In your opinion, and you each get ONE post, what is the thing that needs fixing ASAP/hinders the game. I want to come up with a list of things that are "wrong" and then have a vote on it to rank them in how severe they ruin gameplay to least severe so people can get some idea what SHOULD be worked on to improve the game the most. Please do not post multiple. Decide on one and post it. Do not argue why yours is the worst, please just post your complaint on what hinders gameplay. Thanks. You'll see why in a bit.
My biggest gripe comes from the community at large. From staggering levels of incompetence to toxicity that at this point is almost residual, it all comes from "the people". From a mechanical standpoint, there is a list of minor gripes, none of which are particularly important on their own.
The Paleolithic weapons and tanks and bases. I would enjoy more in depth customization of ammo, weapons and vehicles. I'd like more buildings and more profound research to enhance commander role and base defense. Economy more or less works, so I'd rather have strong features that can attract more players and keep them.
what azk and destroyer (to some extend also xya) said plus the GUI, especially loadout and vehicle customization. as for azks commander role incompleteness, id love mechanics that involve the comm more into the game other than playing research and building drop monkey. tools for better strategic planning - a way to relay an overall plan easily - would be great, but commander powers also spring to mind. but especially comm powers would need to be considered with care.
Please share this with as many people as possible. The more, the better because then I can compile a list with the biggest gripes.
Honestly mr x is probably right again, it's the player base. You can't really fix it either. Previous pugs show that no matter how crap/weird/just different systems can be empires is still an amazing game if people try a bit harder. For something fixable res has a habit of running away on a bunch of maps, so economy is kinda ass.
Exactly, PUGs are just as fun as they've ever been. Albeit the increased amount of resources, but otherwise, that doesn't change the fun. Balance doesn't matter, as long as it doesn't become insane. Flasche mentioned better planning, and once again I'd like to point out that there is, in fact, a debut of "planning phase" somewhere in the code. I have seen screenshots of it. And I'm surprised it's not been a bigger priority. Other than that, I have already made threads on gameplay matters that I believe should be slightly altered. Any other improvements would require major gameplay changes. Which, again, are not necessary for Empires to be fun. Empires is what I call a "what you make of it" kind of game, which is why the experience can be so different for each person. If you are willing and if you put some work into it, it will be an amazing game. But like I said, people nowadays are unwilling to do what's necessary for Empires to be fun.
i dont think a planning phase alone - while deffinately a nice first step - would cut it. you can plan strategies maybe 10 minutes into the game, after that it becomes unpredictable. what i meant was easy to use tools to strategize dynamically over the full course of a round. something to mark ares, attack and fallback positions, squad objectives (both point and area based) and whatnot. and id prefer that to be present on the minimap and in 3d space (but minimap alone would be a HUGE step forward already) also sorry for breaking the 1 post per person rule, xya did it first
Okay, so are these it for complaints? I don't want to get into arguments on what is worse or not, I just need a big list of "What is wrong" because I intend to make a vote based on all of these issues so we can begin to rank what is the biggest thing holding back Empires that CAN be fixed. Small gripes are acceptable, we just need a list compiled to make a vote. That way future people who help out and even the current devs can have a guide as to what the players think is the thing that is most wrong with the game. Please try to think of things that would affect new players more, I'm not saying vets I don't care about, it's just we have to focus on recruitment a lot and getting new players up to a higher skill quickly if we want to play more Empires.
give people some damn time to post e: small games are not worth playing due to how slow the game moves during them (resources) population never goes up because noone wants to seed the playercount thats at least my reasoning (i dont join because the pop is always low)
If you need lists for newer players pretty much everything in this thread is still relevant. https://forums.empiresmod.com/index...res-that-arent-obvious-to-a-new-player.18378/
Hmm funny, I think the resource income is more or less fine with low pop, but it gets fucked up at higher player count. So when it comes to resources, I think it shouldnt increase as much with the player count. There shouldnt be such big resource income increase with more players. In other way, it should "slow down" the increase (the multiplier), the more players there are. I think thats one issue when it comes to resources. Many say to lower resources in refs or wages. But that I think would majorly fuck up low pops. Unless the multiplier that increases with the number of players would (also?) change. (or rather just its curve)
its not only the mulit (though certainly a factor), its also the differences in income per map (a good example is silk's emp_cod - i at least think its cod). maybe dont leave it to mappers? i think it might be a lot easier to get a consitent experience by just providing low, medium, high income settings as dropdown in emp_info_params (or maybe even only a switch for "high income"). to still be able to emphasize certain refinaries as means to direct combat ("double refs") the value you input in emp_resource_point would be a fraction of the whole, not direct output. if you make it fallback to medium settings, it even might not require recompiles/entspying. ofc flags with income > 0 would follow the same sceme and be considered refs for that matter (idk how high incomes are set bc flags are non-scaling atm, this might require at least ent-spy editing) and if you make this cvars you can globally tweak it easily (with only very little effort by server owners) until a nice middle ground is found. (also sry for breaking the rule again, but its a dumb rule)
I've never been a fan of the scaling of resource income with the amount of players, even less so now that there are wages. I think scaling should just be removed, especially if you want to keep wages (which I don't). There is a server variable that can change the amount of resources refineries give, so server owners already have that power. Talk to creeper if you think some maps have too high resources. I think it should still be left to mappers to decide the amount of resources on their maps. Unfortunately most, if not all, of the good maps were made such a long time ago that whatever the mappers decided is not longer relevant to the current settings. I'm sure we could work with Creeper to try and rebalance the amount of resources on some of the maps. Or even better the developpers could do it themselves if they have the .vmf.
yes i do know about emp_sv_resource_multiplier_imp/nf but for it to work on a per map basis youd need a <mapname>.cfg for each map in question. my proposal would work on a global scale. the amount of work (and time) required - especially while finetuning - bears no relation. i do think the differences per map are basically just a decision between low and high resource flow. there just is no other option than eyeballing it atm. there isnt even a guideline on how much income an average empires map should have. i think formulating this, in my proposal even as a mechanic, would give way better and more important easier less time consuming control and help a more streamlined consistent experience on the resource front.
The problem is the disparity between the opinion presented here on the forums and the opinion of your average player on the server. Most players (and some admins, who have the ability to throw any resource balancing out the window by multiplying the resource flow into a tsunami) are in favor of high income, and the resulting large amount of vehicles.
The inbalance between NF infantry and BE infantry. NF is way stronger than BE in the infantry side mostly due to a assault rifle that is a generalized weapon instead of a specialized weapon. There is also how the SMG2 is OP with accuracy upgrade and has more accuracy than the SMG1.
