Glock Talk

Glock Talk (http://glocktalk.com/forums/index.php)
-   GTArmY - Join The Fight! (http://glocktalk.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=218)
-   -   Feature Suggestions (http://glocktalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=929863)

Eric 09-28-2008 17:25

Feature Suggestions
 
I will be relying heavily on the suggestions of people more familiar with games like this than I am, for ideas about the bells and whistles this game should have. Let's hear what you've got. Eric

bchandler 09-28-2008 17:48

Some cool ideas
 
Following are some cool ideas I think would be great to see implemented. I know you didn't write the program and have bigger stuff on your plate, Eric, so take these suggestions with a grain of salt :)

1) I think factions would be cool. That way instead of the random posts about "click me!" (I am guilty myself), a player would have to choose a faction. Players within the faction couldn't attack each other, and would reside at a communal "base," which another faction would have to pool together to attack. If the defending faction lost, an equal amount of gold would be taken from each player's purse. Also, players would have to contribute equally (monetarily) to building the defense wall (it would have to be super expensive to upgrade, getting more expensive as more and more players join each faction, since you have to fence in more "land")

Also, each member in the faction would gain like .1 soldiers a day from EACH member of the faction. This fraction of a soldier idea would keep people's armies from getting out of hand when there are a lot of people in a faction.

2) The previous idea would take away a lot of individuality from the game, and there would be "slackers" in each faction taking up room, so an alternative idea would be to have "guilds", kind of like what we're doing now petitioning for clicks. People in the guilds could not attack each other, and would gain soldiers every day from the members in the guild, but there would be no community fortress or group raids. That way people maintain their own fortress and soldiers individually.

3) A large middle earth style map showing each player's (or faction's, depending on which way you want to go, Eric) land, the size of which depends on their troop numbers. This would basically be a graphical interpretation of the "player list" screen.

4) options to trade troops for cavalry, monsters, dragons, special characters, etc. You can keep it more realistic or more fantastic, doesn't really matter to me.

5)Damage to the troops/equipment when they attack. This may discourage people from attacking willy-nilly. They'd have more damage if they lost, but still some damage from use if they win. You could also incorporate troop deaths. It would cost gold to repair your equipment.

6)Damage to the perimeter wall. More damage if you lose an attack. The expensive walls would take less damage, but be more costly to repair.

I have a million more ideas, but the ones posted are already making it look like a full blown Civilization style video game. Let me know what is realistic, Eric :)

bchandler 09-28-2008 18:02

Eric or Malkuth, could you merge this with the suggestions thread to keep the forum clean?

Malkuth 09-28-2008 18:04

Yup, thats a big list. I know eric wants the most of this game but I think it will always be Text Based for now. But Alliances are a necessity for sure.

And adding more weapons, weapon types etc sound like a good idea. We also need a source of income.. Daily income based off some modifier like Civilians.

The way the armies are joined now should be changed to purchasing new soldiers.. Maybe having some sort of Civilian base that you can have a tax code on.

Instead of joining someones army like you do now, which just gives the Person you joined 1 more Soldier. That needs to be changed to a Alliance where the modifiers of both countries or all are added to a pool and protects everyone.

Eric 09-28-2008 18:11

Quote:

Originally Posted by Malkuth (Post 11365991)
Yup, thats a big list. I know eric wants the most of this game but I think it will always be Text Based for now. But Alliances are a necessity for sure.

And adding more weapons, weapon types etc sound like a good idea. We also need a source of income.. Daily income based off some modifier like Civilians.

The way the armies are joined now should be changed to purchasing new soldiers.. Maybe having some sort of Civilian base that you can have a tax code on.

Instead of joining someones army like you do now, which just gives the Person you joined 1 more Soldier. That needs to be changed to a Alliance where the modifiers of both countries or all are added to a pool and protects everyone.

Yeah, programming interactive visuals would be beyond my capabilities and would consume a ton of bandwidth and server power. The game will need to be text-based, although we will no doubt be able to work in some fairly high-tech bells and/or whistles, down the road. Eric

deadday 09-28-2008 18:11

Not to familiar with the formate, but will gladly lend a hand running things/keeping track of thigns if it's needed...



drew

bchandler 09-28-2008 18:12

Staying with the medieval theme, I think we should do away with the massive defense upgrade (wooden fence, brick wall, etc). Instead, players should have a selection of upgrade options, like tar buckets, wood spikes, moats, archers, etc, to add to their castle. So a player could have like 100 wood spikes, 5 tar buckets, and 3 archers on their castle for defense. Once you have a certain defense rating, you would have to pay for a massive upgrade to allow you to add more stuff to your castle. So the current "wooden fence" defense rating would allow a player like 1000 defense points, and when those are filled, he would have to pay 5000 gold or so to go to "castle level 2", where he could add another 3000 defense points. Also, each "castle defense level" could unlock additional and ever-cooler defense add-ons (chained dragons, rabid dogs, trolls, etc)

bchandler 09-28-2008 18:17

Quote:

Originally Posted by Malkuth (Post 11365991)
Yup, thats a big list. I know eric wants the most of this game but I think it will always be Text Based for now. But Alliances are a necessity for sure.

And adding more weapons, weapon types etc sound like a good idea. We also need a source of income.. Daily income based off some modifier like Civilians.

The way the armies are joined now should be changed to purchasing new soldiers.. Maybe having some sort of Civilian base that you can have a tax code on.

Instead of joining someones army like you do now, which just gives the Person you joined 1 more Soldier. That needs to be changed to a Alliance where the modifiers of both countries or all are added to a pool and protects everyone.

