PDA

View Full Version : Big Oil, Cotton and Diamond changes



Mickey
10-21-2005, 08:25 PM
I've made some changes to the oil wells, diamond mines and cotton fields that I think you'll like.

First, whether there's room for one or not is based only on the resources that you've placed - not everyone elses. This means you should always be able to find some room!

Next, I slowed everything down again. They'll still earn around 60-600 Geos for you over the course of their lifespan, but there are some differences.

Cotton Fields will give you the best return on your money, but they may take months to pay off.

Oil Wells will make the next best return on your money, but they'll take a few weeks to pay off.

Diamond Mines will give the worst return on your money, but they'll pay off in a matter of days - usually around a week.

Keep in mind that even diamond mines with their "low" payoff will still earn between 20-1000% profit for you.

Please let me know of any bugs you find.

Enjoy!

Timmetie
10-21-2005, 08:35 PM
with everyone having their own field, this will shake the bonus cities' incomes

Mickey
10-21-2005, 09:33 PM
with everyone having their own field, this will shake the bonus cities' incomes
It will simply create more fields/wells/etc, meaning more overall income for the bonus city owners. I'll be lowering their percent take anyhow.

Timmetie
10-21-2005, 09:52 PM
i didnt mean shake as in downgrading it.

if you assume the fields would be full before then there would indeed be more coming in. but for the next 10 days or so that would be a sliding curve.

just saying it might be hard to level that.

TheMightySquigglies
10-21-2005, 10:39 PM
this is awful, my income has just slumped drastically.

I hate it

His Lord Uberdude
10-21-2005, 10:41 PM
I just dropped about 100 geos in daily income, but I like the changes...

Mickey
10-22-2005, 12:22 AM
this is awful, my income has just slumped drastically.

I just dropped about 100 geos in daily income, but I like the changes...
These changes shouldn't have made things any worse for you. What's the change?

His Lord Uberdude
10-22-2005, 01:50 AM
Oh, never mind, my mistake. I just lost a city, and the taxes dissappeared.

KayEss
10-22-2005, 03:25 AM
I like the changes. Should make it much more scalable with more new players.


Mickey, there is a KMZ file with all the country borders on it (and back linked to the CIA fact book). I have a copy I can send you and it's also on the official Google site (can't remember the name I'm afraid). Send me a PM or an email if you want my copy. It's quite big (about 1.5MB) and not 100% acurate (Northern Ireland isn't part of the UK it seems), but will at least allow you to work out where countries are (and thus also where most of the land is).

I was thinking of using it to do some land calculations too.

Mickey
10-22-2005, 03:38 AM
PM sent

KayEss
10-22-2005, 02:01 PM
Just been digging a new oil well and it strikes me that it would be better if the oil wells had to fit in with the others from your alliance. This way if an alliance gets too big then players will find themselves hamstrung as they won't be able to get these resources. This may well get the larger alliances to fragment.

Of course to stop any abuse you should only be able to change alliances maybe once a week (although I think that's probably a good idea anyway).

araT
10-22-2005, 02:30 PM
Just been digging a new oil well and it strikes me that it would be better if the oil wells had to fit in with the others from your alliance. This way if an alliance gets too big then players will find themselves hamstrung as they won't be able to get these resources. This may well get the larger alliances to fragment.

Of course to stop any abuse you should only be able to change alliances maybe once a week (although I think that's probably a good idea anyway).

Brilliant thinking! Great ideas, Mickey, can we impliment this??

T.

Radeon
10-22-2005, 02:36 PM
LOL i got a cotten field that lasts 89 days!

Timmetie
10-22-2005, 03:06 PM
Just been digging a new oil well and it strikes me that it would be better if the oil wells had to fit in with the others from your alliance. This way if an alliance gets too big then players will find themselves hamstrung as they won't be able to get these resources. This may well get the larger alliances to fragment.

Of course to stop any abuse you should only be able to change alliances maybe once a week (although I think that's probably a good idea anyway).

good thinking, but i think if its going to be such a big factor, we will just get different cells in 1 alliance again, at the moment there are no real advantages of actually being in the same alliance except seeing each other's information (which we're finding can be a downside as well).

