You just made up a story of how a game COULD go and formed it so that alliance 3 wins, only to try to counter my argument that alliance 3 has the lowest chance of winning.
Yup, i totally did, it also is a story that wouldn't be super far fetched either, maybe a little bit in certain cases but overall it's pretty realistic.
Point of that whole story was to showcase like i stated before that everything happens at once and that it's hard to pre-determine a winner due to all the possibilities, especially how i personally think no alliace has more advantages and disadvantages compared to the other ones. Each alliance has its strong points and weak points and if each alliance would recognize these strong and weak points and capitilize on the strong points and would be extra cautious with certain things in regards to it's own weak points then i think it's really hard to determine a clear winner and it would end up offering awesomely interesting matches with a relatively even win-ratio for each alliance. Only thing that i said before aswell is that alliance 3 might need one extra island but that's about it.
I disagree but i'm pretty sure i've made that clear now, saying how i believe each alliance has it's strong points and weak points to do something with.
But sure, we'll agree to disagree.
Yea i'm not too sure about that with this (it will probably still hold up to an extent though, but to a lesser degree compared to the 'all alliances the same' scenario), which in my eyes isn't a bad thing given how this could add to the strategic aspect of this and spice up the matches. I think i would love it.
It's also kinda similiar in a way to playing characters in a shooting game (someone with more shooter-game knowlede correct me if i'm wrong) with their own specialibities and in turn to that, weaknesses (overwatch for example idk).
Like you would have: a tank with high health, defense average attack but very slow movement - an agile character with low health, low defense and high attack damage - a heavy hitting but slow reloading guy with average everything else - and lastly the all-round guy who has everything at average.
(there are of course many more types, but let's not go into that any further)
- The all-round guy can do everything kinda ok but nothing spectacularly well,
- the agile character will scare you like hell due to it's speed and making it hard to hit while at the same it will hit you with high damage. Shoot this character 2 or 3 times though and it is defeated.
-the heavy hitter will be able to kill you in 1 shot but if he misses the shot he will be penalized
- The tank is just a beast but will likely also take a lot of damage due to it's slow speed
Just like with these kinds characters in a shooting game, with their own specialibilities and weaknesses so will the example of the alliance-design work out aswell, only is this not a shooter game, but it would work kind of the same way. Also, the scenario of 'every alliance the same' would be the equivalent of playing this shooter game but with only the all-round character; it would still be cool, but a little bit less interesting (probably also one of the reasons why almost all shooter games have atleast different weapons in it with different stats to make it more interesting).
NOTE: The colours you mentioned, dark red / dark purple, is that even in the game ????. Also think about colourblind people (like me, a little), I can't see the difference between green and yellow / blue and purple.
Yup, i totally did, it also is a story that wouldn't be super far fetched either, maybe a little bit in certain cases but overall it's pretty realistic.
Point of that whole story was to showcase like i stated before that everything happens at once and that it's hard to pre-determine a winner due to all the possibilities, especially how i personally think no alliace has more advantages and disadvantages compared to the other ones. Each alliance has its strong points and weak points and if each alliance would recognize these strong and weak points and capitilize on the strong points and would be extra cautious with certain things in regards to it's own weak points then i think it's really hard to determine a clear winner and it would end up offering awesomely interesting matches with a relatively even win-ratio for each alliance. Only thing that i said before aswell is that alliance 3 might need one extra island but that's about it.
I disagree but i'm pretty sure i've made that clear now, saying how i believe each alliance has it's strong points and weak points to do something with.
But sure, we'll agree to disagree.
Yea i'm not too sure about that with this (it will probably still hold up to an extent though, but to a lesser degree compared to the 'all alliances the same' scenario), which in my eyes isn't a bad thing given how this could add to the strategic aspect of this and spice up the matches. I think i would love it.
It's also kinda similiar in a way to playing characters in a shooting game (someone with more shooter-game knowlede correct me if i'm wrong) with their own specialibities and in turn to that, weaknesses (overwatch for example idk).
Like you would have: a tank with high health, defense average attack but very slow movement - an agile character with low health, low defense and high attack damage - a heavy hitting but slow reloading guy with average everything else - and lastly the all-round guy who has everything at average.
(there are of course many more types, but let's not go into that any further)
- The all-round guy can do everything kinda ok but nothing spectacularly well,
- the agile character will scare you like hell due to it's speed and making it hard to hit while at the same it will hit you with high damage. Shoot this character 2 or 3 times though and it is defeated.
