Wow cool ideas! I can also think of a setting where you can turn on army cost. Then every unit costs 1 star per turn. Makes war economy way more realistic.
To implement team games I would like to see something like the host holding down on/right clicking people to change an outline colour that indicates what team you are on, and have it be fully customisable with 8 possible team colour outlines so every possible team system can be made. Team games would likely be excluded from random games, and only be done using friends/link/pass and play games
Great ideas man, love hearing it! I'm subscribed (obvs) but as far as comparing to other TH-cam channels go, that's actually a pretty good subscriber ratio
Yeah, like maybe a super tanky unit from like a level 8(?) city or with 100 stars(??) where you'd only reach it in a stalemate and the first one to it would break the stalemate? The problem with that is it has to be big enough that people can't just go for it instead of winning other ways.
Honestly now that I think about it, being able to train super units for ~50 stars would be pretty nice. Extremely inefficient, but gets the job done if absolutely necessary.
I'm considering just having some background gameplay while I yap about things in my next rant video, idk if that's good for the ✨viewer engagement ✨or not.
@ I think it is. I watch all your videos, this one a gave up on half of it. Even though all your points make sense… youtube is a video platform. I think we all expect to watch something here not just listen. Your face would work too, if you are ready for that)) not just those boring slides😂
The problem I find with glory games is that other than the smallest maps getting to the points required is very easy. So much so that it's basically always going to be the deciding factor for who wins by the end of the game to the point where on bigger maps it's better to not fight your opponents at all but just race for points. On the biggest maps you might not even meet your opponent at all before the game ends. You presented might as the simpler more straight forward game mode but defeating your opponent militarily is infinitely more interesting and complex than getting a certain amount of points. Also I don't see in what way glory insentivises you to break alliances more often if anything I feel like it's the opposite and at the same time different might games also create plenty of situations where it's more efficient not to attack but be peaceful. In theory what you're saying is correct glory theoretically functions like might but with the added complexity of points but because of everything already stated I think glory ends up always having a different win condition that is inherently less interesting than might. Also just in itself stalemates and getting through them can be the most skill intensive part of the game so to have a point sistem as a tie breaker to decide who wins in the end I'm not sure is even better in the first place. I do admit it will be nice for live games that you dont want to take multiple hours.
2:00 Woah, woah, woah, hold on there. I hard disagree that score can be easier to balance. I'd argue score **could** be easier to balance if score was properly balanced in the first place, but I think there's good place to say that score is very, very, very, very far away from such a state currently
I agree that glory WOULD be better. My issue is it is a race, and not a king of the hill. Feels anticlimactic in a negative way. I probably would play glory more if it was a king of the hill, where players were notified for 1-3 turns a player is in the running to win.
Actually funny that advance wars by web has the same mechanics to not let live matches stall. AWBW is also another turn based online competitive game, sorta like polytopia, it has a turn limit and whoever has an economical advantage, they win. So if a game stalls out, nearing the turn limit it becomes a desperate struggle to get an economic advantage over the other player. Makes it more interesting and less of a slog to play.
And then there should be a 'see games', which would show the requested combinations because otherwise nobody would ever find a match. And it'd also need a lot of work. But great ideas honestly
I really liked most of these ideas, though i generally find that people enjoy mechanics that give players more options rather than take them away, so i feel like the decay and limited research modes would not be played very much at all. (I think small army might be appealing to more people than the other two though). I really liked the temple changes. Maybe if they added these i would actually play glory.
I like Limited Techs and Small Army the most but head start seems like the easiest to add and it'd even balance out T0 and T2 tribes (T0 tribes would become useless tho)
Since the main problem with Might is stalemates, I think there could just be a maximum number of turns and whoever has more cities at the end wins. Tiebreakers would be number of units and player who started last (to reduce host advantage).
I was considering some sort of sudden death or tiebreaker idea for might, but some people do really like the appeal of dragged out games, so I don't think there's much of a need for such a feature. If you want games with a more strict deadline, glory is the way to go.
No I definitely wouldn't change current Might! I'm fine with Might, but if you want more people to play Glory, maybe having a turn limit instead of a point limit would help. So there would be (current Might with unlimited turns) + (Glory with a maximum number of turns instead of maximum number of points). Or not, I don't really know
@@deleteme924 Honestly that could be interesting. I think a turn limit and point threshold both have their own perks, so that begs the question: Why not both?
I thought he was going to go over how border growth can be good. I was flabbergasted in one of his zebasi meditation vids when he used border growth for a bunch of his cities as if pumping out giants wasn't the primary objective of the game. Also in the vid he rushed multiple tier 3 techs as if he planned on spamming border growth. Those shenanigans blew my ape brain. Or maybe I should just write this off as stuff only Zebasi can do as the most broken tribe in the game
It would be interesting to have teams as a game mechanic. Having 2x2, 3x3, 2x2x2 etc as options and people winning/losing together with their members.
Team games would be sensational!
Don't know why don't exist already
Wow cool ideas! I can also think of a setting where you can turn on army cost. Then every unit costs 1 star per turn. Makes war economy way more realistic.
I would support such idea if it turns off the limit per city. Could even have a gradual price with high tier units costing more.
