Long(!) feedback, comparison to other browser games

[Therlun]

Hiho

I don't know where you (Tilted Mill) want to go with this game, but I'm very interested in seeing how this project develops.
The attempt of a "real" gaming studio at a browser game is certainly interesting.
I followed the initial development and “development over time” of many a browser game, and always was intrigued by the "genre". Most browser games to this date are based on the very same principles though, and almost all share the same drawbacks.
From what I gathered Nile Online is sadly directed in the same direction...
I will try to explain myself.

Three main points that make most browser games so frustrating (partly are the only reason to play those games though) are linked with, and enhance each other:

1. Upgrade
Upgrade spiral without aim:
Most BG (browser games) focus on one thing, accumulating resources to upgrade your home/base/nation etc.
The only reason to do that is to be able to get more resources for the next expansion, and get them faster.
That causes several problems, directly making way for my three points.

End content
If the main focus is upgrading, you will always have to provide an upgrade, or once players reach the top tier they will leave, or worse disrupt the game.
Endless upgrade loops with the next level costing logarithmically more, or the ability to expand by founding new bases (which seems to be how it is in Nile Online) are used for this most of the time.
This directly causes points 2 and 3, and many other problems though.
Eternally "gaining levels" cannot be (a good) endgame in a long term MP game.
(BGs have great potential for social interaction which would do very well as an endgame, but most of the time that potential is not used, or even actively discarded!)
If you DO have well designed endgame it is not a very good idea to make players grind to it.

2. Runaway
Growth and rewarding things that lessen player interaction (in an MP game-> bad):
Games focused on upgrading always have this, and in many singleplayer games it is a vital part.
“Upgrading BGs” however quickly devolve into a strict caste system.
Upgrading leads to growth at an accelerated rate. Which leads to more and quicker upgrading in return.
I player will generally take less time to pay for a third city than it took him to save up for the second.
A player who started playing a month earlier will have an advantage that is impossible to catch up to in most cases. Not only that, he will also grow faster so the gap will increase if the BG does not use a very strict logarithmic growth curve.

Soon Nile Online players will found secondary and tertiary cities, gaining more and different kinds of resources, actually REDUCING THE NEED FOR INTERACTION.
They will be able to advance quicker, found more cities and sooner or later the "best" players will be able to produce everything themselfs.
Not only is the current system rewarding going in the direction of less player interaction, it also is practically the only reason to play the game (as with most other BGs).

3. Goliath
People are cowards and morons:
The first two points lead directly to the third, and in return the third increases the first two.
If you plan to include any kind of warfare it will end up being like in almost every other BG. Stronger players will attack weaker players. It is practically impossible to avoid that, as the basic principle of weaker targets being better targets is just that, so very basic.
You can try to fight the effect with the most complex rules, the greatest rewards for not doing so, in the end it is simply unalterable though.
If you include a warfare system based on "victory=gain, defeat=loss" attacking players half your strength will be the best, and most often the only viable strategy.
That in turn even further increases the rift between old/strong players and new/weaker ones.

That topic would justify a whole essay in itself, but I will try to make it short:
Conflicts in BGs need to be completely different from conflicts in session based MP games or SP games. They need to be socially based, not based on individual strength.

I don’t know how the end of Nile online plays out, or what you have planned, but from what I have gathered the game is headed directly in this direction.

In the next post I will try to make suggestion on how to avoid the shortcomings.

[Therlun]

Emphasis on social interaction is the reason browser games are successful (being an ***hole to other players end feeling strong is interaction too, and entertaining to the ***hole)

Some people might disagree and say that they like the building up and growth aspects of games, but I will state the following with absolute conviction:
No browser game is successful because of its upgrade/warfare stuff. Every successful BG is “good” because of its social interaction ONLY and DESPITE its upgrade style design.

You can greatly change the rules of BGs, if it has a loyal community that community will most likely live on, adapt and have fun.
Even the “best” BG will crumble if you replace the community though.

A successful/good BG provides a playground for interaction of its community. There is no exception.
Sadly many BGs try to add many “features” that actually impair or even prevent that (see the first post).

Suggestions:

Non upgrade based; interaction based:

Upgrading and increasing growth curves are great in SP or session games, but I am convinced that they are detracting in BGs.
I will try to write in general terms, as I really dotn want you to get the impression that I want you to create “my browser game”. I’d just like one BG to actually be different…

I suggest for Nile Online:

- One “tribe” only. You can only have one city and thus only one of the higher end resources (Emeralds, cedar etc.). You can however move your city to another place with another resource for economic, political or entertainment reasons. => Trade; economic interaction; political interaction

- Cities don’t upgrade, they specialize. Changing specialisation takes time, but your overall potential is not determined by the time you played the game, but only by the goods you acquire and the way you use them.
=> No old player young player rift beyond experience and social contacts; no frustrating loss of grinded gains

- There needs to be consumption, and it needs to be the main part of the economy.
The direct and basic reason to produce something, anything, is to make it available for consumption, not to be able to produce more. Producing more is just a way to provide more for consumption.
BGs often almost completely ignore the consumption part however (see point 1, Upgrading).
The “old” city building games (Pharao, Zeus Emporer etc.) were basically production->consumption chain games, and I think that can be applied to BGs.
=> Trade, economic interaction, an actual reason to produce something in a non-upgrade game

- A social interaction based “game in the game”.
A political structure featuring:

* Personal wealth (monuments, burial grounds for your family line etc.) for giving players the feeling of accomplishments.

*A vassal system rewarding both the vassal as well as the master. Pyramid-shaped [no pun intended ;) ] hierarchies. Providing safety and entertainment for both high end players and casual players. Tribute system (advantage master) and mentor system (giving the vassal bonuses in certain areas based on the masters abilities)

*Different pyramid-shaped (other shapes like democracies, real communism or others are possible too) factions competing with each other above the individual player level. Wars are fought between factions, without relying on the loss and gain of grinded upgrades as only reason and reward.
=> Another use for produced goods.

* Players can interact with and change the world. Give the judiciary system into player hands => grievers are punished by in-game means.
Players can create rules and change game rules in a limited way. (see “Tale in the Desert” MMO).


