The Brain Farts - Brainstorm of ideas here

Goober Pyle

The West Team
Fort Balancing Strategist
The real win would be new players in towns with cathedrals could do their leveling construction in the same town, not have to go travel to sister towns with smaller churches
 

Goober Pyle

The West Team
Fort Balancing Strategist
btw, another potential incentive for mass-leveling the stores is the technical feasibility of adding "shiny" gear to them.

e.g. the quotient mod the max could be the level of gear where shiny's are added to the pool of possible items.

so at level 400 for gunshop (max 20):
400 mod 20 = 0 (quotient 20). 20 mod 20 = 0
when modulus is zero the max level gets replace, so the level 20 items get replaced. because the quotient mod 20 is 0 level 20 items include the shinys so you have a chance at landing Buckshot Robert's modified Winchester (your next chance will be at level 800)
 

Goober Pyle

The West Team
Fort Balancing Strategist
Thoughts?:

A possible easy dev-level tweak would be to cap the number of towns in an alliance.

Combined with town-size limits and fort member limits this would
1) effectively cap the number of players who are restricted to joining defense.
2) strongly incentivize people to give up their one-man towns and join town-level communities

The logistical headache will be a need for “teamed-alliance members” to join a custom chat-room (which has its own limits, but that could also be tweaked)
 

Caerdwyn

Well-Known Member
1) effectively cap the number of players who are restricted to joining defense.

Too loose a cap, like say 50, to match the number of people in a town, doesn't change anything. Too restrictive a cap, like say 5, to make a 250 person alliance the maximum size, robs towns who are in their autumn or winter cycles of their history by forcing them to give up their town name and badge.

2) strongly incentivize people to give up their one-man towns and join town-level communities

People who want to play with the group should have already left towns which have dwindled to one-man. The only reason to stay is to be the placeholder for the return of departed members who want to rebuild their glory days. If you never had "glory days", give it up.

Founding a one-man town and never being a good enough leader to draw a minimum of one of each craft to join you, indicates you are either uninterested or unlikeable.

Founding a one-man alliance is just [strikethrough]dumb[/strikethrough] perplexing.
 

Harriet Oleson

Well-Known Member
About the shop idea, it's true it could be good to have changes in towns : when everything is built it can be a bit boring for some players; and it's rather bothersome to feel stuck when we don't have in our shops what we are looking for. It could be good to have things to build regularly too. But as it is right now it incites a lot to do business with players if we don't have an item in our town, while with this new system, it could only incite to try our luck to get what we are looking for in our own town : instead of inciting exchanges between players in different towns, it could make towns more secluded. It can even be bothersome if other town members build a lot the buildings while other town members may want to keep their shops as they are.

I think it'd be better if there was building deterioration with time and the reset would happen only when the building level reaches 0 : from there, new items would be unlocked level after level while the building is built again, as if it was for the first time after creating a new town. This possibility would take place only if all town members don't build until the shop level goes down to 0. Otherwise, at every level down, previously unlocked items would be locked again and if players re-built before level 0 to increase back the level, no new items would appear : only previously locked items would re-appear. Like that it would make it more difficult than just building : construction gear are very good to the point a whole town can be fully built in a short time, so for some players "construction only" wouldn't represent a real difficulty at all. And on the contrary for others who don't have those good gear, it could become undoable if construction requirements were too high. Here, the difficulty would be to let the time to buildings to reach level 0 beforehand, and everything that it implies. I think it's very important a reset couldn't be so easy. And in any case, thanks to deteriorations players would always have things to build whether about other buildings, shops we don't want to reach level 0, or after a building has reached level 0.

I think if it was like that, the good points of the idea would be maintained, and the bad points I mentionned would be lowered. In any case, building deterioration with time was in an old roadmap, so the dev team is supposed to already be ok with that. I don't know why it hasn't been implemented though ... The only new thing here is the shop reset from level 0.
 

