| New Game Idea: "Alone in the Dark?" |
Wed, 22 September 2004 04:01  |
|
|
|
OK, real life just settled down, so I'm about to put up a new game advertisement but I need a little advice and a little help. 
First up: The help - as I intend to play in this game, I would dearly love somebody to volunteer to be the "reputable third party" that shall hold the race passwords and that could confirm that the players are conforming to the game rules should there be any suspicion of foul play.
Second up: The advice - as the game rules have a definate effect on the game balance I am concerned that one of the PRTs now has a clear advantage and am wondering if I should impose some restrictions. I think IT races in this game have a clear advantage.
I've posted the prototype game description below.
SS -> advantage is that they will have the best scanner (until turn 50) and that they will effectively be invisible at zero cost for the whole game. Disadvantage is that it is not hard for other races to get similar cloaking benefit due to poor scanners, and that they lose access to the robber baron.
IS -> advantage is that the orgies will be very hard to find. Also those mega pop drop attacks will be harder to see coming. Cheap defenses will be also valuable in this game. Even the TD is going to be particularly valuable. For these reasons I've removed speed trap mines. Maybe I shouldn't?
WM -> I suspect minefields and defenses will be more important in this game, which hurts WM. On the other hand, this game is going probably going to get real violent, and a WM should lap that up.
HE -> metamorphs will be the best scanning ships until nubs. nuff said. For this reason I'm banning 3i, to discourage this from being the easy choice.
IT -> I can see no disadvantage. Full stop. So... I think we need a small penalty, maybe RW points.
Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
|
| Re: New Game Idea: "Alone in the Dark?" |
Wed, 22 September 2004 04:02  |
|
|
|
Concept: **Restricted scanners game**
The idea is to increase paranoia by minimising knowledge of the other races. It also should dramatically encourage offensive play. It will be possible (at significant cost in terms of fleet numbers) to provide a minimal scanner net to protect your inner worlds, but you will still be highly vulnerable to cloakers.
Race Wizard:
PRT: AR, JOAT, SD and PP are all banned due to inherant scanning abilities. CA banned as monster econ.
LRT: NAS trait banned
Hab: 3i banned
Planetary scanner restriction:
Planetary scanners are only permitted on HW stars. You are not permitted to build any new planetary scanners.
Ship scanner restrictions:
Battle scanner, Rhino scanner and Pick Pocket scanner are the ONLY permitted ship scanners at the start of the game.
Mole scanner is permitted on and after turn 40 (by which time you should have cloaks...)
No other scanners are permitted.
Approximate max scanning table:
Hull \ Scanner Rhino Mole Pick Pocket
Scout (1) 50 100 80
Frigate (3) 66 132 105
Rogue (5) 75 150 120
Galleon (8 ) 84 168 135
Metamorph (17) 102 203 n/a
nub (36) 122 245 196
Minefields:
Standard minefields are permitted. Speed trap minefields banned.
Universe:
4-6 = Small universe, normal density (around 128 stars)
7-9 = Medium universe, sparse density (around 216 stars)
10+ = Medium universe, normal density (around 288 stars)
Global settings:
ACCBBS = on
Random events = on
PPS = off at start, but enabled from 2485 (using victory condition)
Starting positions: "further"
Cheats:
Chaff permitted
Split fleet permitted
All other known (and unknown) cheats and exploits are banned. If you are not sure if something is within the rules, mail me.
Victory: Solo victory by highest score at turn 2500. PPS will be enabled from 2480.
Game will be hosted on autohost.
Game will use donjon's ranking, probably at level 3 (LI).
Turn gens will be set to generate as soon as all turns are submitted, with a maximum of 48 hours. On the 22nd December turn gens will be reduced to 72 hour intervals (max) until the 2nd January. If a player does not submit for 2 gens in a row they will be set to inactive. If a player does not submit for 5 gens in a row a replacement will be sought immediately.
The host will be playing.
Please send PASSWORDED race files to me at dogthinker AT gmail DOT com with the subject line "dark". Please do NOT send me your password. Please check your race carefully to make sure if fits the description above. Once the game has started you will be REQUIRED to send your passwords to a neutral 3rd party (donjon). If you have to change your password during the game you must inform the nuetral 3rd party immediately and provide the new password. All passwords will be made available to all players at the end of the game, so please don't choose a password you commonly use in other games.
If anybody is suspected of cheating the neutral 3rd party will be asked check the relevant turn files.
Phew.
Good luck.
[edit: updated to add that the game will be ranked, and that donjon has offered to be the super-host.]
[Updated on: Wed, 22 September 2004 22:55] Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: New Game Idea: "Alone in the Dark?" |
Wed, 22 September 2004 11:03 |
|
|
|
Minor comment on HE and similar many scanners per ship designs...
look at cost per area covered rather than cost per ship, unless 512 fleet limit is an issue.
Building a metamorph with 17 scanners is too expensive to be worth it in most situations.
