"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?