A debate on battle conquest features

I want to share a few thoughts on Battle Conquest, which I consider the best strategy game I have played in 20 years. Since my communication style is verbose, I'll do this as a few posts. In Another post: Joyce wrote: Yes, exactly what Fyrr said!! +1. Fyrr communicates so much more succinctly than me --- I wish I had that gift! I truly wish I had the gift of succinctness; however I don't.

The spirit dances & the dream become reality.

---

The genesis for this debate begins at The High Council's Round Table:

RuneSlayer wrote:

Joyce wrote:

RuneSlayer wrote:

If we decide to go that way, then BC will change dramatically and we will be talking about BC 2. The purpose will be to go for an Early Access program which will provide the resources needed in order to get BC to the point we want it to reach in a much faster pace than it is going right now due to the lack of resources.

The ToDo list is merely a list of the things we want to implement and not what BC needs to have to be considered a finished product. Granted, a lot of things could be changed and improved but all the features in the ToDo list are not prerequisites but rather future features of a product. As this is a persistent world and a game which evolves day by day and given the chance we will never stop developing it further, rebranding the game with 3D graphics and changing the current graphics with much more improved artwork would help tremendously towards the implementation of all the features that we want to add and even more not announced yet. Better quality, more exposure, more interest towards the game which could guarantee its longevity.

I'd love to see battle conquest succeed even more than it already has ...

First though, a simple question: is it better to have the debate on what features we believe will lead to "more interest towards the game which could guarantee its longevity." here or in the general forums?

The reasons I want to have the debate is to give feedback to the developers; who can then consider which parts to pay attention to & which to ignore -- plus I think would just be a fun enjoyable debate anyway ... I'll even promise .... to not be 100% silly but semi-serious in my arguments!

Joyce, we have no secrets and we are definitely not plotting in the High Council. :)You are free to talk about the things we discuss here. In fact, that is exactly what the purpose of the High Council is...to communicate what we are discussing here to your members...

So...by all means..go ahead.

RuneSlayer wrote:

Having said what we are planning....We would love to hear what YOU believe we should be working on next.

I am personally looking forward to read your thoughts on that.

To avoid tens of posts, I would encourage you people to discuss about it first and then having decided upon this matter post about it...

If it is not about creating a whole new game... :)then you can be certain that we will do it...

As promised, in this debate I'll ... not be 100% silly but semi-serious in my arguments!

Reserved for Index (and will be edited over time):

1. Preface
   
2. Index
   
3. List of suggested features
   
4. Purpose of Debate
   
5. Temptation
   
6. Imperfection
   
7. Too long; didn't read
   
8. Brevity
   
9. Estimations
   

Reserved for Suggested Features (and will be edited over time):

Imperfection

I'd also like customers of Battle Conquest to understand modern software development process a little better.

Computer software is difficult, and its inevitable that bugs are introduced when creating software.

This is particularly true when dealing with other software that changes underneath you.  For example dealing with Chrome, Firefox, Internet Explorer, each with their own version of flash

Joyce wrote:

RuneSlayer wrote:

This is the problem with Flash apps and multiple browsers....

You fix something and then the next day browser A decides to do this and browser B that...then Flash gets updated and you need to "refix" everything once again...

Yah ... the joy's of debugging (Note to the humour challenged: that was sarcasm!) .. Congratulations on finding one of the most annoying problems with browser games ...

---

Likewise from Hostfix on October 23rd, 2013

Runeslayer wrote:

We made several changes to resolve the incompatibility issues with the Internet Explorer.

Eek!  Run away! ... Congratulations on maintaining your sanity after fixing bugs in Internet Explorer --- no wonder you are considering to Go 3D for the next version -- that is 10x easier & more enjoyable than finding & fixing bugs in Internet Explorer (sadly I am NOT teasing here).

---

Due to the need to fix bugs, while at the same time developing future features, it is quite common, in modern software development, to have multiple branches. It is also quite frequent, that different developers are working on the same area of code in different branches. Hence when branches are merged (see picture on the right, there is a merge from #3 to #4, and also from #7 to #9), sometimes there are conflicts which need to be resolved. When its time to release (for example at T1 & T2 on the picture to the right), then you create release notes. Hopefully which each 'checkin' (i.e.: each box on the right is a checkin, as you 'check' the code 'into' the source code control system) - there are comments as to what was changed.   These however, are frequently, development comments rather than release not comments.

