Verified:

qzjul Game profile

Administrator
Game Development
10,263

Aug 4th 2012, 23:53:43

Hi all;

There's a number of suggestions out there, but I thought I'd start a thread to consolidate them for my future reference.

Basically, we're well aware that the team server team limit of 5 is being abused; however it's not easy to deal with that. Teams can appear to be unrelated and then work in an alliance fashion for killruns, so moderation becomes difficult until after-the-fact. Our mods, unfortunately, can't afford to donate hours per day to moderating, so fixing via moderation isn't a very good option.


Thus some rule changes or other things are no doubt required.


If you do post something, please post your logic behind how that would help, as many suggestions are quickly vetted by thinking about them for 30 seconds =/


Keep in mind that simple ideas are more likely to be considered, as we can implement sooner than later.


Also as a final note, our time *is* limited, and we work on game-wide balances first; and UI improvements & forum integration &etc; so *large* changes will tend to happen after these things are addressed :)
Finally did the signature thing.

qzjul Game profile

Administrator
Game Development
10,263

Aug 4th 2012, 23:57:18

I'll start by posting a couple suggestions brought up:

This one was from Zarcon & me;

-------

Change to a Capture the Flag server; each team has a flag, randomly assigned or by the tag creator; possibly visible possibly not.

You capture a flag by attacking, with say a 10% chance to capture a flag from a country by hitting with an SS, or 5% for GS/BR/AB; or something like that anyway; with DR included in some form of course.

Team at the end with the most flags wins.


Positives:
Solves the team limit problem obviously, as each team directly competes against the others

Negatives:
May eliminate netgaining. (probably even if we gave a flag networth; though maybe not; 1M nw for a flag?)
Finally did the signature thing.

qzjul Game profile

Administrator
Game Development
10,263

Aug 5th 2012, 0:01:09

This one is from Makinso, and is massive:
Originally posted by Makinso:




Just thinking of a way to get that game more running into the style we want it to be.

How about we turn warfare rules a little more...... (the thought alone of me saying this horrifies me but here goes) Utopia alike.


I was thinking along these lines:

-Expand teams 8 - 10 players
-Extend the length of the sets (1.5 month ?)
-Teams have multiple options in their clan page. Let's call them political stances for now.



=====Political Stance 1: would be to Declare War=====-

You declare war on an ingame tag by filling their tag into a declare war box on your clan page. Your political status now becomes WAR. On the clan overview page every other tag can now see your political stance. Ofcourse the status of the other team now automatically gets changed to WAR aswell.
(so this would require an extra column in clan page for team server)

Declaring war would mean you are isolated from the outside world fighting your war.

Isolation meaning the following:
-Any country(untagged or tagged) but not @ war with your tag or the tag you are at with hitting a country in the war has a -50% offense penalty, -50% gains/results penalty. The same counts for spy/intell ops.
-Any hits countries in the war make outside of the war. Have -50% offense penalty and a -50% gains/results penalty.
-When a Team is @ War. No other team can declare war on that team.
-Being @ War takes away tax prices for goods(NOT TECHS) bought/sold on the market.
-War Status = 72 hours minimal.
-In Order to Keep war status, x hits need to be exchanged on daily basis. Otherwise both parties fall to neutral.


=====Political Stance 2: Ceasefire=====-

Ceasefire means both teams have come to an understanding and wish to ceasefire. This can only happen after being @ war for xxx Period of time.

Ceasing fire means both clans put their status on Ceasefire. Once that is done both teams will go into political status. Ceasefire. This status lasts for 48 hours after which a team will go back to neutral stance.


Being in Ceasefire status will mean the following:
- +25% defense bonus for 48 hours. To avoid being farmed by the other teams who have been growing during your war.
- +35% Income for 48 hours: This might be hard as we would have 5 different strats not sure if this is codeable. This way countries can grow back into decent shape in those 48 hours.
-When you are in Ceasefire status no other team can declare war on you during the 48 hours ceasefire.
-The Ceasefireing teams can not declare war on other teams for the 48 hours period of the ceasefire.


