EGGWARS TEAM ALLIANCES Concept Thread 2.0 (stop avoiding this thread please, management/staff)

[FartiliciousMaleGuy]

i cannot entr fartilicousManchilds profile is he banned?? This happens with some other people too some times with me some times..What gives?

Yes, i got banned for 3 days due to 'swearing' before. I'm back now though. I think you're right btw, i can't see some other (presumably banned) people's profile aswell, so you might be on to something, i'm not certain though.

eWho is Marieke people talk about?

Not the right thread to ask about that, go check the numerous threads that discuss this.

I mean what about FartiliciousManChild?

( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°) Who knows right.



But no. I didn't leak s***

 

[FartiliciousMaleGuy]

"I don't want anything new but the concept seems good!"
@SavageNolle ^^^ Just a kind reminder.

@shyry123 Reasonining for your disliking? Be it a personal thing or a thing about the concept, either one of them would be nice to hear.


Now back to the discussion.

1. The different shops for islands. First the different prices for items. Hmm, I feel neutral about this, as said before I hate difference in starting islands, etc. but if you keep the difference small, it's actually worth considering. I would say a cheaper item would always be in balance with a more expensive items, so for example: Cheaper blocks against more expensive food and the other way around, cheaper weapons against more expensive armor. I also would like to see that it only applies to the starting items (blocks, food, leather armor, wood/stone weapons). For more expensive, late game stuff it can start to make a big difference, especially if you just run from island to island buying the cheap stuff (assuming everyone can use the villager to get their cheap item).
Players should know their cheap islands from the start (when selecting a team), so they can use these things in their strategy.
If this get's added, I would like to see the focus lie on the starting items.
You also mentioned special buffs for islands, like Sharpness I weapons and active effects. I am against this, just with the reason that the difference will be too big between you and others who get other stuff.

Will definitely update this a bit, it isn't the most thought out thing (although i swear the elaboration used to be bigger than it is now...Odd) on the list of potential additional ideas (this was made back at the time where i gave most focus to the mainconcept itself, not really giving too much importance to the additional ideas yet) and hasn't been updated by me for a long time. Things i have in mind for changes are probably going to be some things you mentioned. In terms of price changes i would only let that affect things like blocks, food, leather amor and wooden+stone swords, perhaps bows too. [Enter]


As for the sharpness 1 on weapons, i think i would keep it to wooden and stone swords and give you the option to buy one instead of always having it on a wooden/stone sword. So how this would look like in the villagershop is like this (with islands that have a weapon buff):

5 iron - wooden sword.

10 iron wooden sword (sharpness 1).

32 iron - stone sword.

40 iron - stone sword (sharpness 1).

Other scenario if we were to combine a lower item price for weapons and a buff it would be something like this:

4 iron - wooden sword.

8 iron wooden sword (sharpness 1).

30 iron - stone sword.

38 iron - stone sword (sharpness 1).


Now next up is the haste. I would also change this to this: instead of it being a permanent effect, you can buy a haste potion from the shopkeeper for 5 gold.


The fourth island buff would be an armor buff. You would be able to either buy yourself a normal unenchanted leather set (1 iron per piece) or you could buy yourself enchanted protection 1 leather armor for 2 iron per piece.

the fifth island buff would be the archery island buff, where your normal price for a bow is 3 diamonds cheaper than it would normally be (so a normal bow that would normally be around let's say 25 diamonds would now be 22 diamonds. A power 1 bow that would normally be 35 diamonds would now be 32 diamonds. A punch 1 bow, which would normally be 48 diamonds, would for them be just 45 diamonds), another thing that would be made cheaper would be arrows, which from 5 gold for 10 arrows, would now be 3 gold for 10 arrows.

Now, lastly, the last island buff, would be the builder and food buff. 1 iron would give you 3 building blocks as a standard price. All foods (aside from gapples) would be 1 iron cheaper as its standard price. And lastly, golden apples have a standard price with a discount option. Gapples would still be 2 gold per gapple; however, there would also be the option to buy 6 gapples for 10gold. Supermarket tactics lol, get more for a cheaper price haha (1 free gapple!), well that’s this too. Perhaps Notch apples would also be less pricey and become 30 diamonds instead of 32 as a standard price.

Players should know their cheap islands from the start (when selecting a team), so they can use these things in their strategy.

I’m not sure how to exactly handle this, i’m not too sure about having to know from the start what island buff you’re gonna get; i mean you could also figure out a strategy mid game so i don’t think it’s necessary to make it known beforehand. Oeh! I just got an idea! How about this, we make the island buff a votable thing for the ranked players. They can vote the items for all the items for everyone on the map like OP, Normal and Hardcore. But now the ranked folks will also be able to vote for something else! And that would be their island buff! This vote would of course only affect the buff for the island that the ranked voter would be placed in. For other islands/teams who don’t have anyone that can vote something for them, they will simply have randomised island buffs; but only an island buff that hasn’t been voted for by someone else on the alliance on a different team. Each island buff can only appear once in an alliance, no more. So having your whole alliance have the weapon island buff would be impossible.

I'll also make clear in the additional idea that only people from the island with the buff have the ability to buy either these lil extra's or buy things at a lower normal price (instead of just everyone, so no, you wouldn't be able to just hop from island to island like you mentioned to get your item cheaper or to get that stone sharp 1 sword, it would have to be given to you by someone else if you aren't part of the island that has this naturally installed).

2. The remaining teams in an alliance fight in a deathmatch. I don't like this idea at all, it would block teamwork from the start: Why would you save a teammate in an obviously won game if you have to fight them after? It can also be unfair: one of the teams in 1 alliance did all the work and then loses against their 'allied' team who did nothing in the game except camp. I feel like these games can already last way too long if alliances work together. Adding this would really make them too long in my opinion. I just generally feel like, if one alliance wins, they all deserve a win.

You should probably check the elaboration on that deatmatch thing. You're not the first one to come up with those statements and ideas about it.

4. Unique, uneven maps and teams. As said before, I have an extremely strong dislike for everything that messes up the equality in Eggwars. It's one of the few games that's still almost perfectly balanced, and I prefer it that way. Personal

I mean it would be balanced through the means of map advantages (less efficient/less generators close to their island at mid) and better starting gens (the starting gens thing has to be updated by me at this point, will do soon) for teams that are lower in playercount to the rest, while the bigger alliances compared to the rest would be given disadvantages in regards to the map and perhaps disadvantages in starting gens too if needed. But yea you're right, it isn't really 'equal' you could say. But i like that. Each their own personal preference amirite.

5. Greek letters. YES!! As Greek/Latin nerd I love this :p Add this it's amazing. Kappa :)

I'm glad you liked those, you can thank @Younisco for that, i'm pretty sure he was the one that gave me the idea for Greek letters (i've btw also credited everyone who has had help in either fixing a possible problem or coming up with an additional idea in the elaborations/fixes)

6. Teamwork. About the alliance chat, yes I definitely think there should be an alliance chat. But is there a need for a team chat? I don't really see the point of that, maybe just make one alliance chat and give player name a way to distinguish which team they belong to.
Just a really short conclusion of your idea: Make items more expensive when teams die. I am against this, because the alliance with less team already is in a huge disadvantage (less players), there isn't another factor needed to motivate people to keep their teammates alive.
Same thing about the buffs if you keep teams alive, not really needed in my opinion.

I hope I am not too critical for your ideas. I feel like, the more I think about it, the more I start to feel like this would actually be a good addition to eggwars, IF:
- Solo eggwars (my favourite thing on cubecraft) doesn't lose too much players
- There isn't a huge difference from the start on.

I hope I am not too critical for your ideas.

I don't mind this at all, actually now i think about it, i encourage it (unless it gets to the point of it being stupid).

