Home » Stars! 2.6/7 » The Bar » New game idea - Expert: Minimum Minerals
| | | | |
Re: New game idea - Expert: Minimum Minerals |
Thu, 06 October 2005 10:24 |
|
Micha | | | Messages: 2342
Registered: November 2002 Location: Belgium GMT +1 | |
|
SinicalIdealist wrote on Sat, 01 October 2005 18:07 | 5 teams of 3 players each sounds fun--as there would be some room for diplomacy. I may be interested in this, but I'm currently in a game and don't want to overextend myself.
|
One of the almost standard rules of the games I host is: all enemy ... Especially in teamgames, with teams of 3 you already have 2 friends, why would you need more?
Kotk wrote on Tue, 04 October 2005 16:12 | Other preferences ... medium dense sounds good. If possible without IT-s,AR-s & CA-s. Team size 4 is kinda too big; 3 is better and actually 2 is best.
|
There would be 4 teams, 5 puts one team in the middle of the universe, ... Each team will have 3 players, and has to consist of 3 different PRTs!
We don't like to just start banning, a ban should have a good reason like to balance the game or keep it playable ... If there is one race that would be really really good for this kind of game and would become a "must have" (like CA in teamgames) that has a high chance to be banned. Finding such a race is part of the goal of this thread ...
Also with 3 races less PRTs "need" to be banned ...
SinicalIdealist wrote on Sat, 01 October 2005 18:07 | edit: I can't believe I just started arguing against the game and argued myself in favor of it. Poop.
|
That's because once you start thinking about it, it becomes a very intersting concept IMHO ... at first I wasn't really in favor of it either but than you start wondering about race, team design etc ...
mch
Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
Re: New game idea - Expert: Minimum Minerals |
Thu, 06 October 2005 11:58 |
|
mlaub | | Lieutenant | Messages: 744
Registered: November 2003 Location: MN, USA | |
|
Micha wrote on Thu, 06 October 2005 09:24 |
One of the almost standard rules of the games I host is: all enemy ... Especially in teamgames, with teams of 3 you already have 2 friends, why would you need more?
|
As I am considering this game...I'll jump in here.
Didn't you deny all communications between teams in a few of the games you hosted?
You would need to spell out a few other things too, if you are intent all teams on "Enemy" status. No intentional tech trading? Tech trading and Enemy status are not thematic IMO, but you will find players trying to trade if it is not spelled out. How about communications in general? I hosted a similar game once with no communications between teams, and one team decided to be cute and start communicating via ship and starbase names...
Kotk wrote on Tue, 04 October 2005 16:12 | Other preferences ... medium dense sounds good. If possible without IT-s,AR-s & CA-s. Team size 4 is kinda too big; 3 is better and actually 2 is best.
|
I don't see an issue with IT's. While that race would be nice, it isn't necessarily the next best choice in a game like this. I've been in a team game like this, and our team opted for a different PRT.
Quote: | has to consist of 3 different PRTs!
|
Yea!
Quote: |
We don't like to just start banning, a ban should have a good reason like to balance the game or keep it playable ... If there is one race that would be really really good for this kind of game and would become a "must have" (like CA in teamgames) that has a high chance to be banned.
|
My vote is for CA and AR. I can make arguments against banning any others.
You could allow CA's with no TT and OA's. You could also place a limit on the number of miners a AR could place on worlds. However, policing that would be a pain.
-Matt
Global Warming - A climatic change eagerly awaited by most Minnesotans.
Report message to a moderator
|
|
| |
Re: New game idea - Expert: Minimum Minerals |
Thu, 06 October 2005 15:54 |
|
|
Micha wrote on Thu, 06 October 2005 07:24 |
SinicalIdealist wrote on Sat, 01 October 2005 18:07 | 5 teams of 3 players each sounds fun--as there would be some room for diplomacy. I may be interested in this, but I'm currently in a game and don't want to overextend myself.
|
One of the almost standard rules of the games I host is: all enemy ... Especially in teamgames, with teams of 3 you already have 2 friends, why would you need more?
|
On a practical matter, it will naturally be to each team's interest to find out how everyone else is doing in comparison to one's own team (simply via scouting). Through this, you will necessarily arrive at some amount of knowledge of how advanced team A is compared to Team B compared to your team. If team A looks to be more powerful than Team B + your team and Team B is as dilligent at scouting as you, then teams will necessarily form ad hoc non-aggression pacts. Restricting communication simply makes this natural process of balancing slower and less precise. The ultimate goal of the game should be 1 team wins only. If all players allow one team to gain an insurmountable lead.
