Home » Stars! 2.6/7 » The Bar » "Anti-Monster" game settings (How to even the playing field in game setup)
| |
Re: "Anti-Monster" game settings |
Thu, 17 October 2013 14:12 |
|
skoormit | | Lieutenant | Messages: 665
Registered: July 2008 Location: Alabama | |
|
m.a@stars wrote on Thu, 17 October 2013 12:48skoormit wrote on Thu, 17 October 2013 18:04if you start next to a couple bi-immune -f WM, because they are going to eat you alive. If you have 30 years of peace, then you can reap the benefits of TT. But if you are playing a medium game with 8 players, even with Distant starting positions, you are going to be close enough to other players from the very start that races designed for early aggression will overpower you before your econ can catch up.
That's why I don't like cramped games. For these I'd rather use a QS or an HG race.
Ah. In a cramped game, you like to play QS or HG races.
Let's call 8 players in a Medium universe, or any other game setup with around the same amount of space per player, "cramped."
I like playing cramped games, and I think cramped games are good for beginners.
(Also, cramped games are fairly popular nowadays. There seem to be fewer games getting off with lots of space per player. I guess there aren't as many people around with an appetite for those long long long games.)
But I don't like being forced to design a race that must be powerful in the early game. I like to make tradeoffs that favor long-term growth. I also sometimes just want to play races that aren't viable against the strongest race designs. Because it's fun to play something different every now and then. GR. UR. BET. These are all interesting LRTs that can be fun to play, but in a game with unrestricted race design, they are not powerful enough to also have much of a change of winning. And I'm not going to sign up for a Stars PBEM that will probably last half a year or more unless I stand a chance of winning the thing.
Therefore, I designed the "anti-monster" race restrictions. In hindsight, "anti-monster" is a bad term. Maybe "anti-QS" is better.
What we need's a few good taters.Report message to a moderator
|
|
| | | |
Re: "Anti-Monster" game settings |
Fri, 18 October 2013 08:13 |
|
|
skoormit wrote on Wed, 16 October 2013 18:58
I agree that slow tech would seem to hurt an AR a lot more than other races. I haven't played any slow tech games. Other than the effect on AR, do you think slow tech would significantly alter the impact of the race restrictions?
STA affects lots of things. Its hard to tell whether it breaks balance for other than AR races. Your judge:
STA double-affects AR the most because Energy (economy) and ISB (Ultra Stations = more space = economy is too late).
STA also slightly affects:
- IT races (getting better gates later)
- JOaT (getting slower with better scan range from intrinsic scanning)
- PP (getting very sow on getting good Mass Drivers)
- SS (good cloaking)
- SD and IS toys
- WM - WM's advantage, Dreads, come quite slower
- CA - slow TT if rely on TT, otherwise just a bit slower terraforming
- HE - -f high-tech strategies are completely lowered down because STA
LRTs:
- it is actually hard to play STA with no IFE, unless you IT.
- ISB - Ultra Stations are late
- TT - slow Bio
Also, Gravity immunity is recommended with STA. If 2-immune, leave Rad not immune (Weapon 16 is the first thing usually reached in game).
Above also make restrictions for alliances.
-f and/+ High-tech is not recommended for STA
There are also things for which STA give _advantage_. UR is example )
WBR, Vlad
Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
Re: "Anti-Monster" game settings |
Fri, 18 October 2013 08:19 |
|
|
skoormit wrote on Wed, 16 October 2013 18:48Tomasoid wrote on Wed, 16 October 2013 08:03
I think that race design has only 50% influence on whether it becomes monster or not. The rest is in-game luck (starting position and planets hab draw + universe size - 30%), neighbors experience and activity (10%), game restrictions and conditions (10%). Of course, it is when assume that you are experienced player.
Luck is going to play a role, for sure. It always does. Some race designs depend more on luck than others.
Do you think that these restrictions make luck play more of a role than it does in a game without these restrictions?
Of course. Especially for JoAT.
skoormit wrote on Wed, 16 October 2013 18:51Tomasoid wrote on Wed, 16 October 2013 08:03And, BTW JoAT races become monstrous when getting more space much better than others, so I would completely ban JoAT races together with CAs.