Mickey
10-22-2005, 04:27 PM
LOL i got a cotten field that lasts 89 days!
If I recall correctly, they can last up to about 120 if you get real lucky. :)


good thinking, but i think if its going to be such a big factor, we will just get different cells in 1 alliance again, at the moment there are no real advantages of actually being in the same alliance except seeing each other's information (which we're finding can be a downside as well).
My thoughts exactly.

TheLeveller
10-22-2005, 05:47 PM
I just got an oil well today, it lasts until November 17, which is 26 days. The production is 55 barrels... :slant:
That's 143 geos, after the 50 geos I spent I will have a "profit" of 93 geos. 93 geos in 26 days...3,58 geos a day.
Is this already the bottom of daily production and lasting time, or could it get even worse?

Mickey
10-22-2005, 05:59 PM
I just got an oil well today, it lasts until November 17, which is 26 days. The production is 55 barrels... :slant:
That's 143 geos, after the 50 geos I spent I will have a "profit" of 93 geos. 93 geos in 26 days...3,58 geos a day.
Is this already the bottom of daily production and lasting time, or could it get even worse?
In theory, it could get a bit worse. The bare minimum is on diamond mines, which may make a minimum of 60 Geos. The production on that is right near the bottom - bad luck for you.

The idea is that you continue to build new ones every 36 hours or so. If you continue to do that, and they all last a long time, you'll eventually have 20 or 30 various things going at once, which will bring in 60-100 Geos a day.

TheLeveller
10-22-2005, 06:07 PM
In theory, it could get a bit worse. The bare minimum is on diamond mines, which may make a minimum of 60 Geos. The production on that is right near the bottom - bad luck for you.

The idea is that you continue to build new ones every 36 hours or so. If you continue to do that, and they all last a long time, you'll eventually have 20 or 30 various things going at once, which will bring in 60-100 Geos a day.
...20 or 30 various things at once, which will bring 60-100 Geos a day. In the past one single oil well made more than that a day.

KayEss
10-22-2005, 06:12 PM
good thinking, but i think if its going to be such a big factor, we will just get different cells in 1 alliance again, at the moment there are no real advantages of actually being in the same alliance except seeing each other's information (which we're finding can be a downside as well).

Hmmm, with the alliance there's at least a perception that members will back each other up. If you're a small fish on your own I suspect you'll get more picked on than if you're a small fish in a big alliance.

If the amount of crowding was worked out properly it would instill a cost as well as a benefit on forming alliances and in effect put a cap on the effective size of an alliance. If there's no benefit then why do so many players join them? And why are they in the game?


One thing I was thinking was that if some percentage, say 10%, of your resource production was spread around to the other alliance members then it would encourage alliances that formed around the total sustainable resource output.

Players who were always able to play (i.e could always find time to put down an oil well or cotton field at exactly the right time) would not find any benefit in an alliance as it would in effect tax them. Players who could only play occasionally would form alliances with others who played the same way as they would share in the production that they could generate.

There are a few follow on implications from this, but I'm sure you all get those.

Mickey
10-22-2005, 06:28 PM
In the past one single oil well made more than that a day.
True, but it wouldn't last as long. You'd have to make 20 or 30 of them to keep that rate of income.

The bottom line, unless I'm doing my math wrong, is that this brings in the same amount of income but simply stretches it out longer. The players that build new wells/mines/fields more often will do better, as they'll stack up and generate more income per day. This rewards players that play the game every day or two, which is the goal of any game like this.

War_Peace
10-23-2005, 12:26 AM
Maybe you can change the 36 hour limit to 24 hours? Users can set an hour and plant at the same time everyday...

blitzkrieg
10-23-2005, 01:18 AM
I'm not too sure that moving the mines back to stingy long drawn out affairs is the right way to go. Now jewel hunting and jewel script creation has been given an enormous priority boost again because mines take as much as 10 days to pay you back before making any profit...

Middle ground? Or leave the time length and increase the output?

dalou
10-23-2005, 03:17 AM
first change : every player will always find space to plant a field. Thus it will allow beginers to find a field easily. that's good for the game

second change : its consequence is that in one month, if things keep going like that, I'll have around 50 fields, a beginer won't be abble to compete with people like me. that's bad for the game

both : won't bonus cities holders be wining way too much money ? As an example, currently the day income of a group of 4 players is greater than the one of Atlanta's owner... will you make sure that it will stay the same or will it take 10 people to fight for Atlanta ?

js3486
10-23-2005, 05:17 AM
Finally Mickey you did something I agree with Kudos to you ....

