Jump to content
Domination: Earth

Timed "Underground" Mode as an Alternative to Invisibility after War


URAS

Recommended Posts

The ability to "disappear" off the map for one other player/enemy by surrendering and never proposing a truce is a somewhat frustrating mechanic. It seems at times counter to the very idea of an augmented-reality-domination-war-strategy game. Domination and strategy mean nothing when an enemy can remain a threat to your allies by making himself invisible to you, at no cost, with no time limit.

As an alternative to this mechanic, I would like to propose a time-limited, resource-intensive, binary option for a player to be in-game (and able to attack or be attacked) or out-of-game. For simplicity, let's call being out-of-game "Going Underground," to describe when a player is unable to attack or be attacked, but still able to grow flags/bases. Going underground should have a cost: limiting resource production throughout and costing resources upfront, else it provides too much of an advantage. The cost and resource penalty should also scale with base level, to provide some measure of protection to new players and to prevent exploitation by established players.

When "underground," a player can gather his forces and resources unseen but cannot interract with any other players. He should still be able to see all players "above ground." Meanwhile, "above ground" players cannot see the underground players' forces until some number of days before he returns to the battlefield. Longer periods underground should result in longer periods of visibility prior to being able to interact with the active "above ground" players. The price of going underground should be significant unless following a defeat and surrender, with price dependent on resources and troops lost (i.e. more losses = cheaper transition to underground).

This change would:

-disincentivize resource-free surrendering for strategic advantage.

-prevent players from permanently removing themselves from the battlefield for only select players/enemies.

-still protect new, developing players from established "bully" bases by providing a safe-haven in which to grow.

-allow teams of small players to effectively counter established "bully" players by preventing strategic surrendering.

Ultimately, this change would likely keep all players more engaged and satisfied. Currently, the game has a tendency to unravel after a war, becoming far less interesting when an enemy disappears by surrending at no cost to his strategic or financial position. And the game then becomes frustrating when your invisible enemy destroys your allies as you are forced to watch, unable to assist. Then the game loses all integrity when the enemy offers you a truce and you are actually tempted to accept, just to see him again, just for the chance of revenge. But of course when you attack, if he is in any way disadvantaged, he need only surrender, and repeat. I feel like this may be the game's greatest hurdle and limitation at the moment, and I look forward to Mr. D's solution. Hopefully this discussion can help guide the change. What do you think?

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I like the theme if this idea but I'm going to suggest a few things... (Oooh bullet points) and in all reality, I think your idea is really pretty solid as a basic foundation and we can build from there. Here are a few changes I think we need (either to your idea or just in general that are similar to yours) 
- After a player loses a war (the seven-day war) they are automatically placed in the Underground at no fee.
- All players spawn with this and keep it till level ten and can pay a fee every time they level up after that so that it encourages them to exit the Underground (more on the fee later)
 -I disagree passionately that players should be able to see outside off Underground, in a kind of “one-way mirror”, I think this builds a lurking mode that could actually be abused even easier than the current (admittedly broken) system to abuse. If you're in underground you can't see out, they can't see in. or visa Versa idc I just don't want an easy abuse.
-  I think that the Underground system should be automatic and free up to level 10, after that you pay a certain fee to maintain it. (say 100,100,1000) and it increases by 50% each level (so that level fourteen maintaining it would be 337, 337, 3375) so that by level 14-15 it is unaffordable and they are forced to come out of it. A simple msg like “As long as you have Underground Mode you can't see other players and they can't see you, deactivate it so that you can join Alliances, trade lands, and battle foes for Points of Fame!” would suffice as a warning if you ask me and it will explain to why users can't see others. I think though that under level 10 players should be totally allowed to see out of their base and see other players so that people don't quit and cause ‘“Nobody plays around me… your game sucks” Syndrome’.  
 
- Also, I suggest that the time off or Underground feature be time-limited. Not just like you can only do a max of 1 month, but if you choose 1 month you don't get to come out of it until you're 1 month in. So, for example, you could choose an option like 1 month but during that time you suddenly decide that you want to attack Mr. Grayhound98 you can't … not till you have done the time you agreed too.
 - A cooldown is probably a need too but I suspect others will better be able to flesh that one out for the group.
- Also, I think it would be nice to have push notifications when a player exits Underground in your area. That way if they are a big angry player you know to be up till 2 am prepping for the stealth attack. Just an idea.
 - I think a payment system like a few days could just be a flat X amount but I think that if you want to toggle longterm it would make sense if it was a huge X fee and then a % of collected rss. And I think that we need an Underground that can be activated with U$ and that last a flat seven days… basically a vaca mode but no rss cost. By using U$ it would make it accessible to other players… a bit p2w but frankly this fine devs gotta eat.
I will wait for the hate to come pouring in, (it will probably happen tbh but we can always hope for a peaceful talk) but this is where I will leave this and get ready for my rebuttal of others arguments. GG and GL to all ;)
In all reality thank you for reading my lengthy post. And thanks for your time, Dan.
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