Room for adjustments:



This is likely the trickiest one. Along with the next one.


=====Political Stance 3: Surrender=====-


After 72 hours of warfare one of the teams can chose to surrender to the other. A team can only surrender when their Total Networth if 50% of the the opposing team or less!

-The team that has surrenderd. Will move to political stance: Surrenderd.
-The Team to whom they surrender too will move to Victorious status and gain 1 war win to their war Win total points on Clan page. (I see the war win stuff as optional we don't have to implement this - Victorious status however is needed!)
-Surrenderd status lasts for 72 hours.


Surrendering will mean the following:
- +50% defense bonus for 72 hours. To avoid being farmed by the other teams who have been growing during your war.
- +35% Income for 72 hours: This might be hard as we would have 5 different strats not sure if this is codeable. This way countries can grow back into decent shape in those 48 hours.
-When you are in Surrenderd status no other team can declare war on you during the 72 hours Surrender.
-The Surrendering Team can not declare war on or be declared on by anyone else for the duration of the surrender status.


----




=====Political Stance 4: Force Surrender======

This stance can be used by a team whom is basically victorious, ready to move on but is fighting a team whom simply keeps anklebiting.
The wining team can force surrender on them.

-Forcing Surrender can only happen after 72 hours of War status.
-To be able to force surrender. The team being forced to surrender must be 35% of the forcing teams Total Networth or less.
-The forcing team moves to Victorious status. (Gains a war win if we decide to use that).
-The forced team moves to DEFEATED status.

--> See Victorious and DEFEATED status.

The reason I want to give DEFEATED status to teams that refuse to surrender after they've been beat is to promote surrendering when you're done thus short wars! DEFEATED will be a less bonusfull form of surrenderd status.



--------


=====Political Stance 5: Victorious======


The team has won the war. They get some extra's out of pillaging the lands of the enemy team.


A victorious team:

-Victorious status last 24 hours.
-Victorious teams gets a bonus of: "350M cash, 4M food, 300K oil and 1.5K land". These bonusses are given to every country in the team. A country gets it's bonus upon the first time it logs in after the team has moved to victorious status.
-Victorious teams can not be declared war on for the duration of their victorious status.
-Victorious teams can declare war on another team during the duration of their victorious status.


---------



=====Political Stance 6: DEFEATED======


Your team has refused to give up!. But ALAS the enemy forces were to overwhelming and you were forced to surrender.


A Defeated Team:

-Defeated status last 72 hours.
-Defeated teams have 20% defense bonus for the duration of their DEFEATED status.
+20% Income for 72 hours: This might be hard as we would have 5 different strats not sure if this is codeable. This way countries can grow back into decent shape in those 48 hours.
-When you are in defeated status no other team can declare war on you during for the duration of the status.
-When you are defeated you can not declare war on any other team for the duration of the status.



------

I hope this all makes some sense.

It probally still has some bugs and iffy stuff in it. It's just a basic draft.

However this would avoid teams banding together and ganging up on others. Fair warfare for the teams and actually being able to gain something out of fighting a fair war and winning it, instead of the ridiculous the alliace with most teams beats everything.

I think this will emphasize the way we want team server to be played more.



------------

Oh and ofcourse after your political stance period ends you move back to neutral! :-P



Positives: Sounds pretty neat

Negatives: This would probably take me a long time to code
Finally did the signature thing.

