Grid 3.0 Discussion Thread

[psykosis]

Succat and myself have been discussing creating a new, new grid (The Grid 3.0). The purpose of this thread is to gather thoughts about what works well and what not so well in the current implementation, as well as other thoughts around what a new (new) grid should be.

One key aspect I personally believe needs to happen is the next iteration of the grid needs to have a highly functional mobile device interface - ideally, native applications (which will also, imho, will aid in bringing in new bloody). This does not mean that there cannot be a similar, text centric UI also - but rather the possibility of multiple UI's suited to different devices. This is the only thing I am pretty hellbent on (and one of the most common complaints I hear on the grid currently).

As far as the game mechanics, I think we should consider things from the grounds up. Obviously, the 'squares' kind of are a key aspect of what makes the grid, The Grid. But mechanics such as Happy Hour/Income and whatnot are open to discussion. For example, perhaps income should auto-deposit, thus removing some of the differential between the users on for hours per day vs. users who are on less frequently.

Other fundamental elements to determine is - how long should a round last? How much should the ruleset encourage war?

So I open this up: What does everything think a Grid 3.0 should be?

(I'll drop more of my thoughts later, but I been procrastinating this 'intro' post for a week as is. )

[krossfire]

Well, for starters, I think that Io's logarithmic farm solution should be implemented (I can dig it up out of the old thread if necessary, but the gist of it is that all farms cost the same amount (like 100g), but you get decreasing returns on a square, so a soft cap as opposed to a hard cap)

I think autobanking is a good idea, it will increase income for everyone (the always online players will have more money to steal/embassy). I know an idea that was thrown around a while ago was banks that can be built on a square that autobanks a certain amount of that square's income every turn.

I think we should consider returning missiles (I dont know if you ever used those, I think they were only on the old grid), but decrease their effectiveness or increase their price, as they were often used to make attacks very easy.


Actually, I think combat in general could be expanded. Definitely replace the current odds system with maybe attack/defense stats for units on squares, and then multiply those stats by the number of units or something. The current system is broken in my opinion. Spartamonks are way too powerful.

I would reduce the use of switch and make wildcards much less powerful. I would make monks harder to get but more powerful. I would add more carvings that you have to do other type of "pilgramages" to unlock.

I think you know that I would like more combat, and umm, rounds could be sped up slightly, but then we dont get the nice 42*10, so that isn't that important.

EDIT: after thinking about it, the private message system needs an overhaul as well.

[Dubber]

Ideas:

• Text-based mobile commands would work fine - no need to gussy up a sweep and tap interface - the key would be we need to be able to edit the command field without a tap causing the (usually malformed) command to fire.
  
• Squares, duh
  
• I think the rows should wrap 6 and 7 should be able to attack each other... and 1 should be connected to the highest numbered square
  
• Squares 1-42 cannot be perm'd (which will irritate the heck out of me) and adjacent squares cannot be perm'd
  
• Odd squares should have a stronger attack while even squares should have a stronger defense
  
• Squares 1-42 should have double the production values and half the standard defense values
  
• Income should auto-bank 42% of on-hand Gold at 42 seconds before happy hour
  
• NO SUPER SQUARE DISCOVERIES (max f/c on a discovered square should be 50 -- or whatever the count is for maximum production, assuming that value is under 50)
  
• 42 day Maximum between resets (and random resets in the last 42 hours)
  
• Switch is good at 10% for opponents' squares and 5% for your own. Wildcard should cost 10% per row or column skipped, whichever count is larger - e.g. Switch from 42 to 1 would cost 70%
  
• Missiles need to come back. Missiles need a better attack algorithm (the current old grid calc is waaay too powerful) and distance in rows or columns needs to be a negative influence on effectiveness. Missiles attack from 1 to 2 would take N missiles to do Y damage, missiles from 1 to 42 would take N*107% or 114% to do the same Y damage (or the reverse N missiles would do Y*93% or Y*86% damage
  

Just some ideas - the no perming on the Original Grid and making the Old Grid both more productive and less defensible will encourage more turnover (attacking)

What do you think?

[killatankz]

Well I have one idea that may be okay... Maybe, there should be a mission system you can hire someone that is looking for money. Just a quick little suggestion..

[psykosis]

Some thoughts/reactions (all my opinions of course - nothing getting written into stone)

• Missiles - While I never played the old grid 'for real', my experimenting with missiles on there were that they were way too cheap to cause way too much devastation. I think this could be toned down in a couple of ways. 1) Limited range, 2) Make a 'canon' carving type which indicates the square can 'fire', but it has much reduced direct attack odds (and defensive) odds.
  