Timmetie
10-23-2005, 07:52 AM
both : won't bonus cities holders be wining way too much money ? As an example, currently the day income of a group of 4 players is greater than the one of Atlanta's owner... will you make sure that it will stay the same or will it take 10 people to fight for Atlanta ?

Bonus cities will only gain the money from wells that didnt fit in when they were still worth more, and i didnt really have the idea of the fields filling up.

actually, when the old wells start drying out, and the new ones havn't kicked in yet, the bonus cities will lose quite some money. ofcourse this will rebound, but i dont think itll rebound to new hights.

ronnielim
10-23-2005, 08:00 AM
how about that.. earth quakes on mine field... fire on cotton field... leaks at oil drill....

NOt all the time but in a once in a while and the whole production line STOPs~!!...this can really bring down the income of the bonus city for a while.... and also force the owner of these city to save up~ and not pump all the income to their allies...

araT
10-23-2005, 09:13 AM
ronnie; I've suggested real-world natural distaster affect the game before, i think its brilliant idea :) thanks for bringing it up again :D

T.

His Lord Uberdude
10-23-2005, 01:11 PM
Mickey, this new thing will be profitable once we have 20-30 wells, or whatever, but that will take over a month amass, with the timer. All my resources that are keeping my overall income high are gonna croak in a couple days. Please shorten the time limit.

felipeboralli
10-23-2005, 04:15 PM
time for another source of income?

iron?

felipeboralli
10-23-2005, 04:22 PM
Mickey, this new thing will be profitable once we have 20-30 wells, or whatever, but that will take over a month amass, with the timer. All my resources that are keeping my overall income high are gonna croak in a couple days. Please shorten the time limit.

also, this 36 hour limit has no reason for existing now. remember that it was created as a way to prevent ppl settling too many fields, thus leaving others without space. Now, thatīs not possible anymore. The one I compete for space is me, and no more else.

Mickey
10-23-2005, 04:51 PM
also, this 36 hour limit has no reason for existing now. remember that it was created as a way to prevent ppl settling too many fields, thus leaving others without space. Now, thatīs not possible anymore. The one I compete for space is me, and no more else.
It still exists so that you can't amass HUGE amounts of money too easily. If you can keep building more and more with no limit, you could quickly pile up a ton of money. This keeps it scaled back, at least a little bit.

His Lord Uberdude
10-23-2005, 06:22 PM
Well, I guess the game is gonna move a LOT slower now....

Timmetie
10-23-2005, 06:24 PM
It still exists so that you can't amass HUGE amounts of money too easily. If you can keep building more and more with no limit, you could quickly pile up a ton of money. This keeps it scaled back, at least a little bit.

actually i agree with felipe here.

if i choose to fill my entire diamond field in 1 go, shouldnt this be my choice?

maby the fields are too large now for this kind of thing, but maby make em smaller.

felipeboralli
10-23-2005, 06:49 PM
It still exists so that you can't amass HUGE amounts of money too easily. If you can keep building more and more with no limit, you could quickly pile up a ton of money. This keeps it scaled back, at least a little bit.

the point is that big players want to scale up, getting these huge ammounts of money you say. itīs lacking scalability. A big player must get more money than a small one, what not happens today, except for the bank.

Then a reset comes regularly to smash down the differences and make all the same again. The bigger should be allowed to get more money than the smaller: I want to be able to use all the money I have now to create fields/mines. If everybody is allowed to it, players with the best strat will be able to get it.

Now, as is, itīs not the best strategy that wins. The question in GEWar is only and solely money, and how to get money, being a economical game. The richest wins the war. Simple like that.

blitzkrieg
10-23-2005, 10:29 PM
actually i agree with felipe here.

if i choose to fill my entire diamond field in 1 go, shouldnt this be my choice?

maby the fields are too large now for this kind of thing, but maby make em smaller.

Yep I agree, decrease the field area so that everyone can only build about 30 m/w/f of each type and abolish the limit. A newbie will (if he has good fiscal sense) spend the first week in the game building up his asset base and expanding from there. One week of building instead of 4 weeks to build up to maximum output. Then it's just a job of maintaining the spaces to ensure they are full - still an ongoing day or two exercise.

