Ministers |
Post Reply
|
Page <1234> |
| Author | ||
Beyljr
Wordsmith
Joined: 12 Mar 2014 Status: Offline Points: 157 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 23 Dec 2014 at 11:34 |
|
I agree that the player should initiate the strategy. But if a player schedules an army move in order to dodge an incoming attack, then they have initiated the strategy. All the minister would be doing is carrying out the player's orders. I.e. the minister would not be doing anything but what the player told it to do, but without the inconvenience of the player having to stay up all night to do it. |
||
![]() |
||
Angrim
Postmaster General
Joined: 02 Nov 2011 Location: Laoshin Status: Offline Points: 1173 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 22 Dec 2014 at 19:07 |
|
|
||
![]() |
||
Beyljr
Wordsmith
Joined: 12 Mar 2014 Status: Offline Points: 157 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 22 Dec 2014 at 16:19 |
|
Very true. And that is a good thing. As you said, that is part of the price to pay for using automation. You aren't trying to remove the risk of using automation, and in fact you don't want to remove the risk. I would say that any risk that the automation adds would be a good thing. Automation is a convenience to the player, but all thinking must still be done by the player. All the automation is doing is whatever they ask it to do, whenever they ask it to do it. It is a dumb servant. The player must still think about whether they wish to activate it or not, and they reap the reward, or suffer the harm, if they do. That is part of the strategy that it adds. For instance if they tell their troops to attack a square at 00:00 and then log off, if their friend then takes that square, too bad. They are not online to change their orders, so their troops are still sent to attack it. We would want to be careful not to add safeties to the automation. It does exactly what the player asks it too, without any thought. Remember minister are for convenience only, and specifically should not add any intelligence. |
||
![]() |
||
Berde
Forum Warrior
Joined: 10 Dec 2011 Status: Offline Points: 380 |
Post Options
Thanks(1)
Quote Reply
Posted: 22 Dec 2014 at 15:48 |
|
I fail to see how having something that will launch an army at a pre-set time - which the player has to enter ahead of time, equates to "removing" a "primary interaction with the game environment." If I want to attack X and land my army at Y and calculate that I have to launch it at Z time - what is the harm of having a 'hold army until Z and then launch' option instead of just launching automatically? The only difference in that equation is that I might not have to wake up at 3 am or have my sitter launch my army. In truth this would more likely ENCOURAGE interaction with the game environment. I'd be much more likely to be engaged if I could do so at times that were convenient to me rather than having to set an alarm to do stuff at a certain time or have someone else do it. For those who say that there is a built-in solution called a Sitter: not everyone WANTS a sitter. I have one sitter on this account and no sitter on my other. I'll eventually have to find a sitter for that account, most likely, but I haven't decided on anyone yet. You are responsible for what people do while they are on your account. People can do seemingly innocent things to get you banned in chat, or worse right off the game, at the drop of a hat (Sitter makes crack about being 12? BOOM. You're outta there! A bad example now, as everyone knows better, but what else could people learn the hard way?). More importantly, to me, having a sitter in the first place just encourages not being active because hey, my sitter can handle it for me! I agree, having harvesters launch automatically to keep returning to a square would be bad. I don't think, though, that being able to do a single "launch harvesters at X time" would necessarily be a bad thing so that you could tell the game to send your cotters out when your army is almost at a square of NPCs. This does come with the risk, of course, that your army fails its mission and your cotters or skinners could be gacked. Price to pay for convenience though! Still, in some cases it may be better than having to wait around 3 hours after you've launched your army to send your skinners. Again, I do believe that the player should have to personally calculate when to launch and put in a specific time, number, and destination. I don't like the idea of automated production queues. For one, you can already set your production queues to run for several days at a time, assuming you have the resources. I see the automation as a dangerous thing as when combined with build queues it has the potential for causing a city to go negative food and delevel.
|
||
![]() |
||
Beyljr
Wordsmith
Joined: 12 Mar 2014 Status: Offline Points: 157 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 22 Dec 2014 at 14:54 |
|
|
Brandmeister, If your problem is your dislike for permasat accounts, then why not propose a suggestion to deal with that problem. If your problem is inactive players, then why not propose a suggestion to solve that problem. But purposely trying to make life "inconvenient" (to quote the purpose of the proposed ministers) is NOT the solution to stopping permasat accounts or inactive players. So let's try to solve the problems of the game instead of saying no to solutions just because they might not solve your dislike for a different aspect of the game. I.e. let's work toward solutions, instead of just blaming everything on dislike of permasats or inactives. After all, did anyone think that just perhaps there is a reason that those account are inactive? Like perhaps they are tired of the useless drudgery that other games don't make you go through? And please don't confuse drudgery with game interaction, because they are NOT the same thing.
