1 2 Next >>
Poster: Mutant
Date Posted: 02 July 2013, 02:07am
I'm looking at adding a new feature that resets the world. It might take me a while to add this but I'm interested to get your thoughts on it.

Basically, there would be a reset condition which meant the game would reset when a kingdom held the crown for several days consecutively. (I'm thinking several will be 60 on the main server, 15-20 on blitz).

When the game resets, the world (including towns, dungeons, kingdoms, etc.) will get regenerated, and everyone will have to start from level 1 again. Some stats from before the reset will be saved though, including a hall of fame with the winning kingdom, top players, etc. It may even record all the old parties on a leader board.

The nice thing about this feature is that people can see the reset coming, and try to avoid it (e.g. by going to war with the kingdom that has the crown). Or if no one is powerful enough to take out the main kingdom, the game resets anyway, giving everyone another chance. I'm imagining it'll take 6 - 12 months for a reset in the main server, possibly less on blitz.

So, what do you think? Will you hate to lose your main party, or would you be happy to start again from scratch every now and then?
Poster: Weebi
Date Posted: 02 July 2013, 04:32am
Re: Resets
Its a good Idea to make things fair, maybe make it so you can see your best characters from your previous party... I have archers with 100+ agi... warriors with 100+ str. a priest with 160+ div and a Mage with almost 200int =P. It does make things more competitive though as right now the main server game is basically over as no one is near my power.  May I suggest though a higher turn limit and turns per hour then?
Poster: pelarn
Date Posted: 02 July 2013, 06:47am
Re: Resets
+1 to weebi
+1 to mutant
this is a good idea to say that a game will be ended in about 1 year.
Poster: pelarn
Date Posted: 02 July 2013, 12:20pm
Re: Resets
occupied my first town at the new server,where can i see how many towns i can occupy?
Poster: Solemn Ranger
Date Posted: 03 July 2013, 03:33am
Re: Resets
I don't like the idea of a server reset at all.  Is anyone other than pelarn really pushing mutant for this? 

Honestly, with all the time and effort I've spent, I'd probably just quit rather than have to start over with nothing.

The most I could probably stomach would be a kingdom/map/town reset.  If I lost my characters and equipment too, I'd probably quit.

Just my 2 cents.
Poster: Mutant
Date Posted: 04 July 2013, 22:12pm
Re: Resets
Solemn: fair enough... actually, I think a lot of people want the reset, or at least something to make the game more interesting. The problem is, there are a few different ways to play the game. You can take a more traditional RPG approach, building up your party, etc. or you can play it more as an empire builder. The latter is what people tend to get more interested in later on in the game. The trouble is, people build up large kingdoms and don't want to attack each other as they don't want to lose everything they've worked for. The crown is some incentive to go to war, but not really enough. The current war started because people were bored... (this means other people have probably already stopped playing).

Adding in this reset solves two issues. First, it gives people a strong incentive to go to war. They can try to avoid the reset by taking down the stronger kingdom. They also will (hopefully) want the glory of "winning" the game, and get themselves added to the hall of fame. Other people not directly involved with the more powerful kingdoms may also have a vested interest. e.g. maybe someone like you who doesn't want a reset might join the second or third ranked kingdom to try to balance things out. Second, it means that if one party or kingdom comes to dominate the game, at least there will be an end in sight for everyone to start again so they can have a chance. (It's possible a dominant player may try to prevent a reset for long periods of time... there may be other circumstances a reset could occur, but those can be worked out later).

Neither of these problems are solved by kingdom/map/town resets, as the powerful players will still be powerful, and it'll take them a matter of days to get back to where they were before. That does mean unfortunately a few players might leave. I don't want that, but to keep the game interesting for people in the long run, it may be a necessary evil.

That said, this isn't going to happen any time soon, and you'll have a lot of notice before it does. I may also only add this to the blitz game to start with, but if player numbers dwindle on the main server, it will probably get added there too. But like I say, don't expect this for a few months yet.
Poster: Falchion
Date Posted: 04 July 2013, 23:28pm
Re: Resets
Good ideas. Hall of fame especially.
Poster: Cipheron
Date Posted: 09 January 2015, 17:03pm
Re: Resets
I'd advise against ever doing a full server reset. I've seen a similar game,, do the same thing with similar justifications of evening out the player base and making things more dynamic.  The result was an instantaneous and permanent loss of 90%+ of the user base, it went from 100-120 online at a time to around 5-10 online at a time, and never recovered, with the devs eventually abandoning the whole thing (it's still "online" but critical database stuff has crashed and there's no-one to reboot it).

Games that involve a lot of grinding XP and building / planning that is very fiddly are not good "reset" candidates. If you go to rounds-based gaming you need a much more streamlined and less time-intensive approach.