Mickey
10-24-2005, 01:03 AM
Yep I agree, decrease the field area so that everyone can only build about 30 m/w/f of each type and abolish the limit. A newbie will (if he has good fiscal sense) spend the first week in the game building up his asset base and expanding from there. One week of building instead of 4 weeks to build up to maximum output. Then it's just a job of maintaining the spaces to ensure they are full - still an ongoing day or two exercise.
That makes sense. I'll play with that tomorrow night and see what I can do.

KayEss
10-24-2005, 02:29 AM
Yep I agree, decrease the field area so that everyone can only build about 30 m/w/f of each type and abolish the limit. A newbie will (if he has good fiscal sense) spend the first week in the game building up his asset base and expanding from there. One week of building instead of 4 weeks to build up to maximum output. Then it's just a job of maintaining the spaces to ensure they are full - still an ongoing day or two exercise.

At the moment the difference between players who can put a lot of time into it and those that can't isn't that great. The players who are always able to play may get a new mine about every 36 and a bit hours. The players who don't have that much time maybe every 48 and a bit hours and occasionally longer.

If you remove that limit then those with time will leap ahead and those without will find themselves so far behind in money terms that it becomes pointless to play.

blitzkrieg
10-24-2005, 04:27 AM
At the moment the difference between players who can put a lot of time into it and those that can't isn't that great. The players who are always able to play may get a new mine about every 36 and a bit hours. The players who don't have that much time maybe every 48 and a bit hours and occasionally longer.

If you remove that limit then those with time will leap ahead and those without will find themselves so far behind in money terms that it becomes pointless to play.

I don't understand your point, KayEss. If you save up your money and build just mines, a player who constantly checks their available geos and buys a mine everytime chance they get will start seeing an imporvement to their passive income faster than one who checks and updates every 48 hours. This is a problem to you?

To use Mickey's tennis analogy, if someone wants to scale the high earner lists, they'll train, hire good coaches, train more and improve their game.... Surely the ATP should outlaw this, so you and me can get a share of that $1,000,000 prize pool?

The less often player should and will be at a disadvantge to someone willing to devote more time to overseeing their affairs. Such is the way of things. Although the once every 48 hour player will still be able to reach the same level of earnings aswell, because in this case, they are capped. They just may take longer to get there.

Blitzkriegmj

KayEss
10-24-2005, 06:21 AM
The less often player should and will be at a disadvantge to someone willing to devote more time to overseeing their affairs. Such is the way of things. Although the once every 48 hour player will still be able to reach the same level of earnings aswell, because in this case, they are capped. They just may take longer to get there.

Blitzkriegmj

I'm not saying that somebody who plays less often shouldn't be at a disadvantage. I'm questioning the size of the disparity that should be allowed.

If somebody uses a couple of days and fills the oil, cotton and diamond areas then they will be able to rocket up the leader board given the amount of cash that is going to bring in. With the ability to only plant a resource every 36 hours this is stretched out somewhat meaning that the difference between those who have lot of time to play and those that have less time is diminished.

Those with a lot of time can collect jewels, but this isn't as efficient as the extra jewels can only go into the bank and earn a small percentage. The profit on the resource mining makes them much more valuable as the rate of return is higher.

The question isn't about whether or not players who have more time to play should have an advantage, but rather just how big an advantage do you want to give them? I don't have time to plant a load of resources, but can manage to do something every day or so (as at the moment). This means that I'm in with a reasonable chance of being in the top half of the leaderboard.

If I was up against players who had their full compliment of resources alread then I would just stop playing as the difference would be too great and I'd always be consigned to the bottom half of the leader board.

I think that reducing the time between being able to plant resources by too much removes the strategy from the game and makes the leader board just a record of time invested in planting resources.

blitzkrieg
10-24-2005, 08:00 AM
If somebody uses a couple of days and fills the oil, cotton and diamond areas then they will be able to rocket up the leader board given the amount of cash that is going to bring in. With the ability to only plant a resource every 36 hours this is stretched out somewhat meaning that the difference between those who have lot of time to play and those that have less time is diminished.

Not true. The proposal that Mickey has agreed to is to allow a user to plant as many mines as possible into their own area supplied, but that area will be smaller meaning a maximum of say 30 mines can be built. Someone playing constanly and someone playing part time will have the same limitation, but the person playing constantly will reach that limitation first, then the other WILL catch up.