A JOAT has a built in +20% production ceiling advantage over other races. I don't necessarily agree that they benefit the most from more space. ITs love space. HEs love space. Heck, SS loves space.
By preventing JOAT from taking NAS or OBRM, they are rather lacking for rw points relative to other races.
IT loves _distance_, not space (room, planets).
JOaT benefits from additional room most of other races. So, luck to have weak/dead neighbor players plays huge role for JOaT races. And that is what makes them monstrous with almost any race design in case of lucky or having room. NAS does not give much handicap, OBRM does for this, but still not enough.
skoormit wrote on Wed, 16 October 2013 18:46Tomasoid wrote on Wed, 16 October 2013 08:03It also depends on universe/available map size. Quite mediocre JoAT race design can become monstrous in larger territory really quickly.
Sure. But for a given size/density/# players configuration, these restrictions should keep players closer together on the power curve than in an unrestricted game.
That's true, bus see above.
Please, re-read again all together, not answering each paragraph separately ) These are all connected together.
That is why, I think, for really fair game, JOaT should be just banned.
WBR, Vlad
Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
Re: "Anti-Monster" game settings |
Fri, 18 October 2013 09:08 |
|
XAPBob | | Lt. Commander | Messages: 957
Registered: August 2012 | |
|
Tomasoid wrote on Fri, 18 October 2013 13:13skoormit wrote on Wed, 16 October 2013 18:58
I agree that slow tech would seem to hurt an AR a lot more than other races. I haven't played any slow tech games. Other than the effect on AR, do you think slow tech would significantly alter the impact of the race restrictions?
STA affects lots of things. Its hard to tell whether it breaks balance for other than AR races. Your judge:
STA double-affects AR the most because Energy (economy) and ISB (Ultra Stations = more space = economy is too late).
STA also slightly affects:
- IT races (getting better gates later)
- JOaT (getting slower with better scan range from intrinsic scanning)
- PP (getting very sow on getting good Mass Drivers)
- SS (good cloaking)
- SD and IS toys
- WM - WM's advantage, Dreads, come quite slower
- CA - slow TT if rely on TT, otherwise just a bit slower terraforming
- HE - -f high-tech strategies are completely lowered down because STA
LRTs:
- it is actually hard to play STA with no IFE, unless you IT.
- ISB - Ultra Stations are late
- TT - slow Bio
-f and/+ High-tech is not recommended for STA
There are also things for which STA give _advantage_. UR is example )
AR are the only people for whom the STA directly slows their economy. Everyone else at least gets a normal economy to buy more expensive tech, the AR gets a smaller economy to buy that expensive tech (How many AR play with "Energy normal" in a real game - not many. But they have to take it -50% to get back to that compromised design.
The 1/93 TT CA is somewhat affected - their growth is slowed, but they are less dependant on the tech for actual economy (unlike AR, for whom at least the "single digit" energy levels are just critical for economic growth.
A slightly wider starting hab is therefore required to allow some economy to be developed before the higher Bio levels are required.
Report message to a moderator
|
|
| |
Re: "Anti-Monster" game settings |
Fri, 18 October 2013 11:19 |
|
skoormit | | Lieutenant | Messages: 665
Registered: July 2008 Location: Alabama | |
|
Tomasoid wrote on Fri, 18 October 2013 07:19skoormit wrote on Wed, 16 October 2013 18:48Do you think that these restrictions make luck play more of a role than it does in a game without these restrictions?
Of course. Especially for JoAT.
You say "of course" but it is not obvious to me. You have not explained how these restrictions make luck play more of a role than in games without these restrictions.
And you haven't explained why it matters more for JOAT than others. I don't think it does. It matters the same for everyone.
Consider a JOAT and a non-JOAT with same growth and econ settings, with the same number of planets. Call it x.
In this case, the JOAT has a 20% higher production ceiling than the non-JOAT, and will get there in about the same amount of time (assuming both players manage growth the same way).
Suppose they each have a weak neighbor and are able to take the same amount of planets from him. Call it y. Now they both have x + y planets.
