Greetings, Guest
Saturday, 18 May 2024
2
On 5 Dec 2011 at 20:18:35 CET
-
I guess there would be an "Alliance Galaxy" a pretty nice solution at all ;)
Like that the leader of an Alliance writes his member down and only those get the chance to register there with some kind of personal invitation, like via a key or something they have to type in.
That way we could do it more fair for everyone. Also they would be then manually set from the Admin (Atanamo) so they start in groups like in ego-shooters on so called "Team Spawns" or some kind of that.
An other idea of mine would be to simply allow only to attack 2 or less at same time against a player, except for top 5 of course.
That would make it probably more fair for everyone, and i guess it would bring also more pleasure to everyone.
Also an other way is a "Trade Barrier" like that you can only trade with 50% of your daily total income of all planets. It should count for ships and weapons and others as well. So it would be more like the value of the income. I guess that would be able to code, because in other browsergames they got a similiar system against "Pushing".
All grammar mistakes belong to their respective owners
There was no care for correct written form, because.... THIS IS ENGLISH!!!
Like that the leader of an Alliance writes his member down and only those get the chance to register there with some kind of personal invitation, like via a key or something they have to type in.
That way we could do it more fair for everyone. Also they would be then manually set from the Admin (Atanamo) so they start in groups like in ego-shooters on so called "Team Spawns" or some kind of that.
An other idea of mine would be to simply allow only to attack 2 or less at same time against a player, except for top 5 of course.
That would make it probably more fair for everyone, and i guess it would bring also more pleasure to everyone.
Also an other way is a "Trade Barrier" like that you can only trade with 50% of your daily total income of all planets. It should count for ships and weapons and others as well. So it would be more like the value of the income. I guess that would be able to code, because in other browsergames they got a similiar system against "Pushing".
All grammar mistakes belong to their respective owners
There was no care for correct written form, because.... THIS IS ENGLISH!!!
1
On 5 Dec 2011 at 19:39:47 CET
Howto reduce the fails in concepts
So, by now, SGR seems to fit perfectly to loners, who are sick of alliances, guilds, clans and so on. Of cource this was one big idea of the main concept of SGR:
Myself hates clan wars or battles between big alliances - from which most normal players are excluded. Also it's typical that these wars are at the expense of beginners and nominal alliance members. A big group of users suffers and the leaders of clans or alliances benefit from it.
Therefore I developed the current system of one-to-one alliances. There are no named alliances, there are only small coalitions between two players. To have a bigger alliance, their members have to be directly allied with each other. But the alliance's organisation is still undefined, ergo has to be done by the members theirselves.
Well, time taught me to rethink some of these issues. Unfortunately, it seems that alliances, clans, etc. have one big issue, which makes them valuable for game developers: Social interaction.
Social interaction between the members of an alliance lead to social dependencies. And dependencies bind a player to the game. He wouldn't leave the game as simple as if he has no friends within it. Friends, however, are most easily made within a multiplayer alliance: Rise as one, fall as one.
And here we come to the point of conflict: SGR has no real multiplayer alliances^^
But what should we do?
I'm still afraid of big alliances, because they still have many disadvantages. Moreover, there ain't no single line of code, which enables a possibility to declare war on a group of players aka an alliance. Having war with a member of an alliance does not mean to have war with all members of that alliance - not to mention knowing all members.
Ok, to sum up... Does anyone have good ideas to fix that problem? I would be glad to read some opinions, too.
PS: The reason I write this in English lies deep in the last day... and is because I only want to address the smart ones of you :-P
PPS: All grammar mistakes belong to their respective owners^^
PPPS: You are allowed to answer in German.
Myself hates clan wars or battles between big alliances - from which most normal players are excluded. Also it's typical that these wars are at the expense of beginners and nominal alliance members. A big group of users suffers and the leaders of clans or alliances benefit from it.
Therefore I developed the current system of one-to-one alliances. There are no named alliances, there are only small coalitions between two players. To have a bigger alliance, their members have to be directly allied with each other. But the alliance's organisation is still undefined, ergo has to be done by the members theirselves.
Well, time taught me to rethink some of these issues. Unfortunately, it seems that alliances, clans, etc. have one big issue, which makes them valuable for game developers: Social interaction.
Social interaction between the members of an alliance lead to social dependencies. And dependencies bind a player to the game. He wouldn't leave the game as simple as if he has no friends within it. Friends, however, are most easily made within a multiplayer alliance: Rise as one, fall as one.
And here we come to the point of conflict: SGR has no real multiplayer alliances^^
But what should we do?
I'm still afraid of big alliances, because they still have many disadvantages. Moreover, there ain't no single line of code, which enables a possibility to declare war on a group of players aka an alliance. Having war with a member of an alliance does not mean to have war with all members of that alliance - not to mention knowing all members.
Ok, to sum up... Does anyone have good ideas to fix that problem? I would be glad to read some opinions, too.
PS: The reason I write this in English lies deep in the last day... and is because I only want to address the smart ones of you :-P
PPS: All grammar mistakes belong to their respective owners^^
PPPS: You are allowed to answer in German.
Was nicht passt, wird passend gemacht,
Wo ein Bug ist, werden Fallen aufgestellt,
Und was nicht geht, bekommt Beine...
Wo ein Bug ist, werden Fallen aufgestellt,
Und was nicht geht, bekommt Beine...