So I have some theories...

[Mario]

(10-26-2014, 08:28 AM)DarkMicrobe Wrote:

(10-25-2014, 04:33 PM)Mario Wrote: You guys just take words and twist them into something else. Oh well, I can't stop you from doing anything, just like you can't stop me from my gameplay. Have you ever considered maybe I camp due to everything that you're saying?

Mario maybe you should play devil's advocate once, as i've done. i have played 4 games straight not caring about killing the other team, i just didn't want to lose. I've made camping my love and my life for those games, and yes, not losing felt great, you wanna know what feels even better? WINNING!? (i dont mean winning as in: The other team admit defeated because of your chain and suit of boredom) Maybe you should play 4 games in a row not caring about your puny fucking base, about your fucking win or loss, but just to see if you COULD have fun rushing. You say you find camping enjoyable, i can't grasp that theory but i just want you to get out of your comfort zone for once and play another way, see if you like it. just plain saying "no" is, by the way, very childish as you're basically saying: "Nah i can't handle criticism, criticize ragers please, not me" *Huh was that actually a quote or did Dark just, ah nvm*

Devil's advocate is very important to understand general problems. If everyone is a camper, there is no game to be played. 
Google Devil's advocate if you don't know what it is btw :3

Actually, believe it or not. Camping is out of my comfort zone. Not sure if most of you remember, but I started camping not too long ago. When I first saw campers I as well was mad at them. And then I figured, "Hey why don't I give it a shot". I tried it once and I actually gained a lot out of it. All of you that find camping "wrong" are wrongheaded. If it's causing this much of a problem I will attack once and a while when I feel it's necessary. I'll push myself to go back to my older gamestyles. But if I find defending my base/earning creds is more important once and I while, then so be it- i will camp. And if I find camping is working for me/my team, then I will camp. I'm done with these attacks against me & ams for camping, if this continues, there will be bans on the forums. Mark my words.

[Grease]

Woawawiewa, this is a clear sign of the best admin on Edge. And how the hell would you start banning us? I can use my second modem, reset it, use that of my friends or neighbours, use the schoolinternet, run the the McDonalds, pls stfu about banning and ask for a -1 instead of admin rights if you can't stand criticism.

[DarkMicrobe]

(10-26-2014, 03:37 PM)Grease Wrote: Woawawiewa, this is a clear sign of the best admin on Edge. And how the hell would you start banning us? I can use my second modem, reset it, use that of my friends or neighbours, use the schoolinternet, run the the McDonalds, pls stfu about banning and ask for a -1 instead of admin rights if you can't stand criticism.

and also, you're reacting childish as i said in my other post

[grmg.pl]

Mario - no amount of "explanations" you post will be able to cover up the truth, the real reasons of your behaviour. We all know them, you know them and that's all there is to it.

I'll quote myself from other thread so the message gets to everyone who should read it:

Mario likes permacamp. He will not stop. There is nothing you can do about it.
Mario will permacamp to get you to react. He "feeds" of your reactions - your anger, whining and rq.


If you want to play NE - accept permacamp, don't whine or don't accept, whine and get permamute. This is your choice, however sad and un-fair it is.

[nalf]

I'd like to kindly ask everybody to keep on-topic in threads. This thread is about game dynamics, not about discussing who camps and who does not. Actually it seems that all threads lately eventually twist into that.

So please if you want to discuss if/how/why/... Mario or somebody else camps, please start an appropriate thread for it somewhere else.

[Swizaw]

(10-26-2014, 06:45 PM)nalf Wrote: I'd like to kindly ask everybody to keep on-topic in threads. This thread is about game dynamics, not about discussing who camps and who does not. Actually it seems that all threads lately eventually twist into that.

So please if you want to discuss if/how/why/... Mario or somebody else camps, please start an appropriate thread for it somewhere else.

Can't,it would get locked

[Grease]

(10-26-2014, 06:45 PM)nalf Wrote: Actually it seems that all threads lately eventually twist into that.

So true

[Pikachu]

Yeah, there's plenty of flaming threads already...

