{Concept Discussion} NPCs as a limitation on score gap

[Dr Rush]

So I've been hearing alot of people asking for NPCs to be added. While I'm not opposed to more raid targets in principle, I prefer mechanics that serve a function, thus this thread. Games like this tend to have issues with an ever widening gap between older established players & new players just coming in. This leads to poorer player retention & eventual game death. P&W is still to new to really feel this it is something that will eventually happen.

 

My idea is to add NPCs that run a range from pacifist with next to no military to heavily militarized & aggressive nations. Occupying the bottom ~10% of the nation score range would be pacifist NPCs they would have large amounts of resources for the score range & for the most part would fight back badly, if at all. Basically an easy food source for new nations just getting started. From 10% to say ~40% you would find NPCs that gradually become less profitable & harder to beat but still decent targets. Between ~40%-60% NPCs are a break even venture, you can attack & win but will likely lose just as much as you make in the process. At ~60% the fun starts, NPCs would become profitable to be beat again, but they would also not just fight back but attack players from time to time. At the very top tier (>~97%) NPCs cease to be a raid target & become a menacing war opponent that attacks & drags down high level players, still beatable but difficult & you would have to do some rebuilding.

 

Notes:

1. While I have given specific ranges, they are for illustrative purposes only, I see this as a gradual but smooth progression from raid target to aggressive attacker.

2. I have not suggested or discussed specifics of exactly how NPCs would work (E.G. spawning, rebuilding, builds, how often they attack or cash they have on hand) those are balancing & implementation issues & I would like to focus on the concept itself for the moment, not it's trappings which can be dealt with later. 

[Avruch]

How would NPCs address the issues of boredom and player retention?

[Dan77]

I don't like the idea of NPCs at all.  It's better to introduce changes that encourage more war IMO.

 

The range system actually works quite well anyway.  There are old players hanging around in low score ranges because ultimately, it doesn't really matter what score range you're in, so long as you can thrive within your range.

 

Even high score players are not untouchable in this game (unlike many others) as we clearly saw with Guardian and SK members whose scores have tumbled recently.

 

If mechanics or systems can be adjusted to encourage more war or even a particular type of war then the chance of people running away in score reduces.  Either that or the community grow some balls and take it into their own hands through alliances and ignoring CBs.

Edited June 16, 2015 by Dan77

[Dr Rush]

How would NPCs address the issues of boredom and player retention?

Warggghhhhhhhhhhh!!!!!!!!!!!

 

Plus being able to catch up to older players makes newer players feel less useless.

[Caecus]

Ooooo, this sounds fun. The added spontaneity and randomness of the game also pairs well with the new approval system. This could allow nations who have suffered heavy losses and defeats to regain approval, not to mention fill the time during lulls of peace between major wars. I like this idea, and I think this should be developed more. 

 

Edit:

 

Also, I know a player who just started a week ago, and now has 3 cities of 1500 infra (Probably not the best idea for infra-income efficiency) and makes a crap ton of money by raiding. I remember a post a while back about how lower tier nations raiding new players is bad for player retention. That is a true statement no matter how you put it. The implementation of this idea will likely encourage more new nations to grow faster and stay with playing, since theoretically, the NPC nations would be easier targets for reaping benefits. 

 

However, we should be careful though about the NPCs. I could possibly see that in the future, some alliances may have perm smaller nations just to farm the (Pardon my French) out of NPCs and build huge treasuries with it. The profits from NPCs should be carefully calculated. 

Edited June 16, 2015 by Caecus

[Greatnate]

No npc's, part of the beauty of P&W is that everything has been done by the players. We don't need to rely on npc resource faucets or sinks. Keep everything player-based and keep the game interesting to those who want to see how the community evolves independently.

[Wayne]

NPC's? Fo real, brah...

 

How about we just make war less devestating.  Y'know, some times the most simpe things are the best.  Although alliances will still be !@#$ing tax farming their inactives and still be uppity about actual war cuz ya need a valid CB, a pound of pixie dust and a nugget of unicorn turd apparently before you fight each other, so that probably wouldn't work either...

 

Flawed game is flawed!