• 382 Players on Java
  • us.mineplex.com
  • 382 Players Online
  • 0 Players on Bedrock
  • pe.mineplex.com
!
Attention Internet Explorer Users
To have the best user experience on our site please consider upgrading to Google Chrome or Mozilla Firefox

Implemented [NANO] End Game Mechanics

Discussion in 'Game Alterations' started by Disgruntle, Oct 30, 2020.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Hey, it confused me why games can end with no winner and makes me think there needs to be some update to make sure that every game has a winner. This can become frustrating for people who did a good job but can't win the game they played. Examples of this are shown below:

    [​IMG]

    The change I'd like to propose for Frenzy is that if no one has a tower by the end, is as simple as the team(s) with the most amount of players alive at the end would win the game. Whilst unfortunate for people playing solo, it is a team game and it'd be better than having no way for anyone to win the game if people keep running and towers are all gone.

    [​IMG]

    In Nano Battle, the timer is extended right until the border consumes the remaining land. As you can see in the screenshot above, it would only take a matter of seconds more for the map to completely crumble, and at least it would lead to a winner. In addition to this, the crumble rate could be increased slightly in order to time the game to end in the same timeframe as the average Nano game would. If this isn't possible then the team with the most amount of players alive at the end could win instead, but either way, I think there should be some change to the way that games end in order to make them more rewarding and less frustrating for players in the event of a tie.

    Thanks for reading, I hope to receive some feedback :)
     
    Posted Oct 30, 2020
  2. I don't see the problem in adding these two and I feel like it would make playing those games and spending time on them more rewarding. +1
     
    Posted Oct 30, 2020
  3. Hey,

    I totally agree with your suggestions as they would eliminate the frustration that is caused because of the tie that happens in these 2 modes. I'd love to see your ideas implemented so, I'd give this thread a +1!
     
    Posted Oct 30, 2020
    Disgruntle likes this.
  4. Hey,

    I completely agree with these two ideas. It is really frustrating as a player when these games end with an inconclusive result, especially after playing them for two minutes each. It ends up seeming like a huge waste of time. This is a really good game suggestion and one that I think could be an easy fix without being time consuming.
     
    Posted Oct 30, 2020
    Disgruntle likes this.
  5. Hello!

    I've noticed the same thing when I play nano games. Although I understand the logic behind having no winner, I think for most cases this idea would be the preferred end result for most players. Playing an intense round of nano battles just for it to end with no winner can be incredibly frustrating because there is no satisfaction of either a victory or a loss. For new nano games players it might be odd or confusing seeing "Nobody won the game.." in nano battles if there were three yellow vs. one red. I totally support this idea and would love for this change to be made!
     
    Posted Oct 30, 2020
    Disgruntle likes this.
  6. OP OP
    OP OP Posted Nov 1, 2020
  7. Make sure they don't fly over my farm.Hate it when the cows start barking..
     
    Posted Nov 1, 2020
    AWEARY likes this.
  8. Don’t see why these small changes can’t be implemented, as I too find it annoying when my games end like this. +1
     
    Posted Nov 2, 2020
  9. Definitely agreed with some sort of change to this. This has happened to me and a few people I know multiple times and can be pretty frustrating to not be able to win that we did a good job in. I'm sure I can say the same for many others, especially after a particularly intense game. Having someone win is much better than just having it as a complete draw. +1 overall, hopefully something akin to what you suggested gets added!
     
    Posted Nov 2, 2020
    Disgruntle likes this.
  10. I am definitely a fan of this idea. I have always had this issue in Nano games where it ends up being a tie due to players camping, and this would make it fair so that the team who did the best (by having the most players alive) would be rewarded with the win. Additionally, they could make it so multiple people left alive could also be rewarded with the win similar to how the mechanics in other Nano games work. Nice idea, I hope to see these suggestions added!

    - Lucas
     
    Posted Nov 2, 2020
    Disgruntle likes this.
  11. I definitely agree with this idea entirely. I haven't been playing Nano games for a while, but I can see where you're coming from. I prefer to have someone win rather than a tie. I don't see why we need this, but I agree that there should need to have a QoL change. Overall, that's a great idea you have! +1
     
    Posted Nov 2, 2020
    Disgruntle likes this.
  12. I've been playing Nano games a lot more over the past week or so, and I have encountered this a number of times. It is quite discouraging when you work very hard in a game like Frenzy to then find out that nobody will get the win for the game. I think that a solution is definitely needed, and something like you have proposed for these two games makes sense to me. The team with the most players would win could work, and while even you said it could be unfair at times for solo payers, it's definitely a better solution to the issue that we currently have. I'm all for something like this, and I'm interested to see if anyone can come up with another compromise that will still result in a winner always but that is a bit fairer than just the team with the most players winning. +1
     
    Posted Nov 2, 2020
    Disgruntle likes this.
  13. Hey.