Nalf: tweaking the colonies and refineries would certainly be good to try out. Perhaps this could be linked to map size and player counts.
So maps don't get overcrowded with both players and buildings? I'm not sure but I think that's a bit of a problem sometimes also.
Admittedly those automatic stabilizers are rather tricky to get right in practice it seems. About economy, I agree that the kind of credit system is not the main issue.
Keeping in mind the amount of creds would allow for all kind of exchange rate mechanisms to be tried out, but I can only speculate what the effects would be.
For instance, you could set it up so the rich team would get almost no revenue from farming the poor team (the poor team/player would have a low 'stock value')
and vice versa, killing a 'rich' player would be very valuable for a poor player. I think such a system might counteract the feeding in the game.
The ideal dynamics for the game might probably be the teams taking turns attacking and defending. In the early moments of the game this seems more common than the later.
I would really be interested in collecting stats for all kinds of ingame variables though. Having graphs of total/team credit and BP over time might actually show us some surprising things?
Perhaps Ams would be open for that?

GRMG: No denying some players will just camp or misbehave, my point is you have little control over player actions, but you do have control over game variables and those are also a motivator of player action. The main issue with high BP is that the game was never designed with it in mind, so the way the game is set up, while familiar and liked by most players might not be optimal for high BP gameplay.
About less buildings making the base more precious. Yeah that's true, but I don't think it's really a big deal, vanilla games did this and you didn't see players camping any more or less.
Less buildings would probably make the game end faster, wether you like that or not is an other discussion. I think games stalling is more annoying than games ending too quickly.

[nalf]

(10-26-2014, 07:43 PM)Pikachu Wrote: For instance, you could set it up so the rich team would get almost no revenue from farming the poor team (the poor team/player would have a low 'stock value') and vice versa, killing a 'rich' player would be very valuable for a poor player. I think such a system might counteract the feeding in the game.

I tried something like that, basically the higher the average amount of credits a team, the less reward. I don't remember the details, I'd have to look for the patch.

The problem, as with any balancing mechanism, is that more balanced games mean also less chance of winning for either team. In this case it'd be easier for a defending (camping) team to earn credits and counter-attacking. So we need both - negative feedback loops (helping the weaker team to survive) as well as positive feedback loops (helping the stronger team win) - and this isn't easy

Quote:The ideal dynamics for the game might probably be the teams taking turns attacking and defending. In the early moments of the game this seems more common than the later.

I had the idea of having "days" and "nights" - humans would be stronger during days (like see better, more stamina, more energy, stronger defenses) and aliens during nights (faster, more regen, stronger defenses). A "day" could last let's say 2 minutes (as a legend, we can say that a space station rotates with period of 4 minutes). This would motivate both teams to rush periodically.

Quote:I would really be interested in collecting stats for all kinds of ingame variables though. Having graphs of total/team credit and BP over time might actually show us some surprising things?
Perhaps Ams would be open for that?

This should be easy and I don't think Ams would subject to that. We could just dump a string into logs every 10s or so and then hand it over to you for evaluation. Would it be enough to have the total credits of each team, or would you want also individual player's stats and their equip/class?

[grmg.pl]

Quote:I had the idea of having "days" and "nights" - humans would be stronger during days (like see better, more stamina, more energy, stronger defenses) and aliens during nights (faster, more regen, stronger defenses).

Depends on how much stronger, at least strong enough to break the unavoidable camp that will take place during your weaker phase.

Quote:The main issue with high BP is that the game was never designed with it in mind,

I was already about to propose outright removing of any kind of SD/ubp and replacing it with a system that would accomodate both building bases and destroying them without time limitations. This system could instead be based on players performance versus other players (individual or team) - measure the damage dealt to enemy players, winner is rewarded with bps or rush weapons, allow time for rush if they choose rush, reset the "performance meter".

"The rich get richer the poor get poorer" - something like that with added windows of opportunity for weaker team to flip the script if they step up to it (double damage to everyone inside base defences if rushing team didn't end the game). This is all fiction ATM.

Quote:The main issue with high BP is that the game was never designed with it in mind, so the way the game is set up, while familiar and liked by most players might not be optimal for high BP gameplay.

The "issues" are made more visible because of UBP.