-the heavy hitter will be able to kill you in 1 shot but if he misses the shot he will be penalized
- The tank is just a beast but will likely also take a lot of damage due to it's slow speed
Just like with these kinds characters in a shooting game, with their own specialibilities and weaknesses so will the example of the alliance-design work out aswell, only is this not a shooter game, but it would work kind of the same way. Also, the scenario of 'every alliance the same' would be the equivalent of playing this shooter game but with only the all-round character; it would still be cool, but a little bit less interesting (probably also one of the reasons why almost all shooter games have atleast different weapons in it with different stats to make it more interesting).
Yes, but I moved from the old skywars to eggwars a long time ago because of the equality. Everyone has the same chances, it's pure based on skill/strategy, not on luck/starting items/islands/team size/position of the egg/shop/WHATEVER you think of, everyone is equal (except the starters don't have abilities but they play a small part in the game in my opinion. Personal: I would like eggwars to stay pure skill/strategy based, and I wouldn't like to see that there is difference in alliances, because this will always affect the gameplay, no matter how balanced you make it.
By the way the example you're describing comes a lot closer to Blockwars than to eggwars ;)
Aaaahhhh I know! Bit thats mostly just nostalgia playing with your mind. Eggwars has pretty much always been the same for the longest time. What it needs atm is new maps, more items, suggested modes like CTF, teams spread across multiple islands- that can be a map though, with on common egg needing to be build over to; it’d be on a separate island.
I’m going to make a suggestion for a 50v50/10v10v10v10v10 map; or you do it, idk.
If you want we can contact by a private conversation or by some other site to make clear our ideas and know well what we are going to do the suggestion
Personal: I would like eggwars to stay pure skill/strategy based, and I wouldn't like to see that there is difference in alliances, because this will always affect the gameplay, no matter how balanced you make it.
Well i would personally also prefer it if the majority of maps would be normal maps with all alliances the same size. With some other maps for variation/extra flavour purposes, like the map stated in my example (most a little watered down though, maybe just one super crazy map like the example) and maybe 2 or 1 solo-alliance map (islands with 1 player allianced with other solo islands), the one you stated about that you'd love playing with.
Majority: alliances same sized
Minority: Crazier maps and solo-alliance maps
This is my personal preference.
If you have any more complaints or things to discuss about feel free to let me know, i'll gladly discuss more.
Eh, it was just used as a tool to clarify my point. I'm sure you got what i was talking about. Also. Not super familiar yet with Blockwars.
Well i would personally also prefer it if the majority of maps would be normal maps with all alliances the same size. With some other maps for variation/extra flavour purposes, like the map stated in my example (most a little watered down though, maybe just one super crazy map like the example) and maybe 2 or 1 solo-alliance map (islands with 1 player allianced with other solo islands), the one you stated about that you'd love playing with.
Majority: alliances same sized
Minority: Crazier maps and solo-alliance maps
This is my personal preference.
If you have any more complaints or things to discuss about feel free to let me know, i'll gladly discuss more.
@marcoslater@Camezonda Why is this thread that has: for sure over 3000 views (if we were to count all the views of all the threads on this topic), good feedback, includes a solid suggestion that has been improved many times over time + has a sense of neccesity for Cube; being ignored so hard (a little bit by staff in general but mainly staff higer ups). I don't understand.
This is frustrating. I feel like i've already thought out much more than a big majority of the people who suggest something, yet here it is being ignored. You would expect that thinking several aspects through of your concept (which in my eyes is also part of Cubecraft's job actually --> taking an 'idea' and fleshening it out themselves. Instead of letting the suggestor do borderline developing work (correct me if i'm wrong on this though, maybe i am supposed to do this, idk, perhaps)) and actually having a whole section with several 'problems and fixes' along with additonal ideas would be rewarded by staff and lead them to take that suggestion a little bit more serious; but this idea isn't really coming across this way, at all... Ok maybe a little bit cause i've had some responses from staff, but nothing from some higher up who has a big role in terms of new games(modes) and who's able to give me some sort of decisive anwer on this. Best i've had so far were a few moderators saying they either liked it (@Younisco@iLoveYouu) or disliked it (@Lezappen of which i could quickly debunk all his points fairly well in my eyes). Other staff members (2 of them) simply qualified themselves as not capable of properly judging the concept.
