Interaktyvus realaus laiko strateginis žaidimas Internete

VIEŠIEJI FORUMAI/BENDRASIS FORUMAS

Ankstesnis 1 2 3  Sekantis

ZerohoursPaskelbta: 20:38:53 2020 05 12

Pranešimai: 2371

Temos: 273

Valstybė: Canada

Lytis: Vyras



100% Homeworlds producing maximum is new meta. Anyone playing more than a year is likely to have 50 planets with 5-30 mil defence




__________________________
I am here to help in anyway I can! Let's have fun!

IiridaynPaskelbta: 01:48:18 2020 05 13

Pranešimai: 1590

Temos: 86

Valstybė: United States

Lytis: Vyras



Apparently the changes to make holding planets more appealing worked... somewhat. Zero - mind defining your "homeworld" for me? 5 million defense doesn't feel like a "homeworld" to me.




__________________________
SkyLords Head Programmer

Spelled: I I R I (not irii, irri, or iri).

Force of nature.

ZerohoursPaskelbta: 17:36:08 2020 05 13

Pranešimai: 2371

Temos: 273

Valstybė: Canada

Lytis: Vyras



This has been something Apocalypse kept as a closely guarded secret with likely a few super actives figuring it out but I believe everyone has modified their playstyle to this in one form or another.

49 single planets systems
Warp Disruptor on all
Clear Nearbies daily/bi-daily
Build all level 3 to 5 buildings with different levels to balance out resource production.
Have 1 million of each non defensive resource producing maximum interest.
This strategy effectively gives you 31x production planets for troop production. With another 10-15 effective points in other resources. You will never need to buy or hunt Iron as interest plus level 5 Iron production building produces more than enough. My most developed point I ran 5-10 shields with 15 million Energy and around 5-10 million troops with maximum turrets (produced with max resources and shields which was 140-180 shields depending on the timeline and changes to turrets).
This presented a 30-50 million defence planet with 1 million of each non-defensive resource and maximum turrets. Add this to the fact realistically no one probes, they simply use nearby and warp you will almost never be found. I would go months without having a single planet found which allowed me to have one pre-built to replace any that did get found.
Cajin took this to an extreme even I could not imagine but I know a lot of hte active player splay this way or some variation. Even running no defence with buildings and clearing nearbies is a very low risk high reward strategy. You lost 1 planet every month or two with a very low investment for 31x production on troops as well as all the other interest and income from buildings.
The HW changes professor implemented have had an interesting effect on the community and how we all 'meta game' to the point production planets are mini HWs to different levels removing a lot of the things that made SL interesting and creating a lot of work to hit that maximum level.




__________________________
I am here to help in anyway I can! Let's have fun!

ReaperOfSoulsPaskelbta: 21:08:38 2020 05 13

Pranešimai: 251

Temos: 13

Valstybė: United States

Lytis: Vyras



Times have definitely changed Iiri. ZH is right about the new meta. Would love the ability to trade my resources for trained ships without the monotonous work of training them, or having to rely on other's ability to train them. I do sacrifice the points provided from training (3k points per assault), and the profit margin by the sellers, but it's worth it to get away from that mind numbing grind. I'd be willing to sacrifice an even larger margin for a building I can buy the ships from at will.




__________________________
Previous Aliases:
JR Scovill
Future SL Ruler
Reaper Of Souls
Reaper Of Souls2
ReaperOfSouls90
RosReborn


VicandiusPaskelbta: 12:24:10 2020 05 14

Pranešimai: 18

Temos: 4

Valstybė: Albania



Yes, to my thoughts, troops=points so there is little reason to keep troops on planets for defense for someone to gain points on instead of me gaining points. Energy can accrue for defense on planets, gather it up slowly- and do need to keep some troops on one planet for daily use. My current structure doesn't quite look like that since I haven't been doing my training. But if you have 49 planets with 1M of each non-def on them, you can replace a planet every 4 days with the interest. If you add on lvl 3 non-def buildings on them you could replace a planet every 3 days and pay for the warp disruptor and buildings still. But ideally you want to keep them so can get up to 20x, which as zero said, if have the disruptor and clear nearbys, only going to be found through probing, which how many people put any effort into probing anymore.


IiridaynPaskelbta: 00:27:18 2020 05 20

Pranešimai: 1590

Temos: 86

Valstybė: United States

Lytis: Vyras



Hmm. SL has always had trouble with player interaction around the planets mechanic. Good "nearby hygiene" has long been a core part of the game, lest there be undesired interaction - but that tends to either stamp out new players inconveniently located, remove never-active players or be PVE - based now on planet drops.