- Player management:
Some players will spend hours per days playing the game, and it is difficult to make one set of rules for them and casuals alike.
I’d suggest creating somewhat of a different ruleset for different kinds of players, at the same time encouraging interaction between each other:
#Casuals can be a normal city, participating in trade, politics and war with and within their faction.
#More active players additionally fill out administrative duties within their faction. Managing, leading, organising.
#The most active players could have a somewhat different set of rules, allowing them to interact with more players (advantage to them and the whole game. “Protecting” casuals by more active players and at the same time letting them interact with each other). Let them be gods, with godly powers, fighting other gods. => A faith system were support by mortal players grants powers to the god they worship.

If you really read the whole thing: thanks.
I would like a discussion.

[deadlock]

A "season-based" game, like the server wipes we had in alpha, wouldn't actually have these problems. It all starts over again, each player getting a new random resource, once a goal or time limit has been reached. I don't know, maybe one end-goal could be a player getting 8 cities with all the different resources?

[tobing]

Therlun: Brilliant analysis of this. Thanks for that.

What you describe is a completely different game, but it's one I really would like to play. Most probably much more than Nile Online.

One thing we have seen in the alpha already: During the start, we had a lot of chatting and trading going on, helping each other out so that we could all advance. That was great fun, more than anything else! But, the more cities we each had, the less chattting and trading occurred, since we all got closer to being independant... which I felt was taking quite a lot of fun out of the game. So I think you're very much right and on point with your Nr. 2.

deadlock: According to the devs, this game is intended to last for a long long time, which is more than a year (at least that is what I understood). So, no session based gameplay.

[Beamup]

A "season-based" game, like the server wipes we had in alpha, wouldn't actually have these problems.
It would, however, keep repeating the market teething problems unless something was done to address that.

[Tinkerbell]

Us slow-poke players would really hate TM, if they wiped the slate clean (seasons) when faster players reached the top.

[Agamemnus]

I totally agree with everything you said, Therlun. (edit: oops)

I would just add one more thing.

If TM doesn't want a huge social interaction framework, a game like this one will be much fun if it is played in short two month rounds, and without warfare.

[Czech Centurian]

Nice write-up Therlun. I have to agree with you. Having played Travian and Tribalwars the leveling up does become tedious after a while.

I would suggest objectives for a server. ie. Unite 70% of the kingdom. Possibly other objectives could be thought of(better ones). So it is like a Quiddditch match it continues until the objective is reached.

I would really like to see a revolutionary browser game from Tiltedmill. It is their objective afterall.

[roboczar]

* Personal wealth (monuments, burial grounds for your family line etc.) for giving players the feeling of accomplishments.

I second this and also suggest that there be 'milestones' that all players get when they do certain things, like for instance they get the 'Nomarch' achievement when they get a level 4 palace, and the benefit would be something tangible like a vanity item that can be seen by other players and a tiny production bonus. Of course there are many hundreds of possible awards, but it adds to a sense of progress and accomplisment.

[sakasiru]

I´d like to have these rewards not only for a level X palace, but for a level X bakery as well. Maybe small statuettes you can build for each level 5 building you´ve reached?

[Therlun]

Thanks for the support.... now my ego just needs a reply from a TM employee. :)

To further cement my points I would like to offer you exhibit A:
http://www.tiltedmill.com/forums/showthread.php?t=19673
The question if upgrading you city is all there is.

Exhibit B:
I would also add to the trade and interaction topic based on experiences I just made.
A neighbour of mine messaged me and asked if I was willing to trade my gold for his emeralds, so we both can make jewellery.
Of course I was more than happy to accept.
Direct trade needs an exchange though, and an additional ship which costs pretty many resources for the beginning of the game (25 cedar, which is hard to get and 100 bread which is pretty steep).
So we had to use the market.
I suggested using a very high price so nobody else buys our goods (we each buy the same amount for 30 a piece). However, the market fee would have made that really costly (75 bread in market fees for 25 gold/emeralds at 30 a piece).
So the only remaining solution for us both to directly trade with a minimum of costs was to message each other the minute we would put up our resources (at the minimum price), so we could buy each others wares as quickly as possible (to avoid other snatching the low price resource) and without a market fee.

That is exactly what I meant in my initial posts.
Its not very logical that a game that should be based on social interaction makes that very thing so difficult.
It doesnt matter if later, once you have ships, it becomes easier. There should be NO phase in the game where social interaction is inhibited or impaired.

I know that the changes I suggested are pretty big. If you really discard my quote:"brilliant" advice, which some would quote:"Most probably [really would like to play] much more than Nile Online." ;) I will have to live with that.
Nile Online is by no means a bad BG, even this early in its development.
However, it will not be better or more noticeable than the scores of other BGs out there which commit the crimes I tried to highlight in my first post if it doesnt fundamentally change some of its principles.

If you really want to continue this road I at least urge you to take this one advice:
Everything you add, everything you design should as its most important characteristic support, enhance and reward player interaction.
Everything that limits, impairs or prevents player interaction in any way should be rethought.

I guess I sound pretty arrogant. You are the game studio, and I'm just a nobody in the internet writing some stuff...
(Perhaps the many ways I emphasize text add to that. I dont highlight stuff to use another kind of capslock though, but to make the writing easier to read and orient in.)
I would really hate to see such an ambitious and daring game studio (with the Hinterland and Mosby's Confedercy games too) make nothing more than another "upgrade" browser game if there is the chance for so much more.


I´d like to have these rewards not only for a level X palace, but for a level X bakery as well. Maybe small statuettes you can build for each level 5 building you´ve reached?

Uhh, ohh those rewards should be awarded for interaction too... through profits from trade I'd imagine. As I tried to point out "palace lv 4" and "bakery lv 8" are the PURE EVIL in the world of BGs. ;)

[Czech Centurian]

Like I said somewhere else. Add favour to the game, if the population gets their pottery, purfume, etc... they are happy but if enough of them don't they begin to leave the city. The people in your city could demand certain goods. You have to provide or they leave.

[Jeff Fiske]

We agree with alot of the suggestions and the spirit of these comments and we do believe there are opportunities to do something that has not quite been done before.

Being fairly fresh to the BG genre, but with decades of strategy and other gaming experience, hopefully we can bring a new perspective.

We will be making a few tweaks very soon to a few of the upgrade requirements, as a start to helping encourage more marketplace activity - and thus tweaking the core game.

One thing though, we intentionally require many raw materials so that you will always need to rely on neighbors. The max number of cities is currently planed for five. As the game goes on, Jewelry becomes less and less important and things like Cedar and the other raw materials start playing a bigger role.

