Hey All; I've been a bit busy of late with house projects and haven't checked in. I've been aware of the sentiment of some on Clan GDI, but I thought I'd check in and get a feel for what the community would like, and post my thoughts.

I will say, it's hard for me to digest posts scattered across the forums & discord, so that's another reason I'm making this thread. That said, Clan GDI...


----------------------


So, firstly: I think the pre-ClanGDI "forever status quo" was broken, especially from a player retention pov. You get in a war in week 2, and then spend the next month and a half restarting and being killed. I have been there, it is never fun. And secondly, the FS is just so *unbelievably* OP, that unless there's a major discrepancy, you're likely to prevail.

Secondly, the "griefing" aspect: Apparently this has been slightly reduced already, but I do recall a time where one person with a grudge can really just wreck dozens of players resets. That asymmetry is just a fundamental flaw/result of the gameplay and the fact that the game has resets.



My thought with ClanGDI was to address both of these:
1) Make it so there was a formalized process to war that dulls the FS, and that has a method to actually END the war at some point
2) Make it so a clan requires a minimum number of players in order to engage in attacking a Clan, if they didn't want that sort of engagement

The one caveat that ended up in there was that there is a way to avoid being FS'd at all by surrendering in there.


Now, I'm ALSO aware that it hasn't been as debugged as it could be -- and that is partially due to lack of time, partially due to the IRC server being broken (where the game error logs go to).



So the way I see it, I have 4 main options currently for Clan GDI:


1) Bugfix as is.
2) Disable ClanGDI until it can be bug-fixed and tweak on alphaffa, and the IRC server fixed.
3) Change the Surrender-Before-FS option, so that there's a minimum of X time (24h, 48h, 72h?) that the war will actually exist before surrender is available as an option.
4) Some other change-in-place based on your feedback.


Thus, with all of the above in mind, what are the popular thoughts? Personally I lean towards 1 or 3, but I'm open to input.

oh, NB: I bugfixed a couple things today, RE: 5 char limit, and war actually starting.

Make 1a what it used to be, not a safe space for leaders that suck at diplomacy. Very simple, If you can't lead, get out of the way or let your alliance die, stop pandering to LaF.

KoH I spent 2 years keeping and growing our relationships with other clans. But not everyone is as you said willing to go the extra mile to lead. And indeed should have someone else take the ball. Ego usually stops that.

QZ the consensus of my folks has been shared elsewhere. 😉 I will continue to provide input as I have and work with everyone involved. BUT nothing said or done will please everyone. But player retention as you said is key.

Now. Let’s see how long before someone comes along and turns this thread into a circus. Shxt posts should be deleted here unless you’ve got something productive to add.

I believe option #3 with 72 hours is good. There should be an actual war or it'll be disappointing. It also deals with suiciders who can't be bothered to put a greater effort towards destroying countries by starting their own clan and recruit.

I imagine some folks thinks 3 days is laughable, especially if not rewarding enough. I'd be open to making wars a minimum of 2 weeks instead of 72 hours so that there's enough time to enjoy the missile exchange and so on. The option to surrender already provides a war-ending condition so that it doesn't drag on for too long.

2.

Mostly because I really want the IRC finally fixed

#2 Disable clangdi

My vote is on number 2. Atleast make it so we can actually declare on other clans that want to war before enabling again

2 please.

Also, double the set length

Both 2&3 are game ending, they would cause the return of organized griefing (you can see in the very first response, to kill LaF as an alliance). Essentially game death.

Get better leadership.


I vote 2&3

There’s solidly a difference between “game ending” and “LaF ending” TC. LaF has 18 total members and the 40 plus war dogs leaving was clearly worse for player retention than actually completely eliminating LaF twice. It might be game ending for you guys, but I suspect there’s a middle ground where no meta gets priority and we do our best to retain players of all types. That’s where the solution lies and if those 18 people can’t deal with it, it’s far less of an issue than the 3x LaF membership level including myself that quit playing and more specifically quit paying. It’s likely only 6-8 LaF members actually pay for premium. That’s hardly a loss at all. “Game ending” is a little extreme. 8 people is a small fraction of the whole community.

I’ll use my post to echo Auk. Option 3 and allowing a full turn save (72 hours) is the best route with the surrender option only being available after 5-7 days or 2 weeks of war.

That all said, I think a combination of 2&3 is necessary at this point to both fix IRC and to debug clanGDI. And if only one answer works, I think the obvious answer is 2. Fixing the broken stuff would be my main priority.

Edit: (changed my mind).
Vote option 9
Let the game die.
I read the forums. These guys are just out to circle play with each other. Nothing will change.

