<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Design objectives (1/2)</title>
	<atom:link href="http://blog.legacyworlds.com/index.php/2008-03-14/design-objectives-12/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://blog.legacyworlds.com/index.php/2008-03-14/design-objectives-12/</link>
	<description>Updates on the new version&#039;s design and progress</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Thu, 01 Sep 2011 22:05:29 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: TSeeker</title>
		<link>http://blog.legacyworlds.com/index.php/2008-03-14/design-objectives-12/comment-page-1/#comment-224</link>
		<dc:creator>TSeeker</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 20 Mar 2008 12:59:33 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.legacyworlds.com/index.php/2008-03-14/design-objectives-12/#comment-224</guid>
		<description>The Goa&#039;uld are the parasitic aliens from Stargate. They&#039;re slightly psychotic too.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The Goa&#8217;uld are the parasitic aliens from Stargate. They&#8217;re slightly psychotic too.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Yuckwitte</title>
		<link>http://blog.legacyworlds.com/index.php/2008-03-14/design-objectives-12/comment-page-1/#comment-222</link>
		<dc:creator>Yuckwitte</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 20 Mar 2008 12:56:55 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.legacyworlds.com/index.php/2008-03-14/design-objectives-12/#comment-222</guid>
		<description>Who are the the Goa’uld?

Are they Flesh eating, psychos or Insane assimilators?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Who are the the Goa’uld?</p>
<p>Are they Flesh eating, psychos or Insane assimilators?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: TSeeker</title>
		<link>http://blog.legacyworlds.com/index.php/2008-03-14/design-objectives-12/comment-page-1/#comment-218</link>
		<dc:creator>TSeeker</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 20 Mar 2008 12:49:47 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.legacyworlds.com/index.php/2008-03-14/design-objectives-12/#comment-218</guid>
		<description>@Yuckwitte, look in the blog&#039;s archives, I think there is a more complete description of alignment-based factions (not sure tho), and one for species; the two are actually very different, since alignment-based factions act depending on the meaning of the players&#039; actions while species-based factions attack depending on your actions or status with regards to them. A post that&#039;ll come shortly is about the Arc&#039;kha&#039;to, which are about as bad as it gets if you combine the Borg, the Goa&#039;uld *and* the Reavers from Firefly.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>@Yuckwitte, look in the blog&#8217;s archives, I think there is a more complete description of alignment-based factions (not sure tho), and one for species; the two are actually very different, since alignment-based factions act depending on the meaning of the players&#8217; actions while species-based factions attack depending on your actions or status with regards to them. A post that&#8217;ll come shortly is about the Arc&#8217;kha&#8217;to, which are about as bad as it gets if you combine the Borg, the Goa&#8217;uld *and* the Reavers from Firefly.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Yuckwitte</title>
		<link>http://blog.legacyworlds.com/index.php/2008-03-14/design-objectives-12/comment-page-1/#comment-217</link>
		<dc:creator>Yuckwitte</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 20 Mar 2008 12:46:32 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.legacyworlds.com/index.php/2008-03-14/design-objectives-12/#comment-217</guid>
		<description>As for there adaptiveness, are we going to have the Borg, flying around in wierd cubes?  But seriously, that would be cool... Or you could go &#039;Warhammar&#039; and have... erm... what are they called again? (I don&#039;t play it, just know about them a bit...)</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>As for there adaptiveness, are we going to have the Borg, flying around in wierd cubes?  But seriously, that would be cool&#8230; Or you could go &#8216;Warhammar&#8217; and have&#8230; erm&#8230; what are they called again? (I don&#8217;t play it, just know about them a bit&#8230;)</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: TSeeker</title>
		<link>http://blog.legacyworlds.com/index.php/2008-03-14/design-objectives-12/comment-page-1/#comment-213</link>
		<dc:creator>TSeeker</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 20 Mar 2008 12:26:09 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.legacyworlds.com/index.php/2008-03-14/design-objectives-12/#comment-213</guid>
		<description>@Yuckwitte,
Since the NPCs will attack depending on actions and alignments, and since alliances will tend towards having unified alignments (your alignment influences your alliance&#039;s and vice versa), it&#039;s likely they will end up attacking whole alliances. Even then, if they decide to go after someone who pissed them off, having an alliance as support probably won&#039;t be a bad thing (might be adaptive tho, i.e. they will send less overpowering forces if you&#039;re not in an alliance).
AI specifics are something we keep for later tho, as the rest of the game&#039;s design is still too incomplete to do anything useful in that direction.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>@Yuckwitte,<br />
Since the NPCs will attack depending on actions and alignments, and since alliances will tend towards having unified alignments (your alignment influences your alliance&#8217;s and vice versa), it&#8217;s likely they will end up attacking whole alliances. Even then, if they decide to go after someone who pissed them off, having an alliance as support probably won&#8217;t be a bad thing (might be adaptive tho, i.e. they will send less overpowering forces if you&#8217;re not in an alliance).<br />
AI specifics are something we keep for later tho, as the rest of the game&#8217;s design is still too incomplete to do anything useful in that direction.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Yuckwitte</title>
		<link>http://blog.legacyworlds.com/index.php/2008-03-14/design-objectives-12/comment-page-1/#comment-211</link>
		<dc:creator>Yuckwitte</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 20 Mar 2008 12:21:40 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.legacyworlds.com/index.php/2008-03-14/design-objectives-12/#comment-211</guid>
		<description>NPCs... If we wanted to kill NPCs we&#039;d play single player games :P