What you described sounds like the end goal then - resources and defense on production planets. The intention was to make them a "moderate risk, high reward" approach - that with resources on production planets, players would be more likely to hit them for the resources. It appears defenses are too strong - so all experienced players are content to sit back and watch the resources accumulate, then hit a HW from time to time for points to win a round.

I'm at a bit of a loss here. I recognize my vision for SL might not be the same as what keeps players coming back (in which case I should probably listen to the players who are having fun ;) ), but my goal has long been to increase interaction between players in space, not just in the forums.

The market being player-driven isn't bad though; I regularly get complaints that credits don't buy enough from it, which means players selling don't value credits as highly as buyers would like. A simple solution would be to remove credits from voting and reduce round rewards; this would naturally (eventually; there're a lot in the database) increase the value of credits relative to resources - I don't plan to do this, as I'm not seeking income via SL. It also means people are interacting with each other by way of the feature, even if indirectly.

Getting people to hold planets has been successful, but has not produced the hoped-for increase in space interaction, nor have planets been defended actively as a result; as you mentioned, they are easy to replace.

I could reduce the number of planets, but past reductions have resulted in unhappy players who have nothing to do when the log in to clear nearbys - and there is no increased risk of being found.

Maybe probing is the next step - make it easier, more user-friendly? Combined with a decrease in planet drops, it could make good planets rarer and more worth fighting over and keeping? Though, I expect such a significant change would be a harsh shock to a non-vibrant system - would change the feel of the game the active players have enjoyed.

The last thing I want to do is make the game un-fun to those who love it most, who have kept returning year after year. Despite that, I would like to make it less of a solved game, so those who have "won" can have something fun to do when they return, and new players can experiment with different strategies.

I suppose that means I'll have to introduce a "rock-paper-scissors" mechanic then; a multiplayer puzzle game is only fun until some genius solves the puzzle and shares the solution - and in this case the optimal strategy was announced to encourage participation (see various Prof threads - as ZH noted, this is a common strategy, though I suspect Cajin is a master of execution). Just as AD defined early SL strategy, Cajin has defined current SL strategy.

So - what should new SL strategy look like? What would be fun and interactive? I refuse (and have many times already) to make SL a "massively singleplayer game" - where the interaction is minimized, and the only real metric of comparison is the score. SkyLords should have meaningful player interaction, unlike various Zygna games. They aren't bad games, but turning SL into that would violate the social contract from the game's marketing (and I don't like those games personally).

Better would probably be "rock-paper-scissors-lizard-spock" (etc) than just a triumvirate. Any strategy should have responses, if weaker, to other strong strategies; perhaps encouraging players to prefer two core methods, but having some natural barriers to pursuing all (not just playtime). Encourage personality segregation.

Maybe something like hiring 2/5 NPC managers (fleet, production, etc) each round? Would allow specialization with commitment without overly strict lock-in. Inactive players would lack any specialization, which would make them relatively weaker (probably with the same 5-day grace period as loss of upgrades).

That actually doesn't sound half bad as the germ of an idea. I'll percolate, while I continue code cleanup - can't make a change that big easily when the SQL impacting a table is scattered between hundreds of files.




__________________________
SkyLords Head Programmer

Spelled: I I R I (not irii, irri, or iri).

Force of nature.

IiridaynPaskelbta: 00:34:17 2020 05 20

Pranešimai: 1590

Temos: 86

Valstybė: United States

Lytis: Vyras



Might even be able to take a cue from the game features page: "Choose your way of life; become a warrior, miner, trader, spy or pirate.". Would need to balance all these to make them viable styles of play for a round though... Seems risky to lock out current features, such as "only warrior can crash assaults", etc. Still, a bonus isn't unreasonable...

Example
- Warrior - boost to assaults and fighters,
- Trader - something w/market?
- Pirate - can somehow detect positions of ships w/large volume of resources on board
- Miner - resource interest
- Spy - planets invisible to nearby?

Problem with that is - there's no "rock-paper-scissors" tradeoffs inherent with that so far; and warrior would be essential for rounds intending to score points. Not bound to those 5, but it's not a bad place to start - 5 roles was promised after all ;).

Can't nerf clan leadership by requiring a role for it - they already do so much to help the game :). While might try to give a small boost to clans per active member, that would end up too easily w/a two-party system. Maybe just the clan leader - but then that encourages fragmentation perhaps too much? (And the leader could just commit to spread it, which returns to the prior one somewhat).




__________________________
SkyLords Head Programmer

Spelled: I I R I (not irii, irri, or iri).

Force of nature.