I prefer games with as few restrictions as possible. If a restriction must be made, it must be made to maintain playability. Restricting all communications doesn't ADD anything to the game.
Diplomacy is an additional facet to the game, that IMO, adds a great deal of complexity. Should this facet be removed, I would find this game far less interesting. I don't look at each race being a separate player. I consider each TEAM to be a different player (ostensibly). With 5 different active parties in a game, there's still considerable room for negotiations.
PRTs.
IT, AR, and CA: AR and CA, all teams will necessarily need both in order to maintain superiority versus others.
If the PRT is looked upon as a MUST have to maintain comparative viability versus other teams, IMO, it should be banned. I am definitely for CA and AR being banned. An IT ban is not UNfavorable for the same reasons.
g.e.
====
"When the newspapers have been read, the TV sets shut off, the cars parked
in their various garages. Then, faintly, I hear voices from another star.
(I clocked it once, and the reception is best between 3:00 A.M. and 4:45
A.M.). Of course, I don't usually tell people this when they ask, "Say,
where do you get your ideas?" I just say I don't know. It's safer."
-P. K. DickReport message to a moderator
|
|
|
Re: New game idea - Expert: Minimum Minerals - Univers size |
Thu, 06 October 2005 16:05 |
|
Micha | | | Messages: 2342
Registered: November 2002 Location: Belgium GMT +1 | |
|
As for universe size.
Ptolemy wrote on Sat, 01 October 2005 18:33 | I do agree that we should keep the game to a maximum of a medium sized universe - packed or dense won't make all that much difference but, I'ld prefer to see it as dense with galaxy clumping.
|
Well, I meant *at least* medium size, reason see below.
Kotk wrote on Thu, 06 October 2005 19:08 | Lets see ... As i understand each team has about 600x600 ly territory and unoccupied 85-135 planets there are 1 conc so lack elementary mineral source even for basic orbitals. That like i warned narrows the number of successful strategies.
<snip AR for now>
Say AR is banned then without AR-s it is quite likely that there is no way to have enough minerals for the whole empire and players very likely take strategy to ignore the dry planets and go after opponents HWs asap. 2WW PP + 2WW IT + 1WW CA is most powerful there, best starting minerals (2WWs), quickest in attack or defense (IT), best longevity (CA), and overtaken opponent HW-s are probably most useful (CA).
|
That's the reason, a too small universe makes OWW or 1WW races livable, that's not the idea of the game, the idea is to live and cope with minmin, not make it a OWW game where there happens to be a lot more space and planets ... that you can just ignore ...
I didn't mention this before, hoping it would come up sooner or later (I'd rather let people come up with idea's therself instead of telling them), there have to be enough planets to make it *worthwile* or *needed* to colonize them, to build mines on them or go high in resources and practise MA ...
Hm, maybe not only the size matters but also the concentration ...
Funny to haven't seen any number crunching yet comparing max mines versus MA, or the various mineral/resource outputs of the different PRTs ...
Another thing that makes the game (or should make it) interesting is the duality that comes from MA: spend resources on higher tech and find yourself outgunned by low level hordes afterall, or the other way around.
mch
[Updated on: Thu, 06 October 2005 16:46] Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
Re: New game idea - Expert: Minimum Minerals |
Thu, 06 October 2005 16:18 |
|
Micha | | | Messages: 2342
Registered: November 2002 Location: Belgium GMT +1 | |
|
mlaub wrote on Thu, 06 October 2005 17:58 | As I am considering this game...I'll jump in here.