You might have a point there; just having an alliance chat in which each players belonging team is showcased clearly could also already suffice, would eliminate the need to switch from chat. Then again it might be advantagous to be able to talk in just normal team chat aswell, because first off, it could prevent a messy chat with lots of people speaking, and secondly, reduce the chances of any messages, directed at just your teammates instead of the whole alliance, being swallowed by the chat and becoming unretrievable when scrolling up due to all the messages that have come after it (in case you're in an alliance with many (vocal) players).

So in conclusion: not sure. I think that if i'd have to decide i would probably keep both team chat and alliance chat in (with alliance chat as default) also for the sake of 'chat-consistency' when compared to Normal Eggwars and Speed Eggwars, i mean we're so used to having a team chat and global chat (and possibly party chat), it might therefore be easier to adjust to. But like i said before, i'm not sure exactly on what would be best, cause on the other hand, just the thought of being in a party playing this could also become a bit hectic if you were to use party chat aswell; cause that would mean that there would be: Party chat, team chat, alliance chat and global chat. Maybe people would get used to this though, so still, idk.

- Solo eggwars (my favourite thing on cubecraft) doesn't lose too much players

I can't guarantee you that unfortunately.

- There isn't a huge difference from the start on.

In what way do you mean? You mean as in the way we discussed before? The different amount of players per alliance thing?

 

[Shallidor]

Will definitely update this a bit, it isn't the most thought out thing (although i swear the elaboration used to be bigger than it is now...Odd) on the list of potential additional ideas (this was made back at the time where i gave most focus to the mainconcept itself, not really giving too much importance to the additional ideas yet) and hasn't been updated by me for a long time. Things i have in mind for changes are probably going to be some things you mentioned. In terms of price changes i would only let that affect things like blocks, food, leather amor and wooden+stone swords, perhaps bows too. [Enter]


As for the sharpness 1 on weapons, i think i would keep it to wooden and stone swords and give you the option to buy one instead of always having it on a wooden/stone sword. So how this would look like in the villagershop is like this (with islands that have a weapon buff):

5 iron - wooden sword.

10 iron wooden sword (sharpness 1).

32 iron - stone sword.

40 iron - stone sword (sharpness 1).

Other scenario if we were to combine a lower item price for weapons and a buff it would be something like this:

4 iron - wooden sword.

8 iron wooden sword (sharpness 1).

30 iron - stone sword.

38 iron - stone sword (sharpness 1).


Now next up is the haste. I would also change this to this: instead of it being a permanent effect, you can buy a haste potion from the shopkeeper for 5 gold.


The fourth island buff would be an armor buff. You would be able to either buy yourself a normal unenchanted leather set (1 iron per piece) or you could buy yourself enchanted protection 1 leather armor for 2 iron per piece.

the fifth island buff would be the archery island buff, where your normal price for a bow is 3 diamonds cheaper than it would normally be (so a normal bow that would normally be around let's say 25 diamonds would now be 22 diamonds. A power 1 bow that would normally be 35 diamonds would now be 32 diamonds. A punch 1 bow, which would normally be 48 diamonds, would for them be just 45 diamonds), another thing that would be made cheaper would be arrows, which from 5 gold for 10 arrows, would now be 3 gold for 10 arrows.

Now, lastly, the last island buff, would be the builder and food buff. 1 iron would give you 3 building blocks as a standard price. All foods (aside from gapples) would be 1 iron cheaper as its standard price. And lastly, golden apples have a standard price with a discount option. Gapples would still be 2 gold per gapple; however, there would also be the option to buy 6 gapples for 10gold. Supermarket tactics lol, get more for a cheaper price haha (1 free gapple!), well that’s this too. Perhaps Notch apples would also be less pricey and become 30 diamonds instead of 32 as a standard price.

This is unbalanced in my opinion: More dmg vs. Faster mining vs. Better armor vs. CHEAPER archery vs. CHEAPER food/blocks.
The first 3 you mentioned actually have advantages, while the last 2 have the same things but cheaper. I would say they would as a start all get better stuff or cheaper stuff, so you could change the archery to: Better bows (+ 1 lvl power on them), maybe tipped arrows? And the builder/food would give you better blocks.
I do like your supermarket idea lol xD
Anyway I don't really like the sharpness, it's a huge advantage, 1 whole extra point of damage. You could get a sword equivalent to iron for only 38/40 iron tokens (Don't mind the durability). The protection 1 seems balanced. But I still feel like 1 island shouldn't have such an advantage (+1 damage) over others, who might have no battle advantages at all (haste, cheaper items). There are definitly possibilities with this concept though.

I’m not sure how to exactly handle this, i’m not too sure about having to know from the start what island buff you’re gonna get; i mean you could also figure out a strategy mid game so i don’t think it’s necessary to make it known beforehand. Oeh! I just got an idea! How about this, we make the island buff a votable thing for the ranked players. They can vote the items for all the items for everyone on the map like OP, Normal and Hardcore. But now the ranked folks will also be able to vote for something else! And that would be their island buff! This vote would of course only affect the buff for the island that the ranked voter would be placed in. For other islands/teams who don’t have anyone that can vote something for them, they will simply have randomised island buffs; but only an island buff that hasn’t been voted for by someone else on the alliance on a different team. Each island buff can only appear once in an alliance, no more. So having your whole alliance have the weapon island buff would be impossible.

I meant that for example island Dark blue in alliance Kappa always has the cheaper weapons buff, etc. Votable thing? Just like they made No Projectiles in Skywars a votable thing, so you can still play both. Right. Sorry but I disagree with anything votable, just because there is already an oppressive OP/Half culture in some team maps, just because ranks (read: win farming tryhards) will always vote the option where they can win the fastest.

I'll also make clear in the additional idea that only people from the island with the buff have the ability to buy either these lil extra's or buy things at a lower normal price (instead of just everyone, so no, you wouldn't be able to just hop from island to island like you mentioned to get your item cheaper or to get that stone sharp 1 sword, it would have to be given to you by someone else if you aren't part of the island that has this naturally installed).

Fine if the items are balanced.

I mean it would be balanced through the means of map advantages (less efficient/less generators close to their island at mid) and better starting gens (the starting gens thing has to be updated by me at this point, will do soon) for teams that are lower in playercount to the rest, while the bigger alliances compared to the rest would be given disadvantages in regards to the map and perhaps disadvantages in starting gens too if needed. But yea you're right, it isn't really 'equal' you could say. But i like that. Each their own personal preference amirite.

Ya, my own personal preference is as much balance as possible. I guess we won't come to an agreement about this then ;)

I'm glad you liked those, you can thank @Younisco for that, i'm pretty sure he was the one that gave me the idea for Greek letters (i've btw also credited everyone who has had help in either fixing a possible problem or coming up with an additional idea in the elaborations/fixes)

Kappa. :)

I don't mind this at all, actually now i think about it, i encourage it (unless it gets to the point of it being stupid).

You might have a point there; just having an alliance chat in which each players belonging team is showcased clearly could also already suffice, would eliminate the need to switch from chat. Then again it might be advantagous to be able to talk in just normal team chat aswell, because first off, it could prevent a messy chat with lots of people speaking, and secondly, reduce the chances of any messages, directed at just your teammates instead of the whole alliance, being swallowed by the chat and becoming unretrievable when scrolling up due to all the messages that have come after it (in case you're in an alliance with many (vocal) players).

So in conclusion: not sure. I think that if i'd have to decide i would probably keep both team chat and alliance chat in (with alliance chat as default) also for the sake of 'chat-consistency' when compared to Normal Eggwars and Speed Eggwars, i mean we're so used to having a team chat and global chat (and possibly party chat), it might therefore be easier to adjust to. But like i said before, i'm not sure exactly on what would be best, cause on the other hand, just the thought of being in a party playing this could also become a bit hectic if you were to use party chat aswell; cause that would mean that there would be: Party chat, team chat, alliance chat and global chat. Maybe people would get used to this though, so still, idk.