But IF they were regulated well and they either attacked alliances or did something too lots of people and required a team effort too kill them.  Then they&#039;d be awesome :P</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>NPCs&#8230; If we wanted to kill NPCs we&#8217;d play single player games <img src='http://blog.legacyworlds.com/wp-includes/images/smilies/icon_razz.gif' alt=':P' class='wp-smiley' /> </p>
<p>But IF they were regulated well and they either attacked alliances or did something too lots of people and required a team effort too kill them.  Then they&#8217;d be awesome <img src='http://blog.legacyworlds.com/wp-includes/images/smilies/icon_razz.gif' alt=':P' class='wp-smiley' /> </p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: TSeeker</title>
		<link>http://blog.legacyworlds.com/index.php/2008-03-14/design-objectives-12/comment-page-1/#comment-207</link>
		<dc:creator>TSeeker</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 19 Mar 2008 00:31:23 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.legacyworlds.com/index.php/2008-03-14/design-objectives-12/#comment-207</guid>
		<description>@Scintir
Big comment which specifics we discussed on IRC ;p
To make sure we don&#039;t forget about it, 2 points I found we should look deeper into are your superweapons (which could be nice as alliance abilities) and your idea about &quot;not-so-random&quot; events in the last part.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>@Scintir<br />
Big comment which specifics we discussed on IRC ;p<br />
To make sure we don&#8217;t forget about it, 2 points I found we should look deeper into are your superweapons (which could be nice as alliance abilities) and your idea about &#8220;not-so-random&#8221; events in the last part.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Scintir</title>
		<link>http://blog.legacyworlds.com/index.php/2008-03-14/design-objectives-12/comment-page-1/#comment-205</link>
		<dc:creator>Scintir</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 18 Mar 2008 23:29:16 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.legacyworlds.com/index.php/2008-03-14/design-objectives-12/#comment-205</guid>
		<description>Umm, since it seems I cannot make a new thread, I will say this here. FIRST OFF CHANGE THE DAMN LOOK OF THE GAME!! =D, only 150 people or so in the game is horrid! If you make a very appealing home page then we can actually advertise a bit ( I am sure we can all chip in and spread the word) and it will actually ATTRACT people to the game to help deepen it! It needs to seem easy but allow for a complicated experience. A tutorial if there is none should be added in to help players. I am sure with any of this I could help chip in to give some more in depth details or help with a tutorial (writing it) for the players. Like hyperiums has, a tutorial is displayed for the specific viewed page, this can help players get immersed into the game. 
Next off, make alliances gain bonuses and like I said make war more profitable. I suggested slave planets before which I was told would be in the next version. For being in an alliance, a bonus should be set up so people are more motivated to join alliances. Note: this bonus shouldn&#039;t be great, but lets say your happiness grows if you go to an alliance that has a good rep (get a report formula which will calculate the average alliance happiness and the decline and increase of the average to help get the rep designed for the alliance, thus making joining alliances that have a good rep will allow the person an empire that has a better happiness for they would know what they are getting into). This could also extend to other things, such as tech ( an alliance with a great tech history could give a tech bonus or something), etc....