I recommend making it cummulatively harder for one player to get more mayors. e.g. the first mayor needs level 15 as now, but after that use pascal's formula n(n+1)/2. So you'd need a total of 3 level 20's to get your second mayor, 6 for the third mayor, 10 for the 4th, 15 for the 5th and so on. So by your 8th mayor you would need to train up another full party of 8 level 20's to get one more mayor. This would benefit countries which have more players to be mayors and encourage working together more. A ket facet of feudalism was the fact that higher lords needed someone to manage lands for them because they couldn't be everywhere. The game doesn't really capture that dynamic very well because it's too easy for one player to get a lot more mayors, and gets faster the more they grind due to having better equipment.

If you want to balance it so more players have a level playing field, you might consider tweaking the way turns work. Increase the cap to something higher, at least 2000, so people don't have to log in so often without losing their turns. This won't really unbalance anything and will benefit whoever it suits.

I also think that the +turns/day items unbalance the game by making it harder for people with limited time to compete with established players who have a lot of free time to commit to playing. You might want to nerf those items if you don't want to outright remove them e.g. impose a cap of e.g. 200 free turns a day that can be gotten per player, or maybe per IP address. Players really should not be able to use up their 600 turns, then the day ticks over and they get another 1000 free turns because of having tons of characters with +turns items, I don't think this is how you intended for things to work, but it's how it does work in practice.

If you want to let players do more per turn, I recommend making a dungeon step of 1-tile distance only cost 1 turn rather than 2, but keep the 2-3 distance ones the same. This will slightly streamline dungeon play.
Poster: Solemn Ranger
Date Posted: 09 January 2015, 20:21pm
Re: Resets
Excellent points, Cipheron.

Currently it IS relatively easy to install multiple mayors.

However, it would also be relatively easy for another player to overthrow a mayor either by winning an election or by brute force. 

We haven't seen that happen very often recently, but the possibility is always there. 

Only high-level mayors, with the right choice of skills and very well-equipped, in a highly-defended town with a full high-level garrison, similarly well-equipped, lots of elite guards,traps,  etc. would have much chance of successfully fighting off a determined, high-level attacker who is also very well-equipped.  It may take multiple rounds of attacking and healing, but it is not impossible for a determined attacker to take a city at will.

Poster: Mutant
Date Posted: 11 January 2015, 22:48pm
Re: Resets
Well, since there's not much active development going on, a reset feature is pretty unlikely to happen. I'm open to doing feature tweaks. Encouraging players to work together has always been a central goal of the game. It hasn't exactly panned out that well (at least in part because there haven't always been enough players). And some of the tweaks you're suggesting may help that.

It is really hard balancing the heavy users against the more casual players. The turn cap is there largely to limit the bigger players. The caps have been tweaked a lot over the years, and probably came to favour the heavy users in recent times. +turn gear, as you say, has also had an impact. I think a nerf may be called for, but some of the heavier players (some who have been playing for years) may get frustrated. I will have to do some analysis on what such a cap should be.

Another tweak I'm contemplating is making the Inn a lot more expensive, at least at higher levels. I'm not so keen on massive stock piling of characters. An alternative might be that they get bored and leave after n days. This will reduce the power of heavy users to some extent.

Reducing number of mayors is a good idea, but again it is tricky to balance. Make it too hard, and people get frustrated easily as they progress too slowly.

Overall, I'm not so worried about dominant kingdoms now. It was a problem earlier, but I think some of the restrictions have made it harder to do. And the kingdoms eventually "decay" (usually from people not maintaining them). So, even if I did have time, I probably wouldn't add a reset feature.
Poster: Cipheron
Date Posted: 15 January 2015, 02:32am
Re: Resets
The turn cap is there largely to limit the bigger players.

I think it hits occasional players more than it hits everyday players. Limiting the +turns items to e.g. 250,  would remove the benefit of an everyday player of a high turn cap. +turns items were the main way of exploiting a higher turn cap, because you could earn up to 1000 bonus turns/day by farming characters with those +turns items. Increasing the turn cap under those circumstances would definitely advantage the larger players. but if the +turns items are limited in effect per player, then it changes the situation.

Currently, if someone plays once per week, then they will get ~1000 + 100 for voting = ~1100 turns/week.

If someone plays everyday, then they will get 600 daily + 100 for voting + 250 from items (once it's capped), so 950 turns a day, which is 6650 a week, or about 6 times the turns of the weekly player.

If the turn cap goes up to 1500 at the same time as +turns items are capped, then the weekly player now gets ~1600 turns/week, but the daily player still gets the 6650 turns he was getting before. The difference is now closer to 4 times rather than 6 times.

Increasing the turn cap (i think at least 1500 would be nice) will actually make things fairer for people who miss 1 day of logging in. I'd still log in every day for voting, but the timing of spending most of my turns would be easier to juggle with real life.