If I was up against players who had their full compliment of resources alread then I would just stop playing as the difference would be too great and I'd always be consigned to the bottom half of the leader board.

That's a defeatest attitude. I've actually never played a online multiplayer game like this where you come in half way through the game before. I would expect if I started afresh that I would need an entrance startegy. Mine would be to build up an asset base first and expand from there. Pick your fights. Don't expect to defeat a bonus city or 10,000,000 + city early on, or if you do, don't expect to keep it for long. Get a reputation, be around for a while, PM potential allies as well as bluff enemies (not that I ever bluff ;) ). Basically you're right, a player starting up can't beat the guys that have been there for a while ...... Yet.

See you on the battlefield

Blitzkriegmj

KayEss
10-24-2005, 08:07 AM
Not true. The proposal that Mickey has agreed to is to allow a user to plant as many mines as possible into their own area supplied, but that area will be smaller meaning a maximum of say 30 mines can be built. Someone playing constantly and someone playing part time will have the same limitation, but the person playing constantly will reach that limitation first, then the other WILL catch up.

I'm not sure that it is possible to catch up, but only time will tell. The revenue per day from resources will catch up, but revenue from interest never will (and once a certain amount of cash is in the bank then this becomes the single biggest factor).

It skews the game towards needing a massive amount of time invested immediately the accounts are reset in order to get ahead. Anybody who misses this early boat won't stand a chance against those that have the time/energy at that point. This doesn't mean that they can't compete against other players at their level though, but in order to find those we need a leader board that gives away a little bit more than just a player's city occupation.

blitzkrieg
10-24-2005, 08:34 AM
but revenue from interest never will (and once a certain amount of cash is in the bank then this becomes the single biggest factor).

The point of this game is to buy armies and conquer cities, people like to have a buffer amount in the bank, but then they use that money to buy armies and troops and launch attacks. Some people like more of a buffer in the bank than others - You'll reach your happy point. Interest money then gets used to fund troop purchases. The only ones who tend to create large bank accounts are the ones that somehow slip under the radar and don't get attacked. I personally prefer to have troops in the field of battle because they are what moves me up the leaderbord. To be the richest has no esteem, therefore I believe people aren't as far ahead of you as you think....



but in order to find those we need a leader board that gives away a little bit more than just a player's city occupation.

I'd like that too! Think of a way of implementing one showing other details and post it in the feature suggestion board.

Blitzkriegmj

felipeboralli
10-24-2005, 02:50 PM
Yep I agree, decrease the field area so that everyone can only build about 30 m/w/f of each type and abolish the limit. A newbie will (if he has good fiscal sense) spend the first week in the game building up his asset base and expanding from there. One week of building instead of 4 weeks to build up to maximum output. Then it's just a job of maintaining the spaces to ensure they are full - still an ongoing day or two exercise.

you are misunderstanding what I said. My position was quite radical there. What I said is that I have money to build 500 oil wells, I should be allowed to. Letīs say your growth is limitless.
But I donīt want you all to think the way the way I do: itīs just my opinion.

blitzkrieg
10-24-2005, 04:09 PM
you are misunderstanding what I said. My position was quite radical there. What I said is that I have money to build 500 oil wells, I should be allowed to. Letīs say your growth is limitless.
But I donīt want you all to think the way the way I do: itīs just my opinion.

Well I like that too ;)

War_Peace
10-24-2005, 10:17 PM
http://www.googleearthhacks.com/forums/showthread.php?t=3627

js3486
10-26-2005, 06:55 PM
At the moment the difference between players who can put a lot of time into it and those that can't isn't that great. The players who are always able to play may get a new mine about every 36 and a bit hours. The players who don't have that much time maybe every 48 and a bit hours and occasionally longer.

If you remove that limit then those with time will leap ahead and those without will find themselves so far behind in money terms that it becomes pointless to play.


I disagree! We have a bank and if one has the fiscal sense or discipline to stockpile your wealth you will make up the difference quickly. Until recently my mines etc were making me enough money to compensate for other short comings. Now it is a task to make money at the rate I had been, and this is discouraging not to mention stagnating. I feel I can not build up enough to be competitive until limits are lifted.