My points on Empires

This post is made at the request of Devourawr And as I warned it grew to be quite a bit lengthy, but bear with me

First of all: Hi all! Long time no see for some of you and nice to meet you for all of the new players

And now for a bit of a backstory on me so people who never got to know me or have forgotten about me (... ) can frame this post in the proper context. I first started playing Empires around 1.03, which as good as I can recall about 13-14 years ago?. I played the game quite intensively for a couple of years with upwards of 20 hours a week spent. In that period of time the game went from quite buggy to stable and from very exploit-y to even more exploity, to less exploit-y and to about one winning strategy. Then just after 1.08 hit I stopped playing due to circumstances I won't mention here, but my eternal thanks for advice given by Nebajoth (even though it took some time to sink in). I came back for a couple of weeks around 2.2 and left again and now 7 years later I'm back again and have been playing this games for a week now. Also I'm Caelo btw, I'll get my original forum account back tomorrow (admins see note at bottom of post, plz)

Now the reason I told you all this, is to make it clear I have a bit of a weird point of view on Empires... I missed out on lots of changes and drama in the past few years and their rationale and I'm convinced that whatever changed was done by people who care about Empires. Game designing is something you do from the heart (hopefully) and as such reading someone criticize your work is really hard (this I know from personal experience). I'd like to point out in advance that I'm bound to touch some topics of which I'm unaware how much of a hornets nest it is (Thanks to flasche for pointing that out). I'd like to thank everyone for their contributions to Empires over the last 15? years or so. The game really is still very good at what does and it IS the best game I've played in my 22 year gaming history.
Also I'd like to stress that I really do not want to be that person that (re)joins a community and only bitch about the state of the game. I do however feel that there are some parts of the game that needed and still need attentions as they have been neglected way too long.

Anyways, I kind of missed the whole 'disaster period' of someone balancing the game right around 1.8, which he kind of did succeed at in the end judging from my recent time playing, but I feel at a very, very high cost which I'm going to point out in detail further on.

So now the reason for this post is I said this in another thread (about redesigning the f-menu): "Over the last couple of years a lot has been changed (some are really pretty good, others really not), but a lot of the stuff we've been talking about for (apparently) the past 6-7 years still haven't been addressed and really should." and Devourawr asked me to list the things I think are more urgent than redesigning the f-menu. (Just a note I said 6-7 years but it was more like 8-11 years ago.).

So here it goes:

== 'Total' disconnect between the backstory and the game elements ==
Now, first of all I don't feel like discussing the backstory and whether it is good or not. This is not the point. Many hours of my life have been waisted on that over the last decade and both sides have never ever gotten to a point where there was even a bit of agreement. Also if you don't know the backstory that was once in place, and from the remarks made on a server last week I think most might not, you can read up on it here: http://web.archive.org/web/20060206025924/http://www.empiresmod.com/infoStory.php.
Their should also be a more elaborate version out there as well which is more like a book. People invested countless of hours in that story and even though it never was made official it is still a nice read. So if you love Empires be sure to search for that on the web archive and if you find it please be so kind as to post a link here.

Now before I continue discussing about the (lack of) backstory in Empires, I'll just state the obvious and say why I think any game needs a good backstory (in text or otherwise): it gives focus and direction to new players and the developers. It gives credibility to in-game graphic elements which helps with immersion, which really should be somewhere top of the priority list. A good story gives a goal higher than "kill other CV, win map". It gives purpose, makes the game last longer and is a connecting element between different matches playing on different maps (it connects the game over an extended period of time).
There are many good books written on this subject, but for anyone interested in game design, I would certainly recommend to buy or download a copy of "The Art of Game Design - A Book of Lenses". Personally I do not always agree with the author, but he is close enough for me Note that that book is built as a sort of recipe book on good game design, but along the way he does make some really valid and substantiated (with proper literature) points on game design including his own failure in the past. He, and others, can convey the importance of story for game development and the game itself way waaay better that I could even. for instance like this:

"There is still much debate about the relationship between story and gameplay. Some people are so story-oriented that they believe that adding gameplay is guaranteed to ruin a good story. Others feel the opposite — that a game with strong story elements has been cheapened somehow. Still others prefer a middle-of-theroad approach. As game designer Bob Bates once told me: “Story and gameplay are like oil and vinegar. Theoretically they don’t mix, but if you put them in a bottle and shake them up real good, they’re pretty good on a salad. ” [...]
"Ultimately, of course, we don’t care about creating either stories or games — we care about creating experiences. Stories and games can each be thought of as machines that help create experiences.
[...] A good game is a machine that generates stories when people play it. To make sure your story machine is as productive as possible, ask yourself these questions:
[...] When players can personalize the characters and setting, they will care more about story outcomes, and similar stories can start to feel very different. How can I let players personalize the story?
[...] A story is only good if you can tell it. Who can your players tell the story to that will actually care?"
​