True, both disadvantages and advantages about this. I guess staff can decide about this if they ever notice this thread.

I can't guarantee you that unfortunately.

In what way do you mean? You mean as in the way we discussed before? The different amount of players per alliance thing?

I understand. The first thing is something you can't know. About the second thing, as said before, my personal love for Eggwars is partly because everything is equal and the games aren't in the slighest bit decided by luck/chance/spawning factor :)

I also get the feeling staff is just ignoring this thread. Can't be that it's still not noticed after so much replies and tags.

 

[Shyry]

@shyry123 Reasonining for your disliking? Be it a personal thing or a thing about the concept, either one of them would be nice to hear.

I just don't want to have to rely on teammates so that part of my team would be able to get through, I'd only play this if I had a party big enough to take up the entire allied teams.

 

[FartiliciousMaleGuy]

I just don't want to have to rely on teammates so that part of my team would be able to get through, I'd only play this if I had a party big enough to take up the entire allied teams.

Ah alright. So you're pretty much in the same boat as @CookieBoy368 then, ok, cool. Thanks for the clarification.

 

[Shyry]

Ah alright. So you're pretty much in the same boat as @CookieBoy368 then, ok, cool. Thanks for the clarification.

Okay sorry I didn't clear that up

 

[FartiliciousMaleGuy]

Okay sorry I didn't clear that up

Np, don't have to sorry for it btw haha.

 

[FartiliciousMaleGuy]

@xT_H_1x Reasonining for your disliking? Be it a personal thing or a thing about the concept, either one of them would be nice to hear.

THREAD UPDATE:
Gave a much needed update to the elaboration of the "Each section/island gets their own strengths and/or their own items to purchase, therefore each island could play it in a smart strategic way according to their own strenghts." potential additional idea!

 

[FartiliciousMaleGuy]

@Camezonda @Tacosbefriends @marcoslater @Efcluke94 Can any one of you share their thoughts on this concept (instead of ignoring it) please?

Would be veeerryyy much appreciated by now.

 

[Efcluke94]

@Camezonda @Tacosbefriends @marcoslater @Efcluke94 Can any one of you share their thoughts on this concept (instead of ignoring it) please?

Would be veeerryyy much appreciated by now.

I don't like EggWars or have as an extensive knowledge as other community members which is why I have not replied to it as of yet. If it was a Lucky Islands thread I would share my opinion very quickly since that's my favourite game! However I see you've put a lot of effort into your thread which I appreciate :p The only idea I saw regarding my area (Map design) was this:

"- Have unique uneven maps with unique interesting team designs"

Imagine a map for example having a team design that would look like this:
alliance (1 island(s) - 8 players per island(s)) vs
alliance (2 island(s) - 5 players per island(s)) vs
alliance (3 island(s) - 4 players per island(s)).
Now ofc the teams with the higher island and playercount should be given big disadvantages compared to the teams with a lower island + playercount (which in contrast should be given big advantages). I think something like this could be extremy interesting to play with.

In short.. no. In long.. Every team should have an equal opportunity and the same chance of winning. By giving any team a bias you've just ruined the game entirely. During pre lobby everyone will want to join that specific team, people will leave as soon as the game starts because they didn't get on the OP team. You can't rely on players working together, as an "alliance", and playing exactly how you intend the game to be. Most players are selfish, which is why on Team SkyWars and Team Lucky Islands maps we put more than the average amount of chests/blocks so one player can't get everything.

It would be nice to see EggWars get some unique modes which could be accompanied with unique maps specific to that mode, I feel it would "revitalize it" as you say, however I feel this isn't the mode to do that.

(For future reference, don't bother tagging Marco in game suggestions, he is a 'Systems and Network Engineer' he rarely plays Minecraft).

 

[_The13thDoctor_]

Finalized Eggwars Gamemode variation - Concept Thread 2.0
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Hello people of CubeCraft!​

So listen up. I came up with a concept for a different Gamemode variation for Eggwars that i myself and many others consider to be pretty neat and would definitely consider trying out / playing with. I'll try to explain it clearly (even though it really isn't that complicated, which makes it thus the more great!). The mainconcept contains such a simple tweak, but one that could yet pose to be so effective in making Eggwars more interesting again. It's amazing! I'm sharing this because, firstly, i believe it's about damn time for something new and fresh again, i mean there are more and more people nowadays who claim that Eggwars is getting boring and people seem to be wanting something new

Spoiler: Thread url's for examples

https://www.cubecraft.net/threads/eggwars-is-boring.200654/
https://www.cubecraft.net/threads/sad.201363/
https://www.cubecraft.net/threads/maybe-its-time-for-a-new-eggwars-update.200802/#post-930130
https://www.cubecraft.net/threads/cubecraft-update-to-1-14-3-4-revamps-of-gamemodes.201406/

And secondly, cause this has potential to be something awesome and isn't that hard to implement in the current system of Eggwars Teams (either Normal or Speed, doesn't matter, same for both).

(I do advice you to read the whole thing beforehand, to prevent yourself from looking stupid/silly if you're going to comment on this and show your thoughts/opinions on it)

Let me first start off with the things this concept could offer:​

• Make Eggwars fun again and revitalize it.

• many possibilities regarding team design (making 4 teams each made out of 2 teams / making 3 teams each made out of 3 teams / making 2 teams each made out of 5 teams / making 6 teams each made out of 2 teams. Etc. Etc.). There's also definitely some room for creativity in creating maps for this.

• A nice well overdue, new, fresh air to the current team system that would make for an interesting, fun and dynamic new gamemode played in a different manner (strategic wise for example) compared to Normal Eggwars. Especially with the additional ideas i've been able to add through the feedback i've received.

• Give us more frequent longer, more epic, fun games. Like those long exciting games from back in the days when we were still new to Eggwars. (Remember those days? When this game used to be the sh*t? Those were the glory days)

• Team co-operation would be an interesting aspect and dynamic introduced by this concept, once again, adding to the fun.

• Making Eggwars MORE Eggwars (if you get what i'm saying)

( ) = potential extra's. Not part of the main concept!

• (An interesting and cool final deathmatch between the winning islands of the winning alliance)

• (More added strategic ways of playing the game due to added minor buffs to each island in a team. This should make the game more interesting, fun and dynamic aswell!)

• (Enables to be very creative in gamesetup-design (see additional extra ideas) due to combining multiple team-designs into one map/game. This could be so freaking awesome! The potential! oooh the potential! Can you see it?)

Annoyed by the long list? GOOD. That should already prove how valuable the implementation of this could be regarding the many things this could offer Eggwars.

- - - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- - - - ​

So. Here's the idea:

(Two-word summary: Allied teams)​

NAME (IDEAS): 'Allies' or 'Multiple Egg' / 'Squads' / 'SuperTeams' / 'Mega Teams' / 'alliances' / 'Allywars' / 'Crossteam mode' (just thinking of a cool name now, Staff could perhaps come up with a better more original name if they feel like it).

MAIN CONCEPT: Same setup as with Normal Team Eggwars, only now, individual seperate teams are allied with other teams, but still stay seperate teams each with their own egg and respawn ties to that egg. Seperate teams will be working together. Teams will basically be split into different teams/sections across different islands in a sense (So an alliance, you could call it, consisting out of multiple teams each with their own respective egg). what i mean by that is that for example on the map Teaparty ((8 teams of 5) 5 vs 5 vs 5 vs 5 vs 5 vs 5 vs 5 vs 5 ), you could have '4 teams 2' or '2 teams of 4'. Simple as that.


