Make the game more dynamic

[Bambino]

Hey,

 

I was talking with Fraggle and we were discussing ways to make the game more interesting.  One of the ideas that we hit upon is introducing challenges at a global level that either everyone can work on or are alliance specific (ie: each alliance can work on completing it and first alliance to complete gets some advantage).  Additionally, certain actions by a sufficient number of nations would result in worldwide effects.

 

These are clearly just brain farts here, but a couple we came up with are:

 

Examples of triggering events might include:

 

- Nuclear fallout:  If more than x number of nukes are detonated, resulting in reduced food production for a specific amount of time and pollution levels being raised globally for everyone.

 

- Wartime Stagnation: More than a certain number of countries go to war, economic progress is dampened via reduced incomes for everyone (and possibly vice versa as well)

 

- Alliance / Global approval: If the aggregate approval globally (or as an alliance, doesn't really matter) drops below a certain number, then bad things happen (riots resulting in decreased revenue or chance of destruction of improvements once per day).  Event subsides once approval rises back above threshold.

 

Examples of challenges might include:

 

-Rising Sea Levels - Globally, all nations can contribute resources and cash to meet a target;  If the target is met, sea levels don't rise and a slight bonus is given to all nations;  Target isn't met, everyone loses 10% land (or some other effect)

 

- Food Shortages - Alliances can contribute food to the global food bank in order to prevent famine.  Success yields no negative effects;  Failure leads to -10 to 20% food production globally

 

- Aliens invade! - Aliens invade and alliances can fight back.  Alliances that do the most damage in repelling the invaders gain certain bonuses;  If aliens aren't defeated within a certain amount of time, some negative effect occurs globally (encouraging people to participate)

 

 

If enough challenges or triggering events are not resolved, more serious penalties occur for a specified period of time

 

These were just a few ideas that we had.  I don't think they would be hard to implement, but I'm not a coder either.  Thoughts?  I'd be willing to attempt to help make this happen, but what do people think about implementing something like this?

[Speaker Faris Wheeler]

This has been on Sheepy's list for a while now, but he hasn't gotten around to it

[Bambino]

Is there no one that can take over the project for him to help get it implemented?

[LordRahl2]

As long as you don't use approval rating, which is a completely broken mechanic, then sure. Whatever.

[Ikhan]

If wartime stagnation is added, then it will be a permanant thing since it seems most nations are at war already...

[Dr Rush]

Global effects amount to little more then automatic lawn mowing for gpa for the most part.

 

Events that require spending money to avoid negative effects are even more so. As a nation it makes no sense to pay into them at all.

 

Lets say an events says the world must raise 1 billion dollars or everyone loses 100 infra.

 

Option one, I pay in money & the goal is reached, I have kept my infra, but so has everyone who did not pay in. I have therefore taken an economic loss in comparison to those who did not spend money.

 

Option two, I pay in money & the goal is not reached, I have lost my infra, but so has everyone else. I have therefore taken an economic loss in comparison to those who did not spend money.

 

Option three, I do not pay in money & the goal is reached, I have kept my infra, but not spent anything to do it. I have therefore made an economic gain in comparison to those who did spend money.

 

Option four, I do not pay in money & the goal is not reached, I have lost my infra, but not spent anything to do it. I have therefore made an economic gain in comparison to those who did spend money.

 

Regardless of outcome those who spend money lose. So there is no incentive for an individual to pay in. On the alliance level it might make sense for upper tier alliances to pay it as it is cheaper then repairing the loss, however at that level they lose either way so it amounts to a tax on being big.

Edited July 23, 2016 by Dr Rush

[LordRahl2]

Shhhh dr rush

[Bambino]

Hm, I see what you're saying Dr. Rush.  Perhaps something else could be arrived at? Maybe no negative effects but if goal is reached then positive effects for people who contribute more than a certain amount (with that amount being hidden).  Guess I'm just trying to introduce some dynamicism at the moment that would shake people from the usual "grow, stockpile, war, rebuild, grow, stockpile....ect".  Have people work towards a common goal or attempt to sabatoge those working towards a particular goal.

 

Edit: Or perhaps if you contribute more than x% of the project, you aren't AS affected by the negative effects, enough to encourage people to participate.  I dunno.  Just some thoughts.

Edited July 15, 2016 by Bambino

[LordRahl2]

The complaint to that would be the opposite. That you are overrewarding large farming nations.

 

Really it's difficult to fit this design into a sandbox type game, which this is, as you are trying to do.

 

The dynamicism that you seek is found outside the game, here and on irc, where social interaction leads to alliance structures that eventually clash in game.

[Bambino]

Already active on the forums (though perhaps not as much as other people) and on IRC.  Just looking for another way to shake up the game that doesn't have to be specific to one side or the other.  These types of challenges or triggering events would affect everyone the same assuming that the correct prerequiste limitations were put into affect.

[LordRahl2]

I understand your intent. I question its feasabilty to implement in a fair way that actually meets that intent.

 

The law of unintended consequences applies here - as to most mechanical changes in the game.

 

You can make the changes small enough so that the preverse and/or negative outcomes are also small. However, this will lessen the effect you are looking for and most will generally ignore it (like treasures which have more benifit to whales but the effect is not large enough to really worry about it).

 

The more changes you make the more one style of play will accumulate advantages until it is the only real feasable style of play and you will have killed the real dynamicism that you seek to encourage.

[Bilal the Great]

The nuclear fallout is the only I think would work, because it was a feature in Cybernations and it was okay.

[SoS]

Global effects amount to little more then automatic lawn mowing for gpa for the most part.

 

Events that require spending money to avoid negative effects are even more so. As a nation it makes no sense to pay into them at all.

 

Lets say an events says the world must raise 1 billion dollars or everyone loses 100 infra.

 

Option one, I pay in money & the goal is reached, I have kept my infra, but so has everyone who did not pay in. I have therefore taken an economic loss in comparison to those who did not spend money.

 

Option two, I pay in money & the goal is not reached, I have lost my infra, but so has everyone else. I have therefore taken an economic loss in comparison to those who did not spend money.

 

Option three, I do not pay in money & the goal is reached, I have kept my infra, but not spent anything to do it. I have therefore made an economic gain in comparison to those who did spend money.

 

Option four, I do not pay in money & the goal is not reached, I have lost my infra, but not spent anything to do it. I have therefore made an economic gain in comparison to those who did spend money.

 

Regardless of outcome those who spend money lose. So there is no incentive for an individual to pay in. On the alliance level it might make sense for upper tier alliances to pay it as it is cheaper then repairing the loss, however at that level they lose either way so it amounts to a tax on being big.

This game is riddled with prisoners' dilemma

[Peacity Peace]

This game is riddled with prisoners' dilemma

 

Then again, making things more complicated can be fun, but if you ruin the immersion, you've failed.

 

 

 

 

 

Also, in a game where things can go 0 to 100 real quick, the ones that survive play conservatively. 

Edited July 29, 2016 by Peacity Peace