Goober Pyle

The West Team
Fort Balancing Strategist
About the shop idea, it's true it could be good to have changes in towns : when everything is built it can be a bit boring for some players; and it's rather bothersome to feel stuck when we don't have in our shops what we are looking for. It could be good to have things to build regularly too. But as it is right now it incites a lot to do business with players if we don't have an item in our town, while with this new system, it could only incite to try our luck to get what we are looking for in our own town : instead of inciting exchanges between players in different towns, it could make towns more secluded. It can even be bothersome if other town members build a lot the buildings while other town members may want to keep their shops as they are.

I think it'd be better if there was building deterioration with time and the reset would happen only when the building level reaches 0 : from there, new items would be unlocked level after level while the building is built again, as if it was for the first time after creating a new town. This possibility would take place only if all town members don't build until the shop level goes down to 0. Otherwise, at every level down, previously unlocked items would be locked again and if players re-built before level 0 to increase back the level, no new items would appear : only previously locked items would re-appear. Like that it would make it more difficult than just building : construction gear are very good to the point a whole town can be fully built in a short time, so for some players "construction only" wouldn't represent a real difficulty at all. And on the contrary for others who don't have those good gear, it could become undoable if construction requirements were too high. Here, the difficulty would be to let the time to buildings to reach level 0 beforehand, and everything that it implies. I think it's very important a reset couldn't be so easy. And in any case, thanks to deteriorations players would always have things to build whether about other buildings, shops we don't want to reach level 0, or after a building has reached level 0.

I think if it was like that, the good points of the idea would be maintained, and the bad points I mentionned would be lowered. In any case, building deterioration with time was in an old roadmap, so the dev team is supposed to already be ok with that. I don't know why it hasn't been implemented though ... The only new thing here is the shop reset from level 0.

Getting back the same items would be a dev level change I just don’t see happening.

Mod level, another possibility is pseudorandom “disasters”, eg every time a fair is built a random shop in every town in the same county as the fair gets zeroed out. And/or all the forts in that county get zeroed out and assigned to a founding town.
 

Harriet Oleson

Well-Known Member
Getting back the same items would be a dev level change I just don’t see happening.
But if the team still wants to implement building deteriorations one day (big big "if"), they are NECESSARLY supposed to plan something for when the building level would go down and then up again : new items can't appear at every level up, otherwise it'd be a big mess and too easy to get whatever items we want. I just suggested this to propose something coherent regarding that point; but there are other coherent systems which lead to the exact same result (=reset possible after letting down the level to 0). That's what you (or anyone else) were supposed to comment, actually. The details are up to the dev according to how they want to/can handle things. Once again "if" they still want to implement that, though.

About your idea of "disasters", I like the principle and the part about forts assigned to a founding town. I think it could bring a new sort of dynamic in FF, without penalising too much forts owners (only a few forts concerned, not frequently, and with possibiity to get back what we may have lost). Stagnation is bad, and with this kind of thing it could bring regular renewal. But forts owners opinion should be heard first, cause they are the ones who'd be directly impacted by this.
I'm not so much convinced about the "zeroed out" of fort or town's shop though : for forts, I've read it's really difficult to build them (it requires a lot of components). So to put them at 0 from time to time might be very harsh ... Maybe just bringing some damages (lowering building level) and not putting them fully at 0 could be better ? And for town's shop : it's like the shop reset idea with construction only, it has its good points and bad points. Good to have new things to build, to have access to new items too (if "zeroed out" a shop implies a reset when we build again ?), and the surprise effect may be very interesting too. But in another hand, the fact we can't control if and when it would happen may be very constraining : for example near event period when we need shop items we may be stuck if our shop is still out just at that moment, for those who just don't care about construction and were satisfied by their previous shop, or even for players who don't have a good construction gear and spent a lot of time to build their shops. In the end could be good for some palyers and in some situations, and not for/in others. Just my opinion though.
 

gamesraju

Member
I am new to the game. I dont know how good these suggestions are.

I see adventures are very poorly handiled.

1) People quits the adventures
2) Very few willing to play adventures.


my main suggestions are

1) if people quit they should be fined an amount, not big might be 50 or 100
2) Giving experiance equivallent of veternan points.
3) To make fight intresting the winning team should be awarded in cash in addition to Exp. if they beat opponents with <7 vs 35 and <14 vs 35.

Thanks
Raju.
 
Top