26 (edited by Xeno 07-Oct-2013 03:10:21)

Re: Change to make attacking more rewarding

You_Fool wrote:

Xeno: making attacking less active is not the way to go, it needs to be rewarding but still require skill and perseverance. The people who are most active and most skilled should be the ones winning the game. Skill should make up for some loss of activity, and increased activity can make up for skill. This is proper and correct.Giving tools to make attacking easier, like auto-retakes or similar, is counter-productive.


Nothing personal, You_Fool, but I wholly disagree with your way of thinking.  Your adamant adherence to the ideological-based opinion that activity 'should' be the decisive factor is a disservice to the game's potential and an insult to the players.

Rather, automation is quintessential to the game's development and its survival.  You attract players by making it fun and enjoyable for them, not cumbersome and unnecessarily time consuming.

Forcing players to log in for no other reason than to send aid: insulting.

Forcing players to have to log in again and again every few ticks to do mindless, repetitive retakes: insulting.

And when they do take the time to do so, making them right click, open window, right click, open new tab, right click, open new tab, just to recall their transports:  INSULTING

The new method in fleet view where you have a list of planets where you have stationed fleets and check boxes so as to recall them was a move in the right direction but is still insufficient.  What do you do when you want to leave portions of your fleet?  The same as before: right click, open window, right click, open new tab, right click, open new tab, etc., etc. for every attack you've made.  For only then does it give you the option to recall portions of the unit type of a fleet from a particular planet. 

Why do you adhere to the doctrine of unnecessarily insulting and wasting the time of the players you are suppoed to design the game to attract?

Forcing players to have to open multiple windows / tabs and take 30 minutes of the tick, every tick, just to build infra effectively: insulting.  Not having building queuing / auto-building by present percentages of GC resource allocation for infra-building = insult.

Forcing players to schedule their day around a game so that they log on at the proper time to do the necessary action: click attack, click planet, recall portions of fleets, then click attack, click planet, recall portions of fleets, click attack, etc., etc.: insulting.  Not providing a little check box next to the fleet in fleet view where you can select all fleets or individual fleets to attack on arrival at their destination and recall bombers %, fighters %, droids %, soldiers %, droids % after battle, and queue building OB% of lasers at location if attack is successful; not providing the OPTION to select auto retaking on that and other planets; not providing the option for the player to select to send x amount of such and such units of fleet to that planet or even ALL newly attacked planets; not providing queue actions of builds that should be conducted on that planet in the event the re-take is successful; not providing the option to auto-op every such and such # of ticks so that you and the whole fam can be updated regularly on how many lasers are built on targeted players' planets; not providing these options = insult, insult, insult, insult, insult, and insult.

Who are you or even Stefan for that matter to decide a player doesn't deserve the OPTION not to have to waste their time ding boring cumbersome stuff?

And by the way, skill would still determine the outcome of the game even in the event full automation were provided as an OPTION for players, because they would still have to adjust their presets according to round events.

Again, not providing the option is an INSULT to the potential of this game and the players.

And you wonder why this game isn't successful?

Again, nothing personal, You Fool, but because of your stubborn adherence to your ideological delusion of the necessity of ACTIVITY as having to be the determining factor.

Ultimately, it is how people in charge of this game's development is what is killing this game's potential.

I hope you and they rethink their preconceptions about how this game 'should' be and invest a little imagination in considering what it 'could' become with automation.

Read more here:

http://imperialconflict.com/forum/viewt … 0#p1687900

Re: Change to make attacking more rewarding

Xeno: I pushing this 'ideology"  on how to play this game because I am not an idiot. I hardly play facebook games, but that is where I go if I want quick mindless games. IC is not a mindless facebook game, it is a thoughtful intelligent strategic game played against intelligent skilled opposition. If we made it your way there may as well be stupid AI enemies. Or even why play at all, just have it all computer controlled and us 'players' can just idle and observe. That is tottaly going to save this game.

So you do have the option of not doing the so called boring shit by leaving the game and playing facebook games.

