Let me explain my idea using the Fascism type of government:

Current:
+15% Food Production
+50% Oil Production
-10% Maximum Per Capita Income
-15% Population

Now, imagine if we take Food Production which is currently at 15%. Which is fine and all, but what if we modify it, or even remove it, or replace it with something else etc. What if i create a new form of government? Of course, everyone could create their own and name it whatever they want - barred any existing (or similar) names such as Dictatorship. This said, when spying someone, you would receive the specs of his government :) and will be permanently added to your spy reports until the next set. In the Scores page, the letter could be "S".

Thus, with our example of Fascism, everyone would need to spend 100 POSITIVE points and 100 NEGATIVE points altogether, as every government has both positive AND negative points.

So, 15% could be considered 35 POSITIVE points, and oil production could be considered 65 POSITIVE points. While the negative capita and negative population would each be considered -50 NEGATIVE points. Thus, each would have a total of 100 points, meaning a grand total of 200 points spent. Half in positive, and half in negative.

Therefore, if we consider the initial example with the Food Production of +15%, then +5% could equate to 11 positive points; as for +10% would equate to 23 positive points. This said, any positive points would be rounded down. Of course the grand total of anything could equate between 97-103 points.

Lastly, I understand that we don't want people to create massive killing machines or whatever other type of machine. Let us take Dictatorship with it's +25% power. Perhaps the maximum could be 50%.

OR

we state that any one item cannot be more than 65 points. For example, Dictatorship has the following stats:

+25% Military Strength
+30% Spy Effectiveness
-30% Construction Speed
+33% Ghost Acres


The ghost acres equate to 1 point per extra percentage of ghost acre. So 33% equates to 33 points.
As for the spy effectiveness, each point per percentage equates to 1.1 points. In the end, 33 points.
As for Military Strength, It also equates to the same type of math. 33 points.

So this said, if we say that the mil strength can't be more than 50%, this equates to 65 points (66, but fluff it, we'll round it down a point for convenience).

I know that my idea may not be explained as properly as I want to explain it, but it would take too long to explain an idea that may or may not get shot down.

Any ideas about this? Personally, I like the idea of choosing your strengths AND your weaknesses. I think this can be implemented very easily, provided that the math is agreed upon :)

Ah I liked doing custom stuff like this since I played Empire Earth ages ago; that said, it might be a little weird

Could do it like and RPG where you decrease one stat to buff another...

But, I think that might eliminate the use of the current forms of govt....

Actually, this is exactly what could be done by some players.

I highly disagree with your second comment. On the contrary, I believe most players (around 60%) would use the common governments. Although, I'm pretty sure there is a considerate amount of players who would like this opportunity to fiddle around the numbers and add (and remove) buffs/debuffs.

The reality is that some people are using strats using specific govts, while they are perfect as training tools, or if you don't want to spend time fiddling around with changing numbers and/or adding/removing buffs/debuffs. So if we could be given the chance, it would be awesome.

Come on qzjul, honestly tell me that this idea would not be worth implementing, with actual valid reasons. You gotta admit, this would help the game veterans in renewing their passion for the game :D

ttt

I'm not gonna let this GREAT idea unanswered! This certainly deserves at least a trial run. I can't imagine anyone being against this idea. It's smart, refreshing, interesting, and adds a degree of difficulty for players.

If not, then anyone who read this post deserves to know real reasons why this would not be a good idea. The reason you gave earlier is not a real answer in my eyes, only an answer to not implement an interesting idea. So I'm still waiting.

Because implementing this doesn't change how cookie cutter it will be, no different from now.

All cashers would go a certain set of bonuses that maximizes their cash income, and pick a set of penalties that least affects them. So would all farmers, all techers etc. It still boils down to there being a "ideal set of bonuses and penalties" that can be mathematically determined, so I really don't see the benefit.

Game would just go from "you want to be a casher, you go Rep or Demo" to "you want to be a casher, you pick this and that bonus", otherwise you're a noob.

The current bonus points system is already like that, and I'll be honest, it suffers the same problem. Every strat only uses a certain set of bonuses that have been mathematically calculated, but because it generates visibility of the game to audiences outside the game on bonus sites, I didn't really say anything.

Too many choices make a game unnecessarily complicated and hard to learn.

What is that cookie cutter expression about?

As for the rest of your comment Xinhuan, you fail to demonstrate how it would negatively impact the game. When you play Neverwinter Nights for example, you have pre-determined packages, but most people don't go that way. Instead, they choose what abilities they want, plus the skills.

As for your last statement, no one is forcing someone to take a customized government. You really are taking players for stupid. My idea is NOT complicated, it's freaking simple dude. If someone really doesn't want to deal with a customizable government, fine, they take a pre-packaged govt type - problem solved.

cookie cutter: eat only best parts of cookies and abandon rest.

I'm not saying it will negatively impact the game. What I'm saying is it does not positively impact it either, because cookie cutter builds will be the result. You either go cookie cutter, or be suboptimal.

Edit: If you don't know what "cookie cutter" means, go google it. It means to follow a standard formula that lacks originality, just like how a cookie cutter always cuts cookies in the same shape. When applied to RPGs (particularly MMORPGs), it means to build your character in a certain way to min-max your stats, and the ways to do this is very limited. To deviate from it means to do less damage than everyone else.

