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

[CatsLoveRainbows]

I think Egg Wars is fine the way it is.

BTW, since @Efcluke94 (Management) already replied and said no, you should change your title from "Looking for management response" to "looking for a person in management to say yes to this thread"

Tip: Be nicer to The Staff. You wouldn't be here without them! :)

-TBC1

 

[FartiliciousMaleGuy]

So, to play this efficiently, you just need to camp your egg while the "allies" destroy the enemies eggs, and "defend" your allies egg.

I don't know what made you come up with that strategy cause that's not the first strategy that would come up to me at all due to it's passiveness and blandness.
But anyways that could be playing effectively i guess, hard to say right now though, but that would probably be the most boring way possible to do it and i don't expect many to take this appraoch just due to it's very bland nature. But anyways this kind of bland playstyle isn't something that would exclusively be a possible problem to this, it's also to regular Team Eggwars. Also i don't understand why you've put both allies and defend in quotations, it makes it look like you're either under the impression that allies can break each others egg, which they can't btw,(i haven't explicitly stated it somehwere since i assumed that this was a given and logical for everyone (guess i could add it to the explanation though just to be sure) or that you haven't read all of the elaboration on the deathmatch, let me show you what i mean:

A suggestion for the transition into this deathmatch is to instantly 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".)

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,

Nope, no you won't. You'll be instantly teleported back to your own base, besides like i said before, you aren't able to break your allies' eggs in the first place anyways (unless the deatmatch is going on, depends on what route would be taken with the deatmatch (with egg? No egg? deatmatch arena?) though, i'd rather leave this decision ).

I've read your post multiple times

I have some trouble believing that statement, but alright, sure, i'll believe you.

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.

Which is why i would advise people to read the whole thing, cause the whole thing is the embodiment of how i would like to see the game be played out. My 'idea' of how the gameplay should look like is the combination of all those fixes and additional ideas, with the additional ideas being possibly removable if not perceived well by Cube. The additional ideas are just there to offer more options to pick from for Cube, even though i think every option would be implementworthy.

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.

So you basically want me to be less open, and less focused on what 'could' be and instead have me make a more definitive fully fletched game? Sorry but isn't that Cube's job? I'm consciously leaving loose open ends for Cube so they can pick what would be seen most fitting for them, instead of cutting off options for them to choose out and saying: 'THIS HAS TO HAPPEN AND THIS DOES TOO AND THIS NOT', it would also decrease the odds of well receivement as i would really close off any other possibilities for Cube that they would consider as valuable (which i guess they could still come up with theirselves, but i bet they rather have someone else do it for them, aka me). Cubecraft is still the developing team and decisionmaker and they're likely more knowlegdable than me about what additional ideas/idea/concepts/fixes would be best suited for the server; they know the behind the scenes with that said and i don't, which can also include things that could influence decision making in regards of how a game should be made that i'm not aware of. I'm not here the one to make the decisions in the end (if i am then feel free to let me know so, cause i do not look at it that way right now), Cube is, this is still just a suggestion and i'm simply offering more suggestions with the additional suggestions/ideas to increase the odds of the mainconcept being implemented due to showing the possibilities and options you have with the mainconcept and the directions you could take; showing them what they could possibly pick from (with each extra suggestions explanations as to how it could be good, if i would really like it yes or no, why i think it would work out, or why it would be needed) and do something with. I'm just here sharing my ideas, (and right now ended up defending almost all my ideas or improving it, since each additional idea that i added i did sincerly like or found worthwhile to be either improved to make it possibly implementable or straight up was implementable in the first place) Cube should be the one who decides which ideas should be utilizied, that doesn't mean though i wont interfere with their decisions through means of discussion though if i think it's a flawed one.
But anyways if it were up to just me on deciding what goes and what doesn't and deciding on how the game should end up being i would choose to include everything, since i believe i've made each extra suggestion pretty solid and combineable with all the other extra suggestions, and of course the mainconcept.

If it was appearantly indeed unclear in how i would like to see the game turn out as an endproduct and people wouldn't assume that i'd just want everything included in my thread AND it would indeed be required to be a bit more concrete and clear like that (and basically with that turning an idea into a fully fletched definitive game, something i initially didn't think was neseccary as like i stated above always had the impression that this was Cube's job, not mine) instead, than I guess i could reshape the thread in a way that still clearly shows the simple mainpremise and idea of the concept (alliances) and with that add a big draft of how i think the game should look like in accordance to which additional ideas to use aswell. Or i could just state somewhere in my thread that my vision of the game/endproduct is that i would like to see every fix and additional idea added, i'll probably just go with that.
Sorry for all the rambling, i'm quite sleep deprivated for a while now at the time of writing this and not feeling the most mentally "fit" (#excuses #exams #allnighterisabignono).