4:57 Take my like RIGHT THE FUCK NOW 😂 (You really got me damn)
Perfection > Glory > Might
To implement team games I would like to see something like the host holding down on/right clicking people to change an outline colour that indicates what team you are on, and have it be fully customisable with 8 possible team colour outlines so every possible team system can be made. Team games would likely be excluded from random games, and only be done using friends/link/pass and play games
I ain’t trying glory might is just funner imo. Completely agree with temple buff idea that looks perfect
Great ideas man, love hearing it! I'm subscribed (obvs) but as far as comparing to other TH-cam channels go, that's actually a pretty good subscriber ratio
Good recommendations. Midjiwan needs to start listening
Yeah, like maybe a super tanky unit from like a level 8(?) city or with 100 stars(??) where you'd only reach it in a stalemate and the first one to it would break the stalemate? The problem with that is it has to be big enough that people can't just go for it instead of winning other ways.
Honestly now that I think about it, being able to train super units for ~50 stars would be pretty nice. Extremely inefficient, but gets the job done if absolutely necessary.
background gameplay related to each "slide" would be so much nicer. I know it's a lot of work.
Just wanted to let you know.
You are doing a great job)
I'm considering just having some background gameplay while I yap about things in my next rant video, idk if that's good for the ✨viewer engagement ✨or not.
@ I think it is. I watch all your videos, this one a gave up on half of it. Even though all your points make sense…
youtube is a video platform. I think we all expect to watch something here not just listen. Your face would work too, if you are ready for that)) not just those boring slides😂
The problem I find with glory games is that other than the smallest maps getting to the points required is very easy. So much so that it's basically always going to be the deciding factor for who wins by the end of the game to the point where on bigger maps it's better to not fight your opponents at all but just race for points. On the biggest maps you might not even meet your opponent at all before the game ends. You presented might as the simpler more straight forward game mode but defeating your opponent militarily is infinitely more interesting and complex than getting a certain amount of points. Also I don't see in what way glory insentivises you to break alliances more often if anything I feel like it's the opposite and at the same time different might games also create plenty of situations where it's more efficient not to attack but be peaceful. In theory what you're saying is correct glory theoretically functions like might but with the added complexity of points but because of everything already stated I think glory ends up always having a different win condition that is inherently less interesting than might. Also just in itself stalemates and getting through them can be the most skill intensive part of the game so to have a point sistem as a tie breaker to decide who wins in the end I'm not sure is even better in the first place. I do admit it will be nice for live games that you dont want to take multiple hours.
2:00 Woah, woah, woah, hold on there. I hard disagree that score can be easier to balance. I'd argue score **could** be easier to balance if score was properly balanced in the first place, but I think there's good place to say that score is very, very, very, very far away from such a state currently
I agree that glory WOULD be better. My issue is it is a race, and not a king of the hill. Feels anticlimactic in a negative way.
I probably would play glory more if it was a king of the hill, where players were notified for 1-3 turns a player is in the running to win.
Actually funny that advance wars by web has the same mechanics to not let live matches stall. AWBW is also another turn based online competitive game, sorta like polytopia, it has a turn limit and whoever has an economical advantage, they win. So if a game stalls out, nearing the turn limit it becomes a desperate struggle to get an economic advantage over the other player. Makes it more interesting and less of a slog to play.
Markets are great I wouldn't consider them op tho, I'd like them to become meta
I love these ideas, especially the modifiers. They should hire you lol
@ Justeeni - all temples need a buff though. Such as lower to 15 stars from 20. In 1v1 glory, games ALWAYS end by turn 16-19
And then there should be a 'see games', which would show the requested combinations because otherwise nobody would ever find a match. And it'd also need a lot of work. But great ideas honestly
A "see games" feature honestly just sounds really useful in general ngl
I really liked most of these ideas, though i generally find that people enjoy mechanics that give players more options rather than take them away, so i feel like the decay and limited research modes would not be played very much at all. (I think small army might be appealing to more people than the other two though). I really liked the temple changes. Maybe if they added these i would actually play glory.
Wow, now that’s some based glory defense!
I like Limited Techs and Small Army the most but head start seems like the easiest to add and it'd even balance out T0 and T2 tribes (T0 tribes would become useless tho)
What a glorious idea! :)
Since the main problem with Might is stalemates, I think there could just be a maximum number of turns and whoever has more cities at the end wins. Tiebreakers would be number of units and player who started last (to reduce host advantage).
I was considering some sort of sudden death or tiebreaker idea for might, but some people do really like the appeal of dragged out games, so I don't think there's much of a need for such a feature. If you want games with a more strict deadline, glory is the way to go.
No I definitely wouldn't change current Might! I'm fine with Might, but if you want more people to play Glory, maybe having a turn limit instead of a point limit would help. So there would be (current Might with unlimited turns) + (Glory with a maximum number of turns instead of maximum number of points). Or not, I don't really know
@@deleteme924 Honestly that could be interesting. I think a turn limit and point threshold both have their own perks, so that begs the question: Why not both?
Multiple win conditions makes the game feel a lot more like the abstract civ it was desifned as
Limited research sounds fun
I thought he was going to go over how border growth can be good. I was flabbergasted in one of his zebasi meditation vids when he used border growth for a bunch of his cities as if pumping out giants wasn't the primary objective of the game. Also in the vid he rushed multiple tier 3 techs as if he planned on spamming border growth. Those shenanigans blew my ape brain.
Or maybe I should just write this off as stuff only Zebasi can do as the most broken tribe in the game
Dude based and unexpected!
Good ideas
justeeni dropped the bomb
Glory is way better than might
Based.
Completely agree
what is polytopia?
ohhh
Quick tip to play polytopia better: hold tap the app icon, then click on uninstall, tap on yes and voila, works 169% of the times
TLDR
Your 100 % about glory thing
You are too rude when showing the slides
How so? Sounds fine to me