• Switch - I am more in the Krossfire camp on this one. I think currently, position on the grid is nearly irrelevant due to the ease at which one can just push through a wall of defense. Perhaps this could be addressed by 1) Increase the energy costs 2) Making it not 100% chance of success when switching _another_ player's squares or 3) perhaps have a easy/cheap to create 'wall' carving that prevents switching.
  
• Auto-deposit - 100% agree with you two that this needs to happen, in order to minimize the huge benefit myself (and other 'full time gridders') gain.
  
• Farm Cheesing - A while back I was playing with Io's and other formulas to combat farm cheesing. Io's formula at face value I feel stunts the economy too much, imho. Of course, this could be modified so it ramps higher. But one other concern I have is this also diminishes the reason to conquest for more squares. If you would gain very little by taking Jonny's 50/50, why would you waste the units?
  
• Mobile - I disagree that the text entry is ideal for mobile devices - although I would support it being an 'option' for all interfaces, including mobile.
  
• 42 days to reset - I conceptually like the concept that there is a hard length of time for 'round' to last. I am not convinced 42 is the correct number of days though. I think it may be a tad long.
  
• Odd/Even Square Effects - Interesting concept - have to think through this more. I do fully support the concept of differentiating squares more.
  
• Discoveries - I am not sure I have a problem with how normal discoveries work now - they seem to scale fairly well with the level of the grid. I am opposed to the super-discoveries. Super-discoveries will only lead to the rich getting richer, since only the rich can afford to annex them. It also poses the risk of someone spawning and becoming 40m in debt - no fun.
  
• Perming - I am still a bit split on the concept of perms. Perhaps not perming on the first 42 would be a compromise. Definitely see potential. Especially would go along well with the double production/half defense bit.
  
• Messaging - Completely agree. Yak and Whispers can use an overhaul.
  

Concepts I have been kicking around:

• Gambling - I would love for there to be multi-player casino style games, to keep things interesting while waiting between HH's. Think like poker, roulette, etc. I could also see the possibility for anti'ing up squares as part of the transaction.
  
• Level/skill - To replace wizards (and how they have so many multifaceted bonuses), I would propose having a skill/level system. While not fully articulated, the basic concept is 'you get better at what you do'. If you farm a lot, perhaps your crops yield more. If you are highly militant, perhaps your military might (expressed through increased odds, or units multipliers) increases. If you are commonly being a 'lint collector', perhaps you become more successful. I also think there needs to be real time constraints (perhaps a cap at 'skill ups' per day/week/something) or have it be like a balance (it only improves what you do the 'most' for the time period).
  
• Carvings - I would love there to be a wide variety of carvings. I could also see carvings serving as a wizard replacement as well (perhaps a wizard carving itself - I don't favor bribe (because it is defenseless, and for non-wizard holders, risk less - besides via threat), but I do agree wizards in their current form need to be rethought. I could see a 'wizard' carving replace it - they can still be taken, but at least it is defense-able. As far as other carving ideas, I believe I have a pretty hefty list of ideas in the main grid thread (I'll get them into this thread at some point).
  
• The Giants - Stagnation is one of the most widely spread complaints I hear. Frankly, I believe a lot of this comes from the top down, with the 'giants' of the grid typically in fairly solid peace (besides the strange cold-wars...). Often, this nearly is full cooperation. However, currently, this is also very advantageous for both parties. I think some mechanic needs to be created to make this not as advantageous, to diminish this cooperation a tad. One thought was some alternative, economic 'win' condition - thus causing strife as one of the giants near this goal. Could be something like having [x] farms, having [x] wizards (or whatever their replacement is), etc. Or perhaps some other idea.
  

More to come... and keep it coming!

[Conixat]

Don't copy my idea killa XD

if there is a mission system....

1) To ensure both old and new player have the same opportunity to get rewards from missions, the missions' result should be initialized after every reset.

2) To lead more combat, some optional missions would teach griddlers(and also new players) to wreak havoc and possess others. 'Good' missions would be daily missions, and 'Bad' missions would be weekily.

3) To balance power of new players and experienced players, weaker players could get better rewards then the powerful players get. (reward difference ~ 10%-50%)

*haven't finished reading Psykosis's post*

Dubber, only 60% is needed to move a normal square from sq1 to sq42. I guess there is something wrong in your calculation.
======================================================

[popopop]

Thoughts about the different ideas:

• Regarding the "giants" idea, I think it might be unfair to consider that player to have won that reset. Imagine the grid before the previous big reset. At that point in time, the big three were quite close in strength, and it wouldn't have been fair to allocate just one wipe to anybody if they reach a certain economic level. Say if 13 wizards is the reset point, and Player 2 is just 1 million gold behind Player 1, it wouldn't be fair to deem Player 1 as the "wiper" if Player 2 is behind by such a small marginal amount.
  
