Forums / Miscellaneous Discussions / Problem of 3 player types

I have a problem figuring this one, so I decided to let the great minds of VU to have a go at it.

There are 3 player types: warmongers, farmers and new players.

The warmongers want to fight and win battles, no matter the casualties or the sacrifice. They want (read: demand) the era to be won by strategic planning through war. (Boredom drives industry = war = very long eras). They detest farmers.

The farmers just want to farm. They believe that the era can be won through economics and look for ways and means to make the era shorter. (Laziness drives invention = peace = win with least cost and effort).

The new players just want to know more about the game. Unfortunately, they are in the way of the warmongers, as they take up precious land and resources needed by the latter. The farmers befriends most of them, and they will be eventually farmers, given enough time and chance to do so by the farmers. They could had been warmongers, but they got wiped out by the warmongers and never return to the game.

The problem: How to make them coexist, if not, how to cater the game to cater to these 3 types of players.

if every1 is waring and no1 is farming, waring won't pay out in efforts ;), you will never see a 50k army, only 5k armies running arround killing each other....
Ofc, only if those warmongers never farm ;)

no. why should farmers get the era named after them Fantasia is the main map. If you cant take the heat on fantasia you dont deserve your name to be up thier. People farm because they cannot or are unwilling to war no other reason

But Dear Lady, I am talking about the mentality of game play, not the specifics of game play. Warmongers make sure that they have enough economy before they go to war.

Farmers don't, and are unwilling to sacrifice any troops. They don't want to go to war but still want to win the era. They just want to see their cities explode in size, maybe have a few hordes (but not using them in anyway, in case the scores get hit) and insane amount of income. They, in other words, build for the sake of building. The end result that they want to see is just the score and nothing else.

Compare it to the warmonger: they want a good fight, regardless of the score. They want to have troops that do something on the battlefield, not just to accumulate scores. Their version of the winner is the one who survives a war, not a farmer hiding in one corner of the map hording armies, resources and land, then wait for the era to end.

Not all farmers are looking for a high score, though.  Perhaps they'd rather enter the battlefield when they are good and ready with a strong economic backing.  A solid offense is a good defense, is it not?

Farmers aren't necessarily are they the ones looking to cast Arma.  That would be the score whores.

"The new players just want to know more about the game. Unfortunately, they are in the way of the warmongers, as they take up precious land and resources needed by the latter. The farmers befriends most of them, and they will be eventually farmers, given enough time and chance to do so by the farmers. They could had been warmongers, but they got wiped out by the warmongers and never return to the game.

The problem: How to make them coexist, if not, how to cater the game to cater to these 3 types of players."

Coexist? Get war mongers to wipe out the farmers instead of NAP'ing them and the new players will have no choice but to become warmongers.

The circle of death goes on >: )

You can't have warmongers with out farmers. Who are the warmmongers supost to feed off from with out the farmers. Who are the farmers going to point there finger at and say "play nicer."As for the players that quit after being wiped out once, why do we want them for in the game? To hear some one whine each time they loose? Leave the game the way it is.

A----- becuase id drop kick him in the face

A----im still gunna dropkick him in the face wheter hes got a knife or a nuke

so ha dak while your getting a knife im flying into your face with my feets

Of course, you never know if your other neighbor is sitting back and watching you both, while assembling his full gang of thugs armed with Tommy guns... it's all part of the strategy.

let them farm, the warring dudes need their towns ...   farmers are wankers, cowards, losers, little kids, spineless, ...  they are just in the game to provide us with the income to wield our powerfull armies  :-p

That's the problem, we shouldn't cater to the farmers.

"I find that analogy completely irrelevant, actually if I'm honest I find it down right stupid. Farmers farm for scores that's the whole point of farming, if they weren't they wouldn't be called farmers."

Then, being honest, I find you rather dense.  If you don't want to call them farmers, fine.  But then you need more than 3 player types.  Since you seem incapable of comprehending this, I'll take it upon myself to do that.

----------------

Here are some basic strategies common in most rts games.

Rushers (warmongerers):  Attack the enemy ASAP before they are prepared and plunder their resources.  Pro=effective if done right, even a rush done wrong can hurt the enemy's economy so you can overcome them quickly.  Con=done wrong, it's game over.  Plus 3rd kingdoms may jump in and reap all your efforts.

Turtle:  Puts up defenses ASAP so that the rushers can't get them.  Pro=very strong and safe at beginning.  Con=economy suffers later on due to upkeep and soldiers taking up homes.

Boomer (usually referred to as farmers, but aspects differ):  Focuses mostly on economy until the time is right, when they pump out the armies real quick and take over their weaker-economy neighbors.  Pro=powerful mid-endgame armies, able to outproduce most opponents.  Con=very vulnerable to rushers and attackers until ready.

EVERY one of these options has its own risks.  So here is what most kingdoms do, to varying levels:

Balanced:  Works on all three strategies in moderation, balancing out offense, defense, and economy.

This is very interesting, I hope we get more intput on this subject. I have none, I am a new player, so dont expect me to reply at all.

Buddy, that is the fundamental of virtually every RTS out there.  Change the names, add or subtract a few details, but that strategy emerges in every economy/military game out there.  Prove me wrong and then I'll believe you.

"However in this game, you can don't go to war and win it."

Can you rephrase this?