Choosing where to put your cities, whose markets and networks you plug into will be a huge part of gameplay and affect your empire.

(Don't forget- you will see people building Monuments on the world map, and these are like little cities and a HUGE drain. Huge. One thing about them: Because of this drain, the wealthy or big guys building monuments will actually be forced into a situation that enables the little guys to catch up.)

[Therlun]

Thanks for the reply. :)

I didnt convince you or anybody else at TM of the necessary need to apply fundamental changes, did I?

I will try to change your mind two more times in the hopes that you see the wisdom. ;)
I guess I'll appear as a Mr- know-it-all who wants to tell you how to create your game... I feel however that you apply the wrong design principles in some areas to achieve the goal of a "new perspective" and the more time passes the less likely is a big change in the design principles.


I will try to not repeat myself, but my main points from post one stay the basics of my postings and you will probably hear "upgrading is bad" a few more times. I will try to shed light on it from different directions though, in the hope you see what a great sin such a system is.

Lets talk about time.
Activity:
Many BGs, and Nile Online too so far it seems, use an upgrading system as means to provide so called progress and achievement.
However, the special properties of BGs make this a notoriously bad decision.

In single player games progress through upgrading is often used and is a valid game design element.
The player acts and gets rewarded. The difference is though that the player has a much more direct control about the pace at which he plays. He decides when he starts and ends a game, when and if he starts a new session of a replayable game, or how much he deviates from the storyline to follow side quests etc.

In session based MP games a single session determines the pace. Most of the time those sessions are relatively short, and many games have even built in timers that prevent endless games (i.e. limited resources in a RTS game map).
Upgrading needs to be directly implemented into the game, providing the means to actually win the session. BGs generally do not have such deterministic win situations.

BGs are very limited in their scope, yet they stretch over a long time. Even BGs with "rounds" and regular resets often lasts months. That has several ramifications.
One of the most important ones is that players only have a very limited amount of control over the pace of the game.
If a player does not log in for 2 weeks the world will develop without him. Less control over the pace of the game requires the game to not change on a mechanic level. Upgrading does change that level though, as at certain stages of development different economic mechanics are applied (jewellery becomes worth less, resources that once were completely useless become important etc.).
An upgrade system has the additional disadvantage that he falls behind in "potential" too, while the other players accelerated their growth.

Another result of the change of pace are
Economic shifts:
Another problem with such long play times is that there is no “balance” in the economic system, no matter what you try.
An upgrade system like the current Nile Online one will develop in very foreseeable ways.
Right now jewellery is in high demand, because it is the first (until recently only) advanced good needed for palace upgrades that a player is not able to produce entirely himself with a single city.
In the future that will change. Of course it is true that there will always be new players, and they as well as secondary cities will always need jewellery, but the build-up of the community will change.
To achieve an economic balance you would need a pyramid-scheme growth rate (same phrase, another context this time, again no pun intended :) ).
The user base would have to continuously grow to provide a stable base for the top. You know how fishing methods based on that system end, don’t you?

In reality such a system is not possible in a BG game (or any game). After the initial months (WoW has managed to extend this to years, and expansions help further, but in the end it will develop in the same way) your userbase will have a slowly growing core (or shrinking if the game-health declines) which is very “mature”, and a high amount of newcomers.
Of those newcomers only a small amount will be converted to core players.
Over time this leads to the core group becoming larger compared to the newcomer group.
This in turn leads to a shift in the gameplay of an upgrade based BG (=>Jewellery will drop in value over time).
A shift in gameplay acquires attention as the current “jewel crisis” shows.
The only way to have a system where the mechanical gameplay mechanisms are stable is to create a system where the only “movable parts” are caused by interaction.
The “all cities have the same potential all the time, but allow for specialisation” system I preach about is such a stable system. It provides a reliable base on which changes in a social-based, soft-coded meta game can take place with a greatly reduced need for control by the creators.


Recent changes
New resources needed for palace upgrade.
One of the reasons given is that the new resources required will increase the need for interaction. That is true; in the beginning. It is however not a lasting effect, as that interaction is only based on the upgrading of your cities, and not used for playing WITH other people.
Once you have upgraded your five cities to max all jewellery producing players could vanish and you wouldn’t care…
That is the basic flaw, and it doesn’t matter how long that actually takes, it even applies to endless upgrading cycles.

Trade taxes (and market fee)
Why? Why? Why?
The market fee is terrible. Such a system is needed for a game like WoW, where single items are traded by a huge playerbase. It is mainly used to prevent the auction house from exploding from useless offers.

A resource market doesn’t need such a thing! It should regulate itself, with resources that are too expensive simply not being bought…
The only advantage the market fee has is that it encourages direct player to player trade (although it takes a while and is costly to upgrade your city enough to do that *sigh*) however, this single advantage is killed in cold blood by the introduction of a fee for direct trades.


Comparison to MMO(RPG)s
I mentioned SP and session games and how their upgrading cannot be used in a BG.
You could reply with a simple statement: “MMORPGs are mainly based on levelling (aka upgrading) and they manage to make people pay for months and years. BGs are somewhat close to MMORPGs (no sessions as worlds are persistent over long periods, and they have an MP aspect), thus BGs based on upgrading will work in the same way.”

MMORPGs are a complex topic, and there a scientific approaches to describe and understand their workings and structure.
I will however (try to) make some general statements which show that the differences between BGs and MMOs do not allow the simple copying of upgrade-gameplay.

MMOs can be divided into two areas: PvE (Player versus environment) and PvP (Player versus player).
PvE is basically a singleplayer game, with the additional option of a coop mode.
Good PvE means good design of the upgrade/levelling/grinding system.
For a BG it is much more difficult to provide engaging PvE though. It generally lacks graphics, freedom of movement and the “personal level” (do you know a strategy level MMO?).
BGs cannot compete on a PvE level, and they don’t want to, do they?

BGs live from the interaction of players => PvP.
That interaction could be called Player with Player (cooperation in guilds for example is a big part of PvP too, so it has both conflict and cooperation sides).
Those very same MMOs which live from the upgrading in their PvE-gameplay often take steps to limit exactly that game mechanic in PvP, because upgrading distracts or in the worst case prevents player interaction/PvP (if your combat gear is so bad that others can easily defeat you…).
WoW has PvP starting gear and dedicated PvP characters, Guild Wars advertises with a reduced level grind and max level PvP characters that can be created from minute one.
Upgrading/levelling distracts from PvP, no matter if it is 20 quickly grinded levels in Guild Wars or 70 slowly grinded levels over weeks or months in WoW.