Pain Game profile

Member
4849

Aug 5th 2012, 0:04:49

implementing some type of required declaration of war where if a team declares war on another team, nobody outside of these 2 teams can make attacks on either team. the only real issue is finding a way to implement it so that it cant be abused by people trying to avoid attacks all together. obviously this would no be applicable to untagged countries.

im guessing it might be complicated to write some type of code that would require X number of attacks to take place between each tag per 24 hours or something. like requre 50 attacks per tag per 24 hours for war status to remain.

you would probably also have to implement something where the aggressor (FS) must be the one to declare war, and they would not be protected from being attacked by outside sources but the team being FSed would not be allowed to hit back unless they also declared war at which point the aggressor would be protected from an outside source.

this is just some brainstorming, obviously it will be impossible to make an un-abusable code change without using moderator intervention to enforce them
Your mother is a nice woman

crest23 Game profile

Member
4666

Aug 5th 2012, 0:34:59

Make a set of rules for the serve. Hard code it so that if a player abuses the rules more than once they no longer have access to the server. i.e. they don't even see the option that the server exists, no option to create a country, no option to log in, no nothing.
The Nigerian Nightmare.

Pain Game profile

Member
4849

Aug 5th 2012, 0:45:06

thats stupid but thats for trying.
Your mother is a nice woman

Boltar Game profile

Member
4056

Aug 5th 2012, 9:03:12

expand teams to 8-12 players (groups of 4 for allies)

change dr rules (the untaggeds are landfarms i dont care what others say no one plays untagged on purpose unless they suicide or they are a land farm)

dont remember what else i had mentioned before. ill post again when i remember

ClayQ Game profile

Member
215

Aug 5th 2012, 11:21:15

Makis idea is nice, if not hard to implement and needing some tweaking, I can see abuses.

Its also a decent test implementation for similar suggestions on alliance...

As for speed, using gdi as a basis( and removing its normal function) could springboard the coding. As weve already got some of the elements in the game. I could forsee with some moderation a token implementation of it while the real code was worked out.

I dont know earths internals fully mind you but yeah.

trainboy Game profile

Member
760

Aug 5th 2012, 19:57:41

All options seem to be planned across removing team as a netting server that's my only worry

blid

Member
EE Patron
9319

Aug 10th 2012, 20:50:14

Just announce that it's officially against the rules for multiple teams to operate as one alliance. Let mods make some grey-area decisions. Delete people who abuse the new rule. Most people won't do things if they're not allowed so I don't think it would take too much policing.
Originally posted by Mr. Titanium:
Watch your mouth boy, I have never been accused of cheating on any server nor deleted before you just did right there.

blid

Member
EE Patron
9319

Aug 10th 2012, 20:55:45

Random teams is a fine idea as well. Everyone signs up before the game starts, and then when it begins ticking, everyone is assigned randomly to a team of five. Inactive players get automatically removed from their teams for the first 3 weeks or so. Late starts get randomly joined together to form new teams anytime you get, say, 20 unaffiliated countries.
Originally posted by Mr. Titanium:
Watch your mouth boy, I have never been accused of cheating on any server nor deleted before you just did right there.

Pontius Pirate

Member
EE Patron
1907

Aug 13th 2012, 16:54:41

I like random teams, maybe with the option to pair with one player or something
Originally posted by Cerberus:

This guy is destroying the U.S. Dollars position as the preferred exchange for international trade. The Chinese Ruan is going to replace it soon, then the U.S. will not have control of the IMF

kta Game profile

Member
110

Aug 14th 2012, 16:35:02

Random teams could be fun im game

Pontius Pirate

Member
EE Patron
1907

Aug 15th 2012, 9:27:23

I dont think the CTF solution solves the 5 man teams problem btw because a lot of people dont take this server that seriously. What would probably happen is people run "flag farms" for other tags... I think the only way to kill the system of people who don't take this server seriously coming here to run random kill runs is to prevent them from playing together - ie. random teams.
Originally posted by Cerberus:

This guy is destroying the U.S. Dollars position as the preferred exchange for international trade. The Chinese Ruan is going to replace it soon, then the U.S. will not have control of the IMF

