I've wanted to do a 1v1 server for a long time actually, but I was under the impression that most players aren't interested so it didn't feel worth the effort. If enough people post in this thread expressing interest then we will seriously consider doing it. A few questions to start:

1) How do you preventing cheating? For example, two players queue up at an odd time with the intention of having one of them throw the match.

2) Is your thinking to take politics out of the game because the player population can no longer support it? You could have one server for netting (all tags are forced into clan GDI, for example) and the other server that you just proposed for people to scratch their warring itch.

3) Can I edit your post to give Gerdler 9999 ELO?

Hmm 20 min matches I have a hard time seeing how EE could be EE. Like if you get say 1 turn per second or whatever, it will be nothing about country building is my guess. And if the market isnt driven by real supply and demand, it seems not a market.

I agree that the teams(or 1v1 for that matter) ladder concept or similar concepts as well as shorter resets would bring people together.

Elo wouldnt be all that difficult to code I think.

A very high speed would probably remove all other aspects than your own speed, tho.

What if it was say 36 hour resets? Or 6 hour? I just think 20 min is too short to be EE unless we get like a new interface that supports faster play like you can set it for multiple actions at once?
I could see something like a chess game, where one side has 5 min to take actions, say up to 100 turns, then the other side goes? You lose if you die or your time runs out, or if the enemy has more points(consisting of whatever) by the time the set ends?

A real market that was driven by supply and demand and shared between the two teams and perhaps something else?

I think there are a lot of ideas floating around like this one chevs brings to the table. I think something like this should be considered for sure.

I have seen suggested:
King of the hill/last man standing concepts either based on NW or point systems
1vs1 war tournament concepts(similar to chevs idea perhaps but no elo just knockout)
Point system everyone vs everyone
Point system 1 vs all
Team vs team concepts (similar to or different than this one)

Slag:
1) in short and frequent sets, ideally the game should be made in such a way that cheating is benign, which is likely possible.
3) already setting me up for unfavorable matchmaking I see. )-;

Ee has a lot of downtime and this serves to allow something for players to do in other times. As was pointed out, it doesn't really sound like earth empires, but if there could be a random burst 10 or 15 or even 20 minute game that could be accessed by phone and played in real time with the community I bet I would play it from time to time. Something that can keep super active players entertained while they wait for turns I dont think is a bad thing.

One time a handful of us went onto alpha and had a 10 minute magic market war. It was funny. We were killing each others unkillable nations. I think a ladder match with maybe 30 to 60 second action sequences that go back and forth and maybe. Let's say 30 second actions, 50 turn busts. And they go back and forth for say 20 minutes. You could get about an express length competition. And I think you could queue as 1v1 or 2v2 or whatever. Itd be some fast paced adrenaline filled entertainment. But I should say I think if its anymore than 30 seconds actions of 50 turns for 20 minutes, you run into the match itself being too long, the number of turns being too few, or the amount of turns to run in 30 seconds being too many for proper gameplay.

some sort of real-time game mode would be kinda cool. A good use for graphql subscriptions!

I like it.

S

So what are you proposing happens to the alliance server? It gets deleted? No changes? Is the intent that alliances would dissolve and everyone plays on your new fun server? What do you do if you want to netgain?

No reason to delete anything , you have a member base that play on every server (except maybe tourney).

I don’t have an opinion on alliance server specifically. I think CD, and chems need a nerf, and Sdi a buff, but those are easily done compared to implementing something as massive as clan GDI. FFO needs a nerf too only on alliance tho

This was a post to create a new server or mode to address what I believe are the true causes of playerbase decline. If you disagree ,have different priorities or have different data than me that suggests otherwise that’s ok too. Just my subjective opinion on where I think you can achieve better ROI for your time

If you want to netgain and someone else doesnt want you to netgain it means you don't netgain.
If you want war and someone else doesnt want you to war, you war.
If you want to suicide and someone else doesnt want you to suicide, you suicide.

Thats probably fine if suiciding is balanced. Which it never has been, and certainly isnt now. Clan GDI would allow suiciding to take place still as it is, but it would be balanced by hit limits or a 48 hour declaration window which is rather fair.

