|
Post by psykosis on Apr 12, 2013 13:54:24 GMT -5
My main goal with switch being off is it makes position important. As is mineWe witnessed the importance of Position in the fall off LittleAngel. Indeed - and constantly since thenI don't entirely miss monks or wall either but I do miss seers. The voting odd did get people fighting for power. If there was a way to have seers again would be great or maybe just every mulitple of 42 square automatically has increased voting odds. Would create more strife and rush for power. I have no issues with Monks/Walls and think there is plenty of other alternatives game mechanics that could be used to drive their creationIf switch was to be turned on again I would take it upon myself to block the monking highway again. Not for any real reason though I love the strife it caused and I have to say that round was the most interesting one yet. My thought on HB, I dont like them. Ive never liked them but I will buy units off those who use them then Ill turn around and turn them off. Succat I didnt like how you made it so we couldnt vote off lol though if you want to vote block something make it so we cant vote switch on I think headbands could work, if they were majorly restrained/neffed. I would almost suggest that the unit production should be based off the Median opposed to the Mean units per square - this would prevent outliers (such the HB-1 square itself) causing huge ramping of units. It didn't take me too long to get HB-1 to be maxed out from a fairly fresh grid point - largely due to the HB-1 unit forcing the Mean up. If it was median, it would scale to the entire grid more so than scaling to the outlier...At pop i still say NO SWITCH. To expand you must hit people around you instead of whereever you ... please. More battling is happening without switch on. As you know, I agree 100% switch undermines much of the strategy of the game.Raze... I would like to have raze back on but thats not happening as long as spawn razing is a possiblity.. maybe if there was a way to put a delay on after spawning before you can raze..... Razing i see is a good tactical move as long as switch is off. If you can just switch to someones best square and raze it down.. not very tactical whoever has the bigger bank comes in to player there. But with no switch its who can defend better and who has better strategy. I agree - I feel saddened that I am more or less forced to vote Raze off due to the insanity/damage spawn razing can do - I was it's creator after all. I think a delay on utilization of raze after spawning would solve the spawn razing issue. Of course, lack of switch also removes the 'pop past 10 rows of squares next to someones spire and attacking/razing' issue.@pop again Green is my favorite color xD so glad you used it or my name
|
|
Philoten
Ronin Warlock
I am un-biased in certain matters.
Posts: 34
|
Post by Philoten on Apr 12, 2013 23:18:23 GMT -5
Okay, First things First....
Succat, I have noticed that the yak, news feed, and command logs are considerably shorter.... yak im not to worried about but the news feed and command log I beleive needs to be lengthened as I missed some new and logs over night.. which was only about a 4-5 hour span for me...
well that was pretty much it so First thing was last as well... soooo... yeah.. -Phi-God & PHI-GOD
|
|
|
Post by succat on Apr 13, 2013 1:49:12 GMT -5
Thanks Phigod, recently I've been playing with the way the game screen fetches information out of the database and I probably mucked something up, so I'll investigate hopefully this weekend if I have time. About "Switch" command, I thought the conversation between Phi and Pop was really interesting so thanks for posting that, and also Psykosis made good points as always on that topic. So, I'm kinda mixed on the subject of Switch. On the one hand I do agree that it changes the strategy of the game quite a bit with Switch 'on' to a strategy that is less Risk-the-board-game-like and more to like how Pop describes as a "Grab & Go" kind of strategy, which I don't necessarily think is bad - it's just a different way of playing the game. The reason I like 'Switch' is because it makes the Grid more dynamic, I think, and as a player it gives you more options as Pop was saying, and it makes The Grid less like a claustrophobic closet and more like a lake where you can paddle to wherever you want, or with Wildcard, you can teleport over to another place instantly. Of course, that takes away the Risk-like strategy which this game was sort of built on and replaces it with what I think is just something that is kind of cool. Switch is cool, it's a fun command, I think, and without it how could you make pilgrimages? Pilgrimages are cool, too, and so are Monks. Who doesn't love Monks? Now, with that said, I also think that Switch could have been implemented better than it was, and it's my fault for that, but honestly - it was like a spur-of-the-moment command. One minute, I'm noticing my kitchen floor for the first time in 3 years - and it's grid shaped like with these tiles, and I'm imagining the tiles switching places with each other and that gives me the idea for 'Switch'. Around that same time (or shortly after, I don't remember) I'm watching a documentary on Dalai Lama and it gave me the idea to use Switch for Pilgrimages. It's kind of crazy and doesn't really 'fit in' in many ways with The Grid - but it's just one of those things that felt cool, so I had to try it out. Now, I get what Phi and Psy are saying too that position is important and who your alliances are and how you've established yourself in the game socially are important parts to this game as well. There is a lot of diplomacy in this game and Psy is the best I've seen at utilizing that aspect. Other players have shown other ways of winning too by their creativity and craftiness or just pushing through long and hard until they got a victory, showing a lot of determination and smart, balanced play. I don't know what the right answer is and maybe there isn't one. What