Now, instead of just combining 2 teams, you could also go a little more crazy and make a team consisting of 3 seperate teams (or more)!, This could work especially well on big maps divided in multiple smaller teams (prefered maps would be: big maps with 9 or 12 seperate teams for making an alliance out of 3 separate teams of course, due to the maths of it) I believe this 'multiple egg' mode would be a great idea for already existing big maps like Teaparty/Mushrooms/Dwarven/Garden/Haunted but would probably work out even better with newly made customized maps designed specifically for this new alliance/team setup.


So to eliminate one whole and complete alliance, you’ll have to take out each seperate island/team (each with their own egg and respawn ties to that egg) consisting out of that alliance to completely eliminate it. Get it? Tip: don't think too complicated about it, cause it's not.


Examples:

Spoiler: Examples

Teaparty: (40players total) (has 8 teams of 5players): 4 teams of 2 teams / 2 teams of 4 teams
Mushrooms: (40players total) (has 8 teams of 5players): 4 teams of 2 teams / 2 teams of 4 teams
Storm: (24players total) (has 12 teams of 2): 6 teams of 2 teams / 3 teams of 4 teams / 2 teams of 6
Pizza: (16players total) (has 8 teams of 2): 4 teams of 2 teams / 2 teams of 4 teams
I'll stop now.

Like i stated before, i do have to say though that for this gamemode to work at its best, we'll need more big maps divided into small teams


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

POSSIBLE PROBLEMS WITH THIS CONCEPT AND FIXES TO THEM:
- Not being able to recognize well who your allies and enemies are

Spoiler: Fix

Fix: Give everyone in one team very similiar colours. Put some kind of scoreboard up that makes it easier to distinguish. Give players a tag above their heads showing the team they belong to. Other fix (credit for this idea to @SpankMeSanta ) could be that you could use things like underlined names, bold names, italic names and a different font family (that's different enough compared to others of course). Another way (credit for this idea to @CommunistCactus ) could be to just make their name bold just like your own team, also put the allied teams in the same chat.

Fixes found along with the help of @SpankMeSanta and @CommunistCactus

- Toxic players breaking egg defenses of other allied islands

Spoiler: Fix

Fix: not found yet. Possible fix could be that only the members of the island of that given egg could break the blocks placed around the egg, not the other islands of the team. Although i think this might cause frustrating situations and inconveniences. Then again, is this really a big deal? They're in Normal Teams and Speed Teams aswell. Besides, how often do you even encounter really toxic players, i personally, not so often. If it is a problem, i think it might just be something that we have to accept, i mean we could also accept it with other games/gamemodes, this should be no exception in that regard. They're unfortunately, part of the game. It would be nothing exclusive to just this gamemode anyway.

You could also report these players if needed.


'Fix' by me @FartiliciousManChild along with assurement from @CommunistCactus

- Grand scale camping

Spoiler: Fix

Fix: No punch bow/very expensive punch bows; diamond gens only at mid/no diamond gens at bases; slightly cheaper enderpearls (48 diamonds or higher for example).

Fix by me @FartiliciousManChild

- False crossteam accusation attempts

Spoiler: Fix

Fix:

• Either have maps specificially made for this gamemode (and therefore revealing the gamemode played
• Have leather armor colours look different compared to normal Eggwars.
• Have the tags i mentioned in 'Not being able to recognize well who your allies and enemies are', something only this gamemode is likely to have. This would also reveal in what gamemode you're playing and prevent people recording you for crossteaming in the wrong gamemode.
• Put something in the scoreboard making clear in what gamemode you're playing; have some signature thing or something exclusive to just that gamemode, making once again, clear in what gamemode you're playing. Anything that will distinct itself from Normal Eggwars in a way should work.
• If more is necessary to convey in what gamemode you're playing, you could always have a message repeat after every 15 minutes or something similiar in chat that clearly says that you are in the given mode that you are currently playing in.
• Basically, make this gamemode recognizable in some ways.

Fix by me @FartiliciousManChild

- The possibility of having to perform a very (too) tough comeback

Spoiler: Fix

Fix: once you've lost 75% of all the players in your alliance, a 'warfare tradesman' will spawn near the normal villagershop at all the islands of your alliance (all players from all alliances can use these too, IF, these players from those different alliances have also lost 75% or more of the players in their alliance), offering you 3 possible one time deals (which means you can only purchase one for the entirety of the game and no more) for a pretty cheap price (5 diamonds for example). You can only choose to purchase one of these 3 offers, you can't buy all 3, so choose wisely.
The deals include:
- a resistance 1 potion (that thing you get from a enchanted golden apple) lasting for 8 minutes
- a strength 1 potion lasting 8 minutes
- a swiftness 1 potion lasting 8 minutes
- a very efficient diamond pickaxe
- a diamond chestplate
- and lastly a stone sword with sharpness V (therefore being the equivalent of a sharpness 1 diamond sword (1 attack damage higher compared to a normal unenchanted diamond sword) but with lower durability (would only apply with normal items! For Overpowered items, if it ever gets added to this gamemode, it would be an iron sword with sharpness IX, which would be the equivalent of a sword with 1 attack damage higher than a diamond sword with sharpness V)

Every player on the team can purchase one of these.

The villager could even speak to you saying (in just text): 'I heard you guys were in a dire situation and in need in for assistance, well let me show you my special one time only offer. Choose wisely...' This could be added if villager speech would become a thing.

Thanks to @Gainfullterror for bringing light to the need of some sort of comeback tool, solution/idea made by me @FartiliciousManChild

- Too small of a playerbase?

Spoiler: Fix

Fix: first off, i don't think it is too small to begin with;

and secondly: wouldn't adding something like this bring more players to Eggwars (and Cube as a whole) in general and maybe make up for the what might now be a deficient amount of players? this could be very well be possible.

Just think about YT'ers maybe playing Eggwars on their channels again and bringing new traffic to Cubecraft too for example. I'm sure they might try this due to this being Eggwars, a very popular gamemode to my knowledge in regards of all the Minecraft servers. So something new to Eggwars like a variation would likely be considered as a pretty big thing that could catch those (usefull in regards to increasing traffic towards certain servers ;))YT'ers attention. Their influence and attention can have a pretty big (what seems to be lasting) impact on a servers popularity, and therefore traffic.

Fix by me @FartiliciousManChild

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

EXTRA (MORE IN DEPTH) POTENTIAL ADDITIONAL IDEAS:

- Each section/island gets their own strengths and/or their own items to purchase, therefore each island could play it in a smart strategic way according to their own strenghts.

Spoiler: Elaboration

if i were to include this in my idea, the strenghts/buff(s) of each island would be made minor and simple, as to not have it be too gamechanging but instead just enough to add a bit of spice to the game and the room for strategy. So perhaps some minor tweaks; these are the ideas i've come up myself so far in regards of this:

• Weapon island buff: extra purchasable Sharpness 1 wooden and stone weapons (swords and axes). So how this would look like in the villagershop is like this (with islands that have a weapon buff):

5 iron - wooden sword.

20 iron - wooden sword (sharpness 1).

32 iron - stone sword.

64 iron - stone sword (sharpness 1).

Other scenario if we were to combine a lower item price for weapons and a buff it would be something like this:

4 iron - wooden sword.

18 iron - wooden sword (sharpness 1).

30 iron - stone sword.

60 iron - stone sword (sharpness 1).​

• Miner island buff: what this would include is a purchasable haste 1 potion for 10 gold and each pickaxe price would be lowered along with an extra diamond pickaxe with 1 higher effiency compared to what would normally be the fastest/most efficient pickaxe

(example of this would be:
5 iron for stone pickaxe (Ef1),
1 gold for an iron pickaxe (Ef1),
5 gold for a diamond pickaxe (Ef 1),
5 diamonds for a diamond pickaxe (Ef 3),
10 diamonds for a diamond pickaxe (Ef 5))

​

• Armor island buff: you would be able to either buy yourself a normal unenchanted leather set (1 iron per piece) or you could buy yourself enchanted protection 1 leather armor for 2 iron per piece. The last item that would also be made purchasable would be leather featherfalling 2 boots. So basically, you would be given two extra purchasable items, which in this case is prot 1 leather and feather falling 2 leather boots.