IiridaynPaskelbta: 01:25:05 2020 05 20

Pranešimai: 1590

Temos: 86

Valstybė: United States

Lytis: Vyras



Maybe:
Warrior - beats Pirate/Miner, loses to Trader/Spy
- Immune to pirate, net win crashing miner (despite shields/turrets), but trader/spy can't find
Pirate - beats Miner/Trader, loses to Spy/Warrior
- Can raid miner, steal from trader's ships - but can't pirate warrior, can't find spy
Trader - beats Warrior/Spy, loses to Pirate/Miner
- Spy/Warrior can't touch income stream, pirate can, and miner has more income
Miner - beats Spy/Trader, loses to Warrior/Pirate
- Immune to spy/trader, suffers raids from warrior/pirate
- points per res gathered, resource interest
Spy - beats Warrior/Pirate, loses to Trader/Miner
- Invisible - so pirate/warrior can't affect, but miner/trader have better income
- Points per planet found, maybe large bonus if by probes, to counter cost (or reduce cost)?

Maybe just awarding points for each NPC you have, and not if you don't have that NPC would be enough to make the balance fall out naturally. Ie - miners get points for resources acquired, traders for those transferred from planet to planet (w/a limit to prevent boring repetition), spies for planets detected (probes, whee), and pirates for resources taken - and can see loaded ships.

Would need to prevent own resource purchasing from market to make pirate viable - or maybe just always make buyer responsible for own pickup. (Didn't originally due to code complexity - but I'm not the programmer I was then, and this would be after the code isn't what it was then either...).

In a related note, could permit pirate to make resource raids, where they have a net win stealing resources from planets (which miners do); traders keep resources in ships so are immune to that tactic but prone to piracy instead, etc?

So - combos would be interesting. Ie - miner/spy gets rid of the warrior/pirate weakness, but should as a result lose out on the net to a Miner/anything but spy (and tie w/a miner/spy). That'd be challenging to balance - but tweaking it would therefore produce interesting strategic gameplay variations across rounds.

Could default new players to "spy", remove their immunity period, etc, as they'd be protected by spy, but probably not winning due to spy having weaker points income.

---

Would that be fun and interesting? The current strategy would become miner/spy (in fact, would strengthen it, in a sense) - but there'd be other ways to earn points faster to win rounds - would this just become meta-stable into a predictable cycle instead? Ie - miner/spy until time to make points, then miner/warrior?

Admittedly, giving spy perfect invis seems a bit difficult to balance (reduce detection range? Ehh, well, could do the query with a post-hoc filter easily enough) - hard to balance vs warrior. Maybe make miner strong vs warrior, due to being holed up and hard to extract, as presently? Hmm.




__________________________
SkyLords Head Programmer

Spelled: I I R I (not irii, irri, or iri).

Force of nature.

IiridaynPaskelbta: 01:48:09 2020 05 20

Pranešimai: 1590

Temos: 86

Valstybė: United States

Lytis: Vyras



Warrior - beats Pirate/Spy loses to Trader/Miner
Pirate - beats Miner/Trader, loses to Spy/Warrior
Trader - beats Warrior/Miner, loses to Pirate/Spy
Miner - beats Spy/Warrior, loses to Trader/Pirate
Spy - beats Pirate/Trader, loses to Miner/Warrior

would fix that somewhat - some shuffling.

Spy would need an advantage over Trader, different than pirate's. Miner can still hole up vs warrior, but now needs to lose to trader - which if done w/points, encourages stuff in space more anyway, making pirate more viable... Maybe points for resources iflighted by distance? Would require the ability to intercept though... (feasible, probably).

Would give a natural disadvantage to trader/miner though, which means other pairings would have a natural advantage, which is a negative. Kinda still want to allow 2/5 though, to provide options. Might just mean the bases need to explode further to permit double pairings. 5c2 is only 10 though, feasible to design for/manage - more gets harder, and rock-paper-scissors needs an odd number; 7c2 is 21 :S.

Scientist replaces spy? Engineer/builder? Hmm.




__________________________
SkyLords Head Programmer

Spelled: I I R I (not irii, irri, or iri).

Force of nature.

ZerohoursPaskelbta: 20:47:33 2020 05 20

Pranešimai: 2371

Temos: 273

Valstybė: Canada

Lytis: Vyras



Very interesting read.




__________________________
I am here to help in anyway I can! Let's have fun!

Ankstesnis 1 2 3  Sekantis

© SkyLords 2002-2020 | SkyLords™ prekybos ženklas | Naudojimosi sąlygos | Privatumas | Susisiekti su mumis | Žaidimo DUK
VIEŠIEJI FORUMAI
TICKETS
KALBŲ FORUMAI
SKYLORDS POKALBIAI