I want is a game where you do have to be good at a lot of different things to win - not just one aspect. That's kind of a hard thing to pull off, though. I want strategy, board positioning, social status all to be important, and yet I also want there still to be an element of complete unpredictability where virtually anyone could rule The Grid with the perfect combination of enough luck and smart moves. I'm still clueless how to pull off having that kind of a combination, so it's still a work a progress. In the meantime you've had to suffer through crazy Headbands and Switching Acolytes! So, what I would like to do is make some kind of a compromise. I would like to see Switch being used in the game, and even Wildcard and Pilgrimages, BUT I think they should be toned down. As was mentioned, Switch & Wildcard make it easy for a big player to do whatever they want, but for a Noob, it's almost perfect for them. What if Switch worked so that you can only switch or use WildCard based on the opposite of your Grid 'worth' - the measure of a player based on most of their assets. So, if you're rated #1 on top of the Stock Markets because of your worth, then switch will cost you 100% energy to use. And a Wildcard means you can only flip 1 square away. But, say you are rated as 10 on the Stocks, so you are ranking #10 in 'worth', then in that case Switch costs 90% energy and the most squares you could Wildcard-taxi-ride-over to at a time would be 10 squares away. And as The Grid would grow larger maybe at some point, still the maximum number of squares you could wildcard to would be 100 at a time, but you'de have to be ranked 100 or <100 on the SME to be that mobile. You can see how this pattern would just continue, making it easier and easier for the Noobs to use, less used by bigger players because they'd have to spend so much energy to switch and would hardly be able to wildcard very far each time. In the beginning of rounds people would be pretty even so there would be a lot more switching and monking-up early on, and there's not a ton of strategy in the beginning of rounds either because of all the shifts of power and spawning and abandoning until players begin to settle in more and have a chance to start building (re-building) and discovering. Then as the bigger players begin to emerge they become more and more confined to their squares and can't move away from them much, but the smaller, or more noobish players have a lot more mobility. Also, I like the idea with Headbands to use a median unit range instead of the average. Do need to go back to the drawing board with Headbands, though - I still want them in the game at some point if they can be tweaked right, but I haven't figured out how to make all aspects of them as balanced as possible, if that's the right way to put it...
|
|
Philoten
Ronin Warlock
I am un-biased in certain matters.
Posts: 34
|
Post by Philoten on Apr 13, 2013 2:24:55 GMT -5
Thanks Phigod, recently I've been playing with the way the game screen fetches information out of the database and I probably mucked something up, so I'll investigate hopefully this weekend if I have time. No problem as I wish to help and will keep my eyes out for any issues I may findAbout "Switch" command, I thought the conversation between Phi and Pop was really interesting so thanks for posting that, and also Psykosis made good points as always on that topic. So, I'm kinda mixed on the subject of Switch. On the one hand I do agree that it changes the strategy of the game quite a bit with Switch 'on' to a strategy that is less Risk-the-board-game-like and more to like how Pop describes as a "Grab & Go" kind of strategy, which I don't necessarily think is bad - it's just a different way of playing the game. IMO, a grab a go 'strategy' style is not the way to go as it makes taking the largest squares easier which makes all those defenses you built up to protect it.. worthless. I would like to see raze turned back on when a way to solve the spawn razing issue has been developed. But with this Grab and Go method accompanied by raze; you would have madness, people switching in taking your best square because all your defenses are pretty much voided with switch then razing your best money making square to the ground. Nothing would ever get accomplished as everyone would just be razing the big squares setting everyone farther back. Granted now it gets more stagnant with our current players but I am thinking in the long run when we have possible 100's of players. It just won't work properly. The reason I like 'Switch' is because it makes the Grid more dynamic, I think, and as a player it gives you more options as Pop was saying, and it makes The Grid less like a claustrophobic closet and more like a lake where you can paddle to wherever you want, or with Wildcard, you can teleport over to another place instantly. Of course, that takes away the Risk-like strategy which this game was sort of built on and replaces it with what I think is just something that is kind of cool. Switch is cool, it's a fun command, I think, and without it how could you make pilgrimages? Pilgrimages are cool, too, and so are Monks. Who doesn't love Monks? TBH I don't care to much for monks units are just as good as a defense. As the saying goes 'The best defense is a great offense'. I believe there should still be monks though yet other ways of aquiring them besides pilgrimages(because ill fight to the death and go all PHI-GOD on people keep switch off). WC I do not like, It's the same issue I have with switching but to a much worse degree. With WC high units is all that matter because you can just teleport behind enemy lines not having to worry about fighting you way through, even worse you can move your target square right next you your squares and place a useless square in it original place. Making it more difficult for the original owner to retrieve his squares. I have use the WC before to stop someone from switching closer for attacks they are slowly moving and you WC to