Now the above quote at first glance might seem to be only applicable to singleplayer games, but this is not true. Especially in a game built around teamwork, which I believe Empires is, a unifying story is a key element and as it stands now it seems like the focus is entirely on gameplay only and we're missing out on possible handles to form the online community around Empires.
Now a (back)story doesn't mean we get walls of text all around the game however it does mean the whole world building should be going in the same direction. As it is now we have an interface that shouts one thing, models that shout another and a world (in the map sense) that mostly shout different things. When you look at district, escort, slaughtered and duststorm they all tell a different story. Where I believe at least district and streets of fire have it down on the little decals and other details telling a story. The other maps seem to have lost or never had that kind of storytelling.
This disconnection between art, world and interface is best highlighted by a recent in-game 'conversation' (and this is paraphrasing):

Player 1: "I always wondered why NF and BE were fighting. Did some NF officer make a remark about a BE officer and war erupted?"
Player 2: "It's an insurrection fighting their totalitarian overlords."
​

Player 1 really highlights the lack of knowledge or accessibility of the backing story and Player 2 highlights what the current in-game design elements sort of convey. Although I'm not sure if he did not read it somewhere. The question is if that is the kind of story you want to convey. Is it enough to get some unifying power so players will want to work together in a team more naturally? At the moment I believe it isn't, but I leave it up to the people who are going to comment here who have played over the last year or so.


== The balance between infantry and vehicle combat ==
Now this is something that is more personal than the other points I'm trying to make, but one I feel has been left relatively undecided for a long time. Someone really should make the decision, write it down including rationale and work towards realizing it. Making no decision is at this point probably doing more harm than not. So what do the devs need to make a decision on? (or at least point out. Again this I might have missed, but I don’t think they did). Should late game be vehicle combat only or a balanced mix. I'd argue the latter would be more fun, with infantry and tanks working together in a natural fashion. This was always a bit forced, but I feel there was one map that did this really well which seems to have fallen into a bit of a disgrace (again reading from remarks made) and that is Escort.
The decision the devs really should start making and conveying to the community is which direction they want to go. As it stands now it feels like the game is in a king of limbo state edging towards full on tanks, unless a bit restricted on resources than engineers on foot can join and if severely lacking on funds just go all out grenadier and engineer with revive. IMO the developers need to start working towards a 50/50 split end-game with scouts and rifleman having some sort of purpose again. I do not want to pretend to know what needs to change nor do I even want to give a suggestion. This is a game direction the developers need to make clear for themselves (the current devs might even have already done so) and start enforcing.


== The scout == (this ties into the next one)
I don’t even know where to begin with this one.... I remember a time where the scout was almost essential to winning. Yes, it has always been a quite specialized class, but I feel like it has lost too much of its role as a disrupter, annoyer and helper. It was always fun to have a scout in base really wrecking it all over. Distracting the (enemy) commander and keeping a(n enemy) player busy for a minute or 20. I do not propose giving it the laser-pow instant-death raygun back, but at least make it so that having a scout or 2-3 on a team doesn't completely ruin any chance of winning. Or else just remove it. As it is now it is probably both an annoyance and a balancing nightmare.


== Balancing direction ==
This one is tricky and has always been a touchy subject so I'll be careful of everyone's feelings
A decade ago the opposing sides were quite different to each other. Asymmetrical teams are one of the hardest things to balance. Which is why in most online games nowadays the opposing teams are quite the same. Unfortunately around 1.06/1.07 this also happened to Empires. The then developer in charge of balancing, in a last ditch attempt to balance Empires, made the teams ever and ever more the same. This in itself is ok, however the original artwork never moved in the same direction. Sure, the NF rax was resized to one third of its original height, but the tanks never really changed that much, nor did the player models.
This is again a point I'd like the developers to give me a hint about what they want. The game itself is quite confusing at this point. Is it going to be like Team Fortress with teams the same (just a different colour) or like Counter Strike or Command & Conquer with both teams being different?
Choose a direction and implement it. Not everyone needs to like it. We’ve also learned from the past that you won't alienate your player base nor will it completely vaporize into nothing.
Now I 've been told the current team lacks a modeller. Unfortunately among the many things I can do, designing visual stuff (apart from maps) is not one. Modelling yes, designing no


OK, I'll stop at this point as I notice I'm getting more negative and that is not what I want to express here. I'm eternally grateful for previous devs and the current ones for their work. It is hard work and probably at times not at all rewarding. As you might have noticed I tried not to give any possible solutions. This is done on purpose as I'm not the person in charge and I do not want to take away from your creative process. I merely want to express some concerns I've always had and still have. I'd be gratefull for any dev willing to think about the points I'm trying to make even if you disaggree

Admins: BTW, to any forum admin around here. Is it possible to move this thread (and any other posts) to my other forum account? It will make it easier for me to keep track of any new posts.

Also CREDITS goes to flasche for pointing out some hot topics and things that need clarification. I do want to express that he most likely agrees with the general points I make, but probably doesn't with all. This is my POV, not his.

