Seeking ideas how to make PlanetWars more played again while doing MINIMAL changes. What did you like/dislike about current PlanetWars round? Would you like to see a more competetive settings? That is enforced clan vs clan battles limited to say max 4v4 size. Or would you like it to be more casual with battle winning completely disconnected from planet conquering (for winning you get X land forces to be spent on any planet) and game based on activity only. Or did it work fine but you just want a new round? CURRENTLY DEPLOYED CHANGESBalancing:
-
owner of planet does not have to be present for battle to commence
-
faction members are always balanced together (cannot be split between 2 sides)
-
faction which helps attacker to win the battle gain 15 influence (only 75% of that if cc destroyed). If more than 1 factions help, their gains are split
Speedup:
-
base influence gain 15->25
-
ship influence bonus 1->2
-
metal per battle 100 -> 200
Economy
-
planets now generate 1 metal per turn (to owner)
-
excess energy is converted to metal each turn (ration 20:1), metal produced is split according to contribution of energy production owners
+0 / -0
|
The Influence thing. When a planet is nearly surrounded by other planets why it doesn't loose influence?? e.g. Pivot or Visitrium. At least Pivot should loose influence over time so it gets to other faction. And Visitrium too, but only a bit slower. So The Influence structures doesn't work as I thought. Would be a reason for me why PW stucked.
+0 / -0
|
It does lose influence - every turn(=battle) .. but there are no turns :)
+0 / -0
|
licho have you ever played s44 with deployment on? :D that would make PW awsome im shure you can bug godde to get it for you would make pw lots more like a reallistic
+0 / -0
|
@ Licho I never saw this when PW was active... it remained 100 %. I mean passive influence not gained from battles. So when Nerighbour planets should spread influence to get this planet... like in CIV IV
+0 / -0
|
disliked: 1) someone in maschines channel always saying things like "dont play that game now, if we dont play they can not attack." (PW should be a matchMAKER not matchpreventer.) 2) a million no-attack treaties between factions 3) someone gave away our planets for some strange deal i didnt understand 4) i am here to play zK not so some watered down browsergame like: a) since its always the same maps, in theory teams can develop tactics for some maps. (sadly only in theory)
+0 / -0
|
yes, limit battle sizes, 4x4 might be a good start and easy to implement. Would it perhaps even be possible to dynamically adapt game sizes, perhaps depending on how many people from different clans/factions are available and willing to play: 1.players can only unspec if their unspec does not mean a difference in the two playing groups of more than 1 player and not too huge elo difference? Might be problematic, as it might lead to unspeccing stuck, because people do not enter in 'the right order' 2. players can unspec (indicate, that they whish to play), but Springie automatically limits the numbers of people that can really play by the rule above (underlay players that will play green in player list?) First in first play order. Or something similar like this... Another issue might be, that in current planetwars you can avoid loosing by just not playing a game. Are there feasable options to make 'not playing' a dissadvantage, without at the same time favouring people with massive online time to much? E.g. if a battle is not taken up by one of the parties within 24h or so, either the battle is considered won by the other side or, the battle takes place against CAI? Just my thoughts
+0 / -0
|
Minimal stuff: 1) Hell yes to limiting sizes. 2) Some way of forcing turn passage and demotivating skipping fights. Like, if nobody plays in X days, most-prioritized attacker (largest bunch of dropships) wins by default (with zero commander gains and maybe halved influence gain) 3) Disable unbreakable treaties because of their abuse potential. Replace or supplant them with unviolable, but breakable ones with some advance warning. (So, say, we have NAP with another faction, and they get a 30 turns warning if we wanna break it). Neon-ideas: Bonus structures and bonus planets. Things that give you some specific abilities on the battlefield. Like a single-use ingame orbital bombing/unit-insertion/etc (available after X minutes) that gets reloaded each 10 PW turns or something. Maybe some Risk-like region-bonuses to make map less uniform and promote capturing specific targets.
