Ragnarok
2013-07-14 |  | UW fighting rewards |  |
I`d like to open up a discussion on how we can further incentivize people into fighting UWs. I mean the loss of 90% of resources doesn`t seem to be a big enough threat for folks to fight a UW anymore, they just pretty much lay down and take it.
So what if we gave out rewards for fighting a proper UW?
Something along the lines of a handful of STC or a couple BTC for at least attempting to fight a UW even if it went off anyways. If people got 1 or 2 BTC (or more if they used BTC themselves) every time they fight a UW, I think folks could see it as an alternative to digging for artifacts (which is pretty boring anyways).
Something like "Top Damage Dealer to a UW that starts over 90m pr gets 5 btc". |
|
Ragnarok
99+ day(s) ago | Who`s on your team AC? You haven`t gotten in touch with me!! Come back to UFP even if it`s just to talk once in a while. :( |
AlphaCentauri
99+ day(s) ago | i haven`t forgotten you guys :) it will take time unfortunately with me having a full-time job |
Sinarya
99+ day(s) ago | i disagree, but than again this game won`t get any better from talking. we need a new game(AC`s) or some major changes .
so what if all active players go to single fed what than LordaeroN? |
LordaeroN
99+ day(s) ago | That`s a pretty poor excuse for not fighting an UW, Sinarya. A single fed can`t "ruin" a server. It`s mostly artifacts` fault and people(including myself) being disorganized/not bothering with the UW.
This reminds me of Ultra, few years back when people complained about Broken Radar chaining UWs one after another left and right, and "ruining" the server for everyone. It`s funny how people still whine about certain feds being too strong, when it`s simply natural for things to go this way. |
Sinarya
99+ day(s) ago | Rag, who could make a decent hit on normal? After AC`s UW i went to VM because it is pointless to play against UFP. Admit it your fed ruined server :) |
Sinarya
99+ day(s) ago | Rag, who could make a decent hit on normal? After AC`s UW i went to VM because it is pointless to play against UFP. Admit it your fed ruined server :) |
Ragnarok
99+ day(s) ago | Actually TPE, we just did a UW and although some folks were in VM and we historiaed 4 others, there were still plenty of players who didn`t bother making a hit. |
ThEpAkIsTaNiEmPirE
99+ day(s) ago | Look the game is dead. NO rewards will bring a player base to oppose a UW. Listen, these things will occur more often, only way to solve it is to take the remaining players, save cash and resources. BEcome more active and oppose UW`s. Only Way. |
BadWolf
Game-Admin
99+ day(s) ago | Also keep in mind mate i tend to talk from my own perspective but i always consider everyone else as well and fully am open minded to ideas..
it isn`t an unwillingness on our part to do certain things, it just comes back what we can and cannot do in the end.. prior to the whole event with "GameAdmin" we were and still are working on a fairly large update for GC that IS within our power.. but even still good chunks of it require Stephen and i honestly don`t know how those recent events will have fully factored into things..
Typo
Edited by BadWolf on 2013-07-15 |
BadWolf
Game-Admin
99+ day(s) ago | Not my intention to come off as arrogant or passive-aggressive mate.. just how i come off sometimes and i apologize for that, Also why i typically don`t say much..
But anyway my main point is applying a bandaid fix isn`t going to accomplish much other then making the structures which currently exist just split into alliances of the smaller feds for the most part.. which would really only give the look for the most part not the actual effects intended with it, Way i look at it is simply just like this.. if people wanted to do that in the first place they would be as is.. a good example of the pact that exists between a fair few of M|K and distemper on RT.. which makes up a large portion of the active side of the RT server..
If we had the ability i`d honestly be willing to try it either way regardless of what I`ve said.. provided a majority vote was in agreement. |
Cane
99+ day(s) ago | BadWolf -- I understand some players are friends and don`t attack each other.
the point is 90% of the server is in the same fed, and this shouldn`t be part of the game mechanics.
it seems like common sense for this to be changed. I don`t understand anyone who would be against it, and I don`t understand why you are indifferent to it.
reducing fed capacity would encourage smaller alliances rather than bigger ones over a period of time. like EE said earlier, it would help. older alliances are likely to drift apart.
also plenty of players still use their federations to distinguish who their allies are and who are not. not everything is `behind the scenes` like you are saying.
"Theory Vs. Reality" huh. I don`t know what that means but it sounds an awful lot like "GC will never get any balance updates"
so I suppose my words are getting attacked because high-level changes to the game aren`t possible.
is that why you`re passive-aggressive toward decent suggestions? because you know they can`t happen?
just curious why you`re being so arrogant |
BadWolf
Game-Admin
99+ day(s) ago | short version:- You can reduce the number of people to feds but it doesn`t mean they`ll suddenly have a reason to fight each other and most probably won`t |
BadWolf
Game-Admin
99+ day(s) ago | you do realize those were two different points being made.
one is on the federation issue, which isn`t directly related to federations themselves.. Key points being alliances aren`t typically based around federations themselves, but the people. Reducing the number of people which can be federations isn`t going to change the people who`re apart of said alliances, and `groups`.
the other is a point to have bolster activity of new empires/players, and encourage their own growth, and get them involved in the workings of GC.. which has nothing to do with federations.