    Over the past few days, I've been playing an increase in Nano games. Even though I have only played nano games actively for a few games at this specific point in time, I still find it discouraging that there could be no winner in a game such as in the example, (frenzy). As this has been mentioned multiple times earlier, it could be decided by most players remaining on each team but would be hard for solo players who aren't matched with a teammate. A possible workaround to this is the fact that maybe the developers could add a system where there could be a 'final fight' if there are teams still alive but no towers currently alive. However, this would still face the same problem as before with solo players being by themselves and possibly having to go against a team of 2 players. Although, there could be an idea around this still. The game randomly selects one of the two players (out of the same team) for this 'final fight' scenario. This way, it would only be one person per team (out of the teams that were alive still at the end of the game) I don't know, it's just an idea that maybe could be a workaround to this. Anyways, even if some sort of solution is implemented to workaround the problem of these games having the result of 'no winner', then it will most likely work. All in all, your idea is amazing.

    +1
     
    Posted Nov 3, 2020
    Disgruntle likes this.
  14. Thanks for the feedback @hyperkinetic, it makes sense although I'm against the idea of making it a 1v1 scenario at the end. First of all, a deathmatch is a bit excessive in my opinion for short games (which NANO is designed to be), as the recurring theme of NANO is that if players are at a draw at the end, they'd both get the win rather than fighting until last man standing. Also Frenzy is a team game so it'd be unfair on a team of 2 if they had to sacrifice a player out of their hands so I couldn't see that working well tbh. Solo players get a diamond sword to compensate for the lack of a team mate currently which works well in my opinion. I appreciate the feedback from everyone <3
     
    OP OP
    OP OP Posted Nov 3, 2020
  15. Yeah, I see what you mean. I wasn't quite sure that it was one of my best ideas and I completely agree with your response. Now that I think about that idea more, your response makes more sense and I kind of forgot about the diamond sword aspect of the game as well. Anyways, thanks for the response and I completely agree with your response to my idea. I probably should of thought about different aspects about the game and how the games are supposed to be short. Thanks for the feedback once again! :)
     
    Posted Nov 3, 2020
    Disgruntle likes this.
  16. Hey,

    As for your first idea with Frenzy, I believe that there should be a barrier system that closes in on everyone about 5 seconds before the game ends, and if any player makes contact with this shrinking border, it kills them. This would force players to fight it out, having no players waiting for the timer to end as a troll. The barrier system would work much better than any type of 1v1 system, but it would also prevent the issue of solo player vs duo players having an unfair advantage in the "tie". To sum it up, at the end of the normal "Game Time", all towers could instantly be destroyed and the remaining players will duel it out with a closing border if players have just been camping the entire game or wanting no winners, rather than losing.

    As for your second idea with Nano Battle, I completely agree with you in the sense that the whole island should get destroyed BEFORE the game ends, which would encourage all players to build high up, resulting in the start of PvP. I absolutely hate it when players camp height in Nano Battle just to wait for the end of the game to tie it, which is why if it's a 1v1 scenario, the entire island should break. I also completely agree that the team with most players alive should win at the end of the game if it's a stalemate, to once again prevent that one user from running away from a team of 4 players which results in no winners, which isn't fair.

    ~~
     
    Posted Nov 3, 2020
  17. Hey, I have to disagree with this point, to be honest, it wouldn't really be fair to instantly die to a border or for players to lose their towers instantly otherwise there doesn't seem any point to me in having the towers originally. I see where you're coming from although perhaps a gradual health reduction towards the end of each round could work better such as that in Gladiators. Although this might be complicated so it might be better to just have the teams with the most amount of players win imo. Thanks for the feedback though, although doing it that way may make the game more luck-based than skill-based which is for the most part what I'm trying to avoid.
     
    OP OP
    OP OP Posted Nov 4, 2020
  18. Hey!

    Thank you for the idea. With the post patch that was just pushed today, we have brought corruption back to Nano Battles as well as added it to Frenzy.

    With this in mind, I will be marking this thread as Implemented as well as locking it.

    Thank you for sharing!

    Thread Locked >> Idea Implemented
     
    Posted Nov 11, 2020
    Anna ♡, Disgruntle and ItsFree like this.
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page