---

Therefore you need to create release notes.  Sometimes, due to the rush of fixing critical bugs, the 'checkin' comments are incomplete.  So now you have to look at source code differences to figure out what was changed & what release notes to make! By a combination of check-in comments (and when necessary, looking at source code differences), you can then produce the release notes. If some code was refactored is is possible that there are large number of changes; and if another small merge in the same area of code was also done, its very possible to miss this change when quickly scanning the code looking for differences. Overall, creating the release notes is not much fun, but needs to be done. Just as bugs are in the code, due to human imperfection, likewise release notes are not perfect due to human imperfection. The developers do not purposefully introduce bugs into the code; and likewise, it is highly doubtful, they purposefully leave out features from the patch notes.

---

For example, recently, a patch allowed you to see your armies that needed healing when forming an army to go fight!  A Wonderful feature -- Thanks!!

Looking at the 7 latest patch notes:

1. October 22nd, 2013
   
2. October 23rd, 2013
   
3. Halloween, October 31st, 2013
   
4. November 1st, 2013
   
5. November 5th, 2103
   
6. November 6th, 2013
   
7. November 7th, 2013
   

None of these patch notes mention this wonderful new feature!

A simple oversight in the patch notes; I'm sure the developers were not trying to hide this new feature from us.

---

In This thread on patch notes:

Bonezz wrote:

I've said it before---MAKE BETTER PATCH NOTES!

From my experience with patch notes & seeing what the developers of Battle Conquest are doing, they are making a reasonable effort.

Its quite normal that sometimes features are missing from the patch notes (as explained) above, both features that players may see as negative features & ones that players see as positive features.

Developers, like the rest of us, are human, and make mistakes from time to time.

I'm sure that creating a game like battle conquest is fun & enjoyable; but like nay work it is mixed in with much frustration, bug fixes, time constraints .. and at times the patch notes are not perfect.

I hope this was helpful, to give a perspective on modern software development.

Dear Joyce,

While we are all constantly impressed by the time and effort you put into your posts, along with your consistent attention to detail; I worry that the sheer amount of content you put forth scares or overwhelms people to the point where they don't bother reading at all. Very much a TLDR scenario. While this may be more of a reflection on the 'readers' laziness (of which you know I am sufficiently 'lazy' ), it could unfortunately be considered the larger demographic on these forums.

My point is, you may wish to be more succinct in your posts and leave out information that is simply not important or relevant (however humorous or character building it may be). - Lest your efforts be wasted completely. Such may be the case with 180 views over 5 days with no replies (other than this).

Brevity

XViper wrote:

My point is, you may wish to be more succinct in your posts.

Thanks for the feedback, Xviper -- Ok, I'll seriously attempt to be succinct through Friday.

Estimations




From Page 19

This is the developer's dream game and they care enormously about their work so, as expected, that ruins their ability to estimate how long features take.

We can help them, when suggesting new features using the concepts of the Wisdom of crowds (see link) by coming to consensus on the High Council as to good estimates of how long features will take.  These estimates will, over time, become more highly accurate.

Maximal Power

Previously, I wrote a very confusing sentence on Maximal Power

RuneSlayer wrote:

Also..

Joyce wrote:

To decide what is the maximal power one user appropriately can have .vs. other users, and then to implement this into the game (right now this number is close to 100x or higher, which is very frustrating for newbies, who often feel their efforts are futile --- thus they leave the game).   Obviously the developers keep trying to adjust this number downward, the community (generally of older players who like the 100x+ power a lot) resists though very strongly.  I suggest getting this number closer to 20x or so -- and if people want to go above 20x then this can only be done more via communities and coordination with other players (i.e.: guilds, etc.).  This will require major development efforts (and communication skills to the current community!) -- but I believe is a far higher priority.

You lost me there...

To explain:

1. Part of the brilliance of Battle Conquest is the persistent world;
   
2. That allows users to make an impact, hence feeling important;
   
3. New players get discouraged, and feel their playing is futile, when a team of 20 of them in a guild take a week to control a region; and then a single high level player, in 6 hours can sabotage that region
   

I believe this game needs major adjustments to the maximum power that an advanced user can have .vs. a new user:

• Currently It is about 100 times as much (i.e.: I can do 99 conquest points in 1 minute on nightmare at >>> mode or 1,089 in ~half an hour by doing this 11 times -- a team of 10 newbies cannot compete with me, this feel unfair to them);
  
• Godlikes are too powerful in PvP;
  
• Non-Stop cooperatives (since not limited by command points) gives someone with 12+ hours a day an overwhelming edge over other players;
  
• Established Guilds are too powerful for New Users that want their own guilds (especially because of limited special regions);
  

As a war game, is is appropriate that advanced users have more power than new users ... I am suggesting that 20 time is more appropriate than 100 time.

I believe, new users need to feel welcome, and that they, too, can have an impact on the world in a reasonable amount of time.  For example within a week, rather than a month or more.

