topic?

I wonder whether or not you are oversimplifying the game. People like killing each other and conquering their castles and land. I think the majority of players play not to collect mines, but to wail away. I understand you can still do that, but now we're ranked not by how much slaughter and bloodshed we caused, but how long we hold a mine. Now, it's, "look! I slaughtered 3,000 Renno's, sacked his castle and eliminated him from the face of this game!" But you will make it, "Look! I held on to 30 mines for 50 turns!" Doesn't quite have the same ring.

Also, going only gold, takes away from planning and managing ALL the resources currently available. Sure, you may be short wood trying to support your balista fetish, but it's a choice you make. A choice that may haunt you when that squire army comes knocking on your door. You are now suggesting that balista will not be a management of resource, but simply having enough gold.

My thought about this change is...don't dumb down the game too much.

ditto

rex

i kinda like the current scoring system but maybe i can deal with the new one but no way can i deal with the this new Resource system i would hate that..sorry i'm not being constructive..but i'm just putting it out there

we used to have to build our own resources.even food if i remeber correct.take your time on the new changes

what do you hate about it?

remember, troops already have Barracks points and then Gold on top of that. thats 2 resources.

whats the point of having 6 total? especially when all the resources are abundant, and all the troops use almost the same resources?

especially in many games where resources are so abundant that players have so much excess resources (altho gold is short), that whether a troop/tech costs metal or stone it pointless.

I like the change to the troop system but I must say I like the killing being how you win the game rather than what you control...

Ranged use up much more wood. Mace take up much more metal. It is strategic when seiging your opponent to take away wood and metal resources and thus limit their ability to produce decent troops to defend. Now, if it's all gold, there will be no strategy or thought in what to deploy or make.

as i mentined to Neb in IRC, the current system is based on EXP gained and EXP lost. Its not about how many kills you make.

this just reinforces the current build the biggest army and swarm tactics, and doesnt show who controlled the largest areas.

its more realistic to score based on who controlled the largest areas the longest, and is more strategic too.

it also helps in ganging up, as if 2 players attack your mine (township), right now, they share the EXP. But in the new system, only 1 player can take the mine, so who gets it? It drastically reduces the attractiveness of ganging up on people. Everyone is an enemy!

i too prefer the , stratigic aspect of more resources, im losing in a camp and winning in a camp right now because of resource management you take that out, and i feel it will just turn into a slug fest of all ten pop scouts or spears to counter them , with no reason to make anything else

as for the score , i could give a rats @$$ about it im here to play i dont really care where i rank against other people as long as i have fun playing

To me holding back invaders, conquering enemies and capturing their territories and building walls to maintain a large empire appeals to me ok, but I knew others might not like it.

However, as far as resources, I wish there were more (even as many as ten) and I wish we could build our own like a long time ago where the terrain allows them and I wish the terrain had more productive places than others and I wish we could build farms again and have everything require manpower.

The more to do the better ...
slow the game down with a myriad of things to do.

rex

I think a blended system would be more attractive. Allow resources to contribute somewhat to the score, but keep combat as an equal or more contributor as well.

That way, the game could be won by the strongest warrior or the best economist.

I do agree that the current system has flaws. In my last campaign, the last two players in the game got huge armies and ran around each other a lot. We took each others' castles and resources, and nobody fought to keep them, because at that point they didn't matter. I would love to see a system where the area you controlled mattered.

I'm not articulating this very well, but I've been out of the game for a while...

Let me try again.

(1. Keep all the resources. Like Neb has said, resource management IS much more challenging than you're making it out to be. It's the driving factor in duels, for instance. Figuring out the right balance of gems, metal, and wood is TOUGH...and sure, we're drowning in more stone than we know what to do with...until that crucial stage where we start building towers, and we start regretting the 5000 stone we sold early in the game.

(2. Keep combat as a significant, if not the most significant, way of earning points. If it's entirely economy, a player can reach a point where he's so far ahead that, even if he were to lose most of his territory, his opponents couldn't catch up. With combat playing a role, his getting slaughtered in battle provides a quick measurement of his diminished stature (and score).

(3. Add on economy as a method of earning points, but my preference would be to keep it small (maybe 75% combat, 25% economy). This would be enough to discourage a player with a large lead in score to merely hole up in a super-defended castle. With our current, 100% combat system, you have NO hope of killing enough of his troops to make up your deficit. If economy played a role, he'd be forced to defend his whole kingdom in order to maintain his lead.

I would suggest objects that could be moved an held. Like a steal the flag type. Gems Relics etc. I would also enjoy some kind of kidnapping or prisoner taking type situations. It's good to see you spending time on your game here regardless. Cheers!

The way I see it is that the effort that can be put into the game has been balanced by the unit turn system (i.e. each unit can be used only once per turn)

So there isn't the excuse given years ago that some folks can get ahead by being more attentive to the game, but now instead there is every reason to give folks the kind of game they want with as much management as possible.

Stripping the game down isn't the answer ...
people like a house with furniture, paint on the walls and running water (hmm water (another resource? (aqueducts?)). Manpower makes a game very interesting, especially when adding more increases production.

PS:
We need the half-stacks also because Dino made a good point about commandeers not having to be full stacks for various tasks for a good example.

rex

Last Edited : Thursday, 9 October 2008 - 00:02

Please excuse the double post, but stripping the game down IS the answer if it's too much for the server and there has been some suttle slowness on occassion recently

and when you mention a cap on troop count, the server comes to mind
So if that's the reason, do as you must as far as I'm concerned.

rex

And how would the score system for Battles and Duels be treated then?

First of all i don't like the idea either, because sitting next to a inactive player becomes even more important with this. normally you have an advantage because you could take his castle over, but at that time it didn't get you much more exp. when you do now, and you are able to take over his castle, gempond and 3 resource building, it gets you 80! exp points every turn, which the other players do not have.

Battles are last-man-standing, so no change there.

Duels would use the new system same as Campaigns.

With inactives, why would other players next to the inactive also try to take the free buildings? Plus, early on your numbers are small, so spreading out too quickly can also spell disaster. You may have a few turns of extra points, but that wont help you later if other players want in on those extra buildings.

Would it be possible to start a few games with this new set-up and then see how it works out? i am not very convinced yet, but lets try