WOK SPECIES wishlist

[gm_al]

Please post here all the changes you would like to see within WOK SP. Try to explain WHY you would like to see the changes you suggest and HOW they would make the game more fun and challenging.

The devs will try to respond to serious suggestions....

Fire off !

[TBert]

Camouflage. Blue creatures in a square with blue plants could get an attack and defense bonus. Ditto for white creatures in squares with white plants.

[Donut]

I really like that idea with 1 complaint... You can't eat plants of your own color so it wouldn't be very beneficial to stay in that square. Good thought though

I think my biggest wish has come true 15 min turns. Now I won't have to get up and make sure I have orders for my species before work.

Donut

[korexus]

Easy. Instead of being camoflaged by plants of your own colour, make the colour optional on buying the skill. (Much like symbiosis now, choose the skill, then choose the colour you want.) So a green creature buys CAMOFLAGE (BLACK) and so gains a bonus to PATT/PDEF whenever in a square with black plants. Effectively it is now green with black stripes.

We could then, possibly, double the bonus if the camoflage colour is the same as the species colour, for two reasons.
1) If someone attacks you while you're in a square you are camoflaged in, switching colour can give you a better PATT/PDEF.
2) If you have the INDIFFERENCE skill you can gain a better bonus while still chomping happily on the plants.

This has the potential to be powerful, espeacially in combination with indifference, so I'd suggest quite a high cost. Maybe 80 skill points? Alternatively, only give a PDEF bonus or at least no PATT bonus when attacking plants...


korexus.

[gm_al]

@GHs comments:

I appreciate the comments. Believe me I am striving to make the game more attractive while keeping the balance, which is not obvious for many situations.

Ill try to answer your points now.

QUICK DEATH and DEATH FROM INACTIVITY: I understand the frustration a player can have when logging in and finding out he got killed overnight. This brings us to a few questions that need to be addressed. Try to answer them for me please.

-1- how many turns should it take to eliminate another species with the same stats/same number of specimens in a game that lasts 3024 Turns ? (assuming the maximum case of 50 species in a game).

-2- how often should a player be required to log in in order to maintain good control over his species ? (3024 Turns mean 3 weeks of play at 10-minute Turns and a month with 15-minute Turns)

-3- how much food should an OMNIVORE/CARNIVORE get from a successful hunt ? (consider that HERB/OMNI/CARNIVORE should be three rather equal valid choices)

Regarding hibernation I will keep saying that FLYING is the method we will apply to address the issue. It may not be a perfect solution, but Ill stick to it and tweak it a bit if needed. Right now it will allow you to stay away from the game for 1-2 days, at a price. We could consider making flying more easily attainable to encourage its use though. Any suggestions to make it work better are welcome. I wil still oppose any mode that would allow a player to cover more then 2 days of inactivity, especially if you can use the OQ to plan well ahead. So here is the next question:

-4- how would you change the effects/requirements for FLYING ?

I am also looking at the whole combat process again. Right now it requires you to either REACT to an attack or actively hunt the other guy down (while in other WOK games an attacker will always lose own units too when attacking) Its a HUNT and a REACTion opposed to a pure PATT vs PDEF battle where both sides lose units. That is done on purpose, to actually keep the players actively playing (and remember the mobile companies want their users to log in often....) However any suggestion regarding to make combat more challenging will be considered.

-5- how could combat/hunts be made more attractive and challenging ?

Im always trying to be as responsive and open to your ideas as I can. But please understand not everything that "might be cool" can be done easily, and also the views differ a lot on some issues. We cant make it perfect to everyone, so we try to make it fun and challenging for the most of you.

[GoatHerder]

@GHs comments:

I appreciate the comments. Believe me I am striving to make the game more attractive while keeping the balance, which is not obvious for many situations.

Ill try to answer your points now.

QUICK DEATH and DEATH FROM INACTIVITY: I understand the frustration a player can have when logging in and finding out he got killed overnight. This brings us to a few questions that need to be addressed. Try to answer them for me please.

-1- how many turns should it take to eliminate another species with the same stats/same number of specimens in a game that lasts 3024 Turns ? (assuming the maximum case of 50 species in a game).

Heaps of turns! Probably 50 or 100. You could consider something less, if there is some way to stop it happening all at once (eg. at the moment, somebody could log in 50 attacks then go to bed. Of course, they only have to log 5 attacks to kill somebody at the moment, but I believe death should result from all-out-war - not a sneak attack and your dead). I reckon 5-10 turns is ridiulously short. Any player should at least have a fighting chance to retaliate, even if he only logs on only once a day.

-2- how often should a player be required to log in in order to maintain good control over his species ? (3024 Turns mean 3 weeks of play at 10-minute Turns and a month with 15-minute Turns)

Once a day. Of course, I accept that someone who logs on twice or 3 times a day should have better control, and if he has a spell for 2-3 days, he should not be dead. It could all be managed if we put our mind to it.

The end result: After a month, I'd rather see 5 big and 45 little species running around, rather than 45 dead ones.