I mean, you'll have to be a special kind of stupid not to "max +PCI" and "max +pop" bonuses if you are playing a casher. It doesn't actually add options to the game, merely just gives illusions that there are options at all, and further increases the learning curve for new players.

Thanks Marshal.

@Xinhuan. I tend to stay away from Google at times, since there are always 5-10 answers for many expressions out there. Didn't want to take it for granted the one I chose would have been the right one. So asking is better.

It does add something positive in my opinion. Here is why: you have to choose carefully what will become your strengths and weaknesses. Fine, have the strengths you want, but you have to be careful about the weaknesses you choose. For example, take a Rep cashier, he's already fluffed at -10% power compared to a dict at +25%. So, as a rep cashier, do you improve on your power a bit? Or do you worsen it? What do you do? I like having to torment myself to choose, so do all RPG gamer - hence why we start over the same damn game, so as to try a new possibility.

As for creating a cookie cutter builds, that's utter bull. RPG's don't have those, because you ALWAYS weaken yourself in some way or other. So, you end up going maybe at 60% in one direction and then 40% in another. Or maybe 60% str, 30% def and 10% magic. You know what I mean? Imagine, fine, a warrior cookie cutter build, 65% str, 25% def and 10% magic. You're fluffed big time. Don't tell me you can create a cookie cutter build while sacrificing nothing. If you empower yourself somehow, but you weaken yourself some other way!

Also, I was proposing we have a cap as to prevent what you would see as a cookie cutter build. So that argument in my eyes is invalid.

Lol. You will always penalize yourself in the least harmful way possible. And everyone will follow that exact path. That is the meaning of cookie cutter. I think you failed to get my point. Some penalties are less equal than other penalties.

Lets say you can choose between +20% income or +25% pop increase as a casher. If you think that it is gonna be a high food set, you will choose +20% income because more pop means more food consumed.

Lets say you can choose between -35% tech effectiveness or -35% build time. If you think that tech is gonna be expensive, you rather choose the -35% tech effectiveness.

Lets say you can choose between no market commision or +35% spy effectiveness. If you think that you're going to go spy heavy and steal resources, you might chose the +35% spy effectiveness.

Lets say you can choose between -10% military strength or -15% pop reduction, if you think if food is gonna be cheap, you will chose -10% military strength.

And so on.

It still creates a little variation. It wouldnt be as direct like now.

thats just more gambling on the market, before the set even begins, thats not helpful

Ya, it is not strategical at all, it's like playing lottery on whether you picked the right set of penalties right off the start.

In fact, the game is already like that: Did you pick to play a techer in a terrible tech reset because 10 other people also picked techer? Bad luck. Were you the only good player to play Farmer that set, and win a landslide victory 30m ahead of every other player? Grats on the luck!

Again, I'm not saying the idea is bad. I'm saying it doesn't add much value.

Thats why I think it's more meaningful where you finish in relation to others of your building type than it is where you finish overall, tbh :S In Primary, at least.

@h2orich: You can't know who gonna's run what. So, you're either gonna be having a better set you you originally planned, or a worst one. I guess, this is the extent to what you could say.

@Xinhuan: Imagine you are playing on the PS4. So, you prefer shooter games, I prefer RPG's. The value for me of a great shooter or a terrible shooter is pretty much the same, correct? As for RPG's, I could put a real value on whether game X is better or worst than game Z.

What I am saying is that for me it does add a lot of value. Here is why: it can add a lot of enjoyability in the process. At least, I can enjoy that added bonus because it actually means more to me than without it.

the only way it would make any real difference is if you had to pick your government at the start and couldn't change a thing after hitting the create button.

also saying "for me" NEVER helps in a discussion about a game. while a feature could get 1 new person on board, how many people would leave to get that 1 new person? the whole point is to make changes that the majority like because of the simple age old expression 'you can't make everyone happy'

Good point elvesrus.

Concerning your second point, there would need to be a greater discussion. As it stands now, we're talking mostly about people who either worked with the code itself, or one some of the rare people who know so much about the game that this particular discussion isn't even focused on normal players like myself. So far, I haven't seen one good (or valid) argument. Even Xinhuan himself says the idea isn't bad. He does not praise it either, but he understands the value in at least having a discussion.

This is definitely an idea that merits a real discussion with clan members. I've proposed changes in the past, but never cared much about the results. But this particular idea is truly worth defending till the end. By no means is it a perfect idea, but it's a damn good one. For some people it will add more value, to others it might change nothing. All it needs is some polishing, some minor tweaks, and voila.

The fact remains that the numbers have been declining ever since Earth: 2025. Do we need some changes? Yes. I have played some clones of Earth: 2025, but God are they ever worthless. Earth Empires is the only game that closely resembles Earth: 2025 in terms of UI and gameplay. Although, it would be a good idea to add ideas to the mix sometimes. To keep it more interesting. There are how many servers? *waits for elvesrus to calculate* See? Who says it has to be implemented on all those servers? Personally, I say we make one of the servers a test server for these types of ideas. If people love it, we'll know soon enough.

isnt this game all about gambling?
you have to gamble which is the right strat to win in Primary.
you have to gamble who might or might not retal.
you have to gamble and what prices must you sell your goods at to make sure you have enough cash.
you have to gamble Croatia or Bibigon does not retal you.
you have to gamble at which point of time is the peak for bushels to destock

its all about luck.