Untill i'm not being given some sort of confirmation, decisive answer or clarity (be it denying this concepts for good reasons or saying something along the lines of 'your concept has been positively received by us', (cause i'm not stupid, i know you guys can't be too transparant with what you're going to develop in regards of new games or other updates) but atleast something sort of decisive so i can move on from this or futher improve if that's needed and there is said to be a chance for this concept to be realised (which is what i've already been doing a little bit in the meantime already btw)) on what's going to happen with this, i'm not going to stop asking for staff responses. I just wanna know at this point what's going to happen with this instead of having it end up in purgatory for an eternity like the treatment the majority of the suggestions seem to get (some for good reasons though, but i don't believe this fits in that category); i've spent too much time on this already to let it end up that way.
@marcoslater@Camezonda Why is this thread that has: for sure over 3000 views (if we were to count all the views of all the threads on this topic), good feedback, includes a solid suggestion that has been improved many times over time + has a sense of neccesity for Cube; being ignored so hard (a little bit by staff in general but mainly staff higer ups). I don't understand.
This is frustrating. I feel like i've already thought out much more than a big majority of the people who suggest something, yet here it is being ignored. You would expect that thinking several aspects through of your concept (which in my eyes is also part of Cubecraft's job actually --> taking an 'idea' and fleshening it out themselves. Instead of letting the suggestor do borderline developing work (correct me if i'm wrong on this though, maybe i am supposed to do this, idk, perhaps)) and actually having a whole section with several 'problems and fixes' along with additonal ideas would be rewarded by staff and lead them to take that suggestion a little bit more serious; but this idea isn't really coming across this way, at all... Ok maybe a little bit cause i've had some responses from staff, but nothing from some higher up who has a big role in terms of new games(modes) and who's able to give me some sort of decisive anwer on this. Best i've had so far were a few moderators saying they either liked it (@Younisco@iLoveYouu) or disliked it (@Lezappen of which i could quickly debunk all his points fairly well in my eyes). Other staff members (2 of them) simply qualified themselves as not capable of properly judging the concept.
Untill i'm not being given some sort of confirmation, decisive answer or clarity (be it denying this concepts for good reasons or saying something along the lines of 'your concept has been positively received by us', (cause i'm not stupid, i know you guys can't be too transparant with what you're going to develop in regards of new games or other updates) but atleast something sort of decisive so i can move on from this or futher improve if that's needed and there is said to be a chance for this concept to be realised (which is what i've already been doing a little bit in the meantime already btw)) on what's going to happen with this, i'm not going to stop asking for staff responses. I just wanna know at this point what's going to happen with this instead of having it end up in purgatory for an eternity like the treatment the majority of the suggestions seem to get (some for good reasons though, but i don't believe this fits in that category); i've spent too much time on this already to let it end up that way.
Finalized Eggwars Gamemode variation - Concept Thread 2.0 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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.
if i were to include this in my idea, i would keep the strenghts of each island minor, Also, as much as i want this to feel new and fresh and have a different dynamic to it, i also want to keep it somewhat simple and not too complicated. So perhaps some minor tweaks, maybe some item cost changes (have one squad be able to buy blocks and food cheaper), or some weapon buffs (Sharpness 1 on every weapon you buy, swords and axes), or even an island where everyone is given some permanent potion effect (like Haste 1), the more i think about it, the more potential i can see in it. This could for example be something that could be an extra thing that could be voted for, or be the same as with kits and that you can buy them (although the buffs then become more individual, so not too sure about that).
-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.
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)
-Have teams combined into one team, but DON'T give each team a seperate egg. Instead, give them only one egg.
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.
-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.
-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.
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)
-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.
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.
Okay, so this is focused on all the extra in depth stuff, except the different setups for alliances (that has been discussed already).
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.
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.
3. Talked about this already.
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
5. Greek letters. YES!! As Greek/Latin nerd I love this :p Add this it's amazing. Kappa :)
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.
Marieke was a mod who is permabanned a few days ago, not really sure why. General rumours say it's because of leaking.
About FartiliciousManChild, I can't find him either. @CommunistCactus do you know what happened?
Marieke was a mod who is permabanned a few days ago, not really sure why. General rumours say it's because of leaking.
About FartiliciousManChild, I can't find him either. @CommunistCactus do you know what happened?
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