This will be a very difficult feature to implement, and will touch many parts of the game.  Balancing the need of new users & more advanced users, makes it even more delicate.  It may be necessary to make these changes in Version 2 of Battle Conquest, since in the current version, these features, have become baked into the persistent world, and current advanced users expectations.

---

Joyce wrote:

I truly wish I had the gift of succinctness

I did my best to be succinct here, XViper -- Maximal Power is a hard concept to explain, so I partly failed in being succinct. Sorry.  I'll keep working on brevity.

Joyce wrote:

[*]Godlikes are too powerful in PvP;

I'll just pick this out of the pile.

My idea, remove Godlikes from PvP all-together.
Just like in other games, PvE items can generally be far more powerful than PvP items, as the AI doesn't feel 'cheated' or 'dismayed' when it gets its ass kicked.

Restrict Godlikes to PvE only. Not only does this remove the feeling of overpowered items, it also somewhat addresses the 'Pay to Win' feelings associated with PvP (as the most successful players have clearly obtained most of their Godlike items from Gem purchases).

It has been proven in other successful games that having 'premium' items available to give you an 'edge' but not against other players seems to work just fine.

XViper wrote:

Joyce wrote:

[*]Godlikes are too powerful in PvP;

[*]
I'll just pick this out of the pile.

My idea, remove Godlikes from PvP all-together.
Just like in other games, PvE items can generally be far more powerful than PvP items, as the AI doesn't feel 'cheated' or 'dismayed' when it gets its ass kicked.

Restrict Godlikes to PvE only. Not only does this remove the feeling of overpowered items, it also somewhat addresses the 'Pay to Win' feelings associated with PvP (as the most successful players have clearly obtained most of their Godlike items from Gem purchases).

It has been proven in other successful games that having 'premium' items available to give you an 'edge' but not against other players seems to work just fine.

[*]

I'd just like to point out... Pay to win is exactly that. People pay in order to win. There's a reason that the BC allows people to buy things. They're interested in money. The typical people who pay to win won't pay unless they can win. It seems redundant but it's true.

Joyce wrote:

I believe, new users need to feel welcome, and that they, too, can have an impact on the world in a reasonable amount of time.  For example within a week, rather than a month or more.

I've been here for a little more than two weeks and I've been making noticeable impact on my tiles since last week, so I feel the month is dramatically overstating things.

Quote :

• Currently It is about 100 times as much (i.e.: I can do 99 conquest points in 1 minute on nightmare at >>> mode or 1,089 in ~half an hour by doing this 11 times -- a team of 10 newbies cannot compete with me, this feel unfair to them);
  
• Non-Stop cooperatives (since not limited by command points) gives someone with 12+ hours a day an overwhelming edge over other players;
  

Active players should have an edge over casual players (this is why casuals can p2w). Older and more developed players, who probably have payed the devs some quid at one point or the other, should have an edge over new players.

The ratio is debatable, 100:1 may be too high but nerf it too hard and you'll end up with lots of angry players.

Spyder wrote:

Pay to win is exactly that. People pay in order to win.

Agreed.

WHAT?
a full page with pictures, colours, the setup for a complete book?
pray explain how this might be linked to having a 'debate' ?

Concepts

klaas wrote:

WHAT?
a full page with pictures, colours, the setup for a complete book?
pray explain how this might be linked to having a 'debate' ?

I want to explain my thoughts, carefully, in one place for Version 2 & Version 3 of battle conquest; and have others then respond.

A lot of my ideas flow from trying to understand the roots of what makes battle conquest such a great game now & then projecting the same concepts forward.

So I want to debate the underlying concepts & then suggested improvements to make.

Also I want to look at limitations the developers are working under (a small development team has very hard choices to make what can & cannot be done); and also the aspects of marketing a product.  All these have a direct impact on what features make sense to develop & how to prioritize them.

I believe, some of the concepts I want to explain will seem very counter intuitive without this background.

Thus the background first. And Yes, I am probably overdoing the background  As you know brevity is not my strong suit -- I'm working on improving that.

Best Strategy Game in 20 years

Dakota is my best friend in Battle Conquest; we spent many hours writing letters to each other.  From September 4th, 2013:





To make this easier to quote later:

Joy wrote:

I think this is the best strategy game to come out in the last 20 years

Joy wrote:

This game is fascinating because its *NOT* clear we can win.

I mean, mathematically, winning light .vs. dark is *easy*

The real key, is uniting the people, lol.

So its *really* a battle of wits, patience, forgiveness, grace, understanding, encouragement, manipulation, anger, joy, etc, etc.

Truly an amazing strategy game.

Can we win?  Maybe!

The maybe is what makes it *so* interesting & the only way to win; is by interacting, positively with irritating, annoying people, lol.

Fascinating!