===================

To anyone who got this far. Thanks for bearing with me.
Please note all of the above was about some of the fundamental issues I feel are still in place after years. If you feel I completely missed the point please comment below, I'm only human and have been known to be completely off target at times, but please if you're going to reply don't cherry pick points. Read everything comment on everything you feel I have a point and where I dont and let us have a mature discussions. I know this is difficult to do nowadays online but we can still manage right?

 

Been wondering where you went.
``
Im still never going to live it down that i somehow managed to sticky you on top of cyclopean city building from a floor below during that one practice.

 

Ah and what an entry right?

Can't even remember that anymore sorry

 

The Empires, this small-nonplayed game in which we try to kill eachother for no logical reason has a rich story? I am embarassed to not know about all of that.
Thanks for the link, and welcome back.

 

I dont wanna be negative about the empires playerbase ( no not half of you in these forums, although you guys suck too, probably more than average ), but the problem you're experiencing is not so much what you listed but the general decline of the skill level of empires players, not nescescarily individual skill, like how good you can gren or rifle, but the bigger picture skill. Knowing you have to drop walls to push, working together as a team, working together as a team, working together as a team, as a team. TEAM.

To give you an example. The infantry and vehicle combat go together really well if you have capable players that know how to play together. Engies repairing tanks on the frontlines ( goes really really fast imho ), and scouts sticky bombing other tanks and then telling the team its sticky bombed. When have you seen this happen? I havent seen this in ages in pubs, in scrims people do it but way less than they used to.

Scout. The scout is still really good and does what you say, disrupt distract and be a pain in the ass, if they player plays it like they should focusing on the bigger picture of winning the game rather than getting kills and points.

tldr: game is balanced towards better players, right now players are shit. What do? Either players get better or game gets balanced towards noobs.

 

For the second half of my post, maybe. Although I think the decline of skill level is more due to Empires being incredibly overwhelming when you just start out. It is really difficult to learn and you actually need a mentor of some sorts. We've had training servers in the past which helped a bit, but the underlying problem is still present in todays Empires.
Also there's just no incentive for helping someone learn the ropes of the game. There's also no incentive for proper teamwork except for getting technology B (but you could just whine and whine till the commander gives it to shut you up) or to get a higher ingame level. But those are rewards like giving someone food whenever he does something. It works for awhile, but when that person has a stockpile of food next to him/her it just wont work anymore. That person will just tell you to go fuck yourself and do something he/she likes.

 

In my oppinion the problem behind the entire skill issue is just not enough players. If we had 200 players we would have large games constantly where people would really want to win, like in the scrim. Wanting to win a game means a lot, you'll want to get better, play better, expect teammatest o play better or critisize them for doing stuff wrong. Nowadays when I play a pub I dont wanna win badly.

 

So you are basically telling us that there is too many bad players, yet you want bigger playerbase?
Actually you can learn the game only by playing and doing the "tutorial". To increase the skill we should make any kind of other media to learn from, like streams, videos, guides, wikis...
The only Empires videos I've seen are 3-4 year old pubs on YT, and the wiki we have is outdated and practically nonexistant. And as for the streamers, I dont know about anyone streaming Summer Pugs.
And the Playerbase, and the oh terrible steam players looking around F2P category, stumbling on Empires and leaving it behind after few not-so-succesful matches. To gain players we could use ads, polishing the game and maybe using some sort of social network. But that's none of my buiseness, 'cause im not the one whining.

 

I don't think anyone here is whining...

 

If you think you can help in this department please do, getting new players is hard and any way you can help is appreciated. Try get people to stick around longer, tell them about the forums, etc. Advertising with money was a failure and emailing every major online game magazine in hopes of an article also led to nothing. If you have any ideas feel free to do them yourself or suggest them to us.

 

Did you like not read my post at all? Im saying there are too many bad players that dont get good cause the playerbase is too small. So if we increase playerbase we increase the ability to get good.

 

Im not talking about getting a bigger player base now. Cause that wouldnt work at all. But imagine if empires had 200 players now instead of 50.
Growing the playerbase now doesnt solve the problem. My point was that incase empires was bigger to start of with those problems wouldnt have been there in the first place.

 

So there am I and giving examples how to fix that: by increasing skill of players and making the community bigger
What is wrong with that? Did you not read my post at all?
Or if there are too many bad players we have to ban them from playing? If you have something that is in bad shape you repair it or buy new.
And about the lack of "bigger picture". What do we want to change in Empires exacly? Improve cooperation between infantry and tanks? Balance the tank combat? I'm not sure.
We are trying to find the flaws and fix them. What is your idea Paradox?

 

Cause speculating the origin of the problem could lead to ideas to fix it. To continue with avatarix asking me if I have an idea to fix it, I dont. I'm just saying what's wrong right now I'll leave other people to have ideas that I can shootdown or +1

 

So my ideas are bad?
Well, we have to think and ask and finally do something to get this thing together.

 

That wasnt my player argument. My player argument was that if we had more players we'd have more full servers and full games. People would like to win full games, more than they would like to win 10v10 thus making them wanting to improve or look for ways to win teamwork.