Chevs may be right that suiciders often hit because nothing else interests them in the game, but is that a reason to not balance a deeply unbalanced mechanic? So netters should just still sit around hoping no one gets bored.

War has its problems and these ideas could help retain, regain and reqruit new players for sure. But when a flaw has been identified it should be fixed, either way.

Why not have both. A server where it's a 10 or 20 min challenge between 2 or more countries, unlimited turns, and at the end of the 10 or 20 minutes the highest nw country wins. A strictly netting challenge, no attack options. Or have a random time assigned at the start of the match. Before the match begins each player or team knows how much time they have. Could be anywhere from 10-30 minutes or something.

Then have another server where people can do the same thing. 10 or 20 mins to build a country. at the end of that a 5 or 10 minute "battle phase" where each side tries to gain the nw/strength advantage. 1-5 players max each side. Or the mode can be each team has a day with a set amount of turns to build a country. The next day at a set time war can begin.

I feel like the market would have to be fixed in these types of game modes, but there should be a a random market each match. Or maybe the market should match the average prices of another servers previous day. And maybe have a wait time of when goods are sold they get full price, but have to wait 30 secs(+or- time depending on how long match is) or have the option(like private) to sell goods immediately, at a lower price.

I feel like the chess anology was good. You can play chess in a 5 minute game, 10 minute, etc...

I know I'd be down for some quick matches, as well as continue to play alliance and tournament like I do. I'm sorry if I repeated anything that was said, but it seems like a good idea. I also just wanted to play out these scenarios in my head as I typed. Also sorry if none of this makes sense, I'm sleepy.

Has anyone ever thought about what the counterplay to these suicides are for a major alliance like LaF? And how would that affect the game and player retention?

Double post

I just think to make it to where most people want it, the netgaining gdi would have to be crazy overpowered, which is fine because most people don't want to suicide. Just a select few.

You said that this idea would fix suiciding. How does adding a new server and leaving alliance as is fix suiciding? The Express server has rules that do an okay job at preventing most suiciding, even though they aren't perfect. Those rules don't have any other impact on other servers.

Is what you're saying that the new server will attract more players, and some percentage of those players will also play on alliance and other servers, even though the other servers have mechanics issues? So there's no longer any need to change mechanics on alliance?

I'm talking about our counterplay. Are you suggesting there is none?

Oh I’m well aware of the counterplay it looks something like 5v80(plus mods) stomp fest ow ow ow

That seems really boring.

I think this is an interesting idea for a new game mode, for a new type of server.

Regardless of where we play, I think we can all agree that one of the drawbacks of the game is that a few mistakes can make or break a competitive set. It requires some know how to recover. That know how and willing to learn that know how is limited to a few who are keen to do so. In order to salvage a set - eventually it turns into someone making their game-play interesting for themselves, which in turn may not be as interesting for others.

A short burst reset will allow you to break free from that. You can play with the freedom that if you goof up, there's another round just around the corner.

This sort of mode has the potential to be a lure for new players who may eventually explore the experience of the other game modes.

LoL 30 v 5 + mod friend deletions, sounds like good counterplay to me. What Gerdler really wants is a PvE server, just make that happen. Have a PvP server and a PvE server, tie markets together, or something. Let them play in isolation to their hearts content.

There is no shame in it; even WoW has PvE servers. Make it a choice at country creation: PvP game play or PvE; you cannot pick both to avoid market transfers to yourself.

On third thought I kind of like this more and more:
- It's still the "alliance" server
- You create a country and choose which 'server' you wish to play
- The 'top players' listings etc can show Alliance - PVP and Alliance - PVE etc.

It would be kinda cool to have a server where you fight ppl and the leaderboard reflects the top 10 of people who fight each other, the other server reflects top top 10 of only people who don't want to fight other real people.

Both servers should have bots to add some land to the game for initial start-up.

That idea of a market linked PvE+PvE server is great except for the bots part. At least without major changes to the bots it is very preferable if the bots are shared between netters and warrers. For reasons.