And since I spent way too much of my initial post made it sound like I don't love the idea I'm here with a second one.
This idea is beyond solid, I really think this should be considered for one of the coming Summer updates... it really seems to me that the game is scaling and I think that the only thing I would love to see more than fixed combat is a chat. we have been told no on the chat so i think this is the best thing we cant get right now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree with your suggested change: protected ("underground") players should not be able to see active unprotected players.

Considering players < level 10, the inability to enter PvP combat below level 10 made the early game terribly dull as is. To keep new players engaged, they need to be able to exit the "underground" and fight when they so desire. I agree price to enter or reenter the underground should scale with level.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, URAS said:

I agree with your suggested change: protected ("underground") players should not be able to see active unprotected players.

Considering players < level 10, the inability to enter PvP combat below level 10 made the early game terribly dull as is. To keep new players engaged, they need to be able to exit the "underground" and fight when they so desire. I agree price to enter or reenter the underground should scale with level.

100/100

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So how does this affect the flag building system?

If I'm not mistaken when someone builds a flag in or next to your territory, it's supposed to negatively affect you. Immediately.

A truce should act like a nap, either timed or there can penalties for breaking it; and surrendering should cost more then your dignity.. Your paying someone to stop beating you. Although really I almost think there should only be one or the other.

I'm not going to go much farther than this because I'm not personally familiar with these mechanics, but most importantly I Do think there shouldn't be Anything Anywhere that makes Any player disappear for Any reason.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Right, where do I begin!

I appreciate all of your input, but I can't help but feel that you're trying to resolve one isolated scenario without considering a bunch of potential side-effects.
As far as I understand, this whole idea arose as a result of a war in which a number of high-level players are unable to defeat another player who is abusing the surrender mechanics to fight each of those players selectively.

First of all, I have to agree that I'm not entirely happy about the surrender mechanics used that way and it is very likely that I'll be addressing this scenario in one of the alliance updates. But!

Please remember that "Domination: Earth" is not "Monopoly" in which to win you have to make all other participants lose all that they've got.
This is not a PvP arena and there are other ways of dominating the world (primarily via travel, i.e. establishing more bases, accumulating more lands & resources and having circles of your colour cover the globe :)), which means that if a player doesn't want to fight anymore or engage in PvP at all there has to be a way for them to do that and still continue enjoying the game.
I know this is not "realistic", but consider this whole situation from a "business" perspective: if players are getting wiped out *and* penalized for trying to avoid combat (paying for any kind of "underground" mode) they'll quit.
I've lost a number of devoted fans who ended up next to a "persistent" neighbour with enough patience to destroy/capture all of their lands in the region by attacking almost 24 hours every day. I spoke to a couple of them personally and know that they loved the game for its motivation to cycle and/or hike, not because of the combat aspects (which they didn't care about at all).
So my goal is to accommodate both types of players and provide them with an option to not engage in PvP if they desire to do so.

Finally, I'd prefer not to postpone other developments (there are some really exciting features in my list, some of them are planned for June!) in order to implement a really complex system of "paid disappearances" that only helps in one potential war scenario. :)

To sum things up: I hear what you're saying and I will have a think about ways of preventing the "Surrender" abuse (I do hate it whenever anything in the game gets abused) via new features.
But it is unlikely that there will be penalties or restrictions for anyone who wishes to escape PvP with a particular player at any point (as if they can't do that using in-game means they'll do it via "Uninstall" ;)).

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry that I don't make up another thread for this but I see it a little bit as a collection of ideas and impressions by now.

I always try to solve things peacefully but being very consequent on the other side if being attacked by another player. But sometimes people think it is a good idea to attack me which they (I hope so) immediately regret. I like to trade and keep other players within the game supporting them with resources and accumulating lands in a peaceful way.

If I was under attack during the "old" war system, I could put the attacker back in his place but later on make him new fair offers for some of his lands to show that I like to proceed things peacefully. This worked well. Sometimes it was necessary to let a little grass grow over the matter (hope this idiom does also exist in English) but afterwards the most players liked to proceed in a peaceful coexistence.
If I am under attack since the "new" war system, I would for sure be consequent as before but this will result in the attacking player just waiting the seven days and then stay away from me for the rest of eternity. Then I will be very sad not seeing another active player in my range and having no option to gain lands from him peacefully and support him with resources. So what do I do? I tend to conquer more lands of the attacker since I am afraid of never having the chance again to gain them in any way. I also make fair offers during this time resulting in the other player to have to choose between me just conquering his land or trading it to me for a fair price. I also don't attack larger lands and usually stick to level 1 lands to not take away to much of motivation from the attacker.

