Artice regarding How to keep more new players playing the game from old Admin Team Forum.
Click Here to Discuss How to keep more new players playing the game in the forums.
Weebo wrote:
As you may have noticed, the main theme of all the last updates were focused on ways to try and keep more new players. The only way for the game to grow is to add new players to the community while keeping existing players playing.
Life for a newbie on Battlecity isnt easy, mainly because experienced players have no mercy and orb them every chance they get. However, the solution is not to sit around and kick these players but instead to continually improve the game.
Battlecity gets a lot of new players but tends to find a steady equilibrium of about 20 players online. To increase that, we just need to find ways to get more players hooked. So, the question to discuss here is what should the next update be?
Respawn was one of the last ones. It was great and helped a lot I believe. We saw the game reach 30 players more nights than ever before after this was added.
Now the new combined screens update will help give new players a better first impression of the game which is important.
The next update planned will be to implement membership as desribed in the battlecity store, allowing members to see who is online and whisper.
So, lets discuss what should come after that. Feel free to suggest anything. Sparking more interest amongst existing players is just as important as trying to get more new players to stick with the game. Keep the suggestions small. We arent interested in undertaking projects which will take 1298373423 months to program. If you have something big in mind, break it down into smaller more realistically achievable goals.
One thing I'd like to do is have the Hospital moved to the end of the building tree since this almost always causes trouble for new players. New players are often stuck building, so I think we need to make it easy for them to build a city so that they can experience constant gameplay without getting stuck so soon.
Another thing to consider is the orbing limit. Right now you can orb someone at 10 buidlings. Everyone thinks its lame, so should the code just prevent it? For example, the point system could remain the same and we could simply change it to be that a city is unorbable until it goes over "x" buildings at which point it is permanently orbable. You would still only get 20-30 points for a poor attack where you bomb too much. And of course, if you build an orb and maybe even bombs, you could become orbable sooner. If this is done, the map could be edited to show "orbable" and "non-orbable" cities in different colors, or something of the likes.
We also have those windows in the bottom right hand corner which are still empty. ReMoTe and I have thought of ideas for them but if anybody has any suggestions please speak up! For instance, the way they were used in Obi's Bsttle of Utrecht Skin was very cool.
Makaveli wrote:
I like the idea of a higher building count before you are orbable. Maybe make cities unorbable unless they go over 21 buildings or an offensive factory (at which point they would be orbable forever, even if they go down to 1 building). This would solve the laming problem, and it would also cut down on people at 35 buildings whining about not being done when you attack.
If it's not too difficult to implement, it would also be nice if a city didn't dissapear for 10 seconds after the last player in the city quit. (You would also have to make it impossible for players to rejoin a city within 10 seconds of quitting to keep people from taking advantage of it.) If this is too hard to code, I think quitting from an orbable city should earn an automatic kick (for players colonel and up at least)…it really puts a damper on gameplay.
As for the windows in the bottom corner, maybe they could also be used for info on upcoming events? Just an idea…
Vindkast wrote:
As you approach a mayored city, it could show:
I made this to use in the latest BCL video, but left it out because I didn't want to fake updated building counts. Instead I just had the window show the name of the nearest city. (That makes the video less disorienting, tho I bet nobody noticed 
)
This would help newbies know where they are, and know whether or not they should attack. Plus it make it easier to learn the map, and I think newbies are a lot more likely to keep playing when they don't feel physically lost within the game.
It would also help vets streamline fair gameplay, since there would be no more "I didn't know you weren't orbable" excuse, no more "I didn't know you were alone," and no more "I was just coming in to right click."
Regarding Orbing Limit:
The WDouglas MadOrber Vindkast 5:30am EST Orb Limit Manifesto:
Orbable at 21 or Orb fac (or Bomb fac?). Once you are orbable you stay orbable forever. So, orbability is based off maximum buildings reached….
Similarly, make points off an orb based on maximum size reached instead of current size. This makes demoing completely ineffective. It also lets you differentiate the scoring, so not every 21+ orb (aka every orb) is 50.
Score could be:
20 pts: 1-20 max buildings (aka orb city)
30 pts: 21-26 max buildings
40 pts: 27-33 max buildings
50 pts: 34+ max buildings
This gives new cities the larger buffer, and still uses points to encourage fair fights.
Map color could show not just orbability, but orb value too.
This would help prevent "laming" while helping to prevent real laming.
White: unorbable.
Red: 20 point orb.
Yellow: 30 point orb.
Green: 50 point orb.
"Hey newbie, only attack cities that are green on the map."
Weebo wrote:
The way the points are now, ganging up on one city and bombing them to the ground when they have no hope is disadvantageous because you get less points for the orb. This way, it would not matter, still full points. Should that matter? Or if they got big enough, its their own problem? =p
The diff colors for value of orb sounds good 😉 We could have a green city worth 50 points turn yellow again if it goes back below a certain amount of buildings, or not if we decide it doesnt lose value anymore.