I will post my main statement again:
No browser game is successful because of its upgrade/warfare stuff. Every successful BG is “good” because of its social interaction ONLY and DESPITE its upgrade style design.

A BG has to focus on player interaction, as it cannot compete on any other level, or even work in the long term and with many players in another way (I hope I made that clear and you agree, if not I can extend that part of my essay ;) ).
Upgrading is great for SP games, but in BG games there is NO case where upgrading benefits the whole game, as at best it is only a temporary reason for player interaction (and you need a long term solution for a long term game), at worst it prevents it.


You spoke of monuments where players spend resources and fight each other.
Wouldn’t that work too if you cut the whole city upgrading and all players have the same set amount of workers which they can assign to gather resources?
Wouldn’t that make the game both easier to get into, less frustrating, and easier to manage?
Wouldn’t removing the upgrade system be equivalent to giving players the ability to skip the level-grinding part and directly create PvP-chars and start playing the fun part of your game right away?


- Grinding has its place in SP and PvE games.
- A BG must be an interaction based MP game though.
- Grinding distracts from interaction and is the worst way to try to get players to interact.

[JuliaSet]

I would like to see Nile Online to have several "worlds"/servers.

The guy who wants to start over every month should have his spot,
Someone who loves the military would have theirs, another person who plans to play for a long game should have theirs.

It would be great to have ones password give you access to any or all of the "worlds."

[King Faticus]

what about 'small' world servers?
I don't like feeling in the middle of everything.. I like the small community feel
if the Nile looped like a ring it could be done I think lol

[jnewl]

My own perspective is completely the opposite of Therlun's: I don't give a toss about any social interaction. I just want a game I can fuss with at my own leisure (or not)--a game which provides a reasonable intellectual challenge and a good time. Nothing too intense. Nothing too mindless. Just a pleasant, absorbing diversion from my workaday world.

I look upon Nile Online as a single-player game with AI opponents--never mind that, in this case (behind the scenes, as it were), the AI opponents happen to actually be real people. If later on I get some text messages from other rulers wanting to trade or whatnot, that'll be ok. I can pretend it's the program's AI that's churning them out. But if the game turns out to be some kind of chatfest where I am forced to socialize with people I'm not really interested in socializing with, you'll be counting me out very quickly. I only want and expect out of NO what I get out of standalone single-player games on my computer: an interesting strategic challenge. I understand that Therlun wants NO to be something quite different from that, but then that's why I'm posting: to point out to him that what he likes and wants isn't necessarily what everyone else likes and wants.

As for the rest of Therlun's points, I'll reserve judgment. I was not involved in the alpha testing of NO and am completely new to the game, so I'd rather wait and see for myself what actually develops instead of prematurely hopping on someone else's bandwagon.

[King Faticus]

the thing is..... why would you play an online game if you have no intention of socializing?
I thought that was the point in this kind of game? o_0

[Therlun]

jnewl;
I don't think we actually disagree that much.
We both think that the current NO is more of a SP game, just with a different pace.
I like the old and new city building games, which are practically nothing more than upgrading games (although they have a real consumption, and in the original Children of the Nile the upgrading part was less important compared to the Pharao, Zeus, Emperor games).
As Faticus pointed out though, why make a browser game of that?
Being a BG brings no advantage over a singleplayer game i can think of (mostly disadvantages I would say, with the lack of control over the pace of the game, griefing by other players being important ones).

I think you play the game completely how it is to be played at its current state, as a SP game with the AI being incidentally human.
I also think that BGs can and should be completely different though... :)

[Therlun]

Hiho

I said that I will only try to convince you of my unlimited hate towards upgrade BGs two more times and this is the second attempt of those two, and the last one in this forum (I’m willing to bother anyone I can get a hold off in the steam chat room or any other Nile Online discussion though :P ).

On of the most supporting postings towards my case was the one from jnewl (intended or not…). How could he have illustrated it better than by stating something along the lines of that he likes the singleplayer experience NO provides?
The question of "whats the point of all this besides adding building levels" that arisoe in several threads already helps my case too I think.
Even if you implement a well done and well designed monument-endgame later, why force players through an upgrading period?

I would like to finish my forum campaign with a small set of questions for TM.
I would like the TM employees, and anyone who is interested in the topic, to take some time and think about those questions. You don't have to reply, if I made you think about it it is a first step in an exchange of thoughts. :)
If you answer those questions for yourself and come to the conclusion that an upgrade system is beneficial I will accept that (if you tell me you came to that conclusion ;) ), if I convinced you that upgrading is bad and you keep it because it would be too much work to program something different for too little an advantage I would accept that as a satisfying reason too.


[for the best effect read a question and think about it before you read the next one - an advice provided by the "upgrading is bad" campaign leadership]

----------
Tilted Mill, what were your reasons for implementing an upgrading mechanic?

----------
Did you have reasons based on the special properties, the strengths and weaknesses of BGs?

----------
What beneficial effects do you expect the upgrade system to have in the environment of a BG?

----------
What are your goals for this game and in what way does an upgrade system help reach those goals? In what way might it harm them?

----------
Can you name a single BG where the upgrade system is more important than the social interaction? Do you think such a BG exists?


----------
Can you name more cases where an upgrade system helps the gameplay and social interaction of a BG than cases in which it has a negative effect on them?


----------


@everyone who read my posts and everyone who participated:
Thanks for your attention,
have fun,
Therlun

[Therlun]

Triple post, yay!

I promised to not further dive into the topic... I will however continue to try to convince others.

I made some offers to players ingame. I will provide them with wares they desire if they read this thread, think about it and post an opinion.

I emphasized that I want their true opinion and that I will hold up my part of the trade whether they agree or not.
I know this probably still will weaken my position, as it could be interpreted as a bribe to simply write an "I agree" reply.
I feel however this is a vital topic for this (and every other) BG and hope to get more people to think about it.

The message I proposed that trade is as follows (with slight modifications depending on what I trade for it):


I thus ask for another good, a very valuable one.
I ask for your time.

