In Eco by Strange Loop Games, close teams of friends have an advantage over those who are alone at the beginning. Is this really unfair or can we learn from teams to improve our cooperation strategies and reach the same level? Here are some practical tricks and tips for cooperation...
As I write this, we are the summer season and it seems more players have a lot of free time to rush in Eco. In the last 3 weeks, I either played or periodically observed 12 different servers. Five of them closed or died shortly after start, most likely because of too few players. All the others dwindle and died within 7 to 10 days even if 30 players were online at the beginning. In discord and in-game, there was much frustration about rushers and small teams of friends. Deception was obvious in one server where a team of 2 friends managed to destroy the asteroid at day 8 while most of the people, with real-life jobs, just finished build their house and were thinking about roads in their town.
As I wrote before, rushing is mostly a matter of perspective and difference in game time between players. I don't think we should punish players who are friends or have more time...This being said, closed teams who play in an independent or competitive fashion can have detrimental effects on servers. There are also options for communities to agree on what should be the ideal pace and enforce their common decision and protect against impacts of rush and closed teams.
Even if we mean well, playing Eco as part of a small team brings advantages that lone players don't have. Whether you believe it's right or not, every source of inequity in Eco has negative impact, even if they are minor. This may be why some admins write rules against teams.
But these rules are only one side of the solution (and a bad one in my opinion). What we ought to do is to take some time to acknowledge why teams are so successful and derive strategies that are fit for strangers as well. This article underline 4 game-changing aspects of teams that we can apply to communities of strangers.
1. Teams gather resources together
Suppose we are in the same team and you have the logging skill, but not me. When we both need wood, it is likely you'll be cutting trees and removing debris while I concentrate of picking up logs, replant and transport. After 20 minutes, we will both have invested the same time in this mission and our team structure means we will automatically split the cost of food and repair, but also the amount of logs gained. Compared to us working independently, we will have more logs for fewer costs in food and tool repair. Transport can benefit a lot too. The same thing can be applied to teams getting stones and terraforming.
When we have a skill, it means we are the best at doing some actions. But getting resources require different actions. Therefore, why not make an habit of pairing up and have experts focus on the most useful actions? Some players are afraid that making it easier for others to get wood will prevent them to sell wood in the future. Well, this is not a trading war game(!) and most players will anyway want tons of wood for hewn logs, then lumber, furniture, research, etc. Once their basic projects are over, they will seek more. Right now, sharing missions simply means we are helping each others to get more with less costs.
Solution: we should share gathering missions with others, especially if we have logging and mining skills. Short 10 minutes missions have little risks. The productivity gained will cover the troubles of communication and it should be easier the second time as well. To be honest, the most important advantage of this is the quick increase of trust and mutual understanding we can get, but this a story for the hidden Eco's tech tree. Alternatively, transport contracts and custom contracts can cover some tasks when your fellow citizens are offline.
Hi everyone I am leaving in 10 minutes to get wood. If you want to join me, we can split the logs and food.
2. Teams have optimal flow of resources
In Eco the "economy" is different from the real world and looks more like a simplified flow of resources where everyone can get basic resources and only selected players craft items. These items are eaten or impossible to revert back to resources, so we need a daily injection of new ressources to continue the game. Better flow means resources are efficiently gathered and processed through the flow of exchanges between players. The best flow is achieved when energy dedicated to transport is very small and each crafting step is done efficiently. Common currency does help opening a bit more flow options between stores, but the basic requirement of Eco's economy stays the same.
I made a common currency on day 1 and gave equal share to everyone. How come there is no economy yet ?
Now a lot of solo players in Eco put in place barriers for this flow. First, they will settle apart because "they need space to expand". This is not minecraft. Second, they will attempt to maximize personal interests when setting trade patterns at their store, which close flow pathways. For example, a smelter who doesn't buy iron ore because he wants every single bar to come from what he mines alone. Third, almost every player will add an arbitrary percentage referred to as "profit" to their sales. In times of monopoly, which is often, the percentage tends to rise. These three behaviors will slow down, stop or divert the flow.
Team have none of these problems. Members are likely close or live in the same house and they have no limitation to the flow of resources. For example if I dig crushed iron in the field, my partner will turn it into iron bars without worrying about his precious trade. Partner do not apply supply/demand laws and give each others the full worth of the resource gathering efforts when crafting items.
Solutions. Except special scenarios, a player of any profession is able to settle on a 3x3 area close to others and make a decent workshop and house. A 2x2 can work in extreme cases, but 4x4 is a popular choice for downtown areas. You need a huge mansion? You can settle close and then make the mansion elsewhere later. Distance between players adds up to the amount of work we must do compared to a team. Next, we can review the way we set our store and even use additional barter stores to allow easier bulk resource flow. This is particularly true for food, building blocks, tools and upgrade modules. We can use a central contract board to create work parties and ask other specialists to add their work. Profits is a delicate subject, but at the very least, they make some trades unappealing and thus block the flow, so keep them down or try the no-profit challenge.
- Hey can you help me turn these logs to hewn? You stand next to the work party right now.
- Just sell them in my store.
- You mean the store 400 m away and across the ocean?
3. Teams share space and tools
Members of teams build their workshop together : they share the burden of making upgrade modules and rooms. Once this is done, they share access. I need more roads and I have few crushed stones and mortar in my cart? All I have to do is start the job on my team's wainwright table and ask my friend to add his work. I'll leave him a salad in exchange, so he gets immediate refund on calories.
Just pick a random game where many people have settled. Look at the average size of their personal workshop and house compared to all their buildings. What if each group of 3 players could work on a common workshop like teams do? This is a huge opportunity for savings and learn to work together.
Solution: we give to our neighbor access to our crafting tables and consider making common workshops with them. Even doing few jointed workshops would make things easier. Open access to workshops coupled with work parties allow great cooperative structures. It also tends to reduce profit margins and competition among players with the same crafting skills. At least, this is what I saw in many experiments done with Fab Labs when communities adopted them readily. 4. Teams share common objectives
Let's say you and me are in a small team. You pick campfire cooking and I pick logging. A great start is if be both collect crops in different biomes and start eating campfire salads. We will both quickly begin the game with more than 30 XP from food. Shortly after, we will work together to make a hewn machine and upgrade modules together. In other words, we will agree on small objectives that best help our team.
Do teams really have an unfair advantage? Or is it that solo players, with their eyes turned on themselves, fail to see what it means to collaborate ? Sadly in Eco, the dominant and naive idea is that trade will somehow magically allow everyone to work together. Some servers even have strict rules about skills we can take in the hope that "people trade more". But seldom do you see situations where these solo players agree to make a building together or perform some kind of exchange that doesn't include money. And yet, this approach often brings more benefits. As a result, many good opportunities are lost and waste is rampant on public servers.
In short, collaboration benefits are woven into the fabric of Eco, which is different from most other games. Therefore, some strategies are best: teams perform better mostly because they adopt these strategies naturally.
Solution: we should not hesitate to propose and discuss common objectives, especially with the players next to us. Also, even if the local chef doesn't own a store, we can still offer some crops, coal and hewn logs so that food arrives faster. Then, the logging player and the mason need help to make the production of building blocks up and running. Don't let the mechanic make his factory alone : discuss some kind of exchange. At least, this is what teams do.
A simple trick would be to offer 10 minutes of your time for free if the other player offers 10 minutes of his time as well: this minimal synergy could help a lot anytime during the game.
Comments
Post a Comment