Next off, TECH BRANCHES =D. I believe I discussed this with cyliis, allow tech branches to be put out more, thus developing the players style. For example, one play may be more military while other be more civil, let the branches extend out more and allow the user to go towards this shit. Sub branches off this could be awesome as well. For example one person could be speced out to gain land easily while another could be speced out to be great at dog fighting, this would mean restrictions on tech sharing would occur but it could create a more team oriented and deepened game which focuses on relations to form. Most games seem to require team work but that is only because one person may not be powerful enough, thus  doing this, it would allow people to team up and need each other much more for each would be better at a different field. 

Alliances, once again. There should be some sort of starting alliance hosted by someone. Maybe a default alliance that would allow all noob players to join and have a default set of rules and will allow new players to develop, make new friends/team mates,  and join alliances to better suit them,

Super weapons? Maybe allow like 5 people team up and during this team, each of their economies will be stressed along with their tech research, but after a certain time allow them to create a super weapon. This would allow them to do some massive damage which would be equal to what they suffered during the time, but could allow a better strategic attack. For example, allow 15 people to gather to create an uber one which could take a week to develop, after that time they could use it to weaken all the ships to 20% of their total power in a given area, this could be very well used if the alliance knew that they were able to be attacked and knew where this could be from, but due to the extreme strain it would create and the time, it means they would need to plan and to create a strategy. Another could be a protective field that could be put above the # of planets equal to the # of people participating. This could over time create a field over all planets in the alliance, but taking time and strain this would cause a strategy to be developed with this. The field would increase the power of the defenses and could last for a certain time, thus causing more things to occur. (Example: alliance going to attack, 15 players create the super weapon, the rest sit there and try to put up fields on planets that they expect to be hit on). 

Possibly the last: allow development of planets to unfold kind of like civilizations games, this means basically that extreme development of each planet would be created. Meaning you could develop things like roads, electrical generating buildings, research centers, colleges, etc.... Each building would effect something slightly. For example, a improved road system could lead to a defense bonus and a slightly increase profit, etc....

Okay, now I think THIS is the last. At some point, for example a planet reaching a certain pop, allow a crisis to befall. For example, one the population hits 6 billion, have something like cancer wide spread, causing problems and thus requiring much more research. If a person has already overcome this on one planet, then it can be prevented over others. As the population or what ever grows, have more complicated problems come. As we can see on earth here, as the population grows, infections can spread to more people, along with new transportation allows even more widespread things. Take these into account and allow it to take in all these factors =D.