• Archery island buff/strength: your normal price for a bow is 3 diamonds cheaper than it would normally be (so a normal bow that would normally be around let's say 25 diamonds would now be 22 diamonds. A power 1 bow that would normally be 35 diamonds would now be 32 diamonds. A punch 1 bow, which would normally be 48 diamonds, would for them be just 45 diamonds), another thing that would be made cheaper would be arrows, which from 5 gold for 10 arrows, would now be 3 gold for 10 arrows. Maybe another thing that could be added to this island strength are making more types of certain tipped arrows purchasable, what kind, i'm not sure of yet

• Builder and food buff: 1 iron would give you 3 building blocks as a standard price. All foods (aside from gapples) would be 1 iron cheaper as its standard price. And lastly, golden apples have a standard price with a discount option. Gapples would still be 2 gold per gapple; however, there would also be the option to buy 6 gapples for 10gold. Supermarket tactics lol, get more for a cheaper price haha (1 free gapple!), well that’s this too. Perhaps Notch apples would also be less pricey and become 30 diamonds instead of 32 as a standard price.

Make the island buff a votable thing for the ranked players. They can vote the items for all the items for everyone on the map like OP, Normal and Hardcore. But now the ranked folks will also be able to vote for something else! And that would be their island buff! This vote would of course only affect the buff for the island that the ranked voter would be placed in. For other islands/teams who don’t have anyone that can vote something for them, they will simply have randomised island buffs; but only an island buff that hasn’t been voted for by someone else on the alliance on a different team already. Each island buff can only appear once in an alliance, no more. So having your whole alliance have the weapon island buff is impossible. If multiple voters from different islands on the same alliance would all vote for the same buff then the island with the most voters voting for that buff would get the buff, the majority gets what it wants basically. If the amount of votes are equal for one single chosen buff between the islands of an alliance (so 2 voters from each island voting for the same buff for example) then the buff will be acquired by either one of the islands that voted for it by random chance. It's just the same really as how voting now gets approached.

I'll also like to make clear that only people from the island with the buff have the ability to buy either these lil extra's or buy things at a lower normal price (instead of just everyone, so no, you wouldn't be able to just hop from island to island to get your item cheaper or to get that stone sharp 1 sword, it would have to be given to you by someone else if you aren't part of the island that has this naturally installed).

It might also be nice to see if ranked players (Gold and beyond) could already vote IN THE LOBBY while waiting for players to choose whether they would like to play with buffs or not, with the default unaltered settings to this being with island buffs/strenghts.

Lastly, you can also scrap the whole voting thing out of this and take the route of having the strengths/buffs predetermined and consistently the same on each island on the map, this way you'll also be able to pick your the island of an alliance you find most favourable in regards of it buff/strength as a regular stone ranked player.

The more i think about this, the more potential, strategic creativity and fun i can see in it.



By me @FartiliciousManChild, also made thanks to @CookieBoy368

- The last remaining alliance fights it out among itself. The teams of the alliance that survived and won, fights it out. The winning island of this fight gains extra points, while the lost islands (of the winning team, aside from the islands that died off before the team won) still receive a good amount of points for being on the winning team. If this were to be added i think it would be best to have this off by default and only have it happen if it were to be voted for.

Spoiler: Elaboration

the final deathmatch between the winning islands needs to be balanced in some way gear wise. If the islands would fight it out with their own gear they made in the game it could cause islands of the same team to sabotage each other (breaking their allies' bridges for example) to prevent their fellow islands from becoming too well geared so they might have the advantage gear wise when they fight in the island deatmatch. My suggestion would be: delete all items and in turn give them equal gear and items. teleport players back to their islands delete all chests and all blocks placed during the game, generators get reset. This would prevent sabotage between allied islands and would also prevent the fight from potentially being one sided.

I'd make this deathmatch between the winning islands more fast paced since it should be seen more as a sort of 'extra event' for bonus points and not the main thing of the game (imo). The means through i would make it more fast paced could be stuff like: speed pots, delete the eggs so everyone has only one life, give crazy items like enderpearls, fireballs and eggs that would generate bridges to the point you throw them (hypixel eggs from bedwars), give strong weapons and weaker armor. A suggestion for the transition into this deathmatch is to teleport all the players of the alliance (so even players from eliminated islands/teams of the alliance (aside from players that left the game)), of the winning alliance, to their base the moment the alliance kills the other last team of the last alliance and wins and then start it from there (maybe even: teleport players to a deathmatch arena and remove the whole 'have to bridge to the other island' aspect all together).

I'm not too sure myself yet which option i prefer so i will leave this for Cubecraft to decide on.
(Nice name to maybe give for this deathmatch could be something like "traitor round".)

Also, i'm going to propose something pretty crazy, but please, hear me out: have this final deathmatch / traitor round be votable. Now here it comes (brace yourself), the ones who can vote is going to be...EVERYONE, not just the ranks. Wouldn't that be cool for once? If no one votes anything there will be no final deathmatch by default (although, once again, i rather let Cube decide on what option seems best to put as default)

This round will not be possible with all maps that include certain parts of this additional idea: Have teams combined into one team, but DON'T give each team a seperate egg. (see: Alliance 4 (Delta)(just one island with one egg): Yellow (12 players)

Idea by (first)@effot and @Younisco and improved and worked out by me @FartiliciousManChild

- Have teams combined into one team, but DON'T give each team a seperate egg. Instead, give them only one egg.

Spoiler: Elaboration

Each island of one of these combined teams/alliance would depend on one egg this way. So let's say you have 3 islands, combined into one team; then this team would have 1 egg for all 3 the islands. But to avoid this from being totally the same as just one big team, have the spawnpoints be different, and have players spawn on different, seperate islands in this team. The egg would preferably be located in the 'middle' island if there is one, or have the egg be located at one of the islands that belongs to that team by random.
Example: Green + Dark Green + Lime = 1 team with 1 egg. ==> Egg would be located at Dark Green (assuming that would be the island inbetween Green and Lime) ==> Green, Dark Green and Lime all have to protect this one egg to ensure their respective spawnpoints to be able to keep respawning after death.

Applications for something like this could be a lot of things, there's a lot of room for creativity if you combine this idea with the main concept (or even the Normal Eggwars setup) and have a gamesetup that goes something like this:

Possible gamesetup (this one is a bit crazy though):
Alliance 1 (Omega)(each island with a seperate egg): Green (3 players) + Dark Green (3 players) + Lime (3 players)
vs
Alliance 2 (Alpha)(with just one egg for all islands): Orange (5 players) + Red (5 players) + Dark Red (5 players)
vs
Alliance 3 (Gamma)(each island with a seperate egg): Light Blue (1 player) + Blue (1 player) + Dark Blue (1 player) + Purple (1 player) + Dark Purple (1 player) + Pink (1 player)
vs
Alliance 4 (Delta)(just one island with one egg): Yellow (12 players)

I can see this being a bit hectic, so i hope that Cube could come up with something to prevent this from happening. They can already start off by applying the fix i noted before for "Not being able to recognize well who your allies and enemies are". And also, if it did happen that this couldn't possibly be made less hectic (if we were to assume it would be), then honestly, so be it; the amount of possibilities for something cool or crazy (like the example above) is way to cool to pass up on, i'm sure the playerbase would figure it all out eventually.

Although, aside from trying to fix this possible gamesetup from possibly being hectic, i did only choose to come up with a gamesetup as crazy as shown above just to prove how creative you can get with this if you dare to combine multiple team-designs.