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.

If that's the case i would gladly have you tell me everything you think isn't clear, i'll give the things you'll mention a look (if i deem it worthy of it) and will try to do a better job at providing better clarity if you show me that it is indeed needed. Regarding that 'split' (which i now assume you mean the additional deathmatch idea with), it's all in the elaboration. The quote also includes the information about the transition of it (quote originating from the elaboration)

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.

They do have the right to do that indeed, but as i've stated before in this thread, if anyone would leave a negative vote and would want it to be taken seriously then i would want an explanation (because like @CommunistCactus stated: "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"), be it either personal or something about the concept. I am indeed a bit confrontational towards those, but i don't feel like i 'force' them. I've left a 'warning' in the thread before wherein i stated that if you were going to vote no but wouldn't add a good reason with it, that i would ask about it and that if you weren't able to come up with a good argument/reason as to why you chose your vote beforehand, it be better to just not vote at all. Sorry, it might be 'extremely' (only if you're stupid, no offense) demanding, but i don't like useless votes/voters. And i believe my approach is necessary if i want to avoid useless votes/voters, i've already learned that much.


I also just wanna quickly add something to this statement you made before:

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

I would expect Cubecraft to make clear to players what the gamemode is like and how you should play it, just like they do with literally every game i'm pretty sure. I don't see why this shouldn't be given an infoboard like those other games have, i guess cause Speed doesn't have one? Well this isn't Speed though, this is a bit more different than Speed is in relation to Normal Eggwars, so i think i'd be smart to add one.


Anyways thanks for the response @Lezappen ! Still appreciate your involvement.

looking for a person in management to say yes to this thread"

That would just make my concept look bad seeing how desperate i would be looking for positivity. Also i'm still waiting for a follow up from @Efcluke94

QUOTE="TheCatWhoFollowsEveryone!, post: 982403, member: 324691"]BTW, since @Efcluke94 (Management) already replied and said no, you should change your title from "Looking for management response" to "looking for a person in management to say yes to this thread"[/QUOTE]
That would just make my concept look bad seeing how desperate i would be looking for positivity. Also i'm still waiting for a follow up from @Efcluke94

 

[CatsLoveRainbows]

That would just make my concept look bad seeing how desperate i would be looking for positivity.

At least you would be telling the truth.

 

[FartiliciousMaleGuy]

At least you would be telling the truth.

Oh screw you el-o-l hahahhaha.
















You're kinda right though..

I'm not feeling desperate, but i mean it be a nice change now.

 

[CatsLoveRainbows]

Oh screw you el-o-l hahahhaha.
















You're kinda right though..

I mean it be a nice change now.

You could say, "Looking For Another Management Response" or "Staff Feedback Appreciated!"

 

[FartiliciousMaleGuy]

"Looking For Another Management Response"

Hahaha i like that. Is funny to me somehow and i cant lay my finger as to why, but who cares bout that right.

Will change it to that if it lets me

Edit: Oof won't let me.

 

[CatsLoveRainbows]

Edit: Oof won't let me.

Why?

Edit: U changed it! Yay! just add an S after response

 

[FartiliciousMaleGuy]

Why?

Too long, but i changed it to something else already and made it 'more' instead of 'another'. So no biggie(cheese)

 

[Shallidor]

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.

First of all nice that you actually take the time to read the suggestion and give feedback!
I just want to say, don't forget that the final deathmatch is just a potential idea, not part of the main concept ;)
I do agree with most of what you said though

 

[FartiliciousMaleGuy]

@Lezappen If you meant just the mainconcept with 'represent the gameplay that you actually want.', then no, it doesn't it. But that would have to do with the fact that just the mainconcept is not what i would want the gameplay to be like.

Also for this (something which i totally skipped by accident, my bad):

"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."

I guess you might have a point there, while i do also believe that players could get used to this, i could also indeed imagine it being a little bit hectic. I guess something like a tag above the players head could be added with the colourname on it; things like: [Light Blue]. [Blue], [Dark Blue] tags like these above the playername so it would be more noticeable compared to just an [R] for Red next to the Red playername, which you'll see now at Team Eggwars when someone is part of Red's team.
You'll see a picture of this [R] thing i speak of aswell in the solution for player ditinguishing when i go into the possible text solution (the picture of the spidermanplayer in-game). Any more solutions i haven't been able to come up with yet right now though.