  Although the economic gains approach would also encourage more attacks, I would think the giants wouldn't fight among themselves since they would be just as well-equipped. As such, this would pose a threat to smaller players (who are easier to attack for expansion purposes), which again causes stagnation since smaller players can never grow fast enough.
  
  
• I like the idea about auto-deposit Dubber mentioned, where the full amount is not deposited, but rather a partial amount which still gives active players an advantage. 42% is rather much imo... I would say 20% at most.
  
  
• Time restriction on a reset shouldn't be implemented. Destroys the fun of building up. I agree that this might make the game play more dynamic, but conversely, it doesn't motivate anyone to build up since there's a reset time for each round.
  
  
• A cc creditor should have higher bank decay/more tax.
  

Since we might be expecting a high influx of newcomers with the mobile version, I'm quite concerned about the dissolution of the tight-knit community we have now.

[krossfire]

An idea about the "skills": DartMUD style leveling up?

[psykosis]

Dec 1, 2012 13:13:44 GMT -5 krossfire said:

An idea about the "skills": DartMUD style leveling up?

Yes - similar concept. You get better at what you do. Will have to probably have some sort of limit, so that those who live on the grid (e.g. Me and Dubs) won't have a tremendous level differential (perhaps cap gains per day or something...)

popopop said:

Regarding the "giants" idea, I think it might be unfair to consider that player to have won that reset. Imagine the grid before the previous big reset. At that point in time, the big three were quite close in strength, and it wouldn't have been fair to allocate just one wipe to anybody if they reach a certain economic level. Say if 13 wizards is the reset point, and Player 2 is just 1 million gold behind Player 1, it wouldn't be fair to deem Player 1 as the "wiper" if Player 2 is behind by such a small marginal amount.

Although the economic gains approach would also encourage more attacks, I would think the giants wouldn't fight among themselves since they would be just as well-equipped. As such, this would pose a threat to smaller players (who are easier to attack for expansion purposes), which again causes stagnation since smaller players can never grow fast enough.

You illustrated exactly the reason they would attack each other - to prevent each other from crossing the finish plate beforehand. If the other player is anywhere close to getting to the goal, I sure as hell would hope the other giant would work to actively diminish their income to prevent them.

[cybercitizen]

Dec 1, 2012 10:23:05 GMT -5 popopop said:

Since we might be expecting a high influx of newcomers with the mobile version, I'm quite concerned about the dissolution of the tight-knit community we have now.

Although I haven't been spending as much time as I used to on the grid, I feel this way too. Perhaps we could set up an "original gridder" irc or something similar?

[bingy]

Suggestion for the new grid:

When the grid is wiped, start players off with a bank of say $1,500 in order for them to be able to get established.

[Conixat]

Dec 3, 2012 2:47:50 GMT -5 bingy said:

Suggestion for the new grid:

When the grid is wiped, start players off with a bank of say $1,500 in order for them to be able to get established.

After a reset, the only objects on the grid are the abandoned squares.

42sq x $80 = 3360

It would cost too less for a player to wipe.
If there are few people playing, one of them can certainly have a instant wipe with other's approval.

To address the problem of low building rate... hmm... no.. NO! It is not necessary to do anything with that! Low building rate is important to keep the difficulty of wipe while everyone has less units then the peaceful days. I think we have already balanced all the things in the just-reset grid.

[psykosis]

I could see starting off with a tad more cash (the initial turn of -20 gold, then the next turn with 80 gold is pretty much just an idle 14 minutes...), but $1500 is a tad much, as Con pointed out. Perhaps fresh spawns could start with 180 gold, which won't let you annex the grid, but speeds up the slowest 2 happy hours in existence.

[Conixat]

Pop, Bin, Die or I are able to wipe easily while players in
different time zones are offline. 2 more hh make a instant wipe slower.

[popopop]

I still think the first two hh are very important. Different players will have starting strategies of their own.

Psy, I want to fight you on that point on giants!!! LOL
I just cannot understand why someone should win by just a marginal amount! Now assuming the playing style of a peace lover like Bingy, I'm sure that giant wouldn't attack. On the contrary, might just gamble/ask smaller players for squares/etc. Attacks among the giants are NOT wise, because it's just going to be a waste of resources.

Let's say if there were 3 giants, A, B and C, all of them almost on par. If A attacks B, both A and B will be weaker relative to C. (A will suffer a loss of resources such as gold and units). As such, A wouldn't attack, as well as the other giants!

Wiping on based on economic gains should be more like: Owning 100% more farms and cities than everyone else. (100% is arbitrary. Haven't thought what might be a reasonable number)