By me @FartiliciousManCh[SIZE=3]ild[/SIZE]

- Have unique uneven maps with unique interesting team designs.

Spoiler: Elaboration

Imagine a map for example having a team design that would look like this:
alliance (1 island(s) - 8 players per island(s)) vs
alliance (2 island(s) - 5 players per island(s)) vs
alliance (3 island(s) - 4 players per island(s)).
Now ofc the teams with the higher island and playercount should be given big disadvantages compared to the teams with a lower island + playercount (which in contrast should be given big advantages). I think something like this could be extremy interesting to play with.

By me @FartiliciousManChild

- Have Greek alphabet alliance names, instead of colournames. So stuff like: Alpha, Beta, Omega, Delta, Gamma, Theta, Kappa (yes this a Greek letter lol), Sigma, Omicron, Epsilon, Zeta, Psi, Upsilon, iota.

Spoiler: Elaboration

These are already 14 different potential names for an alliance, in other words, more than enough.
Enough, cause these names should be given to an alliance, not a team/island individually, which i would stick to giving colour names. So here's an example of how that would look like:

Game setup:
- Team 1 called Omega: Green (3 players) + Dark Green (3 players) + Lime (3 players)
vs
Team 2 called Alpha: Orange (3 players) + Red (3 players) + Dark Red (3 players)
vs
Team 3 called Gamma: Light Blue (3 players) + Blue (3 players) + Dark Blue (3 players)

By @Younisco and further worked out by me @FartiliciousManChild

- An in-game incentive for alliance teamwork. This would encourage players to work together as an alliance and push them in the right and beneficial way of playing and could reward them for it. something simple and basic to start off with would be an Ally chat/Alliance chat.

Spoiler: Elaboration

Next thing could be this: Have the villagershop at your base sell food, weapons (only affecting wooden and stone weapons) and bows at a slightly more expensive price once one of the teams in the alliance dies off completely (so instead of steak costing 5 iron make it cost 1 iron more after a team of an alliance dies off, with a cap of 8 iron - a 3 iron difference (in the case of there ever going to be maps where alliances would consist out of a lot of teams, which is why i added a cap, so the price cant just increase till like 10 iron if you happen to be playing with a map that places you in an alliance consisting out of 6 teams and therefore making it possible to up the price to 10 iron if we apply the rule of: price goes up 1 iron per fallen team of the alliance). Swords and axes (only the wooden and stone ones) would also get slightly more expensive to buy (1 iron more expensive per team of the alliance that gets taken down, once again, capping at 3 iron more compared to the normal price). While this might add to the incentive of making teams work together, i'm not a hundred procent sure about the weapons though, because this could also add fuel to the problem of being able to make a potential comeback.
For now as it stands, the penality per lost team would be this:
All food gets 1 iron more expensive - capping at 3 iron more expensive compared to the normal price
Weapons (only affecting wooden and stone) get 1 iron more expensive - capping at 3 iron more expensive compared to the normal price
All bows get 1 diamond more expensive - capping at 3 diamonds more expensive compared to the normal price
All blocks stay unaltered.

It might actually even be cool aswell if these more expensive prices would only be existing at the teams of your alliance, (given there are other alliances left who still have all their eggs alive and therefore an unaltered/cheaper price) so not the enemy villagers, this could also pose to be a good incentive to act more offensively (and attack other people so you can use their less inflated villagers) and not just defend cause they're the last team standing of the alliance with an egg. Hope you understand what i mean with this.

In terms of rewards for teamwork, i would do something along the lines of 'you get x by keeping all the eggs of your alliance alive' after a set amount of time has passed, now what this x would be is not yet 100% clear to me as i want to keep this very minor and not give a big advantage, maybe something like it would make blocks slightly cheaper and give you more blocks in turn for 1 iron (so 3 blocks instead of 2 blocks per 1 iron), since being in this position in the first place puts you in a pretty strong position so any big lasting buffs should be unnecessary, i atleast don't want to give these teams any advantages in regards of pvp, i'm thinking more off stuff like building blocks and food.
I guess for now i'll keep it at food and blocks being affected by this.
In short: food and block prices are reduced by 1 iron

Example: *after 10 minutes of keeping all the eggs alive of your alliance* 'Your prices have gotten lower as a reward for keeping your alliance's eggs alive!' --> 1 iron now gives you 3 blocks instead of 2. All food now costs 1 iron less!. This buff reward doesn't get extended if you happen to succesfully keep your alliance's eggs alive for any longer. So not this: *after 20 minutes of keeping all the eggs alive of your alliance* --> 1 iron now gives you 4 blocks. Food price is now 2 iron less.

If an alliance that has had this buff completely loses one of it's teams it will receive the same penalty as people who haven't had the buff. What this means basically is that food would increase by 2 iron and blocks return to the normal price. The food price would be increased from it's normal price, not in accordance to its decreased price.

Made thanks to the help of @Gainfullterror for giving me this idea, Team-incentive solution/concept made by me @FartiliciousManChild

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

So.
Cubecraft...What are you waiting for?

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

BE SURE TO UPVOTE/LIKE MY POST ON THIS MODERATORS (@Younisco) 'SUGGESTION COMPILATION' THREAD ASWELL IF YOU HAPPEN TO LIKE THIS: https://www.cubecraft.net/threads/suggestions-compilation.201864/


Thank you for reading my long take/explanation on my idea :)

Please leave your opinions down below on this, i’m curious to hear what you all think of this.


Also if you have any questions about it or things that aren’t clear for you, feel free to ask




Previous threads:

Spoiler: Thread url's

- https://www.cubecraft.net/threads/r...r-known-for-locking-legit-suggestions.206027/
- https://www.cubecraft.net/threads/g...oking-for-mainly-moderators-responses.201768/ (somewhat outdated one now)
- Deleted Eggwars Thread R.I.P ;(

Lastly, DON'T FORGET TO VOTE!


(If you vote 'no' i would really appreciate it if you would let me know why / discuss your arguments with me in a civil way as to why you chose it so i could maybe improve my concept with that info, thanks in advance)



~FartiliciousManChild

(a.k.a. Epicfartofdoom (in game))

No. Completly unfair.

 

[Sophie]

I love the concept, but I think it'd best fit solo Eggwars, to avoid all the complications surrounding knowing who your allies actually are. It'd be way easier to put say, three people on a single team, and just scatter them around the map, than to have nine people on a team scattered across three islands around the map. There's also currently an entry barrier of needing a ton of friends to play with, a complication that could be avoided by making this a solo variant. I for one am one of those people that cannot stand the disadvantage of playing with randomers, and I know a lot of other people are too.

As I said in the previous thread, what you've described is how I envisioned Team Skywars before it was ever released, except instead of "allied teams" you just had teams of people separated from one another. I've always wondered how such a game would play out, with actually reaching your team mates being a very valuable challenge to take up. I reckon this would be an easier approach to start off with, since otherwise there's a lot for inexperienced players to take in.

 

[FartiliciousMaleGuy]

I don't like EggWars or have as an extensive knowledge as other community members which is why I have not replied to it as of yet. If it was a Lucky Islands thread I would share my opinion very quickly since that's my favourite game! However I see you've put a lot of effort into your thread which I appreciate :p The only idea I saw regarding my area (Map design) was this:

"- Have unique uneven maps with unique interesting team designs"


In short.. no. In long.. Every team should have an equal opportunity and the same chance of winning. By giving any team a bias you've just ruined the game entirely. During pre lobby everyone will want to join that specific team, people will leave as soon as the game starts because they didn't get on the OP team. You can't rely on players working together, as an "alliance", and playing exactly how you intend the game to be. Most players are selfish, which is why on Team SkyWars and Team Lucky Islands maps we put more than the average amount of chests/blocks so one player can't get everything.

