SUG: Auto Kill Players at Age 50

[mobius]

It's always good to hear from the design team about the game unless they are there to just babble about nothing. Haven't seen that yet.

Isn't long term play and retiring a conflicting objective? There is some replay to this game but not sure how much.

I'll take up tutmoses ii challenge.

[thechris]

isnt it worth it to add a ad to the side or bottom? that alone would double your ad revenue(i think)

[tutmoses ii]

Add revenue isn't very big anyway. You'd get twice almost nothing. It would add a lot of irritation for the players.

[Muad'Dib]

Originally Posted by Jeff Fiske

Sorry if I babbled on

It's just good to see someone from TM is still arround, makes the community feel less abandonned.

[Solmar]

"But I don't really see any of these being implemented because of the nature of the way the game is currently being played- and I am not going to tell you how to 'play in order to enjoy the game properly'." Boy am I happy to hear that.

I think this game is a hoot. One of the reasons I bought scarabs was to support the creators of it, it was a very reasonable cost after all. I bought extra scarabs specifically because I had a paypal account and my girlfriend didn't. I then gave her some of them. I also gave a few scarabs to trade partners when they were short or just as a "thank you" for long term trading.

The problem of people staying in the top rank isn't a problem. I saw someone who had hit a top of 6th only got a 11th-100th monument when they retired at 13th. That convince me to retire the day I hit 10th. I had waited way too long for that level tomb and I was convinced I would never hit 1st and its bigger tomb.

The end game could use some adjustment though. The simplest adjustment is discussed in another thread. It involves the idea of people consuming more and more types of resources as the city level evolves to the upper levels. It could be implemented with no change to the user interface, just a scroll anouncing that "Your city has now reached x level and your citizens now demand y {resources} per day". After all, high level cities should demand a constant supply of cosmetics, pottery, sandals, bricks, ..... The end game now is only finding places to put stuff.

That said, the current way has given me a fresh life to live and not just a repeat. At the end of my last life I had trade partners to whom I was giving 30k stuff just because they needed it quickly. They were doing the same for me, we were all finding places to put stuff. When they found out that I couldn't stay away from the game and had started again, I got 10k loads of stuff.

I will say right now that I have no problem with gifting! I do it all the time with trade partners as a way of saying thank you. All the resources got me thinking about what kind of game it would be if resources wasn't a problem and only construction time mattered. My girlfriend heard what was happening and she sent me bricks, pottery and baskets (really useless during the end game).

My trade partners have retired and my girlfriend is threating to also. Until that occurs I can found new cities with resources that she doesn't have and pay her back for the stuff she has sent me. At least I'm coming along second this time and can pick the missing resource city, she refused to listen to me when she was picking cities.

I'm sure no one expected me to be playing the game this way (on a rush to hit level 22 and retire). I know I didn't expect this approach. However, I'm having fun this time also. It is entirely different from the first and I worry about different things (like trying to hit level 22 before she gets bored of the end game). But IT IS FUN. I'm meeting new people and I have to configure my cities different this time. But did I mention, I'm having fun.

Yes Jeff, I bought more scarabs this time. My girlfriend couldn't give me back some of the ones I gave her. I think the cost of play is very reasonable. She says, "Given the amount of time I play, it is cheap!"

[silverkitty]

I'm more than 50 years old, but I haven't finished my "all buildings maximized" goal yet... ...then again, I'm not in the top 100, I don't trade or gift (I got all the resources I need to finish my buildings a long time ago), so I'm probably not part of Tink's "problem." I'd hate to see my account nuked from orbit before I'm done, and I'm glad to hear Mr Fiske is more amenable to letting people play how they want than Tink is.

[abana]

It's funny, when I made a very simmilar suggestion(I now see that I was wrong), Tink was one of the most vocal against it. My suggestion was to limit the amount of time in the top 10. I made the suggestion for similar reasones(there is a bottleneck at the top, and I also wanted a chance to get in). I now see that it is limiting and unfair to others, but it is curios that when I mad the suggestion, it incurred his wrath.

[Sayamistar]

I'm new. I don't care much about ranking. May be I get immortalized at rank 100 or rank 1, wouldn't make much difference.

Nevertheless, I'm with the high rankers that they should not be forced out of the game. Many times, I have been suggested that I should play the game at my own pace in my own liking. Then I don't see any reason it should not apply to the high rankers. If they want to hang around, let them. I don't think real solution would be in robbing their monuments or forcing them to get out of the server. Rather, I think a new ranking system should be developed, where the priorities are balanced on various points:
1. level of the buildings owned
2. trading activities (priority-based, of course; 2-3 categories - first, last week, second, last 2-3 months and last beyond that: more points to latest ones)
3. age of gamer (as it is currently)
4. time spent online
5. time spent as a pharaoh (more time spent, less points awarded; no penalties for 1 month or so, and the rate of penalty increases with time)
6. gifts sent and received (I'm not sure of this as the arguments seem to take gifts negatively)
7. quests completed
8. amount of goods in the warehouse

This would keep rotating the rankings and of course, indirectly force the top-ranking pharaohs to go immortal, with dignity of course. This is just a suggestion and may not include every aspects of the game. Afterall I've been in this game just about a month and a half.