Can you please try to test changes you do. there is a lot of issues with the new features.

This isn't a thread for arguement.

QZ, There will be zero "war dogs" coming back for those type of changes, because it won't make any difference at all, as there will still be no target for wars. The only difference clan gdi makes right now is if netters still play or not.

These midreset code changes also create damaging drama and need to stop. Starting the reset based on one set of rules and then changing it errodes trust. If you want to make changes, great, but please have them ready to go and tested in alpha ffa or elsewhere in the weeks before a set ends so people can test and decide if its something worth playing or not.

Please role back the changes you just did into another changeset, let it be fully tested first then we can finish this reset, after putting all the effort into record breaking countries, then quit next reset.

You can say it’s not a thread for argument as much as you want. Making disingenuous statements about people tho, and expecting them not to argue with you is actually insane tho. I’m a war dog on this server and I would specifically come back, and more importantly, start paying again. So at least change your zero to a one. Stop with the conjecture bud, and you’ll receive no arguments.

#2

#2

2

If I am reading it correctly he is fixing a bug. Unlike last reset when he implemented a change to how spies and clangdi work.
I see no fault in a big being fixed on a feature that was implemented at the beginning of this reset.

2 - disable clan GDI

I agree completely with KoH. Terrible leaders should be replaced or their tag should fail.

Lol so end of LaF means game death LMAO

What an EGO

BTW I vote #2

option #2 - it is the way

2

I say 2... BUT..... I have a genuine question.


Wardogs say they are gone right now because they can't war.


Let's pretend we do 2, and LaF does leave.

What does that change from right now? The way I see it, nothing.

The wardogs can war each other right now, if they want. And getting rid of ClanGDI doesn't change that.


The only thing getting rid of clanGDI does is allow wardogs to attack people who don't want to war. So LaF, and then I guess Light, me, and any other newer people who come around and start a clan.



I still vote 2, but I genuinely don't understand the argument the argument that wardogs will be able to war again, when they can right now? I think the argument is wardogs will be able to grief/attack unwilling participants again, right? Is that what we are really saying?

Please recall that qzjul and admins can't kick/replace what you all determine are "terrible leaders".
You all know better...

Current count as of this post:

#2: 16 votes
#1: 1 vote

let’s see if Qz listens to:

A) TC

OR

B) Literally the entire community.


personally I can’t wait to see what he does so I can laugh at Weezy and Rasp for still being patrons




Edit: formatting

I choose 4, the idea is let's just create a second alliance server with E2025 game mechanics 60(60) turns and 2B bug. If you need some money let me know and we can setup a gofund me page for you(Qzjul).

I'm down for that, or create a pvb (player vs bot) server.

I say, create a new server that is Player vs Bots. Very simple to implement. If bot, allow attack, if not dont allow attack.

Revert Alliance to pre Clan GDI and it will turn it back to Griefers Paradise.

Clan GDI is not preventing the war alliances to war, its preventing them to attack LaF which is all they want and they rather quit the game then play a reset where they dont have the option to suicide on LaF.

I vote on 1 bugfix Clan GDI.

The idea of Clan GDI is nice but right now its filled with bugs and changes are being made during an ongoing reset so testing something early in the reset in alpha is basicly no guarantee it will stay during the reset. I think the Clan GDI idea is good if its properly done, balanced and tested before being released. Even if Clan GDI is around I think a PvE server is something many of us casual (farmville) players would like. We could experiment with bots retaliating and stuff like that on that server as well in the future.

Clan GDI is total crap. Kill it!

This. The feeling that war could be any time by any one is what made the game fun.

Current count as of this post:

#2: 18 votes
#1: 1 vote
create new bot server and remove clan GDI: 1 vote (although it should be a vote for #2)

let’s see if Qz listens to:

A) TC

OR

B) Literally the entire community.


personally I can’t wait to see what he does so I can laugh at Weezy and Rasp for still being patrons

I like clan gdi, the warring clans can fight eachother, but they are gunning for LaF instead, they are only complaining about it because they don't like how the alliance they have been trying to run out of the game is still in it. Removing clan gdi will actually kill the game, once LaF is gone, the doors will close. I think that this is what warring clans are trying to accomplish. They want the game to come to an end. I was in SoL the last round that they fought Mercs and the general consensus was that if they have to fight mercs or sof again they would close their doors as an alliance. So no, it's not fun getting blind sided unless you were already playing countries with the intent to war with them. Steeps come on man, I know what SoL was saying when they were tired of it, instead of finding an alternative method, you decided to join forces with the aggressors and turn the attention onto other players. I'm so sick and tired of all the lies, maybe it would be better if we just shut down the game without all this political nonsense. Could we just take a vote on that instead?