Market goes cray cray when the majority of the server wars as it currently stands. This is for 3 reasons;
1. The total NPC market impact isn't balanced, so when the bots become larger they drive the market too far.
2. The NPCs don't produce oil
3. The NPCs don't respond to the market condictions apart for which unit/tech to produce. They dont tech more if tech prices are high, they dont produce more units or buy less units if mil prices are high and same goes for food.

Possible solutions to fix this;
Variable(by price) oil production from bots(perhaps from the rainbow bots)
Turn stop conditions for individual bots based on market, acreage, etc(the bots that are largest of the kind the market doesnt need are shut off)
A more balanced total npc market impact in general(this is already in the cards it seems)
A steady trickle of new bots to the server that needs it more either at random or to respond to current market conditions

But doing all of this may be as complicated as current suggested clan GDI.

Without seeing the codebase that is hard to say. But I think it would be cool to be siloed out a bit. That way you have the top PVP countries and their own top 10/top list etc and Top PVE and their top lists. Could also make a shared view that combines the two as well which would be easy to do.

I think the PVP vs PVE way would require less code testing/regression testing but again I am speaking out of ignorance of the codebase.

Would be curious to know slags thoughts?

I would give any new server a try. I agree that putting 2 months of daily effort into a country that has to be wide open to getting ruined by anyone in humanitarian range is a huge problem that will drive netters away. Like gerdler said, only netters get 100% screwed this way. Suiciders expect to die after hitting someone. Warrers might be upset if suicided, but their plan was to fight so they can still have fun.

I would rather see this idea of a server last longer than 20 minutes though. One of the reasons I don't care to war in alliance is because I'm a laid back player, and i don't like clicking fast, lol. I like the idea of having 1 player/team having a set amount of time to run a set amount of turns, then the other side has their time, etc.

This is a false equivalence. what you really meant to say was, I can't net in LAF in alliance, and force others to play the game how I want.

If you want to "netgain" you can go to any solo server you like. If you want to netgain in "alliance" you can play in monsters, they seem to never get suicided. So you don't really want to "netgain."

Here is what Gerd wants (On ALLIANCE server)
>Players can only attack bots
>LaF dictates to other clans who they can and can't have in their alliance
>No Offensive Alliances (if LaF catches you doing this, you die)
>No research pacts (if LaF catches you doing this, you die)
>No foreign Aid (if laf catches you doing this, you die)
>All major clans are FDP (SoF, LaF, Mercs are all FDP), so if small tags/untaggeds act out, they die 5v80
>Arranged wars ONLY for war players\
>Allowed to have 450k acres with 0 turrets
>Land grab counts as suicide, you die


How does this in any way resemble a dynamic server with politics, let alone ALLIANCE play? Why is Gerd entitled to play this way on ALLIANCE server, when he has many alternative options to "netgain" if he wants?

You can go ahead and cater the game to the few who believe they are entitled to play like this, but i can guarantee tags like the BOMB only continue to grow because believe it or not, the majority of players are fed up with this type of elitist, entitled attitude.

We caught you getting FA, having offensive alliance leech and having 2 tech leeches and didnt plan to kill you. Ofc when you hit us with a 5 man suicide you die. But remember we played what 45 days without hitting you, knowing full well who you were and that you were doing those things you say we kill for.

All other small alliances, we pact them or we put them at DNH. We offered you a pact. No way for you to spin this really without totally debasing your own suggestion thread with total falsehoods.

You mean if I quit LaF and join monsters I can netgain? Who then is trying to dictate how others play?

im not talking about me. Its literally in your pacts, no offensive allies, no tech allies, no aid.

you can play however/wherever you like, just like everyone else. i was making a suggestion if your true goal was to netgain how to acheive it, but we both know thats disingenuous, and not what you actually want

You misrepresent our pacts. They say nothing about killing people for that either. It's a handshake agreement on what is to be considered fair competetive practices, and it's been there since a time when aid and leeches dictated every winner of 1a. Someone wanted to get out of that meta. I don't know who did that but I agree with it. Whatever.

Our netters and the netters I talk to in Monsters and Evo want to compete on the basis of merit, not who can get the most leeches/aid.
If we remove it we have lots more resources to FA/leech to our top players than anyone else does. I mean even now, if we wanted to we could easily make our bottom ranked country win 1a.