the other side of the grid and since most smaller players dont hold WC its just a PITA for them. This gives TOO much power to the larger players and is just unfair all around.Now, with that said, I also think that Switch could have been implemented better than it was, and it's my fault for that, but honestly - it was like a spur-of-the-moment command. One minute, I'm noticing my kitchen floor for the first time in 3 years - and it's grid shaped like with these tiles, and I'm imagining the tiles switching places with each other and that gives me the idea for 'Switch'. Around that same time (or shortly after, I don't remember) I'm watching a documentary on Dalai Lama and it gave me the idea to use Switch for Pilgrimages. It's kind of crazy and doesn't really 'fit in' in many ways with The Grid - but it's just one of those things that felt cool, so I had to try it out. I understand it was a spur of the moment thing but this is why we talk things out and improve upon it Now, I get what Phi and Psy are saying too that position is important and who your alliances are and how you've established yourself in the game socially are important parts to this game as well. There is a lot of diplomacy in this game and Psy is the best I've seen at utilizing that aspect. Other players have shown other ways of winning too by their creativity and craftiness or just pushing through long and hard until they got a victory, showing a lot of determination and smart, balanced play. This is my goal for it to be based on many aspects and not just who has the largest bank and highest unit counts. Switch just kills the biggest strategy part of this game.I don't know what the right answer is and maybe there isn't one. What I want is a game where you do have to be good at a lot of different things to win - not just one aspect. That's kind of a hard thing to pull off, though. I want strategy, board positioning, social status all to be important, and yet I also want there still to be an element of complete unpredictability where virtually anyone could rule The Grid with the perfect combination of enough luck and smart moves. I'm still clueless how to pull off having that kind of a combination, so it's still a work a progress. In the meantime you've had to suffer through crazy Headbands and Switching Acolytes! This is a difficult task to find the right combination but we are all here to help you weed out the so-so ideas and bring in nothing but the best.So, what I would like to do is make some kind of a compromise. I would like to see Switch being used in the game, and even Wildcard and Pilgrimages, BUT I think they should be toned down. As was mentioned, Switch & Wildcard make it easy for a big player to do whatever they want, but for a Noob, it's almost perfect for them. What if Switch worked so that you can only switch or use WildCard based on the opposite of your Grid 'worth' - the measure of a player based on most of their assets. So, if you're rated #1 on top of the Stock Markets because of your worth, then switch will cost you 100% energy to use. And a Wildcard means you can only flip 1 square away. I am unsure about this and would probably have to see it implemented and experiment with it a few rounds as both a big player and a small player before I can make a desicion on this but I will let you know I am willing to try.But, say you are rated as 10 on the Stocks, so you are ranking #10 in 'worth', then in that case Switch costs 90% energy and the most squares you could Wildcard-taxi-ride-over to at a time would be 10 squares away. And as The Grid would grow larger maybe at some point, still the maximum number of squares you could wildcard to would be 100 at a time, but you'de have to be ranked 100 or <100 on the SME to be that mobile. Again, I will need to experiment for a real response. On a side note, is the SME going to be fixed or are you going to just take out the buying/selling shares portion of it as it is useless at only 1000 shares. If we could buy 1,000,000 shares or no shares that wouldn't bother me but the 1000 shares is killing me as there is nothing I can do with it.You can see how this pattern would just continue, making it easier and easier for the Noobs to use, less used by bigger players because they'd have to spend so much energy to switch and would hardly be able to wildcard very far each time. In the beginning of rounds people would be pretty even so there would be a lot more switching and monking-up early on, and there's not a ton of strategy in the beginning of rounds either because of all the shifts of power and spawning and abandoning until players begin to settle in more and have a chance to start building (re-building) and discovering. Then as the bigger players begin to emerge they become more and more confined to their squares and can't move away from them much, but the smaller, or more noobish players have a lot more mobility. I have stated my statement on this alreadyAlso, I like the idea with Headbands to use a median unit range instead of the average. Do need to go back to the drawing board with Headbands, though - I still want them in the game at some point if they can be tweaked right, but I haven't figured out how to make all aspects of them as balanced as possible, if that's the right way to put it... I have a disliking of Headbands, but HB in itself is a good idea but things progress too quick with them and they capped out early causing super squares. When in early grid you reach 1mil units plus there is a large fear factor which stops many people from rebeling and workign together to bring it down. 1mil worth of units is too much to handle early grid... now you have nerfed them a bit and I will have to see them in action next round early grid. I might actually use them to test their nerfed ways out.Well that's my opinion on it
|
|
|
Post by psykosis on Apr 13, 2013 12:44:37 GMT -5
Regarding Switch, I think perhaps we need to separate out the two main elements: Switching of normal squares to the adjacent square and Wildcards.