I really dislike the upgrade aspect of this game => the only reason to produce something is to upgrade buildings so you can produce more. There is no consumption and I'm convinced that in the long term that will harm the game.
I created a very long thread in the forums called "long (!) feedback...".

What I would like to ask you to do is read it and think about it.
If you agree please post in he thread about it. If you disagree and like the upgrading of buildings please post about that too.
I'm not bribing you to write an "I agree" post. I want you to think about the topic and post your opinions no matter if you agree with me or not.

If you agree to those conditions I expect you to read the whole thread (its pretty long) and write a "real" opinion (not just a one-liner).

I'd like to emphasize again that my part of this trade is not dependant on whether you agree with me or not, but only on the fact that you thought about the topic and posted your opinion.
I'd also understand if you dont want to use such a valuable real-life commodity as time for such a trade...

[Beamup]

Just out of curiosity, why are you bothering? This is already a beta, i.e. very far along in the development process. It's much too late for this sort of fundamental architectural change.

[vic_4]

I am interested in wares, even if not for the next 24 hours.

[Therlun]

Just out of curiosity, why are you bothering? This is already a beta, i.e. very far along in the development process. It's much too late for this sort of fundamental architectural change.

I know it probably is too late.
If however I can convince the first "professional" (normal game studio) creators of an BG(that I know of) that the issue is an important topic I will be happy, even if they dont change their game.

I also thinks its fun to try to discuss an important topic in game design and think that the participating sides can learn from each other.
I follow browser games for a long time and, in all humbleness, have knowledge about BGs, usability and usability in games TM will not find somewhere else that easily (and cheaply! :p ), and they have experiences with games I can only dream of for now. The high number of players of an MP game is a great source too, if it is managed correctly. :)

[Thysen]

I feel that Therlun has a very good point to be made, and I agree to most all of it. I am not a professional game designer though, and can provide no real insight to how the interactions should be accomplished. I play few BGs, but somehow NO has caught my attention, and I will continue playing as long as it holds my interest. If changes are made in the future, I cast my vote in the direction Therlun proposes.

[clayto]

OK..having just started the game, I'm best described as casual user. Still, in my opinion, all players will eventually reach an upgrade level where they have everything they need. They will no longer be motivated by another upgrade. So, coming from my Caesar IV background, I offer these suggestions regarding the concern that the NO design will fall into the usual BG traps:

use the ratings system to keep things equal between players; since we do not yet know what the system is, let TM keep us guessing. The ratings could change to downplay the inherent advantages upgraded players have over their newbie cousins
use regional governors/emperors for advanced/time-intensive players; they could be leaders for less-active players; I would suggest the highest-ratest players could be leaders -- so that the actions of the leaders (good or otherwise) would effect their ability to advance or cause their demotion
post resources/military forces to a shared collective led by the regional governers/emperors
use natural disaters (famine, floods, etc) to force groups of cities to band together--providing help to other, rebuilding, drawing from your other cities to fix a damaged city--those that help others would get a boost in their ratings
the number of soldiers is tied to rating; if you clobber weaker cities willy-nilly, your rating plummets, you lose soldiers--or worse, Caesar comes a-calling
have unplanned, one-time events that require collective action; those that interact do better; what these events are would be a "wild-card" that no one player (no matter how expert) would know how to deal with apriori.

I enjoy the game so far--it might even serve a surrogate for the loss of Caesar IV online! ;)

[Reed]

Good discussion going here, Therlun.

I don't think you'll see such a fundamental change to Nile Online - but that's not to say the discussion is fruitless. Aspects could be integrated or may apply to a future game (cross your fingers!).

A player who started playing a month earlier will have an advantage that is impossible to catch up to in most cases.
That's not necessarily a bad thing, just a different type of game. It's true of any MMO. If you started playing WoW a month ago, or play it more than me, then you are going to forever be ahead of me (until we both hit the level cap, anyway).

Soon Nile Online players will found secondary and tertiary cities, gaining more and different kinds of resources, actually REDUCING THE NEED FOR INTERACTION.
They will be able to advance quicker, found more cities and sooner or later the "best" players will be able to produce everything themselfs.
There are 8 resources (not counting Limestone) that you need and we're looking at a city cap of 5. So while you could eventually become self sufficient in 5 resources, you're also dealing with much higher numbers at that point. Quickly need 5,000 cedar? You might buy it from a lot of different players. Depends on how things shake out in your area though, whether you have regular suppliers around the same level or not, and generally how you play the trading game.

If you plan to include any kind of warfare it will end up being like in almost every other BG. Stronger players will attack weaker players. It is practically impossible to avoid that, as the basic principle of weaker targets being better targets is just that, so very basic.
The idea is to have a king of the hill style play on the monument level. If someone doesn't want to get involved in military, then they can stick to building up cities and trading/etc.

What happens when you max out your 5 cities and you're not interested in the monument game? Well, one thing is random server and nome events that shake things up. Things like droughts or AI raiders, etc.

Its not very logical that a game that should be based on social interaction makes that very thing so difficult.
It doesnt matter if later, once you have ships, it becomes easier. There should be NO phase in the game where social interaction is inhibited or impaired.
There is still the market, which is prebuilt in your first city precisely to provide social interaction right from the start. Sure, could do the same thing with the exchange and a ship, but then that's one less thing you get to build and one less milestone to achieve.



The “all cities have the same potential all the time, but allow for specialisation” system I preach about is such a stable system.
How does that specialization work, though?

Isn't that essentially the same as upgrading one, two, three or even five brickworks, so my city is specialized in brick production?

Once you have upgraded your five cities to max all jewellery producing players could vanish and you wouldn’t care…
You will if you have a jewelry loving god. ;)

Plus it will probably play into the aforementioned server/nome events, and could be a required upkeep item to keep the populous happy.


Trade taxes (and market fee)
Why? Why? Why?
The market fee is terrible. Such a system is needed for a game like WoW, where single items are traded by a huge playerbase. It is mainly used to prevent the auction house from exploding from useless offers.

A resource market doesn’t need such a thing! It should regulate itself, with resources that are too expensive simply not being bought…
How would it regulate itself? People would surely spam it. Having the fee forces people to be thoughtful about pricing and their listings in general. It also provides a bread sink.