-3- how much food should an OMNIVORE/CARNIVORE get from a successful hunt ? (consider that HERB/OMNI/CARNIVORE should be three rather equal valid choices)

I accept that the three of them should be equally valid choices. I purposely did not mention herbivores on my post on the other thread (for the sake of brevity). OK, here goes - herbivores: 1 hunt should gain approx 5-6 turns of food (or more with better BP, more arms etc.). Omnivores eating other species: say 8-10 turns. Carnivores: say 10-15 turns.

The poitn I was making that eating other species should not destroy them as easily. In otehr words, you kill less specimens, but get more food from the ones you get.

Regarding hibernation I will keep saying that FLYING is the method we will apply to address the issue. It may not be a perfect solution, but Ill stick to it and tweak it a bit if needed. Right now it will allow you to stay away from the game for 1-2 days, at a price. We could consider making flying more easily attainable to encourage its use though. Any suggestions to make it work better are welcome. I wil still oppose any mode that would allow a player to cover more then 2 days of inactivity, especially if you can use the OQ to plan well ahead. So here is the next question:

-4- how would you change the effects/requirements for FLYING ?

I am "hopeful" that flying could work, but that was not able to be tested in the last test game. Worth looking at properly if the game gets going properly, so I can't comment in detail. I think the other problems wiped out any thought of flying.

I am also looking at the whole combat process again. Right now it requires you to either REACT to an attack or actively hunt the other guy down (while in other WOK games an attacker will always lose own units too when attacking) Its a HUNT and a REACTion opposed to a pure PATT vs PDEF battle where both sides lose units. That is done on purpose, to actually keep the players actively playing (and remember the mobile companies want their users to log in often....) However any suggestion regarding to make combat more challenging will be considered.

I'm undecided on this. I think there should be a risk in attacking, although probaly not the full effect as in WOK.

-5- how could combat/hunts be made more attractive and challenging ?

Easy---keep everyone in the game longer ...make it very difficult for someone to die or be exterminated (although not so easy so a player can come back and win in the last 3 days --they've got to work for it). I can foresee revenge, comebacks, mercenery activities in the mid-late game to make it interesting. More people, more conflict, more battlea, VPs for damage inflicted, as long as it's difficult to kill someone outright.

Im always trying to be as responsive and open to your ideas as I can. But please understand not everything that "might be cool" can be done easily, and also the views differ a lot on some issues. We cant make it perfect to everyone, so we try to make it fun and challenging for the most of you.

That's OK - I understand that. Whenever I make a suggestion, I don't mind if it rejected .... as long as it is seriously considered. I've made less and less comments in recent times as the game seems to be bedded down, but sometimes I just can't control myself when something seems amiss. Just can't help myself, I suppose.

All the best.

Goat Herder

[gm_al]

The good news is we are nearing a new version with updated rules that will (hopefully) please the majority of you players. More on that as soon as we get there.

I also have the following plan for GIBSON:
- 5x5 map with 4 teams of 3 players each
- standard 3024 Turns, but 15-minutes turnarounds
- all teams are placed manually in a corner of the map
- use of a bordered map this time
- winner team will be the one with the TWO highest scores combined in the end

Game will only start once we have the confirmed teams.

The bad news is that mobile WOK SP probably gets canned.
Seems we must save more "risky" cash to satisfy our shareholders at work. Its not yet a final decision, but right now it looks like we will stick to the internet version. I can live with that, it was an interesting experience so far - too bad the devs wont get rich now

[Mullog]

I thought I should reply to your posts and let you know that all suggestions are considered. And we are very grateful to you for making them!

It has taken lots of long discussions to get Species where it is now, and I expect many more discussions before we can say it is complete.
At its current state the game is working and playable but it still needs a lot of work to make it fun and interesting enough to play.

Now, to your suggestions.
I had a long discussion with Al about how to make it harder to kill a species. We agreed that instead of changing how the game works, we change the numbers. In this case it means that we change the number of times you hunt another species, thereby reducing the number of specimens hunted and at the same time increasing the amount of foor you get from hunting another species.
The problem was that when reducing the number of hunts done we quickly get down to a few attacks per round which makes luck a much bigger factor than earler. With only two attacks you can fail both and gain no food!
As a compromise we decided to divide the number of attacks and multiply the food gained by five. This will make killing another species take five times longer. Combined with 15 minute turns, I hope this will make species live longer. If it is not enough, we will have to look at other measures.

As for Hannibals suggestion about defensive co-op, I must say it is really interesting. I liked the idea the last time you made it too (I don't know if I replied to it or not, I had my head buried in code at that time), but I can see a few problems with making it work properly in the game right now.
The major problem is that you don't really know which species are around you. You have to spy to find out who is there and you do not know if a new species has entered an area or not. The best part of your suggestion (IMO) is that it makes it much more useful to interact with your fellow players, but as long as you don't know who are where it is hard to know who to contact.
This could easily enough be changed of course. And right now I think it would be a good idea. Maybe you should know of all species in your neightbourhood (just names and numbers would be enough)? That would make it much easier to know who to contact.
I don't think it would be a problem that players moved together. How should this work? Should you choose a species that you cooperate with? Would you have to select a square or should it last as long as you stay together?

