13 replies to this topic

[Analis]

Long title. Short suggestion.

I love all 29 other members of my studio.

Well almost all. Some are arsonists and anarchists, but so far the studio still stands.

 

Anyway.

I had been thinking that there are "too many" studios.

But actually that's not right. There are only too few good ones.

Because there are far too many studios who keep 30 members just because they "have to".

Most studios are actually filled for half with dead weight.

If studios would be forced to go on with for instance max. 20 members...

More studios would be inclined to weed out the member list.

Less mediocrity, higher standards... Just an idea.

It would make for more but also more interesting studios.

 

 

 

 

 

[TaraBing]

Neat idea...  but in the end, what does it accomplish?

 

Long title. Short suggestion.

I love all 29 other members of my studio.

Well almost all. Some are arsonists and anarchists, but so far the studio still stands.

 

Anyway.

I had been thinking that there are "too many" studios.

But actually that's not right. There are only too few good ones.

Because there are far too many studios who keep 30 members just because they "have to".

Most studios are actually filled for half with dead weight.

If studios would be forced to go on with for instance max. 20 members...

More studios would be inclined to weed out the member list.

Less mediocrity, higher standards... Just an idea.

It would make for more but also more interesting studios.

 

• Dropping max membership to 20, changes the new number to keeping 20, "because we have to" a little easier.
   
• It concentrates the power even further to the TOP studios, as active participation percentage goes up without carrying the 'dead wood', so to speak .
   
• Average Level of Players per Studio goes up.
   
• Maintaining 20 actives is a lot easier than 30, reduces churn and recruitment efforts.
   
• The game is a grind enough for studio bosses; this suggestion reduces that grind which is good for Top studios mostly.
   
• And it likely creates a little more parity for the studios that can keep 20 active, as the not good enough from 21 to 30 (that are active) find new homes elsewhere.
   
• For studios that can't keep 20 active, it doesn't change much at all except maybe to increase the list of really good TOP 10 studios, pushing the sub-studios down the ladder.

 

I was thinking like you, and thought what can we do to get more studios into the competition, and it really starts with active participation - once a studio maxes out on all it's bonuses, the difference between wins and loses is active participation.

 

 

Finding good active help is so hard to find.

 

 

-TB

 

.

[CaptC]

In my view, that depends upon your definition of deadwood.

 

The slow growing, non competitive player is strictly on the bosses and producers. If they tolerate having such deadwood in their studio, that is on them. I don't think the game should care.

 

The game SHOULD care about pruning dead-weight avatars who never log in, but that survive because the levels and skills are enough to keep the boss paying for doubles. I have proposed elsewhere that players who do not log in should face escalating penalties.  The suggestion I currently like is for a cool down period of three weeks, then 1% a day until the avatar just poofs into deletion. All penalties would be removed completely after the player logins in and completes a mission or movie task.  (I picked three weeks, because there is precedent. That is the same as the length of time a boss can go, without logins, before an election is triggered), But this will never happen. The reality is, the developers are just as happy to to have zombies cause the purchase of doubles.

 

Analis, I think your real issue is not with studio makeup. It is a lack of studio mergers. But that is a human problem, not a game problem. I think bosses like being bosses, so they rarely merge their studios, no matter how much sense it makes from a game perspective. Changing the makeup of studios won't change that fact of human psychology.

[Analis]

 

Analis, I think your real issue is not with studio makeup.

It is a lack of studio mergers. But that is a human problem, not a game problem.

 

 

Very perceptive, Capt. Nice reading between the lines.

And no, not a trace of sarcasm there... You're on point.

It's an issue nonetheless though. And it hinders the game.

 

And true, Tara. Activity is everything.

That's why I have to skip down right to:
 

"For studios that can't keep 20 active, it doesn't change much at all"

Except the fact that they have 10 inactives less and get to focus on those who actually function.

It's way less frustrating to be in a group where you know most everyone pulls his/her weight.

It inspires loyalty, encourages competition, growth, but most importantly it makes shit fun.
 

"except maybe to increase the list of really good TOP 10 studios"

I would not say no to that. And neither should you.

 

"pushing the sub-studios down the ladder."

When this 20-member-thing makes life more fun ànd competitive for top studios...

Why should it be different for sub top studios?


 

Edited by Analis, 02 October 2017 - 19:23 PM.

[CaptC]

The game could support "mergers" that leave both bosses in place... IE, support actual alliances. 

 

Both bosses remain the bosses over their studio.  Each boss has to say that they agree to the alliance. Each boss can choose to leave the alliance at any time. If an active challenge is outstanding, leaving or entering an alliance only takes effect on the challenge after that. Each studio puts in 15 members towards the fight. All ordering rules apply. Glory gain is split evenly, or by proportional damage. Members of studios that turn on doubles and cakes will benefit, but an avatar from a studio that does not turn on cakes or doubles will not use their ally's benefits. Limit the number of cakes that can be used in a single fight to five, same as now - the studio with the highest level player uses three cakes, the other studio uses two.

