Remove redundant historical features and simplify game
Quote:
|
Re: Lights Observations
Quote:
|
Re: Lights Observations
Quote:
|
Re: Lights Observations
Quote:
|
Re: Lights Observations
i must say you have aloth of good points here Mrlobster, i allso wonder why no one are fighting anymore, if you se a battle report, it is cause some one overslept :P now we dont land if we lose 2 ships, in the old days we could and often did land on deacent ammounts of defence. but with 100 roids its does take to long time to rebuild...
|
Re: Lights Observations
i do wonder what happend to my old forum account aswell :P
|
Re: Lights Observations
Cos i'm ancient i remember this
Quote:
Metal and Crystal were for building ships, Eonium was fuel, you had to have enough eonium to launch the selected fleet , many fleets got stuck at home during attacks on the planet because they simply didnt have the fuel to lift off ! This was changed to the current system where ships are made by metal and crystal and eonium is built in through new fuel cell technology and engine technology, meaning you use the eonium to create the fuel just once, like warp core technology in star trek. |
Re: Lights Observations
Quote:
So we ended up with 3 resource types, with nothing seperating them. That was the point of my post, the changes made to the game have either made things redudent (but kept them in the game) or made things overly complicated. Planetarion is no longer a 'clean and simple game'.. Its a mess. Its also not a good sign that zPeti's 2 most important questions he wants answers for, are Round Length and Round Start Date. |
Re: Lights Observations
Agree completly with what light said!
|
Re: Lights Observations
I disagree with a few of Light's points.
#1 Races Why should we have 1 race and a tech tree you specialise in? why shouldn't we keep it this way? It's less confusing for newbies who will get a bit of everything and then just suck... #2 Constructions They're fine. Yes FCs are very strong, but with the cap, other ways of playing are more viable (dist-whoring), even for those who decide to max FCs. #3 Covert ops Cov ops are good as they are. Maybe 10 rounds ago they were broken but I like the current system. #4 Production I agree with the bit about hiding prod, but the way the current system works is good; maybe PA team should just turn on the feature that disables prod hiding. The old system had huge flaws which this one doesn't (top players having half their score in res and being able to build whatever ship they need when they get incs in 4-5 ticks.) This also encourages people to build more than just 1 of each factory and then spam FCs/amps/dists. #5 Prelaunch Pete is trying to get more players in, and you're going to try to make it so that the less hardcore are penalised? If you know how to play, seeing prelaunches on your jgp is a pretty great advantage. Prelaunch is fine as it is. |
Re: Lights Observations
The main point of the rant was that everything thats been implemented in the previous rounds needs streamlining and looked at, to make it all less complicated.. It wasnt intended as a 'these are my suggestions', more of.. Ask these questions or review if these additions are actually working as intended, as over the previous 30 rounds so many things have been added into the game with no direction or real after-care; which has resulted in everything getting more and more complicated.
However, i'll go over your points: Quote:
I'm always against forcing users to make a major choice before they've even logged in. Quote:
On the topic of FC's, i personally think they are over-powered and shouldnt even be in the game. The resource and roid system needs a change where each resource in the game has a reason to be there.. Making mines more important as you shouldnt just want a 1% increase in every resource but instead more metal/crystal or eonium depending on what you want to do/build. Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
The main point of those 15/16 questions wasnt to offer suggestions but was more aimed at what zPeti should be asking. Nearly every feature in PA has been altered since its creation with many having multiple new additions made to them making it more and more complicated (needlessly complicated). While, hardly anything has been taken out of the game.. even if it got made obsolete. I'll quote the end of that rant, as that kinda sums up what i was getting at Quote:
|
Re: Lights Observations
I never really did understand why pax was introduced, pre rnd 10 in my opinion was far better than it is now. Too many features and too complicated for new people.
|
Re: Lights Observations
Why is everybody stating that certain features are not good for NEW PLAYERS?
