Rocky
Giant Breadbug
The Recombinant
Posts: 1,636
|
Post by Rocky on Feb 23, 2009 1:14:26 GMT -5
@ Bulmin's ideas: Its good, but it sounds a lot like combining a Pirate Ship and an Economic Empire from spore.
|
|
Petrosian
Giant Breadbug
The Fishman
Posts: 1,560
|
Post by Petrosian on Feb 23, 2009 7:41:30 GMT -5
It'd actually be quite easy to change to Pikmin themes. All that needs to be changed is actually the names of units and resources. There are very many resource names usable: Old resources (Only common stuff like Iron, Steel and Aluminum. For more expensive units, maybe gold and gems.) Berries Working Force (Basically keeps count of how many civilians you have. You need this to run buildings, recruit armies and do various other projects and stuff. Get a higher max working force by creating certain buildings.)
Also, a few other things. For one, there needs to be a greater traveling time between areas. I thought we could have one faction in each Pikmin 2 area, while the Pikmin 1 area would be linked into one single underground dungeon which allows you to reach other Pikmin 2 areas. The entrances to these dungeons is the cave entrances in Pikmin 2. Pikmin 2 areas are surrounded by water and mountains and other obstacles.
The thing I think we need most is a way to keep track of your exact position after each day. Perhaps you would meet bandits with stashes of resources, or we could put mercenary camps in the wilderness, or neutral docks, or even a Spy's House where you can gain knowledge of something about your enemies (Closest enemy player to your base?). Also, there could be institutions which give your general special abilities in battle (He can't fight physically, but he can use his skills. For example, starting earthquakes to knock down walls. This would be hard to do, so I don't recommend it that much.).
|
|
Planet9
Ranging Bloyster
Former Power Poster[A:0]
Posts: 1,919
|
Post by Planet9 on Feb 23, 2009 19:41:25 GMT -5
I think you guys may be missing the idea of simpler.
|
|
|
Post by THE GODDAMN BATMAN on Feb 23, 2009 19:47:41 GMT -5
I was thinking the same thing.
|
|
|
Post by Water Dumple on Feb 23, 2009 19:51:57 GMT -5
So far, I have only really liked Bulbmin's ideas.
|
|
|
Post by THE GODDAMN BATMAN on Feb 23, 2009 19:59:39 GMT -5
Still, that idea would be better for a time that the game isn't dieing. Maybe next time 'round, but I think we should keep it simple this time. Something similar to V2's rules.
|
|
|
Post by yoshimaster on Feb 23, 2009 20:54:33 GMT -5
We need new things, not old ideas.
|
|
|
Post by THE GODDAMN BATMAN on Feb 23, 2009 21:02:25 GMT -5
I didn't say entirely the old rules, I said something similar. Too much new stuff is part of what got us into this mess.
|
|
Waffle-SS
Gatling Groink
The Administrator[A:0]
This means WAR, MAGGOTS!
Posts: 997
|
Post by Waffle-SS on Feb 23, 2009 21:20:17 GMT -5
Not when everything is in the shit. People want something new, and going back to something similar to V2 is just more of the same. We need something very new. It might flop, it might work, but this forum is history if we don't.
|
|
|
Post by THE GODDAMN BATMAN on Feb 23, 2009 21:22:23 GMT -5
Not when everything is in the (Censored). People want something new, and going back to something similar to V2 is just more of the same. We need something very new. It might flop, it might work, but this forum is history if we don't. No, we had no problems with V2. I'm not saying that we keep it exactly the same, but changing it entirely will likely do more harm than good.
|
|
|
Post by Water Dumple on Feb 23, 2009 22:01:05 GMT -5
Not when everything is in the (Censored). People want something new, and going back to something similar to V2 is just more of the same. We need something very new. It might flop, it might work, but this forum is history if we don't. No, we had no problems with V2. I'm not saying that we keep it exactly the same, but changing it entirely will likely do more harm than good. Joe is right, version 2 was probably our best one. Unfortunately, now it's been used, so we need something new. Making sure the new thing is good, or mainly just not bad, is the hard part.
|
|
|
Post by tinfoilman on Feb 23, 2009 22:22:11 GMT -5
I'm not quite sure if I want to go through with all bulbmin's ideas. I mean, the majority of the forum seems to like them, and I thank him for actually coming up with ideas rather than just telling people to start thinking of ideas or commenting on others' ideas, but I'm not sure if I want this to be like a full-fledged RTS game. Sure, that is kinda what it is already, but... all the stuff about defending certain positions, requistion points... it just to me doesn't feel right with a game like this. The only real rule changes that I am 100% committed to are the nixing of trade routes and multiple bases, and if I said I liked something earlier, well, maybe I can't quite fully agree with its addition/removal. Again, I don't want to slam people for trying to come up with ideas, I just am wary to make these drastic of changes.
Maybe I'm the only one in this boat, although I think Joe is here with me. Do we really need to change it that much? A brief period of inactivity... and this? The first wars were the best, the second wars were also good, the third was fine with me but we were plagued with inactivity and multiple bases. All this talk about this forum dying is a little dramatic for my liking. SMKW has gone through slow periods... every small forum is bound to. But I think if we calm down and take things slowly, we can cut the crap about a do-or-die situation here.
Well, that's my say on the matter. I'll try and come up with any ideas if I get them in time, but again, let's just take a deep breathe and get collected before hitting the panic button. Most of this spiel arose from the fact that if we changed to more of what bulbmin has in mind, that my awesome music army wouldn't really fit in, but that's not the point.
|
|
Petrosian
Giant Breadbug
The Fishman
Posts: 1,560
|
Post by Petrosian on Feb 24, 2009 5:31:48 GMT -5
I'd actually support changing back to the first version. But we would have to make some rules clear. The scouting before/after events and stuff. And we still need a reason to attack. Otherwise, I'd just keep tight in my seat and watch the other armies wear each other out, then defeat everyone. Also, I'd really like multiple allies brought back. Makes the game feel less like an FFA, and in FFA you have even less reason to attack. Maybe we could cut down on the numbers of troops recruited. It just feels real fun when you're working alongside other buddies. What I would like even better was that everyone was divided into two big alliances, with a maximum of 3 allied players attacking the same target. 3 alliances would also work. Dividing the players would be like dealing cards: We would be divided from the person with the highest post-count all the way down to those with somewhere around 200 yet active. New players would be assigned like this, but new players quitting wouldn't be that bad like this.
|
|
Petrosian
Giant Breadbug
The Fishman
Posts: 1,560
|
Post by Petrosian on Feb 24, 2009 5:41:27 GMT -5
Double post, but I've got a suggestion. How about every one of us takes a copy of the current rules and edit it to where he thinks it is balanced and fun? I'll be doing this.
|
|
Hachi
Waterwraith
Captain Oliby[A:0]
I am Oliby, Businessman of Legends. Fear my accounting!
Posts: 2,355
|
Post by Hachi on Feb 24, 2009 17:50:33 GMT -5
I'm not sure if I understand, but how many troops are available in battle? RNG or mod discretion on the relative strength of a faction?
Of course, I haven't been here long enough to get the gist of everything, so do what you all think is best for the situation.
|
|