 

Only the Alliance would be listed in the studio fight screen.  There needs to be a public way to look at who actually fights for the alliance, for strength evaluation before deciding challenges. Either boss can make a challenge for the alliance, but the alliance is still limited to one attack, one defense per game day.

 

For optional fun, the top x studios always fight alone.  Given the way the game mechanics work, the top two studios always seem to separate from the pack, by a lot. I would suggest the Top 2 studios cannot take advantage of alliances. But I'm OK with any reasonable number up to 10.

[Amberson]

Speaking of alliances... I was actually thinking about this very thing recently, but my idea allows it within the current state of affairs and gaming options. I won't talk about the details for now, even though it's unlikely that I will actually go forward with it. But I guess you could easily figure out the arrangement if you think about it a little.

I have nothing to say about the proposal to reduce studio members. However, I would just like to remark that the zombie avatar penalties and accelerated deletion process can be both bypassed if other studio members keep playing the character or at least log in every now and then.

Also, It would perhaps be cool to see the characters that are not played by other people after becoming inactiv tto move into some kind of newly created graveyard instead of being deleted altogether. At least the high-level toons. In this graveyard they would be out of the game (sooner than now) but redeemable for a longer period of time, if the player wanted to come back. It would also function as a sort of hall of fame showcase of previous players.

It's kind of sad to see far-advanced avatars worth months of work to get completely erased after 3 months. I know the vast majority of their owners will never come back and space needs to be made for new players, but still it might be nice to have this option if you ever become nostalgic within a certain timeframe and feel like playing again.

In general, I would like for the game to honor its history more in the form of various statistics, archives of different competition results from the past, halls of fame etc.

[CaptC]

Speaking of alliances... I was actually thinking about this very thing recently, but my idea allows it within the current state of affairs and gaming options. I won't talk about the details for now, even though it's unlikely that I will actually go forward with it. But I guess you could easily figure out the arrangement if you think about it a little.

I have nothing to say about the proposal to reduce studio members. However, I would just like to remark that the zombie avatar penalties and accelerated deletion process can be both bypassed if other studio members keep playing the character or at least log in every now and then.

Also, It would perhaps be cool to see the characters that are not played by other people after becoming inactiv tto move into some kind of newly created graveyard instead of being deleted altogether. At least the high-level toons. In this graveyard they would be out of the game (sooner than now) but redeemable for a longer period of time, if the player wanted to come back. It would also function as a sort of hall of fame showcase of previous players.

It's kind of sad to see far-advanced avatars worth months of work to get completely erased after 3 months. I know the vast majority of their owners will never come back and space needs to be made for new players, but still it might be nice to have this option if you ever become nostalgic within a certain timeframe and feel like playing again.

In general, I would like for the game to honor its history more in the form of various statistics, archives of different competition results from the past, halls of fame etc.

 

If someone gives their avatar to someone else, or even to a team of players, by definition that avatar is not a zombie. It is being played. There is a famous avatar on UK1 known to be run by a team of other players. The original player died, and he gave his avatar to the studio. I'm in favor.

 

I don't think the deletion process is as simple as 3 months of no logins = poof.  But I can't prove it - too much record keeping and I have other things to track. A player with three months of no logins simply doesn't stay in my studio that long, so I haven't seen an actual "poof while in a studio".

 

Saving the names of old (perhaps deleted) players and their accomplishments would be a nice touch.

[TaraBing]

...

In general, I would like for the game to honor its history more in the form of various statistics, archives of different competition results from the past, halls of fame etc.

 

Too bad the game wasn't science-fiction based...

 

I see your toon Hans Solo Jr being stored in carbonite, or whatever in the Freeze-Dried Hall of Fame (or whatevs)... using in-game freeze-storage cryogenics (for a diamonds fee of course), only to be thawed out months later when the toon comes back to life to be played again (for another diamonds fee of course).

 

Q: Why the diamonds fee, you ask?  A: The federation needs to stay alive to sponsor these carbonite blocks. 

 

 

-TB

 

.

[TaraBing]

Touche' Analis...

 

Very perceptive, Capt. Nice reading between the lines.

And no, not a trace of sarcasm there... You're on point.

It's an issue nonetheless though. And it hinders the game.

 

And true, Tara. Activity is everything.

That's why I have to skip down right to:
 

"For studios that can't keep 20 active, it doesn't change much at all"

Except the fact that they have 10 inactives less and get to focus on those who actually function.

It's way less frustrating to be in a group where you know most everyone pulls his/her weight.

