View Full Version : Stars for players

09-11-2005, 12:17 PM
When someone is the top player (in Top player list) he could become a color star behind his name for ever like Football Chaimpionchip! Or when he is in the top-ten he becomes stars in differnet colors like eBay.

Is it an idea?

09-11-2005, 01:30 PM
I think it's a great idea. I already once brought up a medaille system. Would work just the same but 'stars' is more practical. :cool:

His Lord Uberdude
09-11-2005, 06:44 PM
Yes, when I've conquered the world, I know what I want: a star by my name! I've dominated all humankind, have defeated my enemies, now I want my rewards! GIVE ME STARS!! :lol:

09-11-2005, 07:57 PM
Yeah, but "top player" is meaningless. The population of cities has no real meaning. It's a complete abstraction, utterly disconnected from the games economies. Currently, it's only an "ego" factor. Seriously.

Until populations are dynamic both in number, citizens' "approval ratings" of occupation leadership, recruiting base for military conscription, and so forth -- well, it's pointless to think much about how "valuable" such a city is.

There's been a lot of talk about what kind of value and liability cities should have, and Mickey's last rumination seemed a brilliant creation of tension that would prevent runaway evaluations. But currently it's insane. A nuked city could be occupied in short order, and if it's a huge population center the occupier immediately has something of VALUE? Please.

Hey, here's a suggestion. Anyone nuking a city is required to occupy it within one week for at least two full days, or they lose half their net worth (in real terms). THAT would put some deterence out there. Imagine having to fear whether your enemies might jump the city you nuked as soon as it cooled, not allowing you to occupy, thereby ensuring your loss of net worth?

It's these subtle, intricate, devious possibiliities that could make the game darned interesting.

A good scientific theory has several hallmarks:

- it sufficiently explains the data
- it has predictive power
- it's among the simplest of candidate theories for a phenomenon
- it offers hypotheses that can be tested
- it leads to practical applications
- it should be productive of further theorizing

I think, likewise, some characteristics of good game features might be outlined.

- it is as "real world" as possible
- intuition can readily see some implications for player behavior
- intuition can NOT see all implications for player behavior
(there are unintended consequences -- something not seeable when
designing the feature)
- its implementation, administration, and use is tractable
- it allows for an suggests further excellent (not trivial) features
- it leads to "emergent behaviors" that don't seem to be direct effects of
the feature as cause (non-linearity).

Anyone else have any candidate characteristics?