Red X Game profile

Game Moderator
Primary, Express & Team
4935

Aug 15th 2012, 9:44:22

20 member caps
My attitude is that of a Hulk smash
Mixed with Tony Montana snortin' bags of his coke stash
http://nbkffa.ghqnet.com

Pontius Pirate

Member
EE Patron
1907

Aug 15th 2012, 17:03:43

5 member caps don't work, why legitimize the "cap breaking" and turn it into alliance server #2?
Originally posted by Cerberus:

This guy is destroying the U.S. Dollars position as the preferred exchange for international trade. The Chinese Ruan is going to replace it soon, then the U.S. will not have control of the IMF

qzjul Game profile

Administrator
Game Development
10,263

Aug 15th 2012, 17:07:18

We don't need two alliance servers =/
Finally did the signature thing.

Pixmo Game profile

Member
147

Aug 15th 2012, 17:11:42

I'm all for the random team thing

Monex Game profile

Member
214

Aug 15th 2012, 17:40:39

Random 8 man teams based on you country stats from prior set.

netters with netters
Top 32? Countries randomly paired with each other.

Fighters with fighters
Randomly paired based on prior sets gs/br/chem stats

suiciders with suiciders
randomly paired based on ab/nukes

All others that do not fall into above categories

Add 2 options when you create your country
1: "Keep country name and stay in last sets team"
2: "Change country name and join new team based on last sets stats"

First person assigned to team gets to name the team

Add option to vote member out with 5-3 or greater majority
[url=https://www.torn.com/1994581]Torn-City - Massively multiplayer online text based RPG[/url]

Boltar Game profile

Member
4056

Aug 15th 2012, 20:50:35

see theres alot of good idea's, but i can tell u this.. 5 man cap sucks when u need to kill a clan.. 800 turns.. (some chems did get thru mind u and there was no walling) couldnt kill 2 countries.. unless 3-4 maybe even all 5 run tyranny.. we ended 400 pop short on killing the 2nd guy.. (any decent target has sdi mind u, if any crappy 25% and lower country then yes 2 kills might be possible but if u got anyone roughly 50% sdi.. or more.. u cant kill with 800 turns)

elvesrus

Member
5053

Aug 15th 2012, 22:17:35

ask MrTan how hard it can be to kill a waller, even with unasked for help
Originally posted by crest23:
Elves is a douche on every server.

Red X Game profile

Game Moderator
Primary, Express & Team
4935

Aug 19th 2012, 18:07:55

20 member caps. and server has to enforce it for it to work

and i know i wont play on a random tag server.

and qzjul it wont make 2 alliance servers, one server is unlimited cap for your tag one has a 20 member limit either make it a 20 member cap or make limited either way i think 20 member cap is a good idea not like them 30 member tags is going to leave alliance for team
My attitude is that of a Hulk smash
Mixed with Tony Montana snortin' bags of his coke stash
http://nbkffa.ghqnet.com

bstrong86 Game profile

Member
2482

Aug 20th 2012, 22:47:53

Originally posted by cRaZyDaVe:
it would be random as in, you make your country and it randomly puts you in a team


this can fix team server
The Death Knights

XI

qzjul Game profile

Administrator
Game Development
10,263

Aug 22nd 2012, 20:26:33

But 20 is almost as big as alot of alliances in alliance =/
Finally did the signature thing.

Boltar Game profile

Member
4056

Aug 22nd 2012, 21:30:59

8-12 we can try that.. groups of 4 for allies...