It inspires loyalty, encourages competition, growth, but most importantly it makes shit fun.
 

"except maybe to increase the list of really good TOP 10 studios"

I would not say no to that. And neither should you.

 

"pushing the sub-studios down the ladder."

When this 20-member-thing makes life more fun ànd competitive for top studios...

Why should it be different for sub top studios?


 

 

Not that you would say no to that, but neither should I.  Love the the double-not use.  It is well understood. 

 

And... why should it ?  It shouldn't... we're just agreeing from two different perspectives.

 

No matter where your studio is on the ladder, you're still playing within your tier.  The suggestion to reduce max size creates more studios, creates more tiers, but should equate to similar if not same fun / struggles regardless of where you are at on the ladder.

 

Nice skipping points.

 

 

-TB

 

.

[Amberson]

If someone gives their avatar to someone else, or even to a team of players, by definition that avatar is not a zombie. It is being played. There is a famous avatar on UK1 known to be run by a team of other players. The original player died, and he gave his avatar to the studio. I'm in favor.

Technically, you're right. But I thought the point of your proposal was to make the game more competitive and to make it harder for the top studios to continually retain their strength. Intentionally necromancing dead characters from time to time throug log in just to keep them from deletion goes against that intention. I guess if one or more studio members play for the character regularly and further develop it, it might be viewed differently. After all, many users already play more than one avatar. And if they have the time and energy to do so, you can't really blame them. Even playing a single toon takes a lot of effort, which I imagine only multiplies by every additional avatar you have. So it's a fully legit strategy.
 

I don't think the deletion process is as simple as 3 months of no logins = poof.  But I can't prove it - too much record keeping and I have other things to track. A player with three months of no logins simply doesn't stay in my studio that long, so I haven't seen an actual "poof while in a studio".

I think if the avatar still gets attacked by others, it might last longer, but I'm not sure about it.

[CaptC]

I have no problem with casual, relatively slow growing characters per se. The game needs to appeal to a wide range of players, not just hyper-competitive overachievers... (yes, i might be speaking about someone we know... LOL) So Amberson, the point of my post regarding zombies was two-fold, but it was aimed solely and completely at the avatar with no logins.

 

The game should encourage actual PLAY, though. IE - It should specifically discourage "quitting the game but still affecting game balance." It doesn't.

 

I also wanted to get a straightforward, well understood description of the auto-delete mechanism. We kinda think we know how it works, but I have doubts that we have it completely right.

[Amberson]

Just to clarify, I was talking about dead characters that might by necromanced on purpose by other members of the studio, not by the original user and founder of the avatar who at that point would be gone forever. Playing in a casual, slow-growing way is a different thing that I neither have a problem with. In fact, we have many such members in my studio...

I'm not even sure I have a problem with the casual logins by other players to keep the zombie avatar from deletion. I was just pointing out that such a strategy could be used more often if the penalties for inactivity would become more strict and deletions of inactive toons more swift.

[TaraBing]

Hey Capt...

 

...

 

I also wanted to get a straightforward, well understood description of the auto-delete mechanism. We kinda think we know how it works, but I have doubts that we have it completely right.

 

From my witnessing - the days of inactivity for auto-delete on my server (UK2) is 105 days.  This is a Playata thing.  Most Top-Studios cannot wait that long for that to happen, so they may not see it all that often.

 

However, I have seen some toons last beyond that period - so it is not set in stone, and that's the part I haven't figured out - How does a toon survive the 105+ days of inactivity beyond Playata's auto-delete?

 

Playata has a tight line to walk in keeping players from auto-deleting too quickly versus losing a possible revenue stream versus advancing the game versus keeping competitive game play balanced enough to not frustrate good paying members.  Suffice to say, if someone's toon is inactive for 105+ days, the company is not generating revenue from that account.  Not quarterly, anyhow. 

 

-TB

 

.

[familyfriendlyfelix]

 The game needs to appeal to a wide range of players, not just hyper-competitive overachievers... 

Sorry to necro this thread, but you've hit the nail on the head, Cap. This is exactly my problem with the game and why so many of my studio members (more than 20+ over the life of the studio) have just stopped playing because they can't compete with the hyper-competitive and aren't interested in doing so. This kind of game (timed missions, etc) is really appealing to casual players, who see that they can relax and have fun building characters -- only to be shocked by the game culture and toxic environment (sorry, I'm being honest) and stop playing -- more importantly for Playata, they stop paying.
Nothing wrong with wanting your game to make money, but when that comes at the expense of player comfort and playability, when you breed a game that is so clearly pay-to-win for only the most competitive (and richest) players, you've severely crippled the reach of your appeal. That's fine if you only care about the couple of hundred people who regularly pay to win, but if they really did care about a wider appeal, they might do well to check up on what the players actually want.