If you were going to bring in automation it would have to provide a penalty to build/travel times so that there was no benefit. As I said, the only thing I liked is some of the queuing concept, but no automation in attacking or building. To grow the player base we do need to increase the strategic/tactical content, make it more about skill yes, rather than too much activity, but automation does not do that. Activity should still be important though, the game will become a farce if I could win the round by logging on 1x a day (or week) over others who log in every hour or so. No matter how crappy that person is they should still be somewhere near the top of the rankings due to sheer determination, whilst assuming I was playing with some skill (ha!) then I should also be ok in the rankings. (Case in point Supernova I log in maybe 2x a day on a good day and come top 20 - given my activity/commitment levels I wouldn't expect any better - maybe if I attacked with purpose I could *maybe* push top 15 or even 10 but no higher without being much much more active)

However the strategic/tactical side of the game has lost its edge with attacking, it is now about getting the most econ, and avoiding major conflicts. Render and I are throwing up concepts that will hopefully mean an increase in importance of attacking / fair and tough wars without devaluing the skill of playing the game (which rightfully should be preserved). Your changes make the skill of the player unimportant (or at least devalue the skill so much it makes no point), so why would anyone play?




Some of it is also improving the visual/aesthetic nature of the game as well

"Sticks and stones may break my bones, but i am Jesus"
"Nothing is worse than a fully prepared fool"

28 (edited by Xeno 08-Oct-2013 00:03:47)

Re: Change to make attacking more rewarding

notanidiot wrote:

Your changes make the skill of the player unimportant (or at least devalue the skill so much it makes no point), so why would anyone play?

You are assuming wrongly that skill and activity wouldn't be decisive factor, because even in full automation mode, it would be the player's presets and how the player changes those presets over the course of the round which would determine the outcome.  Thus, if the player is active and makes beneficial changes to their presets often enough, they would experience an advantage over players who aren't active enough to make such timely, beneficial changes to their empire's presets.  And of course they would still have to be skilled enough to know when making a change to which particular preset would provide them some advantage.

What players wouldn't have to do is do is the unskilled, mindless, unenjoyable activity that makes them feel this game is a waste of their time: the mundane activities that should be delegated to automated processes, such as building infra on every single planet one at a time, or conducting PIs to send retake fleets because they hadn't logged on in 6 hours since the attacks and expect the enemy had probably built lasers. 

After finishing their PIs on 10 of the 25 planets they lost since they last logged in, they've run out of ops for anything else.  And yet, during the six + hours that they hadn't logged in, they were at maximum ops allotted.  With some automation, they could have made use of those ops. 

Think about it.  How many players actually use all 10 ops on a continuous rotating basis, so they are making maximum use of their allot ops?  With auto-opping feature, when allotted ops have recharged maximum (I think it is 10 now), their empire can conduct PIs and PIs on pre-selected family's planets and have the results of those ops automatically updated to the family's galactic  map for all family members to see.

The automation system would provide for no redundant PIs, with no two players wasting ops on the same planet within say 6 ticks or 10, or 24 - whatever threshold the player selects.

This is just one form of automation that would improve the players' experience.

Again, your assumption is that with full automation, the player wouldn't have anything to do and, moreover, that they would have an advantage over other players simply because they use automation is false.  Even in an IC game universe where there were automation, players would opt not to use certain functions of automation because they feel they could do a better job themselves  And they probably would.

There's absolutely no reason not to design the game to provide for player's OPTION to use automation.  Summarily dismissing the notion is draconian.

We're talking about providing an OPTION here, not forcing people to use it.

You are forcing people NOT to use it, and that is simply unacceptable.

Re: Change to make attacking more rewarding

I envision IC becoming a system whereby there are multiple permanent galaxies, where any player who purchases the God-mode client and owns a computer powerful enough to act as a server can run a galaxy, not of tens or even hundreds of star systems but literally millions, if not billions, just as there are in real galaxies, galaxies in which thousands if not millions of players might maintain empires tasked with trying to conquer it.

Automation for such will be necessary.

30 (edited by Xeno 08-Oct-2013 00:32:08)

Re: Change to make attacking more rewarding

I mean, You_Fool.  Come now, maybe you think data entry is a fun game, but most players (who would play this game) want to strategize rather than data entry.

We should leave the data-entry to the computer and free the player to do what they come here to do: stratagize.

Re: Change to make attacking more rewarding

Xeno: I have nothing to say to you if you think facebook games are the epitome of strategy games

"Sticks and stones may break my bones, but i am Jesus"
"Nothing is worse than a fully prepared fool"

Re: Change to make attacking more rewarding

You_Fool wrote:

Xeno: I have nothing to say to you if you think facebook games are the epitome of strategy games

Well, I don't, and no where did I say so or insinuate, such of course, so say what you must.

Re: Change to make attacking more rewarding

Xeno: You style of game you want IC to be is eactly a facebook game devoid of skill or enjoyment - you just can't see that.

"Sticks and stones may break my bones, but i am Jesus"
"Nothing is worse than a fully prepared fool"