OF course, people will demo to make their city worth less, even though they are still orbabale if they demo to 0. So, perhaps your described method is better, since once they reach a size, they cant lower their value.
Should we go even further and use orbs and time in the equation? Should two 39 building cities be worth the same 50 points, even if one has been alive 10 min, and the other 4 hours? OR if one has orbed 0 cities, and the other 10? Just adding more wood to the fire =p
Stubbs wrote:
I wouldnt add time into the equation. Newbie cities can last awhile sometimes, and we want to deture them being attacked Excessively (not entirely). If a factor was added, i would base it on Rank. Much like the dueling league had setup.
However, I wouldnt have the point difference be that much… maybe a total of 10 pts added to the regular value.
10- Sgt (and lower) orbing Generals(and higher)
8- major orbing brigs
6….
4….
2….
0 Generals+ orbing Sgt-
rough Idea, but this would add to the game. I am not sure if it is really worth implementing tough.
On the bottom Rigt corner, I like vindkasts idea, However, I might add a compass pointing to the enemy city, that it is listing, new players could get confused, especially if it starts switching.
Weebo wrote:
I agree that newbies take longer, good point.
What if the timer only starts once you have a full city or once you orb your first city?
I dont think basing the formula on ranks is a good idea. Smurfs will cause problems and the scoring system wont be stable (example after a reset we are all privates, if no reset for long time, we have more high rankers – this will mess with scoring system.)
Vindkast wrote:
Chat
Make death messages and chat different colors.
(Makes chat easier to follow, especially for newbies.)
Allow scrolling in chat.
(Encourages conversation, giving vets a reason to stay in game longer. Like Ody.)
Make escape close the chat bar, even if it has text in it.
(Encourages chat by removing a major annoyance.)
Add a checkbox for "mute/censor enemy chat."
(Allows people to end situations in-game before they escalate.)
Building
Move Hospital to after Med research in the build tree.
(Makes newbies less likely to go bankrupt, keeps Hosp early for vets and orb cities.)
Show mayors their city's current rate of profit/loss (from buildings, not item production).
(Makes money management more obvious, tangible.)
Add "random" defense/building tips to the "you got orbed" msg.
(Gives newbies helpful info right when they realize they need it.)
City List
Separate mayor and commando jobs in the list.
(Makes the difference more obvious to newbies, more organized to vets.)
Sort commando jobs by least-commandos-first.
(Encourages even teams. A table-based sortable city list would be better…)
Rotate the starting cities.
(Keeps vets interested, disrupts huambo domination. Huamination?)
Misc
Broadcast promotions across the server.
(Shows newbies other people's success, giving them an incentive to continue.)
Add a button in Options called "Disable Sticky Keys Shortcut."
(You can do this by running a .reg file you include in the install.)
Add a timer on quit.
(Prevents some quitting to avoid orbs, 7+ seconds prevents quitting on DFGs.)
Self Destruct
Add a "self destruct" button that disables your tank and starts a 5-10 second countdown. If you are alive at the end of the countdown, you explode like a bomb, killing yourself and taking out adjacent buildings. This could be adjusted for fairness (maybe if you get shot it stops the timer), and it could be executed when you quit to add a timer on quitting.
Bunkers
Defensive items exactly like turrets, only they don't fire on their own. Instead, a player drives into a bunker and aims/fires manually. The bunker absorbs all damage from return fire until it is destroyed, killing anyone inside. The shots could hit bombs, and their damage/fire rate could be anywhere from lasers to turret fire to admin flamethrower, depending on what would be fair and effective.
Obiwoz wrote:
Great ideas Vindkast. However the last 2 are a fairly radical ideas, and may need alot of thought before being put into the game.
In regards to the previous idea: (make points off an orb based on maximum size reached instead of current size)
I think this would lead to players over-using bombs. They would just bomb the city to the ground, as weebo suggested, until only the command centre was left.
Now the idea is basically to orb the city without bombing anything that isn't nessesary. And I think the strategy to orbing should remain this way.
If this idea is taken on board then something would need to be changed to counter the over-use of bombs. Maybe make them weaker, reduce the number of bombs for a city down to 10 or lower, or maybe increase the detonation timer so they are easier to defend against.
I like the idea of points increasing based on the time that a city has stood for.
Stubbs wrote:
Makaveli Started a different Thread about Point values for orbing, and had a real good idea. Click here to read his article.
Also Alot of great Ideas Vind
** Stickey Keys, Those are a pain, always forget, until I install game on a new computer.
I think the Hospital being moved on building tree, should be considered Priority, I see it all the time where a new player has 1 house, 1 hospital, two reasearches, and is asking what to do, and has no money.
*Maybe an option to have it show on the list, or after say 'med RC' is built.
But overall, I would probably have the Hospital appear, after you Research Med Packs. Makes sense, Most players will have enough built, or a good enough idea of how things work to build it by then, if they want. Also Orb Cities would be able to build it easily.