Red X Game profile

Game Moderator
Primary, Express & Team
4935

Aug 23rd 2012, 1:18:38

qzjul but most alliances that are around thats size in alliance are bigger then it 12-16 then =]
My attitude is that of a Hulk smash
Mixed with Tony Montana snortin' bags of his coke stash
http://nbkffa.ghqnet.com

Pontius Pirate

Member
EE Patron
1907

Aug 24th 2012, 14:20:52

Originally posted by qzjul:
But 20 is almost as big as alot of alliances in alliance =/
Not only that but it doesn't fix the fundamental problem of Team server which is that one alliance will consist of many tags and the server is unbalanced because of that.
Originally posted by Cerberus:

This guy is destroying the U.S. Dollars position as the preferred exchange for international trade. The Chinese Ruan is going to replace it soon, then the U.S. will not have control of the IMF

Pontius Pirate

Member
EE Patron
1907

Aug 24th 2012, 14:22:50

Originally posted by Boltar:
8-12 we can try that.. groups of 4 for allies...
so 3 TSO tags instead of 5? yeah, that's really going to change the dynamics of this server

from the OP:
Basically, we're well aware that the team server team limit of 5 is being abused; however it's not easy to deal with that


a lot of the suggestions here are basically just legitimizing the current abuse of the system

Edited By: Pontius Pirate on Aug 24th 2012, 19:56:15
See Original Post
Originally posted by Cerberus:

This guy is destroying the U.S. Dollars position as the preferred exchange for international trade. The Chinese Ruan is going to replace it soon, then the U.S. will not have control of the IMF

izapimp Game profile

Member
207

Sep 2nd 2012, 17:03:30

Lets try random teams
-maKaroni

snawdog Game profile

Member
2413

Sep 18th 2012, 9:53:46

Make it so that once you have declared war on a tag ,that those 2 tags are blocked, by mechanics of game, from any outgoing/incoming hits to and from any other tag until:
1 Sets end
2 All originals in one tag are dead
If tags abuse it to netgain,then you don't have to worry about any hits from those tags.
If you want to war,why worry about NW finish anyways?
THAT will stop the Team Server abuse.

[Edit]
Leave it at 5 as was intended.

Edited By: snawdog on Sep 18th 2012, 9:57:18
See Original Post
ICQ 364553524
msn






Pontius Pirate

Member
EE Patron
1907

Oct 25th 2012, 10:01:06

any updates on this qz?
Originally posted by Cerberus:

This guy is destroying the U.S. Dollars position as the preferred exchange for international trade. The Chinese Ruan is going to replace it soon, then the U.S. will not have control of the IMF

archaic Game profile

Member
7011

Oct 25th 2012, 13:45:57

I like the idea of random tag assignments and nobody is able to play untagged on the team server, it would be especially nice if it was integrated with boxcar or a similar hosting function within EE.

You create a country and are assigned to tag XXX randomly upon exiting protection mode. On your clan page it will show the login info for your randomly assigned Team Server BC Site, you and your team mates will have a brief window to rename the tag. From then on, its off to the races.

If, at that point you want to broker a deal with another tag, it would be on a single set political basis instead of these long running coalitions. Next set everything starts over.
Cheating Mod Hall of Shame: Dark Morbid, Turtle Crawler, Sov

NightShade

Member
2095

Nov 22nd 2012, 1:36:44

How about allowing each person to play 3 countries each, this would allow those who are playing solo or in a small group to have a little more in the means of defense instead of getting farmed into the dirt to where self-deleting seems more of a welcome thought than trying to retal dozens of hits and getting farmed more for it?
SOTA • GNV
SOTA President
http://sota.ghqnet.com

a.k.a. Stryke
Originally posted by Bsnake:
I was sitting there wondering how many I could kill with one set of chopsticks

Magellaan Game profile

Member
533

Nov 29th 2012, 13:48:23

I like makinso's ideas best. But since that would take a lot of work to implement.. I'd say give the random team thing a chance! That wouldnt be too hard to implement.
Not MD, fake Magellaan.

ViLSE Game profile

Member
862

Dec 14th 2012, 17:16:54

I do not like random teams, the reason I would play in a team is to play with the people I like. There are many people on this server or other servers that I would hate to play with. If there is a random team generation I will simply not play.