But at the end of the day I see the "new" war system has made me more aggressive and took me some chances to trade and have a peaceful coexistence after a war. Maybe not everyone will understand my point but it's really hard for me to handle such situations now. Lastly, I still think the "new" war system is better than the "old" one considering that it protects player who start in well populated areas or are "bullied" in any way.

 

Edited by Ruvox
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Ruvox, I'm guessing that's where the Truce comes in play..? If someone attacked you and fleed, you can act less aggressive and offer the Truce once the war has ended. You'll see that person again, won't be able to attack for a week or so and will be able to trade. Obviously, you can attack later but next time s/he might not accept the Truce 😊

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The point is that after being consequent when being attacked the least players would ever accept or offer a truce... Not even once.
After a war trade and PvP are bove no longer possible which is I think the main point I dislike about the current mechanics.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As I said earlier today on Discord, while I think that some changes are needed, I'd rather disagree with the idea described in the initial post here, for the following reasons:

  • The existing Disappearance feature addresses two loosely connected, but otherwise separate issues:
    • the problem of high-level players bullying lower-level players, and thus a solution for latter to withdraw from conflict;
    • the problem of land congestion in city areas, ie. when lands of one player cover an area wide enough to prevent other players for playing effectively.
  • The Underground scheme proposed above keeps only the first problem addressed, and it does in fact somewhat lower the guard protecting lower-level players.
  • The Underground scheme disregards the second issue. The players will not be able to expand if another, older player already covered large areas of a given city with his bases.

Also, with the idea there was a rationale provided that I do not think is strong enough to support the case, as explained here:

  • Rationale claims, that current feature, in an existing Menace vs Alliance scenario, allows the Menace to immediately surrender war with higher-level Alliance members (and disappear to them), picking on lower-level members only. This scheme, as suggested in rationale, prevents Alliance members to support each other effectively and allows the Menace to hit the Alliance selectively and safely on it's weak points.
  • This indeed sounds unfair, but in my opinion, only when we forget, that current Disappearance feature is also available to the Alliance members and they too can use it to disappear from the Menace, leaving him thus in solitude and with complete separation from all Alliance members.

The only thing that current mechanism prevents is in fact a chance of retaliation on the Menace.

And it may be seen as a problem, since it allows the Menacing player to perfom "hit and run" attacks without any consequence.

 

To address this problem, I would rather propose a following feature, composed on two simple rules:

  1. Create a player attribute/token I'd now call WARMONGER, that is timed and locks the "surrender" option against ANY player.
  2. When a player attacks any other player that has no WARMONGER token on him, put a 7-day WARMONGER token on the attacking player.

This way, when a player attacks anyone, he or she will be accountable with a possible retaliation in a limited time, while the "surrender" option will still be available to any party or ally.

This could be enough for immediate solution and could be expanded in future eg. to limit the safe retaliation (that does not result in triggering the WARMONGER token on retaliator) to the alliance members only.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Олег Поленин, I think some of your logic is flawed and assumes that early players want to surrender and not have a fighting chance. However I digress. 

I think your idea for a warmonger system is great: if you attack someone, anybody within that bases range can now hit you. This encourages not being hostile and brings a valid use for the current (horrible) Alliance system. I very much like this idea as a solution because it will server as the *perfect* solution to bullying in major cities. That way players can still disappear if they want too, but they can't attack and do it or risk local retaliation. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Republic of America Like I said in Discord, imagine a new L10 player working and/or living on the Long Island NYC. That player, to set new lands or bases, basically cannot play at home and/or work, has to drive far away to set up any base. I understand that such player might want to fight with Dad, but there's no chance for him or her to be powerful enough to fight :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Eerienkah said:

How is the current system horrible? Is it bugged beyond fixing? Is it stealing your money and deposits it on my account?

Basic? Probably. Horrible? I wouldn't go that far...

Horrible might be an exaggeration, but I would not call it anything better than bad. The sharing resources is buggy and strange, you can do exactly zero things for your ally military-wise, you can't chat, send rss or have Alliances greater than 2 players. The alliance is really more of a non-aggression pact. 

To be clear, I'm not saying the alliance system is totally a waste and should be taken behind a barn and shot, I'm just saying as the games grown up so have features and alliances seem to have been left behind. I'm very excited for the next Alliance update hoping that it will change the system drastically. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's not buggy, it was created having people you travel with in mind.

