New servers

[Firetooth]

After seeing all of the debate on rekindling the older days at RWL, I've had an idea on how to keep the better elements of both the older RWL and newer RWL without upsetting anybody, but it isn't a complicated solution.

Just add new servers. Looking over at valhall, they have a variety of servers. They have one where the main objective is to kill players, and the player with the most kills wins. They have a turbo like server. They also have two older servers, vintage and standard, which are former/different versions of the main game.

Would it be possible to put in similar servers here? Maybe a "classic" server or something where there is a larger emphasis on role-playing and a more classic type of RWL. It wouldn't really need themes. In the same way good grammar is a requirement for the forums, posting IC (in character) and role-playing should also be a requirement. People who are less interested in that should not play. It could also have a larger emphasis on the books, and it would be a good starting point for newer players.

A vintage server might also be a good idea. A turbo with only 450 turns, less of the new features (the original 3 races if you wanted to be really radical) etc.

I'm not sure how much work these would be to moderate, though. It's only a suggestion, but would it be viable? I'm not sure how much work would be needed to do it.

[Neobaron]

A bunch of us were tossing ideas like this around last night on MSN.

I think Shael has a cunning plan.

[Kilkenne]

Her plan is to let Neo and I get sloppy drunk and reminisce about what was good. And then she's going to code it in real time in a screen that we can all see. She will code at around 250 wpm and it will be completed solely in a 6 hour binge drinking session.

[The Lady Shael]

The biggest problem is that the original code is not secure or stable. I've been suggesting a legacy server for months (even came close to setting it up a couple times), but this and the fact that we are trying to transition the current game to better code (first priority) is what holds us back. It may be true that there aren't many people around anymore with the immaturity to hack it for fun, but that's still a risk I don't want to take.

Something I've come to accept, even recreating the environment and forcing everyone to role-play will not bring back the feeling of the old days. We're too knowledgeable about the game. No one had invented net passing or land locking back then, which are two obvious strategies now. Actually there were barely any strategies back then, people just did what they felt was right. Everyone now is dependent on math to be successful in the game. Once you learn how to play that way, it's hard to forget that knowledge.

After we make the transition to the updated QMT code we can think about this more.

[Firetooth]

I dunno...it'd be interesting if you made it so everybody had to have at 5/10% in each building type

[The Lady Shael]

We've had themes like this in the past, half-land, and wolf recently suggested quarter-land. We actually haven't done half-land theme for a while, we might do it next round. I can't see a server with 5/10% required in each building type all the time.

[Firetooth]

I'm not really interested in half land, I want to (effectively) force people to play the game on that server utilizing every building to some extent.

[Yellow Eyes]

Actually firetooth I like your thinking on that idea. There should be a whole element to having an unbalanced army, where you are penalized for not having a balanced army. That would eliminate some strategies right there. I feel there needs to be a realistic server, one that, and just an idea I just had, has a troop training (a real one, not a percentage) where you can train your troops to be a next level of fighter or defender.

All brings me back to my whole level system, only now in a different light.

[Neobaron]

Level systems encourage the idea that;

time invested > skill

I really don't think that a game influencing level system would do well in this format man.

[Shadow]

That's my main objection - it would give unfair advantage new old players over new ones.

I like the idea, but I don't see how w could avoid that. And in a game like RWL, where new players play as we all used to, have people who have that advantage will discourage them from staying.

I do like the idea of forcing balanced play to some extent, though. How could we implement that?

[Kilkenne]

Cause tiny desertions if there aren't enough of X building type at a minimum percent. Maybe base it on troop type, or the opposite, kind of like if 5% of your land at least isn't huts, your regular guys leave, but if 5% isn't barracks, your leaders leave, but make the leaving percentages small like .1-.2% per turn, as opposed to the massive desertions of 3%.

My worry is that doing anything like that though might just be too little and people with either ignore it entirely, or it'll hamstring most of the strategies in the game too much. Not sure which.

[Yellow Eyes]

You could always increase the percentage of the desertion as the difference between grows. Say if you go from having 50% barracks to 40%, the desertion rate is .1%, but if it goes down to 30 its now .2%, down to 10% up to .3% etc.

[Holby]

Cause tiny desertions if there aren't enough of X building type at a minimum percent. Maybe base it on troop type, or the opposite, kind of like if 5% of your land at least isn't huts, your regular guys leave, but if 5% isn't barracks, your leaders leave, but make the leaving percentages small like .1-.2% per turn, as opposed to the massive desertions of 3%.

My worry is that doing anything like that though might just be too little and people with either ignore it entirely, or it'll hamstring most of the strategies in the game too much. Not sure which.

My concern is that if it works as it's meant to, everyone will work out what the best balances are to achieve a particular strat. And then everyone will do the right structures spread for the right strat, and then we're back at square one.

It could only work if you gained/lost troops/leaders/resources based on turn use. Say, losing leaders whenever you scout for land or something. But doing that would change the ENTIRE structure of the game. It could be very interesting, but it would be so hard to create properly

[Kilkenne]

I think that's why we'd be running it on a different server, kind of the way that Reg and Turbo have different race sets and such, just to see how it goes. I am in agreement with your first point though, that everyone would just figure out the ratios. I'm sure there's a good way to go about this that we just haven't thought of yet.

[Shadow]

See I don't think it will be a huge problem, Holby. Reason being that with tiny desertions, they will only matter for long term play. But for short term, such as takedowns, you could safely go all huts, take a few leader desertions doing a takedown on someone using a balanced land spread, and then switch back to a balance without hurting yourself too much.

So someone using balanced play would be open to people playing short term unbalanced strategies, but at the same time they would have greater long term potential for net than their opponent. So it would add an entire new dimension to strategy that would be far from trivial, since the "optimal balance" you speak of would be entirely dependent on the current game situation, both in terms of net and diplomatically. There would be optimal spreads for defense, for offense, for short term netting like indy, and for long term netting like leader, and they would all be different depending on how long you planned to use them for, and what your opponent's were doing. There would even be setups optimally designed to counter other setups, even if you are both playing the same base strategy.

I think this is a fantastic idea, we just need to find a way to implement it effectively and do some testing.


...did anyone understand any of that?