Wildcards Wildcards, while I absolutely love having them as a player - who tends to be on the higher end of the power-spectrum - as they allow me to have a form of blanket protection. It is less important that I highly defend any square, as I can just simply zap on down with a powerful wildcard at will. Likewise, it allows me to follow through on threats, etc. They are highly beneficial to me typically and the amount of damage I have done with them is pretty staggering. Which is exactly the reason I feel they should be gone - they tend to increase my strength and ability to manipulate things. Heck, I have forced wins on votes simply by 'district re-aligning' naysayers.
Switch Switch, however, is not quite as dire of a situation - and my main complaint with switch itself is the ability to just switch through rows and rows of enemy squares just to get to their gold-mine square. This is completely ridiculous of a concept if you think about it. However, I think I offer a solution to this main complaint: Rights of Passages
Proposed Compromise: Rights of Passage Rights of Passage would act similar to Embassies and Alliances, where you pre-grant the right for particular people to be able to switch with your squares - and revoked at will. This would allow for movement through allies while still preventing the 'switching through rows and rows of enemy units', which is my main gripe.
|
|
|
Post by CaliLove on Apr 13, 2013 14:02:33 GMT -5
HEY EVERYONE. I would love to look at all the posts i missed, but the amount kinda deters me from doing so. Just a quick little thing, a suggestion. It'd be cool to have flags on the Ranks screen, in my opinion. I'm very glad to see Succat is still keeping this game up and running -As with all of my ideas, feel free to trash it, edit it, or praise it, as to offend me, you would have to try.
|
|
Philoten
Ronin Warlock
I am un-biased in certain matters.
Posts: 34
|
Post by Philoten on Apr 13, 2013 15:11:22 GMT -5
HEY EVERYONE. I would love to look at all the posts i missed, but the amount kinda deters me from doing so. Just a quick little thing, a suggestion. It'd be cool to have flags on the Ranks screen, in my opinion. I'm very glad to see Succat is still keeping this game up and running -As with all of my ideas, feel free to trash it, edit it, or praise it, as to offend me, you would have to try. All hail Calilove ;P and the game changing idea ;D
|
|
Philoten
Ronin Warlock
I am un-biased in certain matters.
Posts: 34
|
Post by Philoten on Apr 13, 2013 17:44:46 GMT -5
Regarding Switch, I think perhaps we need to separate out the two main elements: Switching of normal squares to the adjacent square and Wildcards. WildcardsWildcards, while I absolutely love having them as a player - who tends to be on the higher end of the power-spectrum - as they allow me to have a form of blanket protection. It is less important that I highly defend any square, as I can just simply zap on down with a powerful wildcard at will. Likewise, it allows me to follow through on threats, etc. They are highly beneficial to me typically and the amount of damage I have done with them is pretty staggering.One reason they should be gone Which is exactly the reason I feel they should be gone - they tend to increase my strength and ability to manipulate things. Heck, I have forced wins on votes simply by 'district re-aligning' naysayers. Agreed, too much power to the large players. Even if players can fight for votes switch them out of said domains make it too hard for them to keep a vote.SwitchSwitch, however, is not quite as dire of a situation - and my main complaint with switch itself is the ability to just switch through rows and rows of enemy squares just to get to their gold-mine square. This is completely ridiculous of a concept if you think about it. However, I think I offer a solution to this main complaint: Rights of Passages We have the same issue enemies have to much ease of access to all your squares.Proposed Compromise: Rights of PassageRights of Passage would act similar to Embassies and Alliances, where you pre-grant the right for particular people to be able to switch with your squares - and revoked at will. This would allow for movement through allies while still preventing the 'switching through rows and rows of enemy units', which is my main gripe. This... I actually could go for, I know everyone is shocked right now, (A form of switch Phil might like NO WAY) but if it is allowed I can work with it. As you can decided who can an cannot switch with you, Some players could still play as if there was no switch (i.e. not allowing ANY player to switch with them) Would cause a bit of distrust if you don't allow people to switch but hey some people will understand at least with me and my hate of switch. But this would solve my main concern though I suggest when attacked by some you have a Rite of Passage with the rite is automatically canceled. This would stop people from getting rights of passage then switching and attack as soon as the other person goes offline allowing them to take good squares and switch away. With this they would have to at least fight their way out after 'breaking the treaty'.