And nothing that I proposed would allow "a player to log in once every week to a fully functioning account". Any player that doesn't log in for a week should find themselves on the wrong end of a spear. But that is a different problem, and requires a different solution, and therefore isn't being addressed as part of this suggestion. I think that I have played just about every empire building game that there is. I am finishing up a round in one now that never once required staying up until 3 AM, getting a sitter, or doing a thousand clicks of drudgery every day, and it looks like I will be finishing ranked #6. The ones that I have played the least, are the ones that emphasize the drudgery, minimize the skill and strategy, and maximize winning by staying up until 3 AM or having multiple people play the same account (requiring sitters to achieve great success). And as far as I can tell, I am in no way the minority in this regard. People don't play empire building (strategy) games to go through a thousand click routine everyday, they play empire building (strategy) games to match their empire building skills and strategies against other players empire building skills and strategies. And those that play strategy games for the strategy, quickly get ticked off when winning becomes staying up until 3 AM, or getting a sitter, or doing a thousand click routine everyday. And ticked off players soon leave. So let's emphasize the skill and strategy, and minimize the drudgery and the inconvenience. |
||
![]() |
||
Brandmeister
Postmaster General
Joined: 12 Oct 2012 Location: Laoshin Status: Offline Points: 2396 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 22 Dec 2014 at 00:09 |
|
|
Angrim, I agree that the devs should consider automating tasks that are true drudgery. Build queues is a decent candidate. However, many of the things described--dispatching harvesters, launching armies, setting production queues--are the primary interactions with the game environment. When those things are removed, it becomes possible for a player to log in once every week to a fully functioning account.
There are tasks which active players find tiresome. Ok, fine, let's think about those. For example, there are a number of trade functions that were clearly not designed for proficient traders. I trade a lot, and it takes me 200 clicks when I think 20 should suffice. However, there are also players who seem to feel that any interaction with the game is tiresome. If playing the game isn't the main objective, then what is? I really don't think this is a chat/social game, as many have proposed. And I am completely against any new features that enable people to continue having permasat accounts or mostly-inactive accounts that harvest, produce, and perform at full power during tournaments or wars. |
||
![]() |
||
Dragonwort
Wordsmith
Joined: 10 Feb 2014 Location: Central USA Status: Offline Points: 139 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 21 Dec 2014 at 23:38 |
|
|
Dragons?........Ministers?
Sounds to me like some LoU refugees are discovering they are not going to take over Illy anytime soon and are trying to keep from paying the dues everyone else did. ![]() The costs of ministers ( err..bots....remember Evony?) would be prohibitive to many and just another way for the wallet warriors to gain a huge advantage. I'm NOT a veteran (less than a year) but I'm with Rill on this one..unfun.. The reason I enjoy this game is because it takes commitment to play. It's a game of balancing so many aspects and infinitely more complex than any one dimensional war game. I like it fine WITHOUT ministers
Dragonwort |
||
|
Just another wrench in the works..
|
||
![]() |
||
Angrim
Postmaster General
Joined: 02 Nov 2011 Location: Laoshin Status: Offline Points: 1173 |
Post Options
Thanks(1)
Quote Reply
Posted: 21 Dec 2014 at 00:53 |
|
|
just a thought as i read again through the posts...
there are good reasons to think some of these are bad ideas, but because as a vet you have become adept at some of the drudgery of the game is not one of them. i would encourage vets to look carefully at what might be "missing" from the game after these changes and be sure that it represents something desirable and not merely something for which they would be nostalgic. yes, you may be justifiably proud at overcoming these familiar difficulties; i hope that does not mean that players with less determination can never be welcome here. |
||
![]() |
||
Captain Kindly
Forum Warrior
Joined: 19 Aug 2011 Location: Fremorn Status: Offline Points: 276 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 20 Dec 2014 at 21:05 |
|
|
There is no need at all to get a War Minister to do your sending for you during a War or Tournament, because the game already has an instrument for that if you cannot be online at the time.
It's called a Sitter. On a general note, I agree with Rill that this is leaning towards autoplay, and that is not needed at all. Illy doesn't take that much daily time, if you discount GC. So a 'nay' from me :P
|
||
![]() |
||
abstractdream
Postmaster General
Joined: 02 Oct 2011 Location: Oarnamly Status: Offline Points: 1857 |
Post Options
Thanks(1)
Quote Reply
Posted: 20 Dec 2014 at 17:11 |
|
LOL +1 |
||
|
|
||
![]() |
||
Post Reply
|
Page <1234> |
|
Tweet
|
| Forum Jump | Forum Permissions ![]() You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot create polls in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum |