Individual Player Activity & Impact on the 80

[DeletedUser446]

A lot of the progress is dependent on the number of hours that an individual is willing to spend playing each day/week. With our group, many of the more active players are hitting the PvP hard and are generally picking on the weaker players.

These factors will severely impact the casual player. After 6 days on Brigard, our group has a super users that has 3x the points that I do and I am among the more active players. A full 20 players have zero points and just over 40% have less than 1,000. There are another 20% with less than 10,000 points.

This disparity makes the game less interesting for everyone. Two potential solutions come to mind, but would involve the ability to move players into new groups. It would add to the overhead, but could keep a lot more players involved.

First suggestion: Ask new players about their expected online time with a simple low, medium, high time range option (slightly overlapping with values ranges shown) and place them in compatible groups. If they exceed/fail to meet a slightly larger weekly range , warn them that they will be moved up/down. After 3rd warning of the same type in 6 weeks, move them.

Second suggestion. Move players at regular intervals (weekly?) based on points.

 

[DeletedUser]

Screw the ask them part. Removed from that continent after 3 or 5 days of inactivity. Replace them with new players, eventually you'll get [example] 50 continents full of active players instead of 500 continents with 10-15 active players.

It would also preserve those active players from getting bored, after a while, there is nothing left to sabotage, nobody to trade with, nothing to do but wait and collect (and we still have to pay for the collect all button!!)

On my continent, there is 3 of us trading and about 9 playing, how exactly are we supposed to get some of every goods to keep going forward?

 

[DeletedUser]

I think the ability to conquer the inactives is better than removing them, then you can gain their resources and they actually become useful and it puts more meaning into the combat system, whats the point of attacking only to saboutage 1 building and get what 10 gold i earn more than ten times that for one click on a single house... attacking other players becomes a pointless futile exercise...

 

[DeletedUser]

I think the ability to conquer the inactives is better than removing them, then you can gain their resources and they actually become useful

You can't get anything but gold from inactive players, nothing refills unless he come back online to setup new goods or tools for x time to be produced.

Therefore, you can be lucky and find an inactive who has 1 or 2 fruit farm and and lumbermill to sab but you won't last long making something worth it off him.

 

[DeletedUser]

Well - the proposed solution to this addresses this, if the player is inactive completely you gain a minimum of 50 gold and prod from them a day, this makes even the smallest players in multiples worth conquering, and the larger players only loose 10 percent of their production if conquered, that makes them still worthwhile to play, just not as profitable...

 

[DeletedUser17]

A system to promote activity in each neighbourhood is being worked on. Thank you for your patience.

 

[DeletedUser]

I am at EMA right now and after today when one more person quit we have just 4 people playing in our sector. Best solution from my perspective is:
After clearing some continent map give as reward ability to move to another sector (if we wish to). This way all active players from dead sectors will be able to move to one sector and enjoy the game together.

 

[DeletedUser]

The biggest problem with that loki, is that resources are randomly allocated as a balance between the 80 players, if players are all moved, it is possible that no player will have a resource and the entire game grinds to a halt anyway... we need a way to access the resources that "dead" players would have had in the random allocation...

 

[DeletedUser]

Carasus - i think it would be opposite. That is when there are 80 active people who all can for example produce iron age products there will be an abundance of different kind of resources vs situation that we have now when there are no players playing in sectors and naturally do not trade any resources. Also as i propose - if you do not want to move to such sector and would like to stay in sector you are now with your current neighbours and resources they produce you could simply stay.

Also bringing all willing active players in one sector not just increase trade opportunities but would increase competition between players and players would use more diamonds to be ahead of others.

Player inactivity with very low game speed (lagging in battles, buildings, etc) are two main issues in this game atm.

 

[DeletedUser]

I dont disagree with a lot of what you say, but the way the code works...

When you create a neighbourhood, it allocates to 80 players all resources randomly, EG: 10 players get stone, 10 wood, 10 grapes, etc etc etc... this means in a neighbourhood theoretically every resource exists multiple times, there is however no way of knowing who will keep playing and who will stop, so who knows what resources will be missing, and if players start to move neighbourhoods there could be a situation with 80 active players and not one can has dye for example, unlikely, but possible, unless in changing neighbourhoods you inherrit a different territory map and have to change all your production to suit, that could work, but would players go for it?

 

[DeletedUser]

Even if what you say is true and sector has definite amount of different mines that are allocated to its members randomly and not mines are given to players randomly in general. Chances that 80 would have the same mines are extremely small (i'd say non exsistial as we can have 2 out of just 5 resources of that age). Even if it would happen for such situations trading with system at rate 1:10 is created, as its also possible to build needed mines even without resources (as we are already doing).
Personally i like odds of having 79 people to trade with then 4 or in near future even less that i have right now.

Also people would be able move to another sector of higher age where they would meet new people with new products when conquering higher age maps and could gather those needed resources from them.

 

[DeletedUser]

Global trade can help, but that won't solve the issue of ending up with 4 active players per continent after a month. Merging active players into one continent would cause the problems mentioned in the above posts. I'm no friend of this also because you'll have to get used to new neighbors every few weeks. You've made friends on a continent, and now you can't play with/against them anymore? Some people might like that, I don't. 5000 players per continent maybe? This is still beta, so why not just give it a try on an en3 server and see how that works out?

 

[DeletedUser]

Well put Hakel

 

[DeletedUser903]

inactivity will be the death of this game. i am enjoying playing at the moment but i am slowly grinding to a halt. I don't have enough space to meet all the resource demands and there is very little trade. Something needs to be done or the situation will just get worse

 

[DeletedUser]

5000 players per continent maybe? This is still beta, so why not just give it a try on an en3 server and see how that works out?

That might be a good way to clear out en1 and en2. A lot of the remaining stragglers here would probably switch very quickly.

I think I would, even after all the time invested in en1. The unnecessary frustration of being stuck for three days over a resource is not a good feature of the current servers.

 

[DeletedUser]

If the size of continents/global trading/else changes, I'd like it to be applied to Arvahall also. I'm not stuck, I invested time and a little money and I want to play this server like all the other servers.

Just my 2 cents.

 

[DeletedUser]

I would do slow movements. Carasus has a point that if resources carry, there is a risk of reducing (though the statistical possibility of eliminating is remote) resources. Frankly, that's a net WIN. Resource scarcity increases value on those resources, and makes territories more (or less) valuable. Increasing volatility, and therefore play value.

Haekel also has a point about getting used to new players every few weeks if players are moved too often. One solution to that is to have larger trade pools, but then there are risks of meta-guilds that cut groups of people out of certain resources, which isn't fun.

I liked the idea posted above about moving people towards sectors where there are more players with similar activity levels. But do it slowly. Start by moving inactive or low active accounts to specific zones. If they get more active, great, move them back out. If not, it's a lot easier to target and delete (or freeze). This encourages active players in zones, and requires less servers to maintain an active game.

 

[DeletedUser653]

Talion (resisting the face plant!)
The post you have replied to is a very old one and players are now moved around and groups updated every Monday morning.

So all the points you refer to have been worked on and improved about 2 months ago, so its worth looking at the last date of the post before replying.

Enjoy the game - thanks