Just in case you're interested

[Death]

About time, eh?

QM Promisance Standard/Clanless v3.3 have been released, both for local download and on SourceForge. This release corresponds almost exactly to what is currently running on qmt.ath.cx (minus a few minor customizations).

It should be noted that this will likely be the final release of QM Promisance version 3 - if a new version is ever released (and I certainly hope so), it will be under the new QM Promisance v4 unified codebase (which should show up on SourceForge within the next few days, though very much incomplete).

http://sourceforge.net/projects/qmpromisance/

I'm pretty sure that's it, I didn't make sure though.

The only reason I'm posting this is because I know quite a few FAFers and MEers who like QM games, and they attract more players usually, so I figured you might want to check it out.

[Ruddertail]

Well, as far as I'm concerned, thanks but no thanks. The thing about FAF is that it's FAF. We're not just trying to have another promi, or even another game. We're trying to make something that's both unique and attracts more players, and I don't see going back to another vanilla code being the way to do that. If there are some specific features that make QM games popular, we may consider implementing those - consider being the operative word - but other than that, I think any changes in FAF will be in the direction of more innovation and uniqueness along our own lines.

[Slasher]

Alright, alright. No need to go mad at him, he was only saying IF we are interested.

[Freenhult]

Indeed. No need to spaz.

Whether we like it or not, we seem to have a low player base. Its nice to be independent and innovative, yes. But we should understand WHY people play there and not here.

Otherwise, it doesn't matter how unique and cool it is if no one plays here.

Anyway, I encouraged him to post that here. Since QMT has been very long lived, I thought some people would be interested in it.

[The Beatles]

I don't think it's because of our features. Look at ME, that had servers with 200-300 people at a time, easy. It's (mostly) our background, heritage, theme, etc.

[avatar of vengeance]

It's the theme, change it and you have a hell allot new players who stay with it.

[Death]

I don't think it's because of our features. Look at ME, that had servers with 200-300 people at a time, easy. It's (mostly) our background, heritage, theme, etc.

ME has players because of the other games on that site, people are like "wtf is that" and look. Which isn't a bad idea at all.

[Ruddertail]

Eh? I wasn't getting mad or spazzing at anybody. Just stating - firmly - that we don't want to make FAF into just another clone in order to get more players. More players would be great, sure. But if we lose the FAF innovation, we might as well just move somewhere they already have a lot of players, boost their numbers, and save Beatles time and money.

Death - what do you think it is that make QMT games more popular? What do you think FAF could do to get more players, and keep them?


Does anything think A) Our theme is a problem, and B ) We could improve things by changing it?

[Shadow I]

I think the gameplay is just too slow - going for realism is great, but new players see the tiny numbers and just leave. I joined 2 years ago and got bored with it after one run. Now that I understand promi much better I can appreciate it, but new players don't see it the same way oldbies do.

[Freenhult]

This to me has always seemed to be a Veterans Club more than anything.

[Arthus]

ME never had 200-300 people, max it had 75 active players. I'm counting people that performed more than 4 runs. More than 10 and we probably go down to 50.

[Ruddertail]

Shadow - I can certainly believe that would be a problem. Perhaps we should kill the factor 1000 scaling. Do you think the extra 100 scaling on boats would be also be a problem, independent of the factor 1000?

This to me has always seemed to be a Veterans Club more than anything.

That's not the worst thing in the world, but I would certainly like to see it more attractive to new players. What do you think could be done?

[Shadow I]

Shadow -  I can certainly believe that would be a problem. Perhaps we should kill the factor 1000 scaling. Do you think the extra 100 scaling on boats would be also be a problem, independent of the factor 1000?

I think if the boats are going to be scaled down by the extra 100 the OP/DP should be scaled accordingly as well, and the boat combo attacks removed to avoid imbalances. As always, I am against overcomplication, though. It might be worth trying simply removing the scaling for a while and advertising, see what happens. A good friend of mine from RWL (kell) joined at my suggestion, but said the slow gameplay was lame. And he is no newbie to promi.

Another thing to think about might be strat diversity. I know I rant a lot about RWL, but I am going to use it as an example here: all the races have a unique spell, and most can be used as the basis for an entirely unique strategy. Something similar could be used here, perhaps based on historical information concerning the different races. I would be happy to help develop such an idea should it happen. Right now there are really only 3 main strategies: indy, farmer/reseller, and spy casher (and several derivitives of these strategies). Adding some new ones, perhaps one of two very simple ones for newbies to get a feel for the game with, would probably encourage players to stay. Newbies cannot hope to compete with the oldbies at strategies that oldbies have been doing for ages, but some new ones might give them a perception of a fighting chance.

FaF is a veterans club, but that isn't necessarily a good thing when the number of promi vets worldwide is under 100 and getting smaller by the year.

[Ruddertail]

Each boat is currently "worth" 100 boats, having 700 OP and 600 DP. I'm thinking we might leave this as is, and simply remove the factor 1000, cosmetic scaling, that causes everything to have 3 zeros chopped off the back. So, 50 boats would now be 50,000 boats, 10,000 spearmen would now be 10 million spearmen, etc.

But, yeah. If it's enough to drive away someone like kell, we are looking at a problem.

I don't think "most" can be used for an entirely unique strategy at RWL. Fox can't, rat can't, painted one can't, lizard can't, wolf... maybe, but you can't food sell, so it's only food massing.

Still, I see your point. It might be nice to go beyond the typical four. It also might be nice to have a more intuitive strat - not as the only solution - but as one possible way. That is, to have some sort of mines/tents/foragers or mines/tents/foragers/barracks type strategy be effective. That way, when I new guy signs up, he's not at a total disadvantage if he builds the way it seems normal to him. Feed yourself, pay your bills, make your own troops... etc.

This might be the kind of thing we should be focusing on first. Kill market storing and such, but before we go off on any major projects, look at ways to make it more inviting and friendly to newbies.

[Shadow I]

I don't think "most" can be used for an entirely unique strategy at RWL. Fox can't, rat can't, painted one can't, lizard can't, wolf... maybe, but you can't food sell, so it's only food massing.

I forgot you were a RWLer too Sometimes I exxagerate for effect. I'd say that rat can (it's the best indier) and fox can as well, although it's not very competitive. Only lizard and painted one lack a signature strat.

I think a beginner's guide might be a good start - something relatively short, readable, and SPECIFIC (not, "markets do this, barracks do this, etc" but something more along the lines of "ok, now build 500 markets...") that will get them started on an effective yet easy strategy that they can build on later once they get a feel for the turn system. Cashing might be a good one?