Now it is late. I have more questions, but I cant remember them right now. Anyway, thanks for your suggestions!


Mullog

[Donut]

There are a few problems that I see with Han's suggestion. The first being that two players in the same square for an extended amount of time will starve. The plant source isn't nearly enough for one player in the early game, and later in the game there are more specimen which also makes it hard to keep the plant number up.

The other problem I see is that I find it hard to actually find players to coop with, let alone be attacked by. In the last game I had the north half of the map revealed but only found UD and Malik.

Donut

[Hannibal]

But, Donut, surely if there were only 3 of you in the northern half, then the southern half must have been pretty crowded?.....making 3 players for whom it was irrelevant, but rather more than 3 for whom it might be relevant? Or are you only talking about an endgame, with only about 3 in the north and three in the south? Maybe it's not for endgames.....unless you're the only two herbivores left, and the carni's are starving......

I guess we all go from own experience in the game.......you seldom shared a square; in my last game I almost never had a square to myself, twice sharing with one other, once 3 of us, once 4 of us munching away in the same square. Even when there were just two of us (surrounded by big ?'s on 3 sides), I might have liked the option of we two doing a defensive co-op, just IN CASE a third entered....it was pretty crowded round there!

And I agree 2 species in one square might use up the plant quickly..........but they often do as the game stands, don't they?.......and at least it would stop a third from coming in and depleting plant even faster.....and,yes, you pay the penalty of sharing plant, that's why it's an OPTION rather than an unassailable strategy!

I don't think it would be a problem that players moved together. How should this work? Should you choose a species that you cooperate with? Would you have to select a square or should it last as long as you stay together?

My picture of it was that it would be a temporary arrangement: you can only agree it with a species you are already in a square with, it's only valid till one or both of you leave that square, and only has any effect when a third player is in the square, and is invalid while 4 or more players are in the square (so you could still get eaten if attacker gets someone else in...), but is re-instated in that square if a 4th player moves out, leaving you as 3 again. ie 2 herds can only face off ONE other, preventing that other from eating plant, and halving that predator's predation of either of the 2 co-operating species.

In my mind, it would cost a little to "buy" the arrangement, say, 3 SP each, just so that it wasn't automatic, and you had to weigh it against other options. If both species pay up, and specify each other, then the arrangement is in force in that square. Of course, one of you might want it more than the other....especially if one herd is bigger and eating faster.......(that could be a problem with the idea).

If both moved on to another square together, they'd have to arrange it again for that square.......always risking that two other players in the square would invalidate it. And sticking together might be poor long term....maybe better they search for resources in different directions, and maybe come together again if one finds a good source, especially if it already has a third player in it that you could close out together....unless he brought a fourth in...

As for the need to spy all round.......up to you......I saw it more as a thing you might do if you happened to find yourself in a square with one stranger, and wanted to strike a deal to keep surrounding ?'s from coming in and splitting it 3 ways......or eating you both fast.

Anyway, there probably ARE things wrong with it, maybe the way it affects other aspects. That's up to you guys.

Han

[Donut]

I guess we all go from own experience in the game.......

I guess that's true. That's probably why I don't find it necessary...

I think the biggest thing that I would like to see, now that we're back to 15 min turns, is an increase in mobility. I like moving around the map but getting 2 legs only saves you 2 turns per move. My off-the-wall suggestion would be to increase the movement cost for having no legs, and increase the movement bonus for gaining a leg. I don't think it would change the movement cost for having 2 legs, but it would make the bonuses for having a leg much higher. It would also make it reasonably hard for not having a leg.

Donut

[GoatHerder]

I think the biggest thing that I would like to see, now that we're back to 15 min turns, is an increase in mobility. I like moving around the map but getting 2 legs only saves you 2 turns per move. My off-the-wall suggestion would be to increase the movement cost for having no legs, and increase the movement bonus for gaining a leg. I don't think it would change the movement cost for having 2 legs, but it would make the bonuses for having a leg much higher. It would also make it reasonably hard for not having a leg.

Donut[/quote]I too think an increase in mobility would be great, but I think it'd be counter-productive to make thinks slower in the early stages. The game is already very slow until you gain 2-3 legs and a couple of brain cells. I reckon I'd be better if things were faster all round - including in the early stages. If we run out movement bonuses for higher numbers of legs (eg. in case someone ever happens to reach 6 or 8 legs) then I see no worries about substituting hunting or defensive bonuses instead.

[Lardmaster]

And this game sucked too. If only we had stuck at our core gaming market. This was like a game called horizons you got with a zx spetrum 48k, if anyone remembers that.

[Saladin]

Wok species wishlist...hmm...

I would like to be able to evolve my own little army of nasty creatures and then be able to import them in to wok 5 and go on a rampage with them.