Sayamistar

[Pontius Pilatus]

Originally Posted by Sayamistar

6. gifts sent and received (I'm not sure of this as the arguments seem to take gifts negatively)

Sayamistar

Gifts are not a bad thing. It is great to help out fellow human beings in their struggles with life.

But how to compute gifts?

Cheers!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Q-Man]

Some of those criteria are already used in calculating rank (like warehouse stocks and building ranks).

If your rank score were divided by your pharaoh's age, I think it would help break the log jam. Good idea.

Time on line would just encourage use of scripts to "auto farm" that stat - not the kind of abuse that is needed.

As to the rest, we really don't know if they are included or how (trades - probably not; quests - hard to say). The actual formula is not known, just that building levels seems to help and warehouse stocks are known to help.

[grrlgeek]

my $1.42 worth....

rank is meaningless. unless you compare rank between two players who started on the same day at the same time and see how they are faring some time later versus each other's achievements, it has no more validity than any other measuring contest held in an AOL chatroom.

it's been said before by others: another player is never going to beat my perfect city if i got there first. they just have to wait until i go immortal, or take away my perfect city, to move into my place. it's stupid, and it's counterproductive to revenue from a business perspective, as players will not go immortal and start over (and buy more scarabs, thereby rowing tinkerbells nile boat) but they will sit around, bored to tears, not trading, not producing, not selling or buying, but merely waiting for their turn to get the bigger tomb upon going immortal.

The Company (TM) is no longer developing this game. What you have is what we've got. It's not perfect, it has so much room for more development. But it is what it is.

If I had my way i would change the entire immortality/rank process and use a more revenue-generating, replayability (is that a word?) model:

• Rank is not rank, there is no "number 1" (because face it, there can only be one number one, and to be meaningful, it has to be achievable by anyone at any time based on achievement, not longevity).
• I would implement a tiered structure of eligibility for better tombs upon going immortal. When you achieve the set goals, a better/bigger tomb is available to you, culminating in the best tomb for the "perfect city" crowd.
• Tombs would not disappear from the nome if someone else gets one of the same size. Perhaps the hover-text would link off instead, to a listing of all pharoahs who achieved that tomb level in the nome.
• The criteria for achieving said tomb level would be transparent. Why must we all speculate about what goes into the "rank?" Do soldiers at monuments count? How about telling us how much bread is enough bread to bump up a level? Why wouldn't my temple contributions count? Do they? They should. How about the number of times I defeat bandits, or pay off the Nubians? It's a simple thing to list it out in a control panel for the player, and from there it's just math, and quite simple to program and store results.

If a player could get out of the game in shorter order (really, I've been playing for 8 months now, and it's getting old) perhaps they would play again, and again. Encouraging the player to go immortal having achieved something (and that achievement has to be attainable!) would allow folks to try other approaches, take on an OCC challenge, try for a perfect Quad22, or 4 gold cities, or whatever. When they play again, they will (probably) buy more scarabs. Or not. But they will play. And more players trickle to more revenue one way or the other. If the game had been designed this way from the start, perhaps we'd still be seeing more development (investment) from TM.

I figure I need another month to fully stockpile my cities, and then if i want the biggest tomb, it will be a total of one year+ of gameplay before I even get close. I'd like to play again, but after a year, I will be looking for something else to play because I've wrung all there is out of this, and the end just doesn't seem that satisfying. And, in my humble opinion, the die-off in interest level, is directly tied to the rank/immortality portion of our programme.

YMMV, but that's my story and I'm stickin' to it...

Happy Building,

[Sayamistar]

Originally Posted by Pontius Pilatus

Gifts are not a bad thing. It is great to help out fellow human beings in their struggles with life.

But how to compute gifts?

Cheers!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Well may be something like... this much rank points for this much gifts sent / received...

But anyways, what is the difference... our discussions are turning into deaf years... TM's not getting anything, nor they are giving anything!!!

[Q-Man]

Good thoughts grrlgeek. But I would recommend making some of the different end game options incompatible. That way people would have a reason to play again to collect one of every kind. Multiple alternative exits - that are not obviously ranked along the same path but rather reflect different paths altogether.

[Solmar]

I like your suggestion grrlgeek. Making tomb size based on city accomplishments, rather than rank, would eliminate the dead part of the end game. People who want a big tomb could get it and start over and it would be a reasonable goal at the end. If you want a big tomb now, you have to sit around and wait for the higher ranked players to retire. Your idea would eliminate the problem of #1 sitting on the position just because he can.