I think the current tight scheduling required to get the most turns only benefits people in real life who don't have a job or study. Those aren't the ideal customer base to be targetting as your main demographic (they tend not to have any money). I think this might be an issue for some similar games too. Currently, I'm on vacation, but I'll have to see how the game works with my schedule when I go back to study in 3 weeks. Making your game more convenient to play for working people is probably good economic sense.
Poster: Mutant
Date Posted: 16 January 2015, 23:00pm
Re: Resets
Yes, I was talking about the turn cap in general (i.e. the limited turns you get each hour). I have no problems raising the total cap higher, the aim of the game has always been that you don't have to play every day. Once the bonus turns are separated from the max turn cap, then it can probably go quite a bit higher, maybe even 3000. This essentially means you can play twice a week and still be as active (well nearly) as someone who plays every day.
Poster: Zangi
Date Posted: 19 January 2015, 02:06am
Re: Resets
I give a resounding NO to party reset.  Well... as a compromise, you can lock the equipment behind something that asks for gold.  And allow repurchase of characters too.
(Just as long as none of that gets permanently deleted and I can still get it all back, eventually...)

But... it is totally fine to clean out the towns, garrisons and graves.
EDIT: Seriously, some of these old improvements are +3 years old.
Poster: Sartain
Date Posted: 21 January 2015, 12:53pm
Re: Resets
[quote author=Mutant link=topic=931.msg3379#msg3379 date=1421016503]
Encouraging players to work together has always been a central goal of the game. It hasn't exactly panned out that well

The game doesn't give players much reason to work together at all. I realize that it's probably beyond the scope of what you'd want to program, but I was thinking that having a lower-level organization than kingdoms be available might help in regard to players cooperating. For descriptive purposes, let's call it a Guild.
It could have some minor features similar to a kingdom (membership fees and guild leader being able to issue quests) but wouldn't pull taxes from towns or anything, and would be create-able from a lower party level than a kingdom.

It could have elections for leader (or maybe different options for organizational structure if you're feeling ambitious) and could possible be a political entity that could swear allegiance to a kingdom, much like individual parties can now. If a Guild has all the prerequisites, it could even upgrade into a kingdom, which is actually my main point for this, since this would be a way for parties to work together in creating a kingdom or for parties working together without necessarily having to join a kingdom, providing a basis for cooperation for lower level parties.

As it stands now, the only way to cooperate with other parties is to join already existing kingdoms, which I'm pretty sure lots of people don't find as fun as being able to make their own mark on the game. Having a lower-tier organization might alleviate that.
Poster: Falchion
Date Posted: 22 January 2015, 01:36am
Re: Resets
How about a scenario where players vote for an Emperor of the lands amongst existing players. A political battle of power that runs parallel to the main action, but has some influence over it. This could force more involvement between players. Farfetched? Just a thought...
Poster: ooli
Date Posted: 28 January 2015, 12:29pm
Re: Resets
It's nice to see so many active player (183 in game stat) in this fine game.

I'm always in favor of automated reset system. That's how I like to play RPG in general: I just enjoy rolling new character and starting anew (the reason why I never bother finishing most of the RPG I played)

The good new is: I can do that in the game WITHOUT reset. I seed my active party with newbies while I garrison the full leveled one.

But, most of the enjoyment come from being a newbie in a newbies land. You know, planning your travel so you dont risk to die to a gobelin bands, finding level 1 dungeon, finding your first indestructible armor, etc...
That only come with a reset, cause else you have no incentive to voluntary gimp yourself, while other player amass uber item in level 3 dungeon.

As Cipheron said, it may upset the user base. I can understand people investing time into their character and being upset about a reset.
But even those player will grow bored after a time without new contents.

I's a shame Mutant as no time to code an automated reset. But I still think the game need one. I mean .. I have 100 character (I could buy hundred more but  it's already not manageable) and the 1st player has like 700 of them! It's kind of ridiculous. You cant play, or even find a use for that much characters.

May be a poll could be useful.
Not so that Mutant reset his game, but to have a feel of how people react to the concept. I will post one, just as an information tool.
Poster: Falchion
Date Posted: 04 June 2016, 01:09am
Re: Resets
Glad the reset never happened. Is server 2 still going?
Poster: Mutant
Date Posted: 06 June 2016, 01:32am
Re: Resets
[quote author=Falchion link=topic=931.msg4037#msg4037 date=1465002557]
Glad the reset never happened.

Yes, although recent events might lend weight to the argument that a reset is needed..... (not that it's likely to happen)

[quote author=Falchion link=topic=931.msg4037#msg4037 date=1465002557]
Is server 2 still going?

No, shut down quite some time ago, due to lack of interest.
Poster: Khronnkk-Gak!!
Date Posted: 06 June 2016, 22:43pm
Re: Resets
What recent events?
Poster: Mutant
Date Posted: 07 June 2016, 00:17am
Re: Resets
The fact that one kingdom (with the two most active players) has managed to dominate most of the map... players getting too strong for anyone to ever catch them up has been one of the main reasons people want resets.
1 2 Next >>