It would be nice to see EggWars get some unique modes which could be accompanied with unique maps specific to that mode, I feel it would "revitalize it" as you say, however I feel this isn't the mode to do that.

(For future reference, don't bother tagging Marco in game suggestions, he is a 'Systems and Network Engineer' he rarely plays Minecraft).

Ok. Woaw!

Let me first of tell you how appreciative i am of your response and feedback!

Now up to my reaction:

I don't like EggWars or have as an extensive knowledge as other community members which is why I have not replied to it as of yet.

That's alright, i'm glad that in the end someone responded.

However I see you've put a lot of effort into your thread which I appreciate :p

I sure did! Nice to see that my efforts are being acknowlegded.

The only idea I saw regarding my area (Map design) was this:

"- Have unique uneven maps with unique interesting team designs"
In short.. no. In long.. Every team should have an equal opportunity and the same chance of winning. By giving any team a bias you've just ruined the game entirely. During pre lobby everyone will want to join that specific team, people will leave as soon as the game starts because they didn't get on the OP team.

Ok first off, let me make very clear that this is just supposed to be a potential concept to add to the mainconcept in case there would be any need for things to be added to it. I'm glad to see that you've gave your feedback on this and consider it only logical as to why you did considering your area of (assumebly) expertise. But like i said, i'ts not the maindish of this thread though, your feedback is still appreciated on it nonetheless of course, but please keep that in mind. If you're right and this is indeed not equal and fair (even with the things i stated to counteract that with (which i stated kinda vaguely ('advantages'/'disadvantages') but imagine things like better/worse starting gens + more/less gens at base, along with map bias towards alliances with lesser players and the other way around with alliances with more players) then sure, fine, scrap it. Done. It's just a potential possible additional idea, nothing more.

You can't rely on players working together, as an "alliance", and playing exactly how you intend the game to be. Most players are selfish, which is why on Team SkyWars and Team Lucky Islands maps we put more than the average amount of chests/blocks so one player can't get everything.

- People will learn how to effictively play the game and learn to care about their alliance over time (through trial and error for example, or witnessing efficient alliances etc. etc.).
- Check the additional idea (elaboration) "An in-game incentive for alliance teamwork.", cause i am very aware of the selfish nature of players. I also don't rely on them to not be selfish without either given them a mild push in the right direction or after they've learned how to more effectively play the game, which is: good teamwork.


Do you have any more opinions on the other potential additional ideas? Instead of just this one you mentioned before, which you stated not to like, but like i mentioned before, is removable and only there as an possible accessory to the mainconcept. I don't think it's really right to write this off completely just yet because you didn't like an accessory of the concept.

I don't like EggWars or have as an extensive knowledge as other community members

(Assuming you did completely write this off) seeing how you are aware of this about yourself, maybe you should in this case take a look at other peoples opinions on this a bit more (polls, comments), before writing this off completely.

I feel this isn't the mode to do that.

Ok, so, your arguments for thinking this are these right?:
- don't like the additional accessory idea of: "- Have unique uneven maps with unique interesting team designs" --> My response: NP! It was just there as an accessory in the first place!
- not much faith in players playing the game the way it's intended, but being selfish instead --> My response: People learn how to play overtime + check in-game incentive for teamwork (additional idea)

You've only shown me 1 argument that is likely directed to the mainconcept, while at the same time also said that it be nice to see some unique modes added to Eggwars and that it would indeed revitilize it. You said no to this but at the same time have perhaps 1 solid-ish point that you were able to come up with so far, isn't that a little to write it off just yet? If you are going to keep this opinion on it, i would honestly like to see a few more reasons as to why.

Are there any more arguments i'm missing? Please let me know if so.

In my eyes, there's nothing yet that makes me lose faith in this considering i've been able to pretty successfuly counter your points (imo). If you have any more critique though, feel free to share, i'm all open arms and would love to hear it! I'm sure there must be more (?)



Curious to hear what you have to say about my response and counter-arguments.

Very thankfull for the response! (finally someone!) :p

 

[FartiliciousMaleGuy]

No. Completly unfair.

Same arguments go for you as to @Efcluke94
This seems like a response to just one tiny part of the suggestion (the additional idea Efcluke94 mentioned)

 

[FartiliciousMaleGuy]

I love the concept, but I think it'd best fit solo Eggwars, to avoid all the complications surrounding knowing who your allies actually are.

While i think this is isn't a major problem, nor is it unfixable, i do understand where you're coming from with this. And while i would absolutely undoubtebly prefer a team version of this concept instead of a solo version, i wouldn't completely write off the idea of it; i'd just think it would be a little more underwhelming compared to a team version.

It'd be way easier to put say, three people on a single team, and just scatter them around the map, than to have nine people on a team scattered across three islands around the map.

Like i mentioned before, i disagree, don't think this is a major problem or something that can't be fixed somehow, if my own fixes won't suffice then (which i doubt) for sure the developers could come up with something. I've seen this argument pop up several times now, but i honestly think it's kind of a weak argument, no offense.

There's also currently an entry barrier of needing a ton of friends to play with

Well not really, but i guess it would if you wouldn't want to work with any randoms...Oh well, can't help with that.

I for one am one of those people that cannot stand the disadvantage of playing with randomers, and I know a lot of other people are too.

Same boat as with @CookieBoy368 i see, oh well, not really much to do about this as it's a personal thing.

As I said in the previous thread, what you've described is how I envisioned Team Skywars before it was ever released, except instead of "allied teams" you just had teams of people separated from one another. I've always wondered how such a game would play out, with actually reaching your team mates being a very valuable challenge to take up. I reckon this would be an easier approach to start off with, since otherwise there's a lot for inexperienced players to take in.

The first time you showed me your vision of this i was pleasantly surprised with it cause i personally didn't envision this 'scattered teams accross the map' thing you did, but i kinda liked it though, would already make things more interesting. But anyways the things i envisioned with this was a bit blander than yours, and that is that the allied teams would just be located next to each other. I think both mine and your vision can be applied with this concept though.

since otherwise there's a lot for inexperienced players to take in.

I honestly don't think there's that much of a difference aside from playercount and the impact your alliance with your other teams has due to the higher playercount. I don't think it's anything too shocking; it's really not that much more complicated as regular Normal Team Eggwars is, the main difference with that and this would be an added importance of the extra layer of teamwork you'll have to now keep in mind, aka alliance teamwork, that's mainly it. Players will learn how to do it effectively over time.


Thanks for tuning in once again Sophie

 

[Lezappen]

I also recall replying to this suggestion.
I'd like to add that it would be too confusing for newer players in my opinion, the game starts and you are in a big team:
Are your team mates all the same colour? If not then how would you know not to attack them, or distinguish them from other teams that you can attack? You are asking players to memorize the allied teams, that changes every game, by experience I can say that games and applications that call to the users memory in this way aren't the ones that last long.
If they are all the same colour to start off with how do the teams split? If they do split, it would just make a confusing mess.
I don't like this concept, I like eggwars, I do think that it needs a bit of a touch up, but I do not think this is how it should be done.
This concept relies entirely on the players ability to:
1- Understand the gameplay, which is not intuitive to a new user.
2- Memorise who are his allies
3- Keep track of the objective that changes mid game and successfully understand what to do when that objective changes
and last but not least..
4- Cooperate... Players will not do this without any motivation, having the teams split mid game makes this even less likely.

All the "fixes" to the problems brought up throughout the threads will take up enormous amounts of work, for what, renovating a gamemode that players will most likely lose interest in 6 months time.
I have a very pessimistic view of this suggestion.

I think that would result in players setting traps for their own allies rather than focusing on just the current opponents. Sounds cool if you play with friends, but in practice it'd probably be a mess of team trolling and teams refusing to help allies.