However, if a player wanted to just stick around to be the oldest player playing, you idea would allow that also. A very simple idea that would completely change the end game from dead to resolvable. It would seem to take the least programming of all the ideas for the end game that i've heard. I for one vote for this approach.

[Rhamses]

Originally Posted by Tinkerbell

Yes, you are correct. 50 years is a very long time.



If you are playing slowly, then you are not playing for rank anyway. You can restart & still play casually.



My suggestion is to make the Top 100 ranks mean something. Right now you don't have a chance to obtain high rank. Unless there is turnover by older players, NO New Player will ever have a chance.

I would also like to see the game make the #1 Ranker immediately auto Immortalize too!

Now that is ridiculous! If the #1 player auto-immortalized then it would start a chain reaction that would immortalize every player in the game as the #2 moves to #1 and is immortalized, then #3 and so on

[Rhamses]

Originally Posted by Tinkerbell

Sorry, Kosminhotep, but you are part of the problem, but yes, you do appear to play with much more Honor that most of the other Nile dead weight. You were on the Sabah Wall with Oli sucking all the oxygen outta the place. You admit that you have been #1 but refuse to quit. Your Sabah account has never purchased a single scarab & is 76 years old.

Part of the problem? Now that's just rude!

Sorry, but your account is in the way & exactly why I made this suggestion.

You refuse to go Immortal & I believe the game should force you to restart.

Opinion. Maybe you're a little jealous?

I guarantee you that you will get much more bliss from being a little fish again. I have gone Immortal twice already, once on each server & wouldn't have it any other way.

There is no way you can guarantee what someone else will enjoy. If you like going immortal and starting over, good for you! How would you like it if there were a limit on the number of times you could go immortal?

The very late game is no fun at all. I am there again in Sabah II & already feeling the boordom.

Another opinion.

I don't mean to sound harsh, but Nile is suffering from old-serveritis. Old players must die! A server with turnover is a healthy server.

Yet another opinion. This is an idle game and some people have worked hard to get where they are.

New Players MUST have a chance for the top or the game will most certainly DIE.

It sounds like you have strong opinions and that is fine but I don't think that people should be forced to lose their account because of your opinion. A lot of people have friends here and like to encourage new players when they start. Yes, this sometimes means gifting. If someone of high rank sends a reasonable gift to a new player and it causes that player to stick around and make new friends, then this is good for the game. Besides, everyone has a different tolerance when it comes to achievement. I would not be able to judge when someone has looked upon their works long enough and force them to restart or leave the Nile. I don't think you should either but that is my opinion. See how that works?

[Rhamses]

Originally Posted by Tinkerbell

That's fine, Kosminhotep. As I said, TM needs to hear all voices.

This is a suggestion thread, one with tough love for the well-being of Nile Online & posted for TM.

I was the first to realize the problems with the late game & also with the gifting problem. Players are slowly coming around to my way of thinking.

We even in the past have threads about players wanting a server reset, something I definitely do not want.

There is something VERY wrong with a game where players can hit all the maxes on bread & goods. Where we can have so much stuff in our cities that we even CAN consider giving stuff away. Or as you & Oli are doing, trading for exactly enough to reach the maximum again.

In Sabah II I have Quad P22s, 1800 boats, 3.1M bread, starting to see warehouse 22 lux redlines & not even in the Top 100 yet. AND I am only 37 years old. I could have gone Immortal over one month ago easily & now can go Immortal from ANY of my 4 cities. That, my friend, is clearly broken.

Houston, we have a problem!

The endgame is clearly broken & the easiest solution is to kill players before they get to that point. If you won't do it for the good of the game, then the game should do it for you.

You still get your badge that sez YOU WON!

I am concerned with the health of the game, especially for New Players. It is more important than either you or I. When it comes down to it, I don't give a damn about high rankers, only New Players who are the life-blood of any game.

For New Players to survive, enjoy the game & even think of getting a high rank for challenge, old players must die!

I also expect to get flamed. And so it goes...

...the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few...or the one...

.

You have GOT to be kidding me!

[seth]

What would happen If people on vacation or inactive for 1 month would be taken out of ranks until they reactivate! There are vacationers that have been on vacation from when I started back in Jan. This would allow office players and social players enjoy the game as well as allow a "passing lane" for rank climbers!?-S

[Rhamses]

Yeah, I have said before that something should be done but I don't think deleting their account is the answer. I think that people who do not log in after a period of time should be set to automatic vacation mode. Doing this will not fix the problem overnight and for people who have been inactive for a couple of years, it may be too little/too late. I am not certain what would be the fair thing to do but I am pretty sure that whatever is fair will not be easy on the programmers. Ultimately, nothing may ever be done to correct this. I guess the best way to deal with it for now is to take the ranking with a grain of salt and understand that it may not be a true mark of someone's skill and dedication to the game.