Is it really that complicated? Light got some valid points but i think having different races is fun to have. A statement of the creators of how they want to have pa developed within the next rounds would be nice. Oh, when changing the lenght of a round you really need to change certain parts of the game aswell. Government for example. I always picked the government that gives me faster research as i need hulls, tt, hct AND scans to be able to play properly but now its more or less useless to have that. Round is long enough to research all of that with another government and having their benefits. Also certain racial benefits are more worthwhile in a longer round compared to a shorter one. Thinking before doing! Prost! |
Re: Lights Observations
Quote:
Quote:
I had to read the manual just to find this information out, because the game itself doesn't even bother. |
Re: Lights Observations
Quote:
The example i used was the formula for working out your Research (or construction points per tick). Each race has a different base research points? thats fine. Each goverment has different research bonuses? thats fine. Population settings affects the research points? thats fine. You can build research facilitys to gain a research bonus? thats fine. They are all fine features when you talk about them by themselves but when you add all that together, you end up with a stupidly complicated formula (which btw, is not even in the manual and to work it out you need to visit 3 pages picking out the information from the wall of texts). 100+((100/100)*50)+((100/100)*20)-((100/100)*10) ^^ Is the formula for Research Points Per Tick for a Terran Planet with 50% population in research, 20% of constructions in Research Facilitys and Dictatorship goverment. or if you want a universal formula its this monstrosity: X+((X/100)*Y)+((X/100)*Z)+((X/100)*A) X = Base Research points Y = Population bonus Z = Research Facility bonus A = Goverment Bonus No wonder the formula isnt in the manual *Edit* Actually, that formula's wrong as its presuming every Goverment bonus is a positive bonus. *Edit* No wait, It'd work out the same anyway, as you're multiplying by the minus number, making it subtract anyway when you come to add in that minus number. Too tired :p Each round admins make new additions which sound fine but when looking at the bigger picture they end up making things more complicated. Admins very rarely (if ever) try to simplify what they've added. Quote:
Quote:
|
Re: Lights Observations
when you complain about a formula you could at least bother using the "format" shown in the manual instead of intentionally rewriting it to make it look seriously complicated.
Code:
RP Output = base_output *(1+(%research_labs + population bonus + government bonus)/100) Code:
research_time = default_res_time * (100 - (engineering_bonus + res_lab_bonus + (100 - race_bonus)) /100) |
Re: Remove redundant historical features and simplify game
I came up with this before reading Cin's post (damn you!), but it comes down to the same thing with one fewer bracket:
points = base * (100+pop% + gov% + reslab%) / 100 (On a sidenote, I'm a fan of the research/construction formulae; they're simple, intuitive and straight to the point.) Light, I certainly agree that there are parts of the game that can be simplified, but hammering formulas is a bit pointless. The fact of the matter is that PA is one big mathematical formula just like any other game. Having researched some of the underlying game mechanics in real games, they're all this complicated under the hood. The only thing that can be done about this is showing the result of some of the actions you can take ingame. For example, on the production page, you can see how long an order will take before you place it, removing the need for players to see the formula at all, replacing it with a generic ("the more population and factories you put on production, the faster it will finish". Some of the more advanced areas of the game are not so suitable for this (for example, cov ops), because they require more information that is available to every player (ie, a planet and development scan). |
Re: Remove redundant historical features and simplify game
If I attempt to reply to every comment here, the reply will be so long that I doubt many would reply.
