It appears a good majority of you believe that radar stations should be available to detect enemy ships.

This would obviously help you as a player because you wouldn't have to watch your shores as closely. However, it also means that landing on another person's shore or getting to another continent would be <i>much</i> harder.

Does that change anyone's opinion?

what about making higher level ships harder to detect to balance it out?

I'm still confused as to how these would be "detected".

My assumption is that it would appear as a Display option?

I still like the Idea of radar ships instead. I assume that anything "found" in the radar net would be a display option. I do believe that it should be very expensive though.

I have two ideas.

Radar Station
Build like base
Cannot by part of another base.
Limited range (50-75 sectors)
High cost
High defense value

Add radar to battleships
Upgrade
Slow ship down (you have option of increase range or radar capabilities)

I have to say I'm fairly surprised by the response to the map size poll!

I was thinking that most people would select a smaller map size. I could see a map going literally for <i>years</i> at 8,192 by 4,096 sectors. Personally, I feel like it takes a very long time to cover land as it is now. Imagine the number of attacks you'd have to set every day to take over a continent in a map <i>double</i> the size!

That's the interesting thing about the poll questions, though. I never would have known people felt that way without it.

the cool thing is, you can make maps of each size and players can choose what map size they want to play on.

Also, it should prevent a select few from feeling the need to dominate the entire map (aka now).

I vote for new poll questions every 5 minutes so I can have something to do other than spy on people and where they are moving units. Im bored.

My plan was to have an additional world be created after one world fills up. That would keep giving users a place to play without the overhead (storage, bandwidth, processing time) of multiple maps without good cause. Also, it would be a lot harder to fill up multiple worlds that start at the same time, so you'd end up with runaway countries that would be very difficult to stop.

I actually just purchased a new server that should give me more flexibility and power for GT. (Another reason I need to ensure I have a way to make money with the game when it's done. haha)

Isn't that the point of a war game? [/tng]

hahaha

If anyone has a suggestion for a poll question, please send it to me in a note. If I think it's useful, I may add it.

I was thinking that we could have some kind of "graduated" map system, so that the "world" keeps getting bigger with time. Start off all the new players on a continent-sized map, so they get a chance to take that over, and after 90% is claimed or 50 days have passed or something, move that map so it's included with the global one.

That's an interesting idea. Maybe even a handful of small worlds that play on their own for a while and then merge to become one huge world.

I'll have to give that one some thought!

I think the poll about peoples' intentions in the game sheds some light on the map preference poll.

Alliances have become an important component of the game, and it certainly makes taking over the entire world a bit more feasible. I originally imagined the game as a player's fight to take over an entire world, but the dynamic that's come out of it is quite different.

I think I'm much more comfortable with a larger map now. I think alliances are going to have to be restructured, as well.

Here's the plan:

- Alliances essentially become "teams" within the game. You're only allowed to join one alliance at a time, and they'll actually affect aspects of the game itself (e.g. sharing "pins" with notes, seeing each others' attacks, etc.). Alliances will still get their own message board area.

- The message board will have an ability to create a private "group" or "room" where you can specify who can enter and read/post, essentially taking on the functionality that alliances have now. A person will have the ability to access to multiple rooms (depending on which rooms have been opened to him).

- Each world will get its own "roundtable" (like the current "Player Roundable") that's only accessible to players within that world.

What do you think?

Perhaps the ability to set up a private non-alliance forum could be a paid feature as well?

i would still like to be able to join multiple alliances.

In CN, spying happens, and causes a lot of fun Drama.

For example, I'm actually Big Top Order Spy, who spys on MCXA, attacks are coming tomorrow :P

Seriously though, I'm kidding.

Yeah, but that game is friggin horrible anyway. I don't mind alliances being one-only.

ditto

Definitely a good idea. If I did end up going with different account levels, then I think that would work well as a higher level account item.

Not to hem you in but how about a poll with price options that you are thinking of.

I just don't know how accurate the results would be. I think most people would shoot low when asked how much they'd like to pay for something!

It looks like a fair amount of people are saying the game takes too much time to play. People also indicated they'd like to see a bigger map, which I think would only make the problem worse.

With smaller maps, getting across an entire continent could be weeks instead of months, and you won't need the massive amount of units. It would also lead to a quicker resolution of each world, where players could then rejoin a new world for an entirely new dynamic.

I do like the idea of having a huge world, but I don't want players to get sick of setting countless attacks in order to play aggressively. Any thoughts?

have different sized maps so people could make the decision to join a smaller or larger map based on what their goals are. people that don't have mounds of time will take on a smaller world, while people that have plenty of time can play on a larger map and aim for a massive conquest.

realistically, i'd be interested in paying $5/month. $10/month gets me a sub to a major mmo if i pay for three months at one go, so it's hard to think about paying the same as an mmo.

but if it was $10, i'd pay it, but grudgingly.

If it wasn't too difficult, it would be good to have multiple maps. Only one country on only one map.

As far as paying, I was thinking more on
A) One time fee
B) Monthly fee
C) Pay per map (one time fee)
D) Pay per map (monthly)

If you did the pay per map function, then of course you could be on multiple maps. The cost of maps could be commensurate with size if it was a one time fee. I know that I would prefer to pay once or as I entered maps rather than "subscribe". A free beginner map that was on the smallish size would be good to get people in. I also like the idea of maps not starting until a certain number of people have signed up for it therefore making it "fair" to all who get in on the beginning. Larger maps could be like it is now, just maybe discount for starting on the map late. That is when a certain percentage of the sectors are occupied. Say like 50% occupied then 10% off or 80% occupied then 50% off. The theory being that they wouldn't get to play that map near as long as the starters did.

I do think that on smaller maps, factions would be less of an issue as they are now. I would like to see maybe a map that has a standing rule of no alliances. I realize that people would still help each other but the norm would be do it on your own.

I am sure that there are people who would like to join multiple maps and thus (if you have a pay per map setup) more money for you for the extra maps.