Upgrading/levelling distracts from PvP, no matter if it is 20 quickly grinded levels in Guild Wars or 70 slowly grinded levels over weeks or months in WoW.
Sure, if all you want is the PVP game. But PVP in MMOs isn't the draw for the majority of players. It's upgrading and leveling their characters, finding new items, questing with other players.

You spoke of monuments where players spend resources and fight each other. Wouldn’t that work too if you cut the whole city upgrading and all players have the same set amount of workers which they can assign to gather resources? Wouldn’t that make the game both easier to get into, less frustrating, and easier to manage? Wouldn’t removing the upgrade system be equivalent to giving players the ability to skip the level-grinding part and directly create PvP-chars and start playing the fun part of your game right away?
A PVP focused game is really a different game altogether. It's a more hardcore game, too. Nile Online is in part catering to our fans of Caesar, Pharaoh, Zeus and of course Children of the Nile.

Although that's not to say that there couldn't be a world type where you have a pre-built city and it pushes you into the monument game right away... Something along those lines could be really interesting.

[Tinkerbell]

Quickly need 5,000 cedar?

Let's see. Private market boat carries 100? 50 boats. HeHe. That outta force them to use the Free Market. Gonna need bigger private boats.

Well, one thing is random server and nome events that shake things up. Things like droughts or AI raiders, etc.

Excellent! My failed floods! Of course, they are mainly targeted on the top players with higher frequencies. :D

[abana]

Well, I've never played a browser-based game, so I can't judge that. I am using some small independent goals for myself ie: right now I am ranked 86, I want to get better than 75.

I play C3 and Pharoah/Cleo, a couple of things that I've noticed that are different and I really like, there isn't a real balance between raw materials and finished goods, when I am leaving for a while, I make sure that everything has a net gain. then when I am right here, I change things around so that I use up those raw materials (or I can sell them). I like being able to partially staff an industry. and I like being able to initiate a trade. Probably because it is browser based, you can't restart, you have to deal with your mistakes, that is certainly more like real life. You can't "pause", time goes on even when you don't want it to, also more like real life.

But I can see the problem with a player becoming too independent if he founds a lot more cities.

My resource is oil, right now I am producing perfume, so I am working on a regular supplier of henna, I am thinking of destroying my basket and pottery workshops, and building a cosmetics workshop, in which case, I'd like to get a regular supplier of kohl. And I foolishly spent my first specialization points on jewelry, so I might build a jewelry workshop, and get regular suppliers of gold and emeralds. Pottery and baskets always seem to be on the market.

[King Faticus]

Excellent! My failed floods! Of course, they are mainly targeted on the top players with higher frequencies. :D
especially the top 25!
I mean make them suffer!!! lmao :D:D:D

ohh and seeing as how they are the top 25 in all Egypt.. the people should "ask" more of them and do it more often! :D

[Tinkerbell]

Does anyone really play an extended game that long? When a player has Reed's five max extended cities, are they really still playing the game? Haven't they gotten tired of it?

Now Reed says that they really cannot become truly independent anyway, just semi so. They have basically removed themselves from the game. They can start over.

It seems to me that the game should be focused on the additional new blood due to normal turnover, while I am reading posts from players worried about the end of the road.

The new & the middle is what is important, not the top...

[PhilL]

How would it regulate itself? People would surely spam it. Having the fee forces people to be thoughtful about pricing and their listings in general. It also provides a bread sink.

How do I end up at the end of that drain ;)

[Czech Centurian]

You will if you have a jewelry loving god. ;)

Plus it will probably play into the aforementioned server/nome events, and could be a required upkeep item to keep the populous happy.

Sounds good. Does this mean we'll have consumption?

[Therlun]

Thanks for the replies! :D

There are 8 resources (not counting Limestone) that you need and we're looking at a city cap of 5. So while you could eventually become self sufficient in 5 resources, you're also dealing with much higher numbers at that point. Quickly need 5,000 cedar? You might buy it from a lot of different players. Depends on how things shake out in your area though, whether you have regular suppliers around the same level or not, and generally how you play the trading game.

Yes, complete self sufficiency is difficult or impossible. More cities make you less reliant on other players though, and I dont see any reason why a BG should try to do that.

1. What is gained from a game design perspective from founding additional cities?
2.What is lost because of it?

The only answers I can think of are "feeling of progress/achieving something" for the first and "player interaction" for the second.
In my opinion that is a bad trade as you sacrifice the most important thing in a BG (player interaction) for something (achievement/progress) that can be attained without that sacrifice.

How would it regulate itself? People would surely spam it. Having the fee forces people to be thoughtful about pricing and their listings in general. It also provides a bread sink.


The difference is, there is no useless resource (although there is a somewhat skimped balance right now because some game features are not completed yet).
Spamming the auction house in WoW would lead to huge amounts of items that nobody needs because you can get better items for free/at minimal effort. Posting 100 pieces of crap weapons level 2 mobs drop will never have any real market.

A resource market however cannot be "spammed" with useless stuff.
There cant be too much henna on the market in a strictly logical way, because all henna can be processed and there is no henna+1 that makes basic henna completely superfluous.
There can of course be too much henna in an economic sense if supply outstrips demand, but that is regulated by the price.

The only disadvantages of spamming a resource market are meta-gaming related.
It might be bothersome for a player to navigate through and endless amount of offers, or it might be expensive to manage all the data for the game provider, but there is no ingame drawback caused by an offer.
An offer is always at least infinitesimal better than any "non existing offer". Even if it is never accepted nobody has any disadvantage because of it in ingame terms.

That said, I can understand and agree to several reasons (technical reasons, user friendliness, encouraging thinking about prices; among others) for a market fee.
I am still directly opposed to an "artificial" private trade fee though.
I cant think of any reasons why the game should punish direct trades.

As and aside: I think its interesting that you need a "sink" for the only item that is actually consumed. :D


Although that's not to say that there couldn't be a world type where you have a pre-built city and it pushes you into the monument game right away... Something along those lines could be really interesting.

Sounds... worth a try! :D


A PVP focused game is really a different game altogether. It's a more hardcore game, too. Nile Online is in part catering to our fans of Caesar, Pharaoh, Zeus and of course Children of the Nile.

PvP does not necessarily have to include the "versus" part in a literal sense though. I played and loved BGs which focused on trade only.
PvP means that you play with (and possibly against) other players.

You seem to try to encourage playing with and against the game system, which is perfectly normal for singleplayer games... why in a BG though?