Firstly, whilst I don't believe that all these criticisms are valid, some fair few are. What the game needs (and hasn't had since Round 10 or so) is one or more full time developers (though coders are also nice :)). Whilst this in no way weakens the criticisms placed against Planetarion, it might be worth considering. We haven't presented one vision and tried to push everything to conform to that. That's a fault I can't defend against. I'm not a visionary, and few people have submitted visions (JBG springs to mind), let alone ones that are feasably codable with our current coding resources (Cin, as well as myself infrequently). I'd gladly step aside, but in 4 years I've found no one willing to take the position of head of development, and few to even be around as a deputy! @Some of the criticisms (mainly Light!) Quote:
Anyway, all the other changes were for making things simple, which you seem to support in the formulae. Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
We update it more regularly than every 2 months, even apart from the downtime announcements. I take your point, though I'm not quite sure what we're meant to be filling it with. Most players seem to find it hard enough to read what we announce on the portal anyway, without us creating more announcements for them to read through. Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
As has been said, detection is a major penalty. Sorry, I realise that some of these have already been answered. I fail to see a summary of what Light is trying to get from her rant though - all I can get out of it is "remove things that I find too complicated when I read the formula page of the manual" and "remove things that I don't think have a point". We could remove the population counter, as I'm not sure that's going anywhere these days. It doesn't seem to be going in a direction you want anyway, and your ego is big enough we have to pay attention to you :/ |
Re: Remove redundant historical features and simplify game
Quote:
|
Re: Remove redundant historical features and simplify game
Incoming Wall of text:
Quote:
Quote:
On the topic of initiating roids though, i will say that i'd love to have it returned back to METAL being the only resource for initiating roids. This is the kind of feature i like, as it adds a new level of tactics and strategy into the game without making it complicated. To the new player, they understand instantly without having to refer to a manual that they need Metal to initiate more roids and to the more experienced player, he/she can plan or make strategys on what they will think is the best way to initiate there roids. It also changes the element for races (which you pointed out) and makes each race and ship costs mean something, as now you'd initiate more crystal roids if you're resources cost more etc. http://pirate.planetarion.com/showpo...2&postcount=22 ^^ is abit more in depth on the changes i'd suggest for the resources. Quote:
If you want to get down to what i'd directly suggest, i'd say get rid of research centers or change the way they're implemented. The reason for this, is that at the moment you're 1st/6th/11th/16th construction is always one and its not exactly clear that this is what you should be doing from just looking at the construction page. You should steer clear from things that you have no alternative, that when someone asks 'what should i be doing', every single responce will say the same thing i.e. its required. If you want to add variety in constructions, then you should try and make things as equal as possible.. so that people actually have a choice, rather than a set path. What you should be aiming for, is that when someone asks on the forums 'what constructions should i build?', every single reply comes back with a different responce (or at least, there is no 'right' answer). Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
**EDIT** Sorry, the questions in my rant arnt aimed as direct suggestions or things which 100% should be changed. They was just off the top of my head on things zPeti should be asking himself when he decides on he aims for Planetation to be. So there is no point going through each question and defending the points in each, as they are obsolete until zPeti decides on his vision for PA. Quote:
Alot of the 'questions' i asked in that post, i personally dont feel need tweaking/deleted or simplifying.. Just that they are the sort of things zPeti should be asking himself. |
Re: Remove redundant historical features and simplify game
Quote:
Which one did you apply for? I know that Fiery (and for Support, Monroe) handle MH and Support. I know that Lunar got one applicant, and I don't know if Kal got any for mods. If you're referring to a seperate announcement I made, I do believe I spoke to you about it (when I'm not at work I might have time to look out the logs). I had 5 people contacting me, and I took 3 of them. Ever since then, from what I remember, you've been quick to criticise the team and the game. I'm not sure if this is to make me feel better about not selecting you? Anyway, this is getting a bit off topic :) |
Re: Remove redundant historical features and simplify game
Quote:
It's just slightly amusing that you often claim there is nobody willing to help, when it's often hard to get a response when people do offer to help. You don't seem to do a good job at headhunting people, those who don't apply but flaunt obvious bits of talent There are several people round here that show great knowledge of how the game works, how it worked in the past, along with great ideas of how to make the game better in future - get them involved. There are also people with decent graphics/UI skills, the game looks ugly and you need their help to do it - hire them. |
Re: Remove redundant historical features and simplify game
Agreeing with most/all of Appoco's post.