In this case, the JOAT has a 20% higher production ceiling than the non-JOAT, and will get there in about the same amount of time (assuming they both manage growth the same).
Nothing is different other than the raw numbers. 12k resources vs 10k resources is an advantage equivalent to 60k resources vs 50k resources.
Also, the non-JOAT race has some other relative advantage. Economy is the primary advantage of JOATs, so if all we talk about is econ then of course JOAT looks great.
What we need's a few good taters.Report message to a moderator
|
|
| |
Re: "Anti-Monster" game settings |
Sun, 20 October 2013 09:54 |
|
|
skoormit wrote on Fri, 18 October 2013 18:19Tomasoid wrote on Fri, 18 October 2013 07:19skoormit wrote on Wed, 16 October 2013 18:48Do you think that these restrictions make luck play more of a role than it does in a game without these restrictions?
Of course. Especially for JoAT.
You say "of course" but it is not obvious to me. You have not explained how these restrictions make luck play more of a role than in games without these restrictions.
And you haven't explained why it matters more for JOAT than others. I don't think it does. It matters the same for everyone.
Consider a JOAT and a non-JOAT with same growth and econ settings, with the same number of planets. Call it x.
In this case, the JOAT has a 20% higher production ceiling than the non-JOAT, and will get there in about the same amount of time (assuming both players manage growth the same way).
Suppose they each have a weak neighbor and are able to take the same amount of planets from him. Call it y. Now they both have x + y planets.
In this case, the JOAT has a 20% higher production ceiling than the non-JOAT, and will get there in about the same amount of time (assuming they both manage growth the same).
Nothing is different other than the raw numbers. 12k resources vs 10k resources is an advantage equivalent to 60k resources vs 50k resources.
Also, the non-JOAT race has some other relative advantage. Economy is the primary advantage of JOATs, so if all we talk about is econ then of course JOAT looks great.
Ok, lets explain in details...
****** Let's starts to get the idea why JoAT favors from luck more than other races.
------------ LUCK #1 - neighbor player left
Its all because strategy of capturing planets and expansion.
Let's assume you have JoAT Race and plain second race, and 2 weak neighbors on a 8-10 players game. Yes, JoAT get more pop cap per planet. By having that, they are handicapped elsewhere. Let's assume races are equal, but JoAT is handicapped in habs range just to be a JoAT, so have them a little bit worse than the race we compare to. (Handicap is, for example, "cannot take NAS".)
Above will result in that JoAT, for the same number of planets available for both players initially, will have less good planets. But economy will be the same because pop cap for JoAT is higher.
Now assume 2 neighbors suddenly stopped playing, 1st for JoAT and 2nd for our second player.
What you usually do as soon as you realize player no longer maintains anything?
You rush to capture as much of enemy planets as possible. __Good__ ones first of all. You know what capturing means? Send packets, bomb, defend planet against another players to do the same, kill starbases and remnants of fleets etc. A lot of things.
So, for the first 5-10 years of "one race capture territory of another", JoAT will have significant advantage just because picking up all the good planets at start, and having to do that for ___less__ planets. Assume JoAT have to capture 4 good planets, while another race requires to capture 5-6 for having the same economy advantage from dying player. Of course you can pick up which you capture initially.
And usually these additional 1-2 planets for second race are farther, require to spend more time, more forces to defend against capturing of that planet by other races (and still defend first 4) etc. More effort in overall, more time.
Much later, when it comes to capture all the rest (bad green and yellows), all this will be equal again, however, the 5-10 years advantage for pop growth and possible gain from captured mines/factories favors JoAT a lot more than normal race.
------ LUCK #2
JoAT is _lucky_ to get few good planets on borders initially, which are good hab.
With having higher pop cap, JoAT can set up pop export planets at border early in the game if get lucky to have them. If take comparison races from the first case, second race require _more_ luck to have the same pop-growth rate at early borders pop export planets, because need 1-2 planets more for the same effect. "More luck" is needed because chances that 4 planets at borders will be good pop-growth at once are higher than for 5-6 planets needed at once for other races. Yes, habs are better for second race, so overall chances to get better planets are better. However, overall chances for _few_ really good pop-growth planet _at once_ at border are quite low. So chances of having 4 of such at once are significantly higher than for having 5 of such at once.