+0 / -0
|
shorter rounds, faster gameplay. declare a winner and start the next round, dont stalemate forever. 1 round per month would be better than 1 per year
+0 / -0
|
There cannot be "default win" for attacker Attacker can avoid battle too.
+0 / -0
|
quote:
There cannot be "default win" for attacker |
Random win? :P
+0 / -0
|
Random win means it makes sense to avoid games in places where losing does not hurt.
+0 / -0
|
quote:
Random win means it makes sense to avoid games in places where losing does not hurt. |
Some more neonization: - forced win doesn't provide metal? - abstainer faction is represented by CAI unless proper players show up (r) Ahira
+0 / -0
|
Definity would like to see more incentive for play of "Us vs the Faction" since it seems no matter how long it is or how broad the factions at some points the battles die out because "X is constantly on and I don't want to play agianst all of them!" Occurs. Definitly would support smaller, competitve fac vs fac games, although that will probably take better organization. +1 Ivory's suggestion of "Time Based Objectives", possibly control of Majority of Planets or Artifacts after X number of days/turns.
+0 / -0
|
By far, the biggest turn off of Planet Wars was the constant dodging of battles by all sides. I can't tell you how many times I would attack a planet, just to have all the defenders switch to spectate so that we could not fight. I have even seen this get stuck in a vicious cycle. Example: Faction A, B, C all in a room. Faction A attacks B. B spectates. Battle changes to C vs. A. C spectates. B players rejoin, battle changes back to original A vs. B. B leaves.... My proposal for fixing this: Make the battle happen whether the players stay or leave. If faction B is present in the room when faction A attacks, the battle will commence whether B stays or not. This forces the team to stay and defend. If we had a single Planetwars room, we could even add a grace period during which attacks are hidden. After the grace period ends, the attacks are revealed and the team that sent the most drop ships gets to attack, and the decision is locked. This way no one gets to see what battle will take place until the battle is locked. Alas, we cannot do this now.
+0 / -0
|
I had a lot of fun fighting alongside clanmates in PW. stacked against us or against enemy did bother in beginning, but got used to it near the end. I stopped playing it for a reason many already stated: dodging battles. I think pw might be better if eneven numbers in teams are allowed, for example 3 vs 5. Factions and allied factions gets teamed in same team. This might be balanced by: - coop with faction members. Allied factions gets different coop. This stimulated teamplay, which is a special point for PW already anyway. - maybe a timer in which the attacker has to win. bigger elo difference, shorter time. Defender really has to defend.
+0 / -0
|
@Swappan: Factions and allies factions are already allied. This is why dodging occurs. People don't want to fight cause their "big guns" aren't around, and playing with mercs(or for that matter, Factions they are fighting) can mean fighting with a weak force. In my opinion, it was more worthwhile to have the risk of a clan spamming attacks for planets than dealing the with dodging we are dealing with now, so in my opinion the defender requirement should be done away with agian.
+0 / -0
|
we have an unlock system right? why dont we use this to influence how PW games are played people who play in PW games get a personal fund this fund is used to buy unlocks/units for future battles could make PW quite adictive if its balanced so that you never have more then a few labs/units unlocked at a time(due to cost) or a system similar to the way S44 alowed you to spawn with an army/buy units for the next battle/carry them over (but this system was better for short campaigns, not long ones)
+0 / -0
|
My problem with PW were the sometimes really unbalanced games. Is it possible to do it like in "call of duty" for example? If you join a PW room you can't join a team but you are in some kind of waiting room. And the balancing system can pick you out of this room for a well ballanced game. So that you only have this "waiting room" and if there are enough people for a well balanced game you join automatical to a new room with the other chosen players. Than you can say 4v4 games with min. winning chance of ~45%. Is that possible or is it to complicated?
+0 / -0
|
We dont have enough people for such system.. Also question is what is balanced enough.. the bigger the game the higher chance it will become balance. So basically the best way usually is to keep all people in same room (and forbid starting if difference is too big).
+0 / -0
|
