last week before the reset......

[pitoh]

I do not see any big mouth in the KILLING ranking.....

I'm only asking me why......????

PLAY MORE AND LESS TRASH TALKS PLEASE...........

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hmGQ5SlazJA&feature=my_liked_videos&list=LLZ_hFuU1qId5WplLhz7Ga_Q

[Luke]

The total of the whole round will also be interesting to me. To see if it makes any difference if players know when the reset will be. And if there is a difference: is it good or bad?

[pitoh]

well it's way more easy to play.......

[Peonboss]

Before the end results are in what are your views luke. I know I liked it this way but wondering pre numbers what your impressions are.

[Hollow_Cost]

Great song Pitoh. Let's get hammered and beat the crap out of some people! :bang ;beer

edit - just realized that was your youtube playlist. Good stuff.

[Decooter]

I can't stand it this way. I will probably only play one more round if it stays this way: predetermined end time, I mean.

Maybe not even the whole round. So boring, relatively speaking.

[Starbuck]

I don't mind either way, I would've played exactly the same if I didn't know when the reset will be... I will just spend all my geos before the time is up but I'm sure most people will do the same!

[RagingMongoose]

And if there is a difference: is it good or bad?

For me, I'd sum it up as follows:

Good

- Allows alliances to plan better during wars throughout the round.

- I'm assuming this makes some of the work required behind the scenes for a reset easier to plan for Staff hopefully.

- Allows game development to take place according to more well defined timescales, with players and Staff knowing within reason whether new features/functionality/fixes will be rolled out during the current reset, the next, or so on.

Bad

- Encourages sit and save mentality and actually allows this to happen with no risk of not being able to spend all geos. For me this is a major point of concern with announcing a reset date in advance and we're already seeing a few players that haven't been active at all so far this round coming out to attack in the final week, just hoping not too many more follow.

- Can remove some of the strategy involved in planning wars where an end date isn't known (however it could be argued that strategy is required for different reasons when a date is known).

[SJ]

I honestly believe the sit and save happens whether we have the reset date or not, for some reason the same problem happens every round.

[RagingMongoose]

I honestly believe the sit and save happens whether we have the reset date or not, for some reason the same problem happens every round.

I agree and it's a shame, however the only concern I have with announcing the reset date is that it allows sitting and saving without risk of missing the end of the round.

Remove all interest and resource earnings if the player hasn't achieved X amount of activity (I'd suggest killing the average hps killed by all players) in Y amount of time (I'd suggest 2 weeks). That would stop them instantly, plus I think it's reasonable that if a player wants to participate in a round, even during busy times of life then they should attack once every two weeks - especially given that a lot manage to find time to plant daily.

[SJ]

I like that idea RM, although would they not then just come back another week earlier. I wonder is it because they get bored and just give up until the next round? Could it be that we need shorter rounds? Or perhaps the fact that Luke is reducing the number of cities at the start will mean that they have something to fight for for an entire round.

[aravan]

Could it be that we need shorter rounds? Or perhaps the fact that Luke is reducing the number of cities at the start will mean that they have something to fight for for an entire round.

In my opinion neither the round length or the higher number of cities is what causes the sit and save or the general inactivity. Rather, I think, it is the fact that a player has no reason to participate. I actually think the next round will be worse with fewer cities (though it is good to see something new being tested). I think the idea is that with fewer cities there will be more to fight for, generating activity, when what I think will actually happen is that you will have a greater amount of players who sit and wait and save because they will not be able to own a city at all. If a player isnt able to get in at the beginning of the round there will be very little chance for that player to be successful unless they are in one of the large alliances that can provide them support. Any new player or players in smaller alliances will have the same trouble as they always do which means frustration and ultimately inactivity or quitting.

From my own experience I have much more activity when I own a city or two and can hold them. If I dont own a city and have little hope of keeping one then there is little incentive to keep coming back. When you do own a city you are more likely to check on it to defend it, keep planting resources to make sure you have income to defend it and then maybe feel ambitious enough to attack other cities to try and improve your standing. And while you are doing those other things you may check the latest activity, check to see the top player or alliance lists or even stop into the forum to see what is going on. I think it all starts with city ownership. Remove the chance for ownership and the entire point of the game disappears. Give players a reason to participate and they will. Just my two cents worth...

[Peonboss]

What about a graduated score.

So first month counts 6 times. 2nd 5 and down to last that counts only 1. There really is no incentive at all to go nuts day one or month one.

[SJ]

What about a graduated score.

So first month counts 6 times. 2nd 5 and down to last that counts only 1. There really is no incentive at all to go nuts day one or month one.

PB I think you may be on to something with that, it would def stop the sit and savers as well. That's a very good idea.

@ aravan, I think the issue is two fold. If you have tonnes of cities, then players just become complacent sitting and holding, adding tonnes of industry. Is you have too few cities, players may then feel they have no chance of gaining one from an alliance who may hold a large number of the limited cities. I can see how PBs idea might actually address both issues. If you play for score, then it would be beneficial to fight all round, also it provides the incentive not to go quiet.

[Starbuck]

I honestly believe the sit and save happens whether we have the reset date or not, for some reason the same problem happens every round.

This is very true, we see the saving every round! It will always happen... Some people start off with a bang and then get bored with a round very fast and do nothing for months

I like RM's idea... Give the actives more geos and stop income for those that sit and save!

[aravan]

PB I think you may be on to something with that, it would def stop the sit and savers as well. That's a very good idea.

@ aravan, I think the issue is two fold. If you have tonnes of cities, then players just become complacent sitting and holding, adding tonnes of industry. Is you have too few cities, players may then feel they have no chance of gaining one from an alliance who may hold a large number of the limited cities. I can see how PBs idea might actually address both issues. If you play for score, then it would be beneficial to fight all round, also it provides the incentive not to go quiet.

We've tried score before. In fact, it may have been my idea 5 or 6 or 7 years ago to try it. I am sure that post is still around somewhere when I proposed it. But I still think score isnt the only answer and doesnt mean anything without the ability for continued city ownership, though it is a step in the right direction. Score assumes everyone wants to be at the top of the rankings and that it will create activity. What happened was that the scores of the most active were the highest and the least active were the lowest so nothing was really solved. Eventually there was no way to catch up so again there was no reason play for those who were not highly active. Even if the score system is graduated it will end up the same way. History has proven it.

To find the middle area I recently proposed a city ownership limit at the beginning of the round with the limit increasing as the round goes on to reach unlimited ownership at some point near the end. That way every single player is nearly guaranteed to own a city at some point during the round. Eventually the week players will be overwhelmed and the strong will survive but it gives everyone a chance. And even players who start somewhere in the middle may have a chance for city ownership. I will maintain my opinion that without the ability to own a part of the game (i.e. a city) there is no incentive to keep playing it. Again, I think, history proves this point...

I found this in an old thread back in 2006. Can you guess who it came from? The point is that one player or alliance with too many cities kills the game. At that point one alliance (NAR) controlled 80% of the cities in the game and people quit playing. Sound familiar?

NAR started giving cities away because the game died.
A fact was that out of 1500 players, more then a 1000 quit.
NAR gave up most power(the truth), to save the game. And after that, the RCMP came for it. But that was about 2 months later.
And the levels was decided already some time ago. You need to have something to play for or it becomes a drag if you can't win anything.

[pitoh]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p450mjB3mxc&feature=my_liked_videos&list=LLZ_hFuU1qId5WplLhz7Ga_Q

I really like the killing ranking, it keeps me awake till 4:00 am when I have to wake up for work @7am.....

:paladin