I agree with this, There would be a lot of confusion within the teams, players would prefer to help their real team mates, and would certainly not be bothered by their allies dying since they will be needing to fight them in the end anyways.

sidenote please stop double/triple posting, you currently own 52% of all the comments on this thread.

 

[Sophie]

sidenote please stop double/triple posting, you currently own 52% of all the comments on this thread.

To be fair, it's not unnecessary bumping since every reply is half the size of the thread itself. He's just discussing the idea with people :)

 

[FartiliciousMaleGuy]

I'm sorry to say this, but i'm starting to lose a bit of faith in the staffs ability to do proper research cause this is getting kinda stupid, no offense.

(I do advice you to read the whole thing beforehand, to prevent yourself from looking stupid/silly if you're going to comment on this and show your thoughts/opinions on it)

I'd like to add that it would be too confusing for newer players in my opinion, the game starts and you are in a big team:
Are your team mates all the same colour? If not then how would you know not to attack them, or distinguish them from other teams that you can attack? You are asking players to memorize the allied teams, that changes every game, by experience I can say that games and applications that call to the users memory in this way aren't the ones that last long.
If they are all the same colour to start off with how do the teams split? If they do split, it would just make a confusing mess.

Check the fix i've put in for this (which i now even updated with pictures due to this honestly stupid argument passing by several times now), pretty sure i've already mentioned them before aswell with that said.

Overall not the best argument (imo)

2- Memorise who are his allies

Wrong. It will be shown of course in some way. I'll show the fix again. Of course i'm not gonna ask people to memorize it, that just be stupid and silly, it obviously has to be showed in game somehow.

Fix: Give everyone in one team very similiar colours. Put some kind of scoreboard up that makes it easier to distinguish. Give players a tag above their heads showing the team they belong to. Other fix (credit for this idea to@SpankMeSanta ) could be that you could use things like underlined names, bold names, italic names and a different font family (that's different enough compared to others of course). Another way (credit for this idea to@CommunistCactus ) could be to just make their name bold just like your own team, also put the allied teams in the same chat.

If they are all the same colour to start off with how do the teams split? If they do split, it would just make a confusing mess.

What do you mean with split? If you mean split as in the alliance would be spread across multiple islands then to answer to your question would be no, probably not, and if so than the fix of: italic,bold, underline, different font names.should be applied to it

1- Understand the gameplay, which is not intuitive to a new user.

*Learn the gameplay. Also of course it's not going to be intuitive, this thing is fresh and different compared to what Eggwars normally is (but not too different)
Besides it's still Eggwars, not that much has changed aside from the alliance aspect being added if we were to look at just the mainconcept which in the end is the main idea i'm trying to sell here, with all the additional ideas being merely optional to add to it. It's not like this concept is changing Eggwars to it's very core though so i disagree that it'd be too complicated for newer players, going back to one of your previous points.

2- Memorise who are his allies

Just a wrong statement like i already showed before.

3- Keep track of the objective that changes mid game and successfully understand what to do when that objective changes
and last but not least..

??What objective? You mean take out others' eggs and eliminate your enemies? That objective is always the same, never changes. If you mean that it's going to be more strategic than i don't understand why you'd even include it in your list cause that's a good thing, that's one of the major things this concept is going to revatilize and put on steroids. That is what makes this interesting, dont you understand that?? If you don't want more strategy than i don't know why you'd want to play Eggwars in the first place. As far as i've been told, Eggwars is supposed to be a strategy game.

4- Cooperate... Players will not do this without any motivation, having the teams split mid game makes this even less likely.

Check additional idea: "An in-game incentive for alliance teamwork.". Also again, what do you mean with having the teams split mid game?? There is no splitting mid-game.

All the "fixes" to the problems brought up throughout the threads will take up enormous amounts of work, for what, renovating a gamemode that players will most likely lose interest in 6 months time.

We're talking big boy Eggwars here though, don't you think putting this 'enormous amount of work' be worth spending for Eggwars, the most recognizable and well known staple game of Cube? I'd say most definitely. Also about it likely to lose interest in 6 months time; while i can't predict the future, i highly doubt it, considering how this is still Eggwars (aka mr. Success) and ESPECIALLY considering the new dynamic and playstyle this is gonna bring; unlike with Speed, which to me is too similiar to Normal Eggwars and therefore posed to be only mildly successfull. Was the list of things this could offer not long enough ;)?


Gainfullterror said: ↑
I think that would result in players setting traps for their own allies rather than focusing on just the current opponents. Sounds cool if you play with friends, but in practice it'd probably be a mess of team trolling and teams refusing to help allies.

I agree with this, There would be a lot of confusion within the teams, players would prefer to help their real team mates, and would certainly not be bothered by their allies dying since they will be needing to fight them in the end anyways.

You say this but don't take into account my response to that message of him? Before giving criticism about this be sure to have checked the elaboration please, something clearly even Gainfullterror didn't seem to do this time. People need to stop this dumb trend of giving criticism on something without having read the full story on it, it just makes you look stupid to me.

I have a very pessimistic view of this suggestion.

Yea that was pretty clear. Too bad your reasoning for it seems a bit flawed(/unclear?) to me but ok.

sidenote please stop double/triple posting, you currently own 52% of all the comments on this thread.

This:

To be fair, it's not unnecessary bumping since every reply is half the size of the thread itself. He's just discussing the idea with people :)

^^^

Thats cause i go into discussion with everyone. Don't mind if i do, seems only reasonable to me. It's called being an active thread 'supervisor' (that sounds so silly lol). Also don't expect me to address several people in one post if the answer to each one of these persons is going to be somewhat elaborative/long, that would make the post way too long and would cause an even further increase in people who seem to simply ignore certain posts i write due it probably being 'ToO lOng DiDNT ReaD LOL XD' and i rather not fall into that trap. Lastly, people vote things like no without giving me a reason why which i've clearly stated before i would really appreciate, which results in me calling these people out, these people unfortunately don't all vote these things all at once so i can't just adress everyone about this once. Endresult: lots of posts made by me as time passes.

 

[Lezappen]

So, to play this efficiently, you just need to camp your egg while the "allies" destroy the enemies eggs, and "defend" your allies egg.
When your ally successfully takes out the last opposit team, you can then simply pop your allies egg and rejoin your team mates at your egg.
It's just havoc, I've read your post multiple times, with all the fixes and additional information attached to it the orginal description of the game doesn't seem represent the gameplay that you actually want.

For the sake of argument, lets say you have 4 shades of red vs 4 shades of blue (team blue1, blue2, blue3... vs red1, red2, red3..)
What I mean by the split is once all blues have taken out reds, now all different shades of blue have to fight each other, when before they where fighting together, this change from "blues united against red" to "lighter blues vs darker blues vs cyan" is chaotic.

The thread is missing a lot of clarity when it comes to the explanation of the gameplay, especially regarding the moment where that split happens and I would like a bit of clarification at that point.
Your attitude is confrontational towards those that don't want to post on the thread, they are not obligated to and it isn't up to you to force them to, it is more annoying and detrimental than anything, they have the right to simply not agree with your suggestion and move on.
"people vote things like no without giving me a reason why which i've clearly stated before i would really appreciate, which results in me calling these people out"
It is an extremely demanding attitude that isn't necessary.
For every problem that comes up you stick another "fix" to your post instead of integrating a solution into the suggestion, as it is, the fixes take up more space than the actual suggestion.

 

[CommunistCactus]

Your attitude is confrontational towards those that don't want to post on the thread, they are not obligated to and it isn't up to you to force them to, it is more annoying and detrimental than anything, they have the right to simply not agree with your suggestion and move on.

IMO no, you gotta explain yourself if you think something, not just say it's "your opinion" without saying anything else at all. That doesn't help anyone and suggests that that person actually has no clue what (s)he is talking about