I suggest making legacy worlds more open source, thus allowing more work to be done so my BRILLIANT ideas can be put through =D.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Umm, since it seems I cannot make a new thread, I will say this here. FIRST OFF CHANGE THE DAMN LOOK OF THE GAME!! =D, only 150 people or so in the game is horrid! If you make a very appealing home page then we can actually advertise a bit ( I am sure we can all chip in and spread the word) and it will actually ATTRACT people to the game to help deepen it! It needs to seem easy but allow for a complicated experience. A tutorial if there is none should be added in to help players. I am sure with any of this I could help chip in to give some more in depth details or help with a tutorial (writing it) for the players. Like hyperiums has, a tutorial is displayed for the specific viewed page, this can help players get immersed into the game.<br />
Next off, make alliances gain bonuses and like I said make war more profitable. I suggested slave planets before which I was told would be in the next version. For being in an alliance, a bonus should be set up so people are more motivated to join alliances. Note: this bonus shouldn&#8217;t be great, but lets say your happiness grows if you go to an alliance that has a good rep (get a report formula which will calculate the average alliance happiness and the decline and increase of the average to help get the rep designed for the alliance, thus making joining alliances that have a good rep will allow the person an empire that has a better happiness for they would know what they are getting into). This could also extend to other things, such as tech ( an alliance with a great tech history could give a tech bonus or something), etc&#8230;.</p>
<p>Next off, TECH BRANCHES =D. I believe I discussed this with cyliis, allow tech branches to be put out more, thus developing the players style. For example, one play may be more military while other be more civil, let the branches extend out more and allow the user to go towards this shit. Sub branches off this could be awesome as well. For example one person could be speced out to gain land easily while another could be speced out to be great at dog fighting, this would mean restrictions on tech sharing would occur but it could create a more team oriented and deepened game which focuses on relations to form. Most games seem to require team work but that is only because one person may not be powerful enough, thus  doing this, it would allow people to team up and need each other much more for each would be better at a different field. </p>
<p>Alliances, once again. There should be some sort of starting alliance hosted by someone. Maybe a default alliance that would allow all noob players to join and have a default set of rules and will allow new players to develop, make new friends/team mates,  and join alliances to better suit them,</p>
<p>Super weapons? Maybe allow like 5 people team up and during this team, each of their economies will be stressed along with their tech research, but after a certain time allow them to create a super weapon. This would allow them to do some massive damage which would be equal to what they suffered during the time, but could allow a better strategic attack. For example, allow 15 people to gather to create an uber one which could take a week to develop, after that time they could use it to weaken all the ships to 20% of their total power in a given area, this could be very well used if the alliance knew that they were able to be attacked and knew where this could be from, but due to the extreme strain it would create and the time, it means they would need to plan and to create a strategy. Another could be a protective field that could be put above the # of planets equal to the # of people participating. This could over time create a field over all planets in the alliance, but taking time and strain this would cause a strategy to be developed with this. The field would increase the power of the defenses and could last for a certain time, thus causing more things to occur. (Example: alliance going to attack, 15 players create the super weapon, the rest sit there and try to put up fields on planets that they expect to be hit on). </p>
<p>Possibly the last: allow development of planets to unfold kind of like civilizations games, this means basically that extreme development of each planet would be created. Meaning you could develop things like roads, electrical generating buildings, research centers, colleges, etc&#8230;. Each building would effect something slightly. For example, a improved road system could lead to a defense bonus and a slightly increase profit, etc&#8230;.</p>
<p>Okay, now I think THIS is the last. At some point, for example a planet reaching a certain pop, allow a crisis to befall. For example, one the population hits 6 billion, have something like cancer wide spread, causing problems and thus requiring much more research. If a person has already overcome this on one planet, then it can be prevented over others. As the population or what ever grows, have more complicated problems come. As we can see on earth here, as the population grows, infections can spread to more people, along with new transportation allows even more widespread things. Take these into account and allow it to take in all these factors =D.</p>
<p>I suggest making legacy worlds more open source, thus allowing more work to be done so my BRILLIANT ideas can be put through =D.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Cyliis</title>
		<link>http://blog.legacyworlds.com/index.php/2008-03-14/design-objectives-12/comment-page-1/#comment-203</link>
		<dc:creator>Cyliis</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 17 Mar 2008 07:04:18 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.legacyworlds.com/index.php/2008-03-14/design-objectives-12/#comment-203</guid>
		<description>I saw what you said, I was just reiterating the point to give it even more emphasis.  To wage a completely offensive war by myself I would need to be online anywhere from about 20-60 minutes per battle tick.  So, given the current 6 battle ticks that would be at the most 6 hours... if I were to wage the war by myself.  Again, that&#039;s completely offensive, not worrying about retaliation.

So, that&#039;s how I think I&#039;d work... though adding on those statistics things would be much more accurate.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I saw what you said, I was just reiterating the point to give it even more emphasis.  To wage a completely offensive war by myself I would need to be online anywhere from about 20-60 minutes per battle tick.  So, given the current 6 battle ticks that would be at the most 6 hours&#8230; if I were to wage the war by myself.  Again, that&#8217;s completely offensive, not worrying about retaliation.</p>
<p>So, that&#8217;s how I think I&#8217;d work&#8230; though adding on those statistics things would be much more accurate.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: TSeeker</title>
		<link>http://blog.legacyworlds.com/index.php/2008-03-14/design-objectives-12/comment-page-1/#comment-202</link>
		<dc:creator>TSeeker</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 16 Mar 2008 16:36:48 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.legacyworlds.com/index.php/2008-03-14/design-objectives-12/#comment-202</guid>
		<description>@Cyliis,
As I said, 6h was a very aggressive estimate. What I&#039;m thinking of doing is adding some statistics on the Beta 5 code to be able to better adjust these requirements. I&#039;d need to know:
* how much time each player spends online,
* how much of each player&#039;s fleet movement can be attribute to the player himself (and not to one of his TAs),
* how many attacks each player participates in.
This would give me a much more valid basis to set the times in the design goals.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>@Cyliis,<br />
As I said, 6h was a very aggressive estimate. What I&#8217;m thinking of doing is adding some statistics on the Beta 5 code to be able to better adjust these requirements. I&#8217;d need to know:<br />
* how much time each player spends online,<br />
* how much of each player&#8217;s fleet movement can be attribute to the player himself (and not to one of his TAs),<br />
* how many attacks each player participates in.<br />
This would give me a much more valid basis to set the times in the design goals.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