So how can i have contradicted myself between two entirely separate points?
Fixed a typo
Edited by BadWolf on 2013-07-15 |
Cane
99+ day(s) ago | BW, you contradict yourself. you say feds have nothing to do with alliances, that alliances are exclusively because of friendships between players and feds don`t mean anything in the end.
....then what would be the purpose of handing out a few extra resources for opposing UWs?
your logic is that people will severe their long-standing alliances over a few minerals, but not because of having to be in different feds?
doesn`t make sense to me.
the problem here is that on the slower servers there`s literally only 25 active players and that`s basically the size of a fed. (sounds funny, doesn`t it?)
I don`t think handing out resources for opposing UWs is going to make members leave their feds just to get extra credits, unless you`re handing out really crazy amounts. I don`t see how this would be any more helpful than reducing fed capacity.
I think rewarding empires for opposing UWs is generally a good idea and would be great to have, I`m just explaining how it wouldn`t help this issue.
the UW that just recently went off on Normal met no opposition at all, and that wasn`t because people weren`t motivated enough or had no incentive. it was simply because no one was there to do anything. as far as I know there was only 2 or 3 active players who were outside of UW fed that were a threat, and they got historia`d. that was all that needed to be done.
I don`t understand how UW opposition rewards would change anything. are more members going to magically appear on the server? |
BadWolf
Game-Admin
99+ day(s) ago | it`d limit people during UW`s since only the UW holder can fuse artifacts during a UW, Given the fact that the UW holder could have enough artifacts to easily do that on servers like slow-fast alot of thought, testing, and tweaking would be needed were such an idea even to go through.
Edited by BadWolf on 2013-07-15 |
Ragnarok
99+ day(s) ago | As far as artifact reduction, I don`t think you will achieve what you what to achieve if you limit the affected artifacts to the major unique artifacts. All that will do is cause people to keep their major artifacts largely unfused (aside from an emergency stockpile) until they actually want to use an artifact. I keep my BTC largely unfused so that I can fuse them after I start a UW, so partial artifact reduction will not work.
Of course, complete artifact destruction after a UW would be an interesting twist to the game. Doing it as a percentage would not do because even if the big diggers lose more artifacts, it would damage the moral of the infrequent diggers to even try to dig. If you have complete artifact destruction after a UW, it puts everyone on an even starting point (not-withstanding the players who live in favored time zones). |
Ragnarok
99+ day(s) ago | BW I was mulling over the same idea. I think giving newer players and empires the bigger rewards vs an established empire would be huge. Definitely some sort of progressive reward system.
Even a nominal increase in homeworld land size can be beneficial long term.
As far as reducing federation member limits, I think this would do nothing but turn a large federation into a group of allied federations. There was a time when I thought 21 was far too small for fed sizes back when we actually had groups with 40-50 members. |
BadWolf
Game-Admin
99+ day(s) ago | Cane you`re talking theory vs reality... The bulk of alliances especially in RT are not formed around feds themselves, but more so around friendships, and grudges.. Those lead people to stand together for common goals, or just as friends, and in most cases fed really has nothing to do with it in the end..
I did however have an idea in regards to what you said Rag, While i fully disagree that we should give artifacts out, the idea of handing out rewards for fighting UW`s has merit if done properly, and in truth should favor newer empires and/or less established empires over older empires. Encourage the young and help them to thrive not spoil the already established.
Anyway i was thinking something along the lines of Mineral and or Cash rewards for fighting UW`s.. Having it scale with empire age vs total land/income and against server as well.. EE can come up with some formula for it if we end up doing it for now just tossing a theory out there for you all to mull over..
Arbitrary example: someone over a year old on slow with a very well established empire would have a marked -90% to -100% reduction on rewards, While someone one month old on slow fighting a UW could receive a 200% bonus to rewards to gain 10-25k of each mineral as a reward for their efforts.
The above excluding those with UW Rewards (The rewards for having set off a UW) for example. |
ear614
99+ day(s) ago | Or how about we make a counter part to the succeful UW rewards, but less OP. For example give a ship to whoever dealt the most damage to the UW and succefully took it down, but make it a lot weaker compared the the UW ships |
wolf359
99+ day(s) ago | why not simply have all uw fighters who manage to hit a certain percentage of the uw fleet get to capture a portion of those ships destroyed... ALL class ships included. |
