Thoughts on Improvements for PBEM
Posted: Mon Jan 18, 2021 3:40 pm
Having played several PBEM matches as well as single player, here are some thoughts on things that can be done to make PBEM more popular and fun. First, I would note that if you look at the current server list of matches, you will notice there are only usually 3-5 games filling up, and if you check the names of the players there are a lot of familiar ones, meaning it is basically veterans as opposed to newcomers. This is not a good sign if you want to grow the player base.
Problems:
- there needs to be in-game, easy to use, nation to nation messaging. Right now, unless you possess that players' RL email, any messages you send are read by all. This kills diplomacy.
- the way to win - legacy collection - incentivizes avoidance of conflict. Some nations have inherent advantages in gaining legacy and most games end early without much fighting through auto-legacy gain
- Not much reason to play the smaller nations or tribes, as you spend most/all of your time just trying to stay in existence. Again, most of the fighting gets done by AI-controlled nations
- snowball effect means once a nation becomes powerful enough they are too big to fail. No one dares attack them and the internal dynamics that affect size don't seem to deter the game turning into a "paint the map" exercise
Recommendations
- instead of all or nothing wars, the legacy table should set up small conflicts over key regions or trade routes. This would make wars between the player controlled nations more focused and limited, instead of the all-or-nothing affairs that incentivize people to avoid them
- there needs to be a function added allowing players who lose their nation to "jump into" an un-played nation
- tribal nations need to be made more viable and fun, right now they all play relatively similarly
Others may have other thoughts.
Problems:
- there needs to be in-game, easy to use, nation to nation messaging. Right now, unless you possess that players' RL email, any messages you send are read by all. This kills diplomacy.
- the way to win - legacy collection - incentivizes avoidance of conflict. Some nations have inherent advantages in gaining legacy and most games end early without much fighting through auto-legacy gain
- Not much reason to play the smaller nations or tribes, as you spend most/all of your time just trying to stay in existence. Again, most of the fighting gets done by AI-controlled nations
- snowball effect means once a nation becomes powerful enough they are too big to fail. No one dares attack them and the internal dynamics that affect size don't seem to deter the game turning into a "paint the map" exercise
Recommendations
- instead of all or nothing wars, the legacy table should set up small conflicts over key regions or trade routes. This would make wars between the player controlled nations more focused and limited, instead of the all-or-nothing affairs that incentivize people to avoid them
- there needs to be a function added allowing players who lose their nation to "jump into" an un-played nation
- tribal nations need to be made more viable and fun, right now they all play relatively similarly
Others may have other thoughts.