Extra note: would NOT want to be SS in such a game. Everyone has nearly same cloaking easy, SS loses robber barons.
Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: New Game Idea: "Alone in the Dark?" |
Wed, 22 September 2004 22:59 |
|
|
|
1) maybe IT should be banned from using scanners...? Not sure how you could prevent anybody from transfering them scanner ships though... I've been thinking about their natural advantages in this game, and they really do seem vast.
Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
|
| Re: New Game Idea: "Alone in the Dark?" |
Wed, 22 September 2004 23:22 |
|
|
|
Thier ability to scan through gates only applies to the planet itself, not ships in orbit afaik, so perhaps limiting them to finite range gates or range < (601?)501ly
The latter (two) would leave them with only one infinte mass gate(inf/300).
[Updated on: Wed, 22 September 2004 23:22] Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: New Game Idea: "Alone in the Dark?" |
Thu, 23 September 2004 08:11 |
|
|
|
| Dogthinkers wrote on Thu, 23 September 2004 17:41 |
...able to transport defensive ships so much more quickly than the other races.. ..the ability to predict where your opponent will strike, and this wouldn't be so critical to a IT. Also they won't have to worry about protecting their freighters from stealthy snipers.. ..overestimating..?
|
I don't think you are...every race will have fleets ready to be gated to trouble spots, IT would merely be able to gate much larger ships, always the problem when attacking an IT.
Short of baning IT there's not a lot you can do about transports, their only weakness is when retrieving minerals from remote miners.
Personally I think restricting gates would be enough. Would you build 300/500 gates or rely on IT's lower overgating risk and build inf/300s?
Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
|
| Re: New Game Idea: "Alone in the Dark?" |
Thu, 23 September 2004 09:44 |
|
|
|
| gible wrote on Thu, 23 September 2004 13:11 |
Short of baning IT there's not a lot you can do about transports, their only weakness is when retrieving minerals from remote miners.
|
As an IT I'd generally have a gate within 1 year's travel of any remote mining world anyway, even if it was an undefended gate fort orbiting a red planet.
| Quote: |
Personally I think restricting gates would be enough. Would you build 300/500 gates or rely on IT's lower overgating risk and build inf/300s?
|
Mass overgating is more dangerous than distance overgating, the any/300 is well under half the cost of the 300/500 and has 3 levels of minaturisation over it, and it is available sooner. So for general ship movement I'd almost never go for the 300/500. As for scanning, it's a nice to have but rarely has a big impact on decisions.
Also, IT gets a 2nd planetary scanner as well.
But if you ban them, what are you left with ? No AR, JOAT, SD, PP, CA or IT and SS at a major disadvantage leaves HE, WM, and IS. And the typical 3i HE is banned as well.
You said you wanted offensive style play, so how about making it a Warmonger only game ? No-one can see enemies approaching and they don't have decent defences to stop them when they arrive.
[Updated on: Thu, 23 September 2004 09:46] Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: New Game Idea: "Alone in the Dark?" |
Fri, 24 September 2004 04:23 |
|
|
|
| Dogthinkers wrote on Fri, 24 September 2004 02:34 |
IT -> how about this penalty: oblige the IT to pick up all colonists from their secondary world for 1 turn (this would remove the orbital fort and the planetary scanner) before colonising it again. It's a pretty harsh penalty, but solves the other problems, and permits us to leave them with all their other advantages. It still leaves them with a better start than they get in tiny universes  Opinions? Am I insane? 
|
This would require gating the initial coloniser and overgating the privateer to the 2nd world, plus building another freighter and then gating that across as well as the initial PVT can't lift all the pop by itself.
So the total penalty would be:
* loss of one coloniser (Mayflower)
* having to build at least 1 medium freighter
* damaging the initial privateer
* leaving two cargo ships at the 2nd planet and unable to gate back to HW where they are most needed
* having to re-build a fort with a gate (min 2 turns, plus minerals)
* loss of a planetary scanner (which is the intention)
* 2 turns lost growth, mining and production from 2nd world
If you have to do this immediately then it's a big deal. If you let give them until, say, 2420 to do it then it shouldn't really hurt much.
[Updated on: Fri, 24 September 2004 04:23] Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
|
| Re: New Game Idea: "Alone in the Dark?" |
Mon, 27 September 2004 01:23 |
|
|
|
Hmmm, well it is supposed to be a penalty as well as about removing the extra scanner (to bring the race into line with other penalised races.) I'm thinking that obliging the IT race to accomplish this before 2410 is acceptable. Note that this is effectively a smaller penalty that IT suffers if it starts in a tiny universe (then it doesn't get the 2nd world at all.) Simply put - I'm worried that I'll get mostly IT races even with this penalty.
I'm tempted to assign a max quantity of slots for each race on a first come first served basis (say 2 of each race max for up to 8 players, 3 of each if 9 or more players.)
Any further comment about the game settings? If not then I'll finalise the setup and post it up in the next day or two. 
Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
|
Members
Search
Help
Register
Login
Home