I still think he didn't understand xinhuan's explanation of cookie cutter...

Yes I did @Tellarion! On the contrary, @h2orich is the one who is right.

All of it is a gamble, and my suggestion makes no difference in the grander scheme of things, since it too is merely a gamble ;)

I cannot say that there are any true cookie cutter build that actually exist, nor could exist, even by implementing my suggestion. After all, if we all build the same builds, then what difference does it make?

Your idea would result in the same (optimal) choices we have now and a variety of sub-optimal choices. That's his point.

In other words, you agree with me that his point is moot.

If you pick a techer in a terrible tech reset, you might be a little better off if you chose a different set of bonuses and penalties. Wherelse now, you'll just have to stay sucky for the rest of the 2 months(Primary)

Im sorry, I think it sounds like a really poor idea.

This is only true if they do not balance the game correctly.


EDIT: Also, there are certain gameplay styles that are poorly represented by current government choices. The most obvious example is all-x, which gets no exploration bonus unless you're willing to accept less military strength and bonuses that are sub-optimal for anyone not a casher.

Well said Viceroy.

Completely disagree with Viceroy's edit.

It would just show the game isn't balanced to begin with. Adding even more choices would have a good chance to further unbalance the game, because bonuses multiply against each other. The right step is to simply balance the governments.

In games, interesting decisions come down to risk-vs-reward. All-X is a playstyle that is low-risk, and therefore should also be low-reward. Giving all-X a bonus is good and all, but it may potentially allow strong strats to be even stronger if their first 500 turns might receive an explore bonus as well.

I believe Fascism and Communism needs some serious tweaks. What and how, I don't know because I haven't put any thought to it. Having yet another bonus on top of the current bonus points bonus system isn't going to fix them too much. I haven't seen a Commie that doesn't pick -Expenses bonus.

Unless you can concretely prove your point, then this is pure speculation on your part.

I really do like this idea, however, I have to agree with Xinhuan. The way this game is designed, you have to seriously specialize to be the best. So, while you may look at it and think, "hey, I can make any choices I want for my gov." What you are going to end up doing, once you figure it out, is "hey, I want to be a casher this set, so that means I have to set up my gov like this."

But that's what we are already doing. The difference, well...If I get to choose anything I want...ok

I want to be a casher and I have 100 points to spend
positives: increase pci, pop, tech, lower expenses (figure out what is best and max it)
negatives: bad oil production (max it and buy it from the market)

At least right now, with the current govs, the negatives actually do impact you and sometimes, you may wish for a better positive than one you have. The current system makes you think a little more than this proposal.

Now, if they changed the game to allow some rainbowing without serious negative effects, than this may be a worthwhile suggestion, because it may allow a rep/indy/casher to actually compete for a top spot in the end (maybe).

Then again, to do that, they may as well just create a whole new game.

we have 3-4 viable govts for any strat, some govts are better in that specific strat than others.

really? ok, list the top 4 govs for casher, then please play the 4th best one and get it into the top10.

I'd say we have 1 best gov for each strat and 1 semi-good gov for that strat, for most strats. But I don't see 3 or 4 "viable" (which to me means, worthy, or can be competitive with the others gov types for that strat).

we have rep (best, obviously) theo, demo (which theo or demo is better isn't easy to determine since alot depends on market and other things) and dict (not that good due fluffty construction speed). i didn't say that each 4 can get to top10, all 4 are still options to choose and in right hands can get high nw.

I wouldn't mind Custom Governments. I've seen some games do it well. In order to get a bonus in something, you must take a negative bonus elsewhere. If you think about it that way, Customs may have more negative bonuses than normal governments.

I want to be a Fascist, but could care less of the food bonus. I rather put that food bonus elsewhere, like balancing population back up...

+50% food production
-50% defense? as long as no one knows i went with -50% that would be a killer fascist..

PS. the 50% oil is useless in my opinion until u have oil tech to make it a really good strat

Making oil tech doesn't make oiler a good strat. The problem is the lack of demand, in that 1 oiler can probably supply 100 countries, whereas 1 techer can only supply 15 countries (hypothetical numbers). So when a reset has more than 5 or so oilers, it's just going to be a terrible set for all of them.

Making oiler a viable strat is as simple as increasing the oil demand 10 fold: Each unit of oil only supports 2.5 units instead of 25.

I agree that units should use more oil than it should be already. Even if it just 5 folds, it should still give a demand for oil. I don't really care if Oiler isn't a winning strat. It is my favorite one and will do it every set until I get bored of it.


+50% Oil, -50% Food!

it has been explained that troops require oil on a Gs because they use humvees, etc.

How about requiring a small amount of oil to explore for land? That should increase oil demand.

You might want to create a new thread for this.

increasing oil usage has been debated quite a much.