Posts: 297
Threads: 5
Joined: Jan 2017
Reputation:
2
Well we pay by the month, i agree, why set limits on game lengths? I want longer games than 40 myself.
Posts: 2,585
Threads: 42
Joined: Jan 2014
Reputation:
7
Rellgar is wanting the same thing. He just believes players are leaving what might be a loosing effort in favor of starting a new game. So would like to remove some of the barrier to continuing to play that game out.
From my experience there are also just so many games you can play at one time and am not sure making them not count to service level would actually help the issue. But it is a good topic to explore. I am all for finding ways to keep players playing the full length of a game.
Posts: 5,613
Threads: 619
Joined: Feb 2012
Reputation:
6
Rather than have others go down this particular path, the accounting system is manual and not at all connected with the game server. We are not tracking when a game goes past turn 24, etc., or if a player has dropped a game for that matter unless they notify support (as encouraged) and then going into accounting and removing that game from a service level slot.
Posts: 981
Threads: 33
Joined: Mar 2013
Reputation:
1
I share your desire to extend games longer.
If players want this to happen in anon games then when a kingdom captures their third region they should draw the attention of their competitors.
Sometimes the opposite occurs and players actually avoid the leading kingdoms and this causes the game to end quicker. This may even be by design to try and get the 2nd place on the podium.
If more players changed strategy to try and stop leaders from getting that 3rd or 4th region we might see less drops as players would hold out hope for a comeback as the stronger kingdoms battled.
Posts: 981
Threads: 33
Joined: Mar 2013
Reputation:
1
Sounds like some interesting strategic twists in the works.
very cool!
Posts: 985
Threads: 31
Joined: Aug 2015
Reputation:
0
Another solution is one that was discussed at the formation of the Championship Game and that is to have Status Points be used to determine entry into certain games as Rick initially proposed. While its true that players that simply play more games will generate more Status Points, its also true that players that stay in games longer (especially when they stay in through Turn 37 or later) will accrue more Status Points.
Even better is that Valhalla already computes an "average" Status Points per game so it eliminates the concern as to "how many games" you played. Those players that did "better" in their games and stayed in the game "longer" will generate more Status Points on average, than those that played poorly and/or quit or were eliminated from the game.
The problem is that there is currently NOT a "reward" mechanism for players to stay in games and tough it out when things start going poorly; instead many will quickly abandon ship to start a new game (often unbalancing the current game) and there is essentially no penalty for doing so.
If, however, Support were to start using Average Status Points per Game as a determinant to get in to special games, compete for special awards/prizes, get to beta test new product first, etc. then it would encourage players to try harder, compete longer, and potentially have games go longer, since everybody would want to push for a later resolution (Turn 37+ for optimal status point payout).
So long as there is no real reward for players to stay in and compete longer, nor any real penalty for players to just up and quit at the drop of a hat, we'll continue to have games where players quit prematurely.
Posts: 981
Threads: 33
Joined: Mar 2013
Reputation:
1
I have been giving this a little more thought and here is something to consider.
Recognition of silver and bronze podium positions seems to motivate players to avoid conflict with the leading positions.
I wonder if we just tracked game winners if there would be more attempts to block winners.
Longer games occur when the leading positions battle instead of ignoring each other. Encouraging this behavior would be a positive.
Food for thought.
Posts: 208
Threads: 0
Joined: Sep 2016
Reputation:
2
HOw about how fast one can be denigrated within a region between High Council actions, King orders and worst is wizard spells. THe wizard spell should be one per turn rather than like three that could take you so quickly to hostile. Also what about changing the Regional reaction levels by adding another level.
Friendly
Tolerant
Neutral
Suspicious
Hostile
Buddy/Ignore List