But like @CookieBoy368 mentioned, it's just a potential idea that could be removed if it were not to be fixable. But i'll try finding a solution to it

 

[FartiliciousMaleGuy]

"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."
Solution: use colourname tags above players' heads

It's pretty much the same as what happens in this picture:

Just give players a similiar tag to the villager one and have it say [Light Blue] / [Blue} / [Dark Blue] / [Cyan] above the players' heads; easy and simple. Now if the colour difference still wouldn't be enough in terms of player distinguishing in the deatmatch, then with the added tag, it will. So also like the 3rd picture from above on the left of this image, but then the tag above the name (an extra picture i now added all the way below). Only difference between the picture in this image and how it would look like in the deathmatch is that instead of this tag showing the alliance it would instead show the colourname of the team when the alliance deathmatch starts.

(Note: the first picture at the upper left is supposed to say *Underlined letters* not *Normal letters*)

Here's an example of how it would look like (excuse my paint skills) with a player wearing leather armor:

This ended up being a lot easier to find a solution for than i initially thought it would be.



Thoughts on this solution anyone? Is it good? bad?

 

[FartiliciousMaleGuy]

@Lezappen Do you have any more arguments/reasons that are causing your pessimism?

Also @Efcluke94 could you please give my a response to my response on the post you made?
After you've read my response to my post i would also like to ask you: Do you not believe that a disadvantage in playercount can't be outbalanced in any possible way? In no way what so ever?

Much thanks in advance, to the both of you.

 

[FartiliciousMaleGuy]

Have yet to get many good arguments, hence the title change.

 

[CommunistCactus]

I think in general, this is definitely an idea which would be worth paying attention to and I can see a lot of potential in this.

 

[FartiliciousMaleGuy]

I think in general, this is definitely an idea which would be worth paying attention to and I can see a lot of potential in this.

I agree (obviously), no idea why the staff is so hesitant about this, the best argument i've got was that argument about the distinction between teams in the deatmatch from @Lezappen to which i had to actually find a solution for, which in the end was a quite simple one, and sorry @Efcluke94 , but your points both totally dismissed certain things i said in my thread

Spoiler: things like these

(see: "Now of course 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) as a way to remain balanced. I think something like this could be extremy interesting to play with." and an in-game incentive for teamwork (additional idea) along with me saying how players will learn how to effectively play the game, these things seemed to get totally ignored)

and therefore making them invalid unless you can prove that the things you dismissed were insufficient solutions and were therefore appropriatly dismissed.

In the end, nothing has still happened yet with this thread in terms of either an escalation or a definitive rejection backed up by good arguments. A shame, knowing how the whole point of me reviving this thread was to get just that. Now 2000+ views and 100+ replies further (granted some good discussions were held with other regular forum members, which is luckily a big positive to still take away from this) and i still haven't completed my goal: this thread receiving either an escalation or a definitive rejection (for now?) (with good arguments/reasoning, not some half-arsed (don't you dare count 'arsed' as a swearword) reasons). #Ranting.

 

[FartiliciousMaleGuy]

I added some pictures for how the map 'Eggs' could look like with alliances. Open up the 'examples' spoiler in my explanation on the mainconcept and you'll see them.

 

[FartiliciousMaleGuy]

Anyone got any remaining points left against this? I'll gladly start another civil discussion. Just make sure though that before you come up with any arguments that you've read everything that the thread has to offer about the subject you're doubtfull/negative about.

If no one got any points against this, would anyone like to see something more added to this? Or is it good the way it is now?

 

[FartiliciousMaleGuy]

I've already tagged you before @Tacosbefriends , but i'm doing it again (sorry) as i've yet to get something from you and i'm actually quite curious to what your take on this concept is, considering how you normally seem to come up with some solid points. It would be really nice if this wouldn't be ignored again this time.


(My apoligies for the 4th post in a row people)

 

[Tacosbefriends]

I've already tagged you before @Tacosbefriends

I have no strong opinions on this suggestion, as I don't play Eggwars. I don't like the concept very much, since you can easily betray your alliance and at that point, it's just Team Eggwars where teaming is kind of allowed.

 

[FartiliciousMaleGuy]

I have no strong opinions on this suggestion, as I don't play Eggwars. I don't like the concept very much, since you can easily betray your alliance and at that point, it's just Team Eggwars where teaming is kind of allowed.

Betray as in?