|
|
Philoten
Ronin Warlock
I am un-biased in certain matters.
Posts: 34
|
Post by Philoten on Apr 13, 2013 17:55:20 GMT -5
I have already reported to Succat an issue ive been having with the grid, player list on the home grid screen, and command log updating. I seem to be having an issue and I have to refresh manually to see anything that happens. Is anyone else having this issue?
|
|
Philoten
Ronin Warlock
I am un-biased in certain matters.
Posts: 34
|
Post by Philoten on Apr 16, 2013 1:52:59 GMT -5
Succat there is an issue with wiping when you annex the last square.. grid doesnt reset.. i need to be cridited with my second wipe lol I have amusing sentence carved in the grid btw lol
|
|
|
Post by psykosis on Apr 16, 2013 7:33:32 GMT -5
Succat there is an issue with wiping when you annex the last square.. grid doesnt reset.. i need to be cridited with my second wipe lol I have amusing sentence carved in the grid btw lol In regards to conquering the entire Grid, it is possible to accomplish. Credit will be given to those who are determined enough, and then The Grid will be reset again so that all of the players are on an even playing field. The last player to conquer The Grid will be unable to conquer The Grid again for 3 days since their last conquest, although they may control every obtainable square. A Grid 'Wipe' occurs when the last remaining obtainable square is attacked and conquered, not annexed. ~Rules page Now - with that said, and seeing how there were a couple more wipes afterwards when no one else is around - perhaps there should be a mandatory 24 hours before another wipe by anyone. It seems there is a strong advantage to those outside the typical US timezones after a reset, as they are often the only ones available. Frankly, I'd argue that everyone should have the opportunity to at least spawn before another wipe...
|
|
Philoten
Ronin Warlock
I am un-biased in certain matters.
Posts: 34
|
Post by Philoten on Apr 16, 2013 9:54:32 GMT -5
In regards to conquering the entire Grid, it is possible to accomplish. Credit will be given to those who are determined enough, and then The Grid will be reset again so that all of the players are on an even playing field. The last player to conquer The Grid will be unable to conquer The Grid again for 3 days since their last conquest, although they may control every obtainable square. A Grid 'Wipe' occurs when the last remaining obtainable square is attacked and conquered, not annexed. ~Rules page Now - with that said, and seeing how there were a couple more wipes afterwards when no one else is around - perhaps there should be a mandatory 24 hours before another wipe by anyone. It seems there is a strong advantage to those outside the typical US timezones And philoten the insomniac after a reset, as they are often the only ones available. Frankly, I'd argue that everyone should have the opportunity to at least spawn before another wipe... I agree with this idea as 24 hours would give everyone a chance to respawn and fight instead of ridicuolus speed wipes. I am also pushing that if this gets implemtned those who got thier easy speed wipes (didnt really earn them) and it should only be credited as a half wipe.
|
|
Philoten
Ronin Warlock
I am un-biased in certain matters.
Posts: 34
|
Post by Philoten on Apr 16, 2013 11:36:33 GMT -5
Spawning with negative money - Since spawning on a un annexed squares causes you to spawn in debt. Since the rebels causing negative money you succat have fixed that, though Sorin who spawned and had -100k income I placed a rebel on him and because of the fix the next hh he was debt free... that gives to much power in early grid... needs to be fixedAnd I suggest we go back to original situation to many rebels you start losing money. People will have to not extract from embassies in order to not lose money, but if they keep extracting it they fault the can always help by removing rebels lol
|
|
|
Post by CaliLove on Apr 17, 2013 14:04:10 GMT -5
I am 100% the anti-grid-wiping-parties. I thought way back, that was made to be prevented.
|
|
|
Post by Dubber on Apr 17, 2013 17:55:03 GMT -5
None of this is enticing me to want to think about starting back up. Reset to the default rules (Grid 0.1 rules - those which were in place when *I* started) and make everyone really earn their keep
|
|