Like if I play with my sister and she's always with me, collecting resources just for myself while she just stands there watching even sounds unfair, right? 😊

And I don't need a chat, because she's there (500m away) and she knows if I'm attacked.

 

Obviously, the game grows and a more advanced alliance system is going to be in place. But that was the idea behind the current one if I remember correctly 😊

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Okay fair enough, that makes sense. I even read to initiatal idea for that and noticed that but I still feel it's a bit... Gimmicky. 

That's one single point though, we desperately need a more robust system for communication and resources sharing. It's nice you and your sis play, but the vast majority of players might have friends siblings and parents who play but they might not be near each other and/or want to send rss to each other. I understand the wanting to prevent "Rich sponsors" carrying plsyers, but that's already possible so can't we just have a streamlined system for alliances? 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Олег Поленин said:

The Underground scheme disregards the second issue. The players will not be able to expand if another, older player already covered large areas of a given city with his bases

That is precisely what it will address. By being "underground," you can expand without interference. But you are right in that a less robust, "quicker fix" is possible simply by making "invisibility" both time-limited and universal (i.e. not restricted to the one player being warred with).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Republic of America I think we're going a bit off-topic with the alliance system discussion. :)

I believe I've promised in a couple of other threads to implement a "chat-less" communications system (i.e. ability to chat using predefined messages like "please talk to me in discord" that will be automatically translated into your language), as well as a more traditional MMO-style "guild" model.

Unfortunately though, I really have too few hours in a day, which is why these things aren't done yet (not because I disagree with you). :)

So let's keep this thread related to war issues. ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Олег Поленин said:

leaving him thus in solitude and with complete separation from all Alliance members.

True, the weaker players also have this at their disposal, but what is the result? All players invisible to each other. The game, sparsely populated as is, becomes even less interesting and lonely after an inconclusive and unsatisfying "war." Still, yours is a welcomed perspective as I inadequately considered the weaker players in the above discussion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Олег Поленин said:
  • Create a player attribute/token I'd now call WARMONGER, that is timed and locks the "surrender" option against ANY player.
  • When a player attacks any other player that has no WARMONGER token on him, put a 7-day WARMONGER token on the attacking player

This is interesting, but it won't protect low level players while still allowing them to engage in wars. I agree that a "no surrender" penalty like this on the big bully bases (like mine, I suppose) is an excellent idea.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, Mr. D said:

So my goal is to accommodate both types of players and provide them with an option to not engage in PvP if they desire to do so

I see your dilemma. Catering to less competitive fans intent on exploration in an environment that allows combat makes for a very delicate balance. It makes me wonder if the game's identity and essence are still works in progress, yet to be fully determined. Perhaps these exploratory players can be offered a "Zen Mode" without combat or trades? The idea seems at odds with a game allowing nuclear silos and armies, but surely there is a better solution than "Tap this Button and Never Fight or See This Enemy Again?" Because that mechanic can be abused by the players at war.

Edited by URAS
Link to comment
Share on other sites

37 minutes ago, URAS said:

I see your dilemma. Catering to less competitive fans intent on exploration in an environment that allows combat makes for a very delicate balance. It makes me wonder if the game's identity and essence are still works in progress, yet to be fully determined. Perhaps these exploratory players can be offered a "Zen Mode" without combat or trades? The idea seems at odds with a game allowing nuclear silos and armies, but surely there is a better solution than "Tap this Button and Never Fight or See This Enemy Again?" Because that mechanic can be abused by the players at war.

There's still the Ai, which is always a fair fight, playing only when you are active (unlike some overly active players), so disabling combat altogether wouldn't be right (nor interesting). :)

The game's possibilities change with all the new features, but identity remains the same; travel & world exploration will always continue to be a number 1 priority, while pvp is a fun extra. But of course, both sides continue to be improved.

Back to the original subject: from what I heard so far I get the impression that your current war problem can either be solved by a penalty/restriction on surrendering that applies *only* to the attacking party (i.e. whoever started the conflict) or by synchronizing it with the (new) alliance system, e.g. so that the war actions such as Surrender applied to a group of players at once (i.e. either the entire alliance surrenders or it wins).

Accordingly, surrendering to an alliance would be a much more significant defeat (and there will be a leaderboard of losses :)). But of course, this does require more thought and balancing not to create issues for "new" players being bullied by an alliance.

There is very little benefit to making invisibility temporary as that essentially forces a player into a potentially unwanted pvp again (which is what I'm trying to avoid), while the truce system allows for some flexibility in your decisions.

As for the game population, I wouldn't consider this in any core game mechanics as it's only temporary; we are still growing globally. ;)

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...