Originally
posted by
BlackHole:
Originally
posted by
BigP:
I think you nailed the big topics. To me, the game gets repetitive sometimes, did you guys ever think about adding small perks that change set to set? Im thinking like if there is a strat/gov that really isnt popular, making a change to benefit it for one set then switching to something else another set? I dont know if alliance is a good place for it but maybe another server can benefit from it.
Also, have you thought about trying any mass emailing to try and bring back old players? Figure you have a list of emails already, maybe send some out a couple times a year...a newsletter or something? I would love to see more players in the game.
I like this idea. Maybe even have a server that drastically changes each set, giving people a reason to try again, do something new, experiment. Maybe some sets things are incredibly broken, but it makes it fun an interesting.
A parallel here is games like Path of Exile that have 'leagues' or 'seasons'. The game gets a refresh every 3 months to keep people wanting to come back and try again.
This reminds me of the time when Theo and oil were added to the game back in 2000ish. It took a few resets of tweaking to get balance, and that made for a very fun and interesting time as there was a lot of novel experimentation occurring. A similar thing occurred a couple years later when they adjusted food production/consumption and prices and took a couple rounds to get that balance right (though that time wasn't as interesting as the theo introduction). But a big part of this was the lack of transparency. Players were told these changes were being made but the specifics of how they would work were not made available, and adjustments from reset to reset finding balance were vaguely explained. Part of the problem in my mind is that the players know too much about exactly every formula the game functions on now, and it has turned the game into a min max problem.
Honestly I (and I feel like I've championed for this in the past) would like to see more random variability added to the game, beyond the simple earthquakes and PCI boosts countries get now. Add in a randomness factor that attacks will fail even when all the numbers say it should succeed (maybe with increasing probabilities of failure at smaller margins of mathematical attack superiority), you could also do the opposite and make attacks succeed even when they shouldn't at varying probabilities. Make the bots actually interact with players beyond sending/accepting pacts (e.g., make them have a probability of retaliating that can vary based on factors like how many times they've been attacked, attacked by you specifically, your tag specifically etc.) Give them a chance of suicide you if you attack them with similar style varying probabilities, etc.
I quit playing about 10 years ago as well, but I've been active in the community again for the last couple months (and have poked my head in once every couple years to check things out over the last decade) and one thing I've noticed about the game is that is has become far too predictable. It seems to me the biggest (but not necessarily the only) contributor to this is the addition of the bots. The bots exhibit very predictable, consistent behaviour. People have completely mapped that behaviour out right down to the turn. Very precise strategies have been crafted around the bot behaviour. They know the strategy the bot is playing based on it's country number. They know that at A turns issued/played you hit bots with country #'s ending with B with X amount of offensive power at Y NW differential between you and the bot to maximize returns etc. etc. etc.
Playing a good netting country has just completely become a matter of following a script. Boring AF.
