Where shall development take us?

[Ruddertail]

I have a question for the FAF community as a whole. Not a poll, because we're not voting on anything. Just trying to get your opinions. It's a question that needs to be answered in some fashion before we proceed with any serious development efforts, because it may limit what we can and cannot do in development. In fact, it is two questions, though the second is subsidiary to the first.

1: Do we want FAF to stay a promi, or are we willing to go wherever good development ideas may take us, even if it means moving into the realm of a pseudo - promi or a non - promi text based, turn based game?

2: If we want to stay as a promi, what is a promi? What defines it? What can we change, how far can we change it? What must remain the same?

I'll put my thoughts down at a later time, I think. In the mean time, feel free to answer in as many words or as few as you see fit.

[bjornredtail]

I really don't think we should fix ourselves into a Prominence-Style gameplay in any real way. Practically, it will take more and more work to fall further from the tree... So, even if we have a good idea (like, say, making your own unit classes), we might not have the time or energy to implement it. And we should retain the ability to use our code as a Prominence-style game.

[Shadow I]

I think the fact that it is a promi is that attracts most of the people who stay. We should try to keep it promisance in essence, but there is plenty of leeway to be creative while still retaining the format.

[prog frog]

It should definately remain a promi in my opinion. That is why I came and that will keep me here a long time. In my view any reasonable changes can be made as long as the game remains a promi.

[The Beatles]

All this without having defined the term, as asked in question 2. I agree, however, that I would like the game to remain a promi. As I said to Rudder though, that's nothing more than a preference on my part.

[bjornredtail]

As far as defining a Prominence-style game... 4 trooptypes, cash, food, mana and wizards. One type of building that makes troops. One to produce wizards up to a set level and mana. One to produce food. One to house workers.. One to give a set number of defense points. One to produce cash at a set level and make the worker make more cash. Plus another to reduce costs. Turn based gameplay, with a set level of turns added every x minutes up to a set maximum.

[Shadow I]

It is possible to stay withing the realm of promi while straying a little from that template - adding a 5th troop type or a new kind of building, for example. Not that I would go for that, but just for the sake of argument I suppose.

I think what really defines promi is the fact that it is turn-based and entirely dependent on land. As long as we stay with those basic ideas, I think we can do practically anything

[Ruddertail]

Yeah. That would be helpful. Because if we want to stay a promi, we need to find out what exactly a promi is.

For example, landflow. It's existed in pretty much every one since day one. Myself, I'd be glad to eliminate it - it's ridiculous, and I think it may have a negative effect on new players. But is it part of what defines a promi, and, as such, something we shouldn't be tinkering with? Or is it something we should be able to change?

Or take some of the economic changes that have been proposed. Would those take us beyond the realm of promi?

Myself, I would prefer FAF remain a text based, turn based game. That's something I don't think I would agree to go beyond. But as far as keeping a it a promi, I'd say no, simply because I want the freedom to do stuff that might somewhat cross the line of what a promi is - perhaps reworking how land works, or having land be worth more over time, implementing resources you need to gather off "wilderness lands" or something like that. Not saying any of this is stuff I'd want to do for sure, but it's stuff I'd at least like the freedom to explore.

As for how I'd define promi, I don't really have a solid one. I'd hoped someone else would have an idea. I guess promi, in my mind, is a turn based, text based game. Players strive to become the top empire in nw, an amalgam of military strength, land, and resources. Production comes from built on land, as well as some limited amount of cash and food production from unbuilt land. Armies are comprised of military units, either purchased or created using industrial buildings of some sort.

[Ruddertail]

Shadow - what do you mean entirely dependent on land? Because I'm thinking I'm willing to commit to promi if that's how we define it. If you use my definition/description, I'm going to ask for at least pseudo - promi ability.

Edit: Yes, a double post. Sue me, I'm an admin.

[Freenhult]

I don't think anyone much minds double posts anymore. *Shrug*

Anyway, I think that what we have is on the right track. Our theme seems to be the factor in keeping people to stay and leave along with our numbers, so perhaps irregardless of what we do, an old school large number ancient server might be beneficial.

As for Promi, I like to think of it as a turn based game in which you build your empire using diplomacy and war to gain allies and attempt to rule the set. The dynamics in my mind that stick out are the basics, but having extra things like more troops or items that your troops need; Armour, Swords, etc falls in line too.

I think you get off the beaten path when you go turnless or start making the game more into more micromanaging. Too much gets distracting. Thats why I hate to play Railroad Tycoon anymore. Very fun at first, but the micromanaging is horrible. Just not fun.

Also, Since I won't be around for a bit, I don't think we're very capable right now of getting away from Promi. We're want to edit landflow, and we want to get rid of Market storing and such, so its not a big deal. Rudder, please dig out that stuff and link it to here. I doubt I have time.

The changes we make are important to YOU guys. If you think the game could use something, or there was this really cool thing at this other prom, or you have some idea, please say so. Its yours as much as its ours, ya know?

[FireFrenzy]

I guess I've always thought of a Promisance game simply as a game in some way based upon the code of "Promisance." For gameplay, it'd be an online, text-based game in which a player manages a warring state possessing land, and allocates resources to various structures. No theme or additional features requisite, and quite inclusive -- in my opinion, of course.

As I think that all of these requisites should continue to be met, I think that FAF should continue to be a Promisance game. And, as prog frog notes, having resemblance to traditional Promisance games helps draw people from the wider community.

However, ultimately I do think that the game should continue on whatever course it takes as changes/additions are made. So innovate, improve. If that moves FAF away from the attributes of Promisance games, so be it. The Promisance genre seems to be fading, largely because it's been highly stagnant. If the changes are for the better, they should be made -- whether they maintain the gameplay of Promisance or not.

[Ruddertail]

Freen - the only stuff I know about is in the Staff Lunch. If there was stuff you guys came up with while I was gone, you'll have to find it.

As I said elsewhere (maybe misplaced?) too much micromanagement is bad, definitely. More complexity, more levels of gameplay, are good, so long as you can do decently without getting into it. But I don't want to be having to tell each of a million soldiers what armor to wear.

FireFrenzy - I'd agree with, well, everything you said. I like that definition, and I can work with that.

Hrm. Maybe we should agree on the definition of promi...

How about:

An online, text based, turn based game, in which players manage a state consisting of land, and attempt to increase in power and networth through a variety of means.

[Freenhult]

You just described micromanaging perfectly Rudder.

And sure. Something like that, but I think we're missing the point. The fact is Promi is a game. A style of game that can't be defined really, just categorized. But yeah, lets make the game however the people want it. I'd -rather- play a cliched theme that got tons of people than have a very cool original one that didn't. I just like the whole war/peace diplomacy thing.

[Ruddertail]

Described or gave an example of?

Perhaps we should try creating our own theme? Something that is general enough that it doesn't make people go, "huh?", but yet not totally cliched. I mean, you know, write a bit of a story line, give it a bit of a Medieval feel, something like that.

[bjornredtail]

Personally, I think the game needs more "micromanagement". I think I should be telling my million troops what armor they should be wearing, and how resources should be allocated to make that armor, train those troops. I draw the line at tactics. In no way should FAF even attempt to enter the tactical realm. You order the attack, you say what units go in. You do not direct a flanking attempt in the middle of the battle. This would put some challenge into putting together the most effective force as well. Do you want a mass of poorly trained, poorly equipped troops, or very few good ones? Multiply that by however number of troop classes there are.