I just feel that your combination of design goals and the choice of the BG format is odd, as I think you discard the strengths of the format and amplify its weaknesses this way.

[Therlun]

How does that specialization work, though?

Isn't that essentially the same as upgrading one, two, three or even five brickworks, so my city is specialized in brick production?


The current system has specialization too, so it would not be a new concept. I just would like to do away with the grinding of building levels.

=> You have 100 workers and can assign them to produce whatever you want.

You will never have more than 100 workers, and you can assign them all to a task from the first minute of playing.
You could assign them all to the same task if you wanted.
Shifting workers to another task takes time though.

Players would all have the same production potential (given the needed basic resources) all the time. Competition would be based on how you use that potential, not on how early and how effective you maximized your growth curve.
Time still is of vital importance, with older players having more resources stockpiled/traded. But it would remove the "growth race" and focus on an "interaction competition". The personal wealth of the players would still be suspect to growth, but the "player potential" wouldnt.

/edit: I DO like the unique resource every city has. So players would NOT be able to produce gold AND emeralds. All players could produce the same amount of reeds though, no matter how long they played.
Players should be able to switch their resource though (the tribe wanders to a different point in the world to found a city there, abandoning the old city).

In chess terms:
The ELO rating of a player does not determine how he plays, it is a reward and measurement for success.
Playing longer allows to accumulate more personal wealth (the rating, if you are successful), but it does not change what you can do in the game.
You dont have more or different pieces on the board or different moves available, no matter how successful you were and how clever you played.

Another example:
The board game Settlers of Catan.
Economy and interaction driven. Limited sessions.
Success in the economic part allows you to gain an advantage and win a game. The next session starts at an equal level though (metagaming aspects like hating the guts of someone who hoarded his stone in the last game aside :P ).

- Rewards (success) in an economic environment allow you to be more successful in the same environment.

- Rewards (success) in a game cannot provide ingame advantages beyond a won session without severe consequences.

There are two "problems" with NO here:
- it uses economic principles as a gameplay mechanisms, and
- it has no sessions in the conventional sense (because they are so long, and players start and stop playing at different points in time),

The combination of an economy driven game, and the lack of conventional sessions requires adjustments.
Those adjustments must consider long term developments of the extended sessions (runaway effect) with the need to provide rewards in a economy based playing model.

Providing ingame "mechanical" advantages (three times the amount of workers for instance) for "having played" destabilizes the game, as this creates change in the gaming rules that cannot be controlled (or influenced) by the players and that cannot be remedied without a new session.

Rewards for playing and for success in a BG must stand above, next to or beyond the normal gaming rules to provide the same quality of gameplay to all players, no matter when they started or how much they play.

[tobing]

I like most of your ideas, very nice! In particular hte ones referring to the fact that advancing (i.e. growing and founding cities) actually decreases the need to trade. So IF in fact trade is one of the main goals here, then advancing in the game is just against this goal.

Of course, I'm not sure about the goal set for Nile Online. It might be something different.

There one thing which came into my mind, when we discussed this today. This game has no incentives for building and maintaining relationships in the game so far. Like founding an alliance, or working closely together with meighbours or the like.

Instead, what happens is this: There are many single players out here, who use trade and market as a means to advance their city and found a new one. The more they advance, the less they need to build and maintain relations in the game. I think this is somehow a little sad, because making deals and such is great fun. In this beta world, there is no incentive at all to keep relations up, and to work together instead of alone.

In alpha we had a slightly different world, which had more mixed resources in a given region. The region was two-dimensional, too, which means that we had more neighbours to contact around us. So, different players with different resources were situated around a local god, which is just one possibility to create something like a group of players (regional in this case) who have some incentive to work together.

Another way to give an incentive for people to work together is to have alliances. That way, you could found and join an alliance. Then you help each other out in that group, and competition happens on the group level instead of the single player level like it is now.

Things could become really interesting if the world would be two dimensional, have regions where players have to join forces to keep the local gods happy, PLUS having alliances which players may join as well. We could have regional rankings and alliance rankings in addition to the individual ranking.

[Bertrand]

Though i've not read everything in those long posts, i'll second the fact that war shall not be the most important thing. Said otherwise, if war or Pvp has to become important, or the only solution when you progress, i hope it will be on a separate server. Though i enjoy wargames, Nile Online is interesting because you may build simply a nice town while competing with others a bit. I admit that without war it would be too quiet.

Apart from building a nice city and being in some kind of top, the goal of the game is still a bit cloudy for me, as it's very difficult seeing in advance what you will be able to achieve during your game. Yes, the dream of a pharaoh was to become immortal, so i suppose you will include a hall of fame ?

Organizing "seasons" (call it dynasties, based on pseudo historical time period, and give it some unique flavours shall be easy - like a season where more raiders are attacking, another where wheat is scarce because of locust / insects, another where population is lower because of an epidemy, and so on, and would personnalize the gaming experience) would help putting limits.

[Ouijdani]

I'm following this game because I am a game addict, and I'm interested to see how the model goes. But Therlun is correct: most MMO type games (and this is an MMO -- it just runs in a browser instead of its own client) tend to remain attractive over the long haul to those players with the early start and thus the biggest head start. This is most strongly evidenced in the Eve Online system in which "level" is merely a function of how long you have been playing, and nothing else.

Therlun describes a set of requirements that sound amazingly like the model for A Tale in the Desert, but that game manages to draw at most 2000 people at a time. There may be other reasons for ATitD's low population, however.

Ouij

[princesskimmy]

i must agree limiting the number of cities you can have to two would make the game stay social and trading a must. I love the game but if i cant socialize why play and having 3 or 4 resorces limits your trading and thoese who like to soc and trade are at a disadvantage if some one has 5 or 6 cities if you can supply yourself why play?

[Michlo]

I'd like to throw one question into the mix here:

why bread?

It seems silly. Why don't we have an ancient coin as the currency? Why would any civilization use a valuable food resource (the only one in this game) to trade with? Sure they could have an abundance of it (but then so could the seller) but at times they could get very low and their people would starve. I doubt they'd appreciate that just so that they could buy more perfume.

Cheers.

[Czech Centurian]

Therlun don't you think if there was consumption in the game it would require(force) players to trade for their needed goods. Even if they had more than one city?