I recommended that the devs just recreate the old 1a server classic and you will have it back in it's glory days KoH, does that mean you want all the rampant cheating back from the old days too?

2

You have a group of 40 people that are threatening to quit unless they can cause a group of 20 people to quit. Use that information how you like.

You should probably beta test things. It's either buggy as hell or just straight does not work.

/me looks at QZ. Told you 😂

The great debaters will now say the same 3 things 186 ways.

Guys maybe leave a suggestion, input or otherwise beneficial comment? Create another thread for this? The drama and debate teams meet down the hall.

For those suggestions donations etc. I mean I know some folks do contribute already, and others would. But it’s not as much about money as it is time. And the staff that can/will do it.

So. For those also suggesting #2. What % of you would be open to telling QZ and others… Which part of other options would you NEGOTIATE with for ALL sides?

Yes. I’m the appointed neutrality hall monitor. 👮‍♂️

Code a line in like the end of the reset, but for clans at war or declared on. Prevent them from hopping.

Could follow the same format as teams. Once you are tagged that is it.

So basically a lock-in type feature? But on alliance you’re free to come and go until at war?

On the flip side

Wouldn’t proper leaders/hFAs have this also included in pacts they sign or suffer the consequences of signing and breaking pacts?

Both could be true?

Should have included an or between those.

If I remember correctly in endless revolution they locked you in when a war was declared on your alliance.

Uhhh I brokie something… hmmm

but yes thank you lol that’s also where good leadership should be in a clan or you lose your members. But after the declaration locking thingy would make people sign better pacts, and make leaders responsible to their members actions. That’s interesting.

To elaborate on my vote for option 2, yes cancel clan gdi, yes get an Ee irc server going.

Plus, get the rights for eestats under ee management, not LaF, since it's an essential tool
Plus, when LaF is driven off 1a, convert Tournament to an Alliance style server with no war, only people vs. Bots.

Make both a Wild West server and make a netting server so everyone gets what they want.

Advertising and game recruitment is your biggest issue. You need new players and that would solve most of these issues I imagine.

2) Disable ClanGDI until it can be bug-fixed and tweak on alphaffa, and the IRC server fixed.

This one please.
Should have never implement it if it's not tested properly.

The problem with this game is not the amount of players we have, it's the fact that this game doesn't accommodate towards how most of us play.

We can get more players, but I doubt they'll stick around for long.

The problems are:
1. It takes a lot of time and turns to build a nice country, but all of that can be destroyed in a flash with way less time and turns in comparison;
2. If one were to participate in any war, they're virtually guaranteed to not finish in top 10 with a good score;
3. The prize/loot is not enough for the victors of war to continue and compete for rank #1 finish;
4. No other option to resolve a dispute that doesn't involve giving land, allow retaliation, or to conquer the enemy; and
5. With an imbalance of strategies, or playing style (e.g. war) it makes playing other strategies less valuable, and it makes producing certain resources less valuable (e.g. war related tech, tanks).

War is yet another option to deal with a dispute and can function as leverage in diplomacy. If the problems were solved, I imagine the war clans here would make this game more interesting.

Imagine the netters as royalties/nobles who would rather not engage in a war. The war dogs would be of any class including the royalties, but they primarily take on the role of champions insurers, risky gamblers/stock traders and mercenaries of course who takes on any bet they see valuable, intervene and fight win their way to the top while dealing with competing war clans. I imagine such arrangements can be made where a netting clan can sponsor a war clan with a boatload of funds in hopes it'll lead to mutual beneficial outcome.

How would you or anyone here address the above 5 problems?

Difficult to address, I like what you consider riskier gameplay, this was the norm with Theo techers a long time ago.

Maybe if war were completely nerfed and rewritten, perhaps by removing the ability to kill a country, and instead having the result be that you could take it's land and resources instead. Removing the attack concept and make it a campaign that happened over a long enough time to have economic warfare with counter play.

Get rid of clan gdi and make bots retal.

I vote on fixing Clan GDI not removing it.

Also regarding the war aspect of the game, I do feel it would be interesting if there was some sort of cap on hits per time. Like max 1 hit every 5 seconds on a country. if say 200 hits for a kill it would take 200 x 5 seconds to kill a country. That would give players a chance to get online and stonewall. These 10 second kills are just insane, its almost impossible for most of us to get online and stonewall. Have not thought this idea through but I think those of us who like the game to be more casual would enjoy a war more if you have 10-15 minutes to stonewall instead of 10-15 seconds.