I've an idea for the portal though - you could have players submitting pieces of writing to put up on it. Something like a blog - some players can submit overviews of politics and competing allies like the logbook Lokken used to do, others can write fan fiction about the game. I'm sure there'll be some members willing to contribute and it'll be nice for new players to read and encourage them to submit stuff and get more involved. Just a thought :) |
Re: Remove redundant historical features and simplify game
Quote:
-Developers/coders can't really be involved in an alliance. That cuts no end of people out -Most people say "I'm willing to help" but few have the time to do it for long periods of time under their own steam. I am not interested in spending all my time trying to find jobs for people to fit into the 2 hours a week they can spare for Planetarion. I am interested in people who can spend 2 hours a day proactively helping to design and/or create things without me constantly watching them. Also, we don't often headhunt because we ourselves are on a limited timeframe (I leave for work at 7am and get back at 7.30-8.30 each evening) and anyone who doesn't want to seek out and get involved probably won't have the motivation to work without constant prodding from me. |
Re: Remove redundant historical features and simplify game
Quote:
|
Re: Remove redundant historical features and simplify game
Get rid of M/C/E and just have roids and resources!
Back to comment on more later. |
Re: Remove redundant historical features and simplify game
Quote:
Quote:
I think it's fair to say that nobody reads it, not even to check. The last thing you want to do is read that boring email full of text when you've got your password, you just want to login and check the game out. |
Re: Remove redundant historical features and simplify game
Perhaps a modified page that links to the "proper" info, displayed in the MOTD region, when you FIRST login to your account?
Or further, a short "tutorial"/manual description of stuff on each page (Overview/fleets/mission/res/cons/etc) that last for a couple ticks when you FIRST login? |
Re: Remove redundant historical features and simplify game
Quote:
|
Re: Remove redundant historical features and simplify game
I love how the "online help" link takes you to the formulae section.
|
Re: Remove redundant historical features and simplify game
Quote:
|
Re: Remove redundant historical features and simplify game
Quote:
dunno if everyone would like it... and i am pretty confident, there is some more ppl willing to write stuff there could also be blogs about certain nights of specialized attacks (if it happens at all) so many ppl are writing tons and tons of stuff on the forums, why not have parts of this on the portal, so a new guy loading the portal will see that the game is alive (just posts about downtimes dont really help it) |
Re: Remove redundant historical features and simplify game
Quote:
the game doesnt need removal of loads of stuff, it needs stuff added so instead of complaining (rightfully) that 3 ressources are not needed, as 1 would be enough, implement something for those 2 other ressources. ofc this cant be done all of a sudden, but my point is that the new vision of PA, needs more stuff to do, not less. Edit: yes i know the old PA is a simple game, at least everyone remember it as one, but thats 10 years ago, the customers of today want more then what was available 10 years ago. (yes loads of veterans, i am sure don´t want more, they want their r3 code PA and 100k players, but thats so not gonna happen, so imo we rather loose 100 hardcores and gain 500 newbs, then the other way round) Pacman was an awesome game, but nowadays no one would even bother with it, times change, the people change, people want gfx, and if not gfx they want multiple options(micro management) to develope their planet not have 1 resource, send/recall fleets, init roids, click research, click construction, wait for the fleet to get back home we won´t be increasing the playbase with this concept, so removing, prelaunch, covops, 2 resources, population will not be the right path to go |
Re: Remove redundant historical features and simplify game
Quote:
However, Geometry Wars is a simple game and its sales are measured in the low hundreds of thousands. Not every game has to be an overcomplicated masterpiece with 'normal mapping' and 'vertex shading', it depends on your market. I really don't think adding features for the sake of keeping M/C/E, or anything of the sort is the way to improve the game. PA is already pretty deep, but it could achieve pretty much exactly the same level of depth with a few of its old antiques (like M/C/E) being cut out. As far as I can see this would only have the effect of making it more accessible. A good thing, right? |
All times are GMT +1. The time now is 06:30. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.1
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2002 - 2018