A suggestion for how to change team server to work better:
Allow a team to "Declare war" against another team. Unless you are "at war" with another team do not allow anyone to do GS/BR/AB or shoot missiles. Once you are at war you enable these attack types and at the same time lower the explore rate, LG rate from SS/PS and also lower a few other things like cashing and teching points per turn etc. The lower rates are simply to stop two teams from declaring war with one another and then stopping any other teams from killing them. Meaning only allow two teams to be at war, if others try to declare war on the same team simply do not allow it.

A war will then end with a "victor" being assigned once all original countries has been killed. The victor can then get a point against the team for having killed another team. Then some war-like teams cna try and gather as many points per reset as possible and hopefully have fun doing so.

AndrewMose Game profile

Member
1062

Feb 13th 2013, 2:43:38

Ive posted this as a suggestion before, but it makes more sense here.

Creating a team market that doesn't have any taxes would add a completely new dimension to this server. Basically the goods would show up in your private market at the price your team member listed. When the goods are bought up, your private goods are available. Obviously for tech this would be 0 after they are bought out. Also team goods wouldn't decay like private goods.

But from a netting perspective this adds a lot of teamwork. It doesn't fix any warring problems. But it will make it a unique server, with varied strategies.

For example each team would want a demo to buy as much of the public goods as possible to resell to the team (thus bypassing the 6% sales tax). There would be clear roles for each member and the team that can balance their market best would have a 6%+ advantage.

Edited By: AndrewMose on Mar 26th 2013, 18:40:45
See Original Post

AndrewMose Game profile

Member
1062

Mar 26th 2013, 18:41:07

...Are the admins still interested in fixing team?

Marshal Game profile

Member
32,589

Jun 9th 2013, 22:04:28

Originally posted by AndrewMose:
...Are the admins still interested in fixing team?


~150 players server so answer is maybe quite obvious.
Patience: Yep, I'm with ELK and Marshal.

ELKronos: Patty is more hairy.

Gallery: K at least I am to my expectations now.

LadyGrizz boobies is fine

NOW3P: Morwen is a much harsher mistress than boredom....

braden Game profile

Member
11,480

Jun 9th 2013, 22:27:52

vilse and andrew both had good and interesting suggestions

iZarcon Game profile

Administrator
Game Development
2150

Jun 20th 2013, 8:17:30

Originally posted by Marshal:
Originally posted by AndrewMose:
...Are the admins still interested in fixing team?


~150 players server so answer is maybe quite obvious.


nah. it's just as we said. we are interested.
-iZarcon
EE Developer


http://www.letskillstuff.org

Cerberus Game profile

Member
EE Patron
3849

Jul 22nd 2013, 11:47:58

Just simplify things. Make teams 10 players max, and make it against the rules to have multiple tags operating as a single unit, ie. alliances.

Just keep it simple. Fix it so you HAVE to play in a team of no more than ten players period.

No exceptions, no excuses, if you can't find ten players to accomplish what you want, then go play solo, or join an alliance.

It's really that simple. Then there isn't a lot of coding to change things, just set it up so that it works the way we think it works for teams. I can easily find 10 players to team up, and if I can do it, anyone else can do it too.

If you want more, go to alliance, or just suck it up.
I don't need anger management, people need to stop pissing me off!

Marshal Game profile

Member
32,589

Jul 22nd 2013, 13:01:05

cerb: teams not acting as alliance was original purpose and there was even war between pro-alliance and pro-team and 1st lost but eventually teams became alliances. its not easy to make 2 or more teams not acting as alliance, 1 team can always call allies (aka members from 2nd team) to help in war (fs or cs).
Patience: Yep, I'm with ELK and Marshal.

ELKronos: Patty is more hairy.

Gallery: K at least I am to my expectations now.

LadyGrizz boobies is fine

NOW3P: Morwen is a much harsher mistress than boredom....