And, even if have that equal for both races, setting up 1-2 planets more at borders requires more effort for second race to do all the setup - more transporting of pop far away from HW early in the game (you know what it means - pop in space does nothing), more transports and colonizers, more defending fleets.
(If you do not know what is the effect of having good pop-growth monster planet at border early in the game, just try it )))) ).
***** Now lets see why normal game is less affected by luck than the game where we have restrictions for race design economy
By luck here I meant not just the good planets draw or player initial position, much larger small in-game situations that give player some favor. For example, <81.ly between 2 planets that can quickly get refueling bases, so you can transfer at warp 9 to the entire much farther area than usually. Lets assume planets draw, starting positions etc. are almost equal for all races.
--- Luck #1 - proper successful guessing about your neighbors
So, with restricted game starting, the balance of game tend to be equal. In restricted game we have much less chances of players dropping - economy is almost equal, so standing is too.
In normal game usually you get few players that are quite behind because relied on good planets draw and failed, or for other race design reasons.
So game is unbalanced early and everybody knows that, and so you can __predict__ who will be the first target etc. In all equal game you need _luck_ for that all - who will be the first target, who will be gunk up (can it be you?) etc. - you just do not know, so you do not know what to prepare for, where to relocate forces, whether to build lots of forces or not and when etc. You need _luck_ to catch up and guess it all well, have luck to guess it properly. In normal game you usually need much less guessing, you just see what player will be attacked first and help the opposite side race to kill it quickly to do not miss your own piece of pie.
So, Luck in guessing to get proper border setup, proper fleet allocations, proper planets strengthening, choose proper targets and planets for attacking etc. is very significant for restricted game. Even experience here may have lower effect, just luck.
---- Luck #2
When you normally design the race, you usually design it with some idea, and choose settings to satisfy that idea and requirements related to game settings. In restricted game, you have most races more or less "equalized" in this sense.
In a normal game (and without JoAT ), as game progresses, players usually stick with the race design idea and proceed to achieve race design goals. If get some luck in that in sense of planets or neighbors, nice. If have bad luck, it does not affects much the overall game result and standing, just slightly. Race design, its idea, affects the game much more than additional factors like good planets draw or weak neighbor. (If you designed your race to depend on luck of good planets draw... You already built this into the race design idea, so luck here plays completely different role, and we do not account this case here).
In a restricted game like yours, economy is equalized. To break the balance, become #1-2, dominate few turns ahead with economy, you need to be really lucky (assuming equal players experience) in many things all together. And that is _overall_ luck, gathered from all the small various and different "lucks". To have them more than others - that is where you need to be really "lucky". Without that, all will remain equal and the game will last for really-really long ). So, game is driven by "general" luck for each player and less by race design - player standing depends more on how many "small lucky things" that player catches up and manage to use, and, more importantly, depends on having them. 2 good initial planets 82 l.y. away from HW and you think you already not #1? Not likely, you may get luck in different things, such as, proper tech advances early in the game from planet colonizing artifacts. In overall it is all usually balanced, but some __lucky__ player may get more of it and so luck drives him ahead of others.
---- Luck #3
MT's, wormholes, left players at the early and mid game affect restricted game balance drastically, while in normal games these usually go not so harmful. In restricted game, where all is usually equalized, players tend to not fight much because little gain from it and too much effort on it tend to lower your economy, and neighbor is not that weak to do it quickly. Long war with a lot of spending is bad here. So no much wars, everybody maintains borders etc. Now assume MT or wormhole appears... Wooops! You can get significant advantages tactically or strategically. In normal game you can have them too, but it does not drive the overall balance and it is not so woooping in overall.
[Updated on: Sun, 20 October 2013 13:15]
WBR, Vlad
Report message to a moderator
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | |
Goto Forum:
Current Time: Fri Jun 07 04:14:21 EDT 2024
|