Ah, ok, now I know along which lines to think :)

Buying soldiers sounds like a good idea. I could see it working if you get civilians from your allies, instead of soldiers, and they are all taxed at a fixed rate, then you'd use that money to buy troops.

Or, you could train your available civilians as troops, at the cost of losing tax income.

You could invest in your civilian population (churches, farming equipment, etc), to get more tax income.

Malkuth 09-28-2008 18:18

Quote:

Originally Posted by bchandler (Post 11366066)
Staying with the medieval theme, I think we should do away with the massive defense upgrade (wooden fence, brick wall, etc). Instead, players should have a selection of upgrade options, like tar buckets, wood spikes, moats, archers, etc, to add to their castle. So a player could have like 100 wood spikes, 5 tar buckets, and 3 archers on their castle for defense. Once you have a certain defense rating, you would have to pay for a massive upgrade to allow you to add more stuff to your castle. So the current "wooden fence" defense rating would allow a player like 1000 defense points, and when those are filled, he would have to pay 5000 gold or so to go to "castle level 2", where he could add another 3000 defense points. Also, each "castle defense level" could unlock additional and ever-cooler defense add-ons (chained dragons, rabid dogs, trolls, etc)


Well I think how the game works is its just a Modifier. Ie You buy Stone walls defenses go up 3%. Etc. So in a way We could always just change the names and make them sound more interesting.

And keeping the game in its current them might be an option, but I think Eric was looking to make it more themed off Glock Talk IE Glock guns.. But this is all ideas you guys can discuss and come up with. Name changes in game are real easy right now to do.

bchandler 09-28-2008 18:31

Quote:

Originally Posted by Malkuth (Post 11366115)
Well I think how the game works is its just a Modifier. Ie You buy Stone walls defenses go up 3%. Etc. So in a way We could always just change the names and make them sound more interesting.

Yup, so something cheap like a wood spike would raise your total defense points a tiny fraction of a point (.001 or so), while something expensive like a moat could raise defense maybe a whole percentage point or more.

Jav21 09-28-2008 18:32

Quote:

Originally Posted by Malkuth (Post 11366115)
make it more themed off Glock Talk IE Glock guns.. But this is all ideas you guys can discuss and come up with. Name

In this way we can end the caliber debate and give the 9mm the most devastating attack.

I am offended that the G21 has the highest attack right now.

Edit - J/K but not really I mean... you know. :)

Eric 09-28-2008 18:37

One of the things the original developer had planned to do was to add a feature to allow members to convert soldiers to gold miners. The gold miners would obviously bring in gold, but they could not attack or defend and they would have to be protected. I like this idea and think it should be expanded. Maybe there should be other key non-soldiers as well, like armorers, builders, medicos, ETC. This sort of thing could add more of a strategic dimension to the game. What do you think? Eric

Eric 09-28-2008 18:39

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jav21 (Post 11366214)
In this way we can end the caliber debate and give the 9mm the most devastating attack.

I am offended that the G21 has the highest attack right now.

Edit - J/K but not really I mean... you know. :)

I believe I already ended that debate. The G-21 is king.:supergrin:

What if there were one or two really powerful weapons, that could not be bought, but only possessed and used? The team that owned them would have a decisive advantage, but the weapons could be taken from them by an attacker?

Malkuth 09-28-2008 18:44

Quote:

Originally Posted by Eric (Post 11366265)
One of the things the original developer had planned to do was to add a feature to allow members to convert soldiers to gold miners. The gold miners would obviously bring in gold, but they could not attack or defend and they would have to be protected. I like this idea and think it should be expanded. Maybe there should be other key non-soldiers as well, like armorers, builders, medicos, ETC. This sort of thing could add more of a strategic dimension to the game. What do you think? Eric

Yes eric maybe we should look at that list again.. Because he had some good changes that he was going to add. And we do need a daily income. Because right now we rely on newbies coming in for more money.. That means the higher players hold all the money.

Eric 09-28-2008 18:51

Quote:

Originally Posted by Malkuth (Post 11366327)
Yes eric maybe we should look at that list again.. Because he had some good changes that he was going to add. And we do need a daily income. Because right now we rely on newbies coming in for more money.. That means the higher players hold all the money.

I posted all of his proposed and recently added features in the closed features thread.

c-mama 09-28-2008 19:39

How about if it costs to attack and lose?

Say Smith attacks me but is unsuccessful. It should cost him x amount of gold into my account.

kazecap0ne 09-28-2008 19:41

the only thing i can think of that i would like to see is some way to know who has clicked my link today so i can click back on them.

edit: if someone already said this then my bad...i'm tired lol

Eric 09-28-2008 19:42

Quote:

Originally Posted by c-mama (Post 11366753)
How about if it costs to attack and lose?

Say Smith attacks me but is unsuccessful. It should cost him x amount of gold into my account.

The game already does that, I believe. I saw something in the program that computed casualties and gold cost for winners and losers. Eric

Malkuth 09-28-2008 19:44

Quote:

Originally Posted by Eric (Post 11366775)
The game already does that, I believe. I saw something in the program that computed casualties and gold cost for winners and losers. Eric

Yeah it might not work though. Have not seen anyone with less the 10 soldiers yet.

Also if we do an ability to Buy soldiers then they almost certainly need to loose them in attacks too.

c-mama 09-28-2008 19:45

Quote:

Originally Posted by Eric (Post 11366775)
The game already does that, I believe. I saw something in the program that computed casualties and gold cost for winners and losers. Eric

Ah, that might explain why my gold amount increased at times. I just am unable to see it in my defense log.


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 20:25.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Copyright 2013, Glock Talk, All Rights Reserved.