Ministers

Brandmeister, If your problem is your dislike for permasat accounts, then why not propose a suggestion to deal with that problem. If your problem is inactive players, then why not propose a suggestion to solve that problem. But purposely trying to make life "inconvenient" (to quote the purpose of the proposed ministers) is NOT the solution to stopping permasat accounts or inactive players. So let's try to solve the problems of the game instead of saying no to solutions just because they might not solve your dislike for a different aspect of the game. I.e. let's work toward solutions, instead of just blaming everything on dislike of permasats or inactives. After all, did anyone think that just perhaps there is a reason that those account are inactive? Like perhaps they are tired of the useless drudgery that other games don't make you go through? And please don't confuse drudgery with game interaction, because they are NOT the same thing.

And nothing that I proposed would allow "a player to log in once every week to a fully functioning account". Any player that doesn't log in for a week should find themselves on the wrong end of a spear. But that is a different problem, and requires a different solution, and therefore isn't being addressed as part of this suggestion.

I think that I have played just about every empire building game that there is. I am finishing up a round in one now that never once required staying up until 3 AM, getting a sitter, or doing a thousand clicks of drudgery every day, and it looks like I will be finishing ranked #6. The ones that I have played the least, are the ones that emphasize  the drudgery, minimize the skill and strategy, and maximize winning by staying up until 3 AM or having multiple people play the same account (requiring sitters to achieve great success). And as far as I can tell, I am in no way the minority in this regard. People don't play empire building (strategy) games to go through a thousand click routine everyday, they play empire building (strategy) games to match their empire building skills and strategies against other players empire building skills and strategies. And those that play strategy games for the strategy, quickly get ticked off when winning becomes staying up until 3 AM, or getting a sitter, or doing a thousand click routine everyday. And ticked off players soon leave. So let's emphasize the skill and strategy, and minimize the drudgery and the inconvenience.

Berde wrote: I don't like the idea of automated production queues. For one, you can already set your production queues to run for several days at a time, assuming you have the resources. I see the automation as a dangerous thing as when combined with build queues it has the potential for causing a city to go negative food and delevel.

Very true. And that is a good thing. As you said, that is part of the price to pay for using automation. You aren't trying to remove the risk of using automation, and in fact you don't want to remove the risk. I would say that any risk that the automation adds would be a good thing. Automation is a convenience to the player, but all thinking must still be done by the player. All the automation is doing is whatever they ask it to do, whenever they ask it to do it. It is a dumb servant. The player must still think about whether they wish to activate it or not, and they reap the reward, or suffer the harm, if they do. That is part of the strategy that it adds.
For instance if they tell their troops to attack a square at 00:00 and then log off, if their friend then takes that square, too bad. They are not online to change their orders, so their troops are still sent to attack it. We would want to be careful not to add safeties to the automation. It does exactly what the player asks it too, without any thought.
Remember minister are for convenience only, and specifically should not add any intelligence.

Angrim wrote: Beyljr wrote: Remember minister are for convenience only, and specifically should not add any intelligence. to this point, a minister who can schedule an army launch can also dodge an incoming attack. let the player initiate the strategy.

I agree that the player should initiate the strategy. But if a player schedules an army move in order to dodge an incoming attack, then they have initiated the strategy. All the minister would be doing is carrying out the player's orders. I.e. the minister would not be doing anything but what the player told it to do, but without the inconvenience of the player having to stay up all night to do it.

Can this question be answered within the framework of the developer's own intentions for how the game should be played? I think the information is already out there (from about 3-4 years ago).

Albatross wrote: Can this question be answered within the framework of the developer's own intentions for how the game should be played? I think the information is already out there (from about 3-4 years ago). Aside from that, I have mixed feelings about automation. In no particular order: By imposing a template on town development, you're taking away the interaction. So new players might miss out on the social opportunities that happen while learning (and asking about) the game. By imposing a template on town development, you're removing the diverse choices that players make (perhaps by accident, mistake, or poor interpretation) when shaping their towns. Any automation should be sub-optimal. The reason is that players should be rewarded for doing it themselves, and finding better ways. We don't want that spirit of adventure to be snuffed by an easy option.

I don't know where you got "imposing a template" from. This suggestion NEVER suggested imposing a template, or anything else for that matter.

And there is a HUGE difference between a "spirit of adventure", and having whoever doesn't have to work for a living and therefore can stay up until 3 AM is the winner. I don't think that this game really wants to tell those that work for a living, and therefore can afford to pay for the prestige, that they are going to suffer a handicap because they can not afford to stay up until 3 AM to launch their army. That is not winning by strategy. All you have done is replaced "pay to win" with "stay up late to win". And that means that those that don't pay have the advantage over those that do, since it is those that don't pay because they are not employed, that can afford to stay up late. I am really amazed at how many people here favor a "stay up late to win" process. I personally don't see how that is any better than pay to win. If anything it is worse because it not only favors a select few, but does so at the expense of the game's finances.