[evilbill-agqx]

I'd like to throw one question into the mix here:

why bread?

It seems silly. Why don't we have an ancient coin as the currency? Why would any civilization use a valuable food resource (the only one in this game) to trade with? Sure they could have an abundance of it (but then so could the seller) but at times they could get very low and their people would starve. I doubt they'd appreciate that just so that they could buy more perfume.

Cheers.

The ancient Egyptians did use bread as their main currency: coins weren't yet invented when ancient Egypt was at its height.

[Michlo]

The ancient Egyptians did use bread as their main currency: coins weren't yet invented when ancient Egypt was at its height.

Hmm, I suppose I should have done more historical research. I don't think I ever knew that.

Thanks.

[Rama-Seph]

The first coins are usually credited to the kingdom of Lydia in what is now Turkey, around 650 BC--almost 2000 years after the pyramids of Giza were built. Barter trade, or bread as currency, was the rule before that.

[Nordrim]

I've played games for nearly 15 years. All sorts of them - singleplayer, multiplayer, browser-based and so on and so on.

Lately I'm more like a casual gamer (work, study, woman and other RL stuff), but I still can give something close to competent opinion.

Therlun is absolutely right on at least one thing:

It's the community that makes the game. No matter how many "content" you drop in the game, no matter how many "features" you offer, no matter how many resources, buildings, warrior strains and whatever you give to the player - it will be never enough if you don't have a solid community.

The browser game I play besides Nile Online is CyberNations. It's the only game of that sort that caught me for more than 2 years. CN has many disadvantages, but it has fantastic community. Just look at the game's wikia site!

jnewl, on the first page, posted against social interaction. I want to focus on that opinion. Players like these do not form a community, they just fill the holes in browser-based games. I mentioned CN above with a reason - yes, of course there are also players that look at the game as "a single-player game with AI opponents". Actually, these players are not dedicated, they get bored quickly and most importantly - if the core players, the real fans vanish - the social uninterested fish walk away too.

So, my message is clear - if you want singleplayer experience - go play singleplayer games. We are here to communicate, to interact with each other, to cooperate, to compete, to fight and to prosper together, but not to receive another "Zeus-Poseidon-Civilization-Settlers-Caesar-Anno" or any other piece of good-old-city-buiding-strategy.

Now, Nile Online is extremely unbalanced, but extremely charming. I am agreed that the additional cities (respectively - additional luxury resource) will only take away from the game experience - after having 5 of 8 resources, the only thing you need is one stable trade partner that will supply you the other 3. And now, when there are no alliances, no guilds, or any other "community booster", the multiplayer part of the game will conclude with "you've got the stuff, I've got the money" scroll between two pharaohs three times a week.

[Therlun]

Therlun don't you think if there was consumption in the game it would require(force) players to trade for their needed goods. Even if they had more than one city?

I'm sure I at least mentioned it two times in my essays :D and I agree with you, the game lacks consumption.
Since (except for bread) resources aren't used up on a regular basis the game "needs" upgrading.

It a vicious circle of game design... :)
Because there is no consumption the upgrading is needed to eat up the produced resources. Upgrading leads to higher production though, which in return leads to an unending, self driven cycle of higher upgrading costs and higher production.

@ Nordrim
Thanks for the reply.

I didn't expect to have this thread rise from the ashes again. :)

@Bread
I think the idea to use bread as both food and currency is a good one.
It worked very well in CotN. It may be based on reality, but implementing it successfully into a game is an achievement in itself.
I wish the effects were higher though. Right now I have like 10,000 bread, from selling less than a fifth of my jewellery production on the market.
That could supply me for several days even if I completely stopped producing bread myself.
So while it is consumed the effect is so minor that for me bread is actually ONLY a currency right now.

[Rama-Seph]

(Don't forget- you will see people building Monuments on the world map, and these are like little cities and a HUGE drain. Huge. One thing about them: Because of this drain, the wealthy or big guys building monuments will actually be forced into a situation that enables the little guys to catch up.)

Sounds like consumption of resources to me. Based on the UI for exchange to monuments, it might be that labor gets shifted also, so your production declines while working on a monument. It will be interesting to see what reward is offered for monuments, and what resources/efforts will be needed to defend one. All speculative, so far, but I keep reminding myself that the city-building game we're all playing (and most of us enjoying) is only PART of what Nile Online is planned to be.

[Michlo]

I've played games for nearly 15 years. All sorts of them - singleplayer, multiplayer, browser-based and so on and so on.

Lately I'm more like a casual gamer (work, study, woman and other RL stuff), but I still can give something close to competent opinion.

Therlun is absolutely right on at least one thing:

It's the community that makes the game. No matter how many "content" you drop in the game, no matter how many "features" you offer, no matter how many resources, buildings, warrior strains and whatever you give to the player - it will be never enough if you don't have a solid community.

The browser game I play besides Nile Online is CyberNations. It's the only game of that sort that caught me for more than 2 years. CN has many disadvantages, but it has fantastic community. Just look at the game's wikia site!

jnewl, on the first page, posted against social interaction. I want to focus on that opinion. Players like these do not form a community, they just fill the holes in browser-based games. I mentioned CN above with a reason - yes, of course there are also players that look at the game as "a single-player game with AI opponents". Actually, these players are not dedicated, they get bored quickly and most importantly - if the core players, the real fans vanish - the social uninterested fish walk away too.

So, my message is clear - if you want singleplayer experience - go play singleplayer games. We are here to communicate, to interact with each other, to cooperate, to compete, to fight and to prosper together, but not to receive another "Zeus-Poseidon-Civilization-Settlers-Caesar-Anno" or any other piece of good-old-city-buiding-strategy.

Now, Nile Online is extremely unbalanced, but extremely charming. I am agreed that the additional cities (respectively - additional luxury resource) will only take away from the game experience - after having 5 of 8 resources, the only thing you need is one stable trade partner that will supply you the other 3. And now, when there are no alliances, no guilds, or any other "community booster", the multiplayer part of the game will conclude with "you've got the stuff, I've got the money" scroll between two pharaohs three times a week.

I'm sorry but whilst I too enjoy the camaraderie of a community (as should be obvious already with my posts, heh) a game should be about options. You should not be sending people away because they don't meet "your" idea of how they should be playing. We have enough of that in real life (prop 8, anybody?). Games ought to be more inclusive.

Cheers.