Mr Emerald

Member
896

Jul 22nd 2013, 23:42:06

I think having it stay the same AND mods strictly enforcing the 5 man tag. It isn't hard to see which teams are abusing the 5 man tag rule, simply delete them. If it drives a few players away the fine, at least the people following the rules will still be here. If you complain about war, look a BknArrow, a team that could beat any other team in a 5 on 5 (I do believe they did a 5 on 15 or somethling and won). They may have too much time on their hands but it can be done.
We are not the same, I am martian!
you are all retarded in the eyes of fluff
o o
( ._.) -----)-->
(_(' )(' )

RUN IT IS A KILLER TEDDY BEAR!!!

Cerberus Game profile

Member
EE Patron
3849

Jul 23rd 2013, 4:47:07

What Mr Emerald said. Just delete the rule breakers. End of the problem. If you can't deal with it as an individual team then you need to play in one of the other servers. It's SIMPLE!
I don't need anger management, people need to stop pissing me off!

Marshal Game profile

Member
32,589

Jul 23rd 2013, 9:21:08

no allies calling in war if needed or not needed but still calling?
Patience: Yep, I'm with ELK and Marshal.

ELKronos: Patty is more hairy.

Gallery: K at least I am to my expectations now.

LadyGrizz boobies is fine

NOW3P: Morwen is a much harsher mistress than boredom....

Mr Emerald

Member
896

Jul 24th 2013, 4:47:53

I wouldn't be against that completely. You can never stop that from happening, just as long as you can plainly see that they aren't the same clan. 10 vs 5 and even 10 vs 10 could happen, but the 2 tags of 5 will be allies, not the same clan(FDPs)

I am also not totally against the idea about random teams, that sounds pretty fun.
We are not the same, I am martian!
you are all retarded in the eyes of fluff
o o
( ._.) -----)-->
(_(' )(' )

RUN IT IS A KILLER TEDDY BEAR!!!

blackcougar Game profile

Member
50

Jul 27th 2013, 4:49:56

I don't play in this server but would like to input my two cents....

alliances in the alliance server are known to pact each othrr specially close alliances (i am saying like clan a ans clan b) why not first make people only ally their own team members? (This removes tag1 and tag2 pacting in game relations)

Next idea: make an ingame team board zero influence from other tags. then implement a tag rule no two tags can be same (mkr and mkr2) then implement stuff that was mentioned like closed wars between two tags removes two tags v one tag... etc.

Boltar Game profile

Member
4056

Jul 27th 2013, 7:01:42

first idea is already here bud.. u can only ally the people in ur 5 man tag


birthstone: ive tried the random team thing.. didnt get enuff people wanting to try..

qzjul Game profile

Administrator
Game Development
10,263

Oct 3rd 2013, 20:26:14

okay what about *THIS* idea?

------------------------------------

So I got this idea mostly from one of the B&S threads.... a few modifications... as to what to do with Team to differentiate and make it more... awesome...

Idea:

Last Team Standing
As it implies, goes until only one team is left. Then they win.
Teams ranked by last existence on server.

Resets/Games start every (month | two weeks), even if there are still teams left; resets can run concurrently; possibly use Tourney "Game" structure to make this work...

*IDEALLY* let people play in new round even if old round still going, though that may not be practical...


Game structure:

Teams get 5 restarts total; max 5 team member; one guy can use all 5 restarts, or each can use 1 restart, or any combination in between

72 hours complete protection...

Humanitarians/GDI start at 1.0*nw at the end of protection and ramp up exponentially, so that by one month the nw/nw humanitarians limits are essentially infinite, allowing to kill people who never played turns; ideally have something like 5*nw / nw/5 by say 2-3 days

Allow FA *only within the team*; remove FA limits? or modify? maybe unnecessary


Games would have to end eventually, so if by say 3 months? there was more than one team left, rank by TNW.
Finally did the signature thing.

SuperFly Game profile

Member
5154

Oct 3rd 2013, 20:51:19

TSO would kill every team and ensure that they are the last team standing :P