Didn't you deny all communications between teams in a few of the games you hosted?
You would need to spell out a few other things too, if you are intent all teams on "Enemy" status. No intentional tech trading? Tech trading and Enemy status are not thematic IMO, but you will find players trying to trade if it is not spelled out. How about communications in general? I hosted a similar game once with no communications between teams, and one team decided to be cute and start communicating via ship and starbase names...
|
Specificly denying all communications I did only once IIRC (or in two similtaneous games). Yes, have seen that sort of communiques through ship and starbase names, and fully ignored them with my team. I wouldn't deny communication anymore, only cooperation (in ANY form), should this rule make it of course ...
As for my latest game that I'm hosting (TWWT) I indeed had to spell out everything I meant by "all enemy" ... The human mind is very resourceful in how to misinterpret things that are so clear to others.
Quote: |
Kotk wrote on Tue, 04 October 2005 16:12 | Other preferences ... medium dense sounds good. If possible without IT-s,AR-s & CA-s. Team size 4 is kinda too big; 3 is better and actually 2 is best.
|
I don't see an issue with IT's. While that race would be nice, it isn't necessarily the next best choice in a game like this. I've been in a team game like this, and our team opted for a different PRT.
|
So someone with experience. Any pointers?
mch
Report message to a moderator
|
|
| |
Re: New game idea - Expert: Minimum Minerals - Diplomacy |
Thu, 06 October 2005 16:43 |
|
Micha | | | Messages: 2342
Registered: November 2002 Location: Belgium GMT +1 | |
|
Diplomcacy.
SinicalIdealist wrote on Thu, 06 October 2005 21:54 |
On a practical matter, it will naturally be to each team's interest to find out how everyone else is doing in comparison to one's own team (simply via scouting). Through this, you will necessarily arrive at some amount of knowledge of how advanced team A is compared to Team B compared to your team. If team A looks to be more powerful than Team B + your team and Team B is as dilligent at scouting as you, then teams will necessarily form ad hoc non-aggression pacts. Restricting communication simply makes this natural process of balancing slower and less precise. The ultimate goal of the game should be 1 team wins only. If all players allow one team to gain an insurmountable lead.
I prefer games with as few restrictions as possible. If a restriction must be made, it must be made to maintain playability. Restricting all communications doesn't ADD anything to the game.
|
I indeed want as ultimate goal to have only 1 winner.
I'm not restricting communications, I'm trying to prevent the game ending like a (too) large percentage of all Stars! games: "hey! there is the big bad guy! Let's all ally" ... 100 years later ... "well he is finally dead, put up quite a fight, but now that we, the 10 surviving races are friends, why fight? let's end this game" ... <sigh>
This *will* happen, I'm trying to prevent that by limiting step 1: the forming of a large alliance. Once again: you already have an alliance of 3 races, you have 2 tech trading partners already, why look elsewhere ...
I'm "trying", if you have another solution please say so.
I _do_ leave this option open, I don't want to rule "all enemy" right away, I just mentioned that it had somewhat become a standard for the games I hosted ...
As for the last teamgame (Rings1) we were lucky to have 4 teams that were very equal, upto 2460-70 (game was set to end in 2500) or so it was unclear who was the strongest. My team fought all 3 other teams, not all in the same extent, some borders were silent for dozens years and than suddenly escalated. There were never any formal NAPs still there was a good balance.
Quote: | Diplomacy is an additional facet to the game, that IMO, adds a great deal of complexity. Should this facet be removed, I would find this game far less interesting.
|
Don't forget the added time that diplomacy brings along! In games where diplocacy is allowed I sometimes end up spending more time reading and writing mails (in a foreign language) than playing my turns! Time much better spend in being with family for instance.
Quote: | I don't look at each race being a separate player. I consider each TEAM to be a different player (ostensibly). With 5 different active parties in a game, there's still considerable room for negotiations.
|
In a teamgame there are no seperate players, each team is one entity. I always highly appreciate teams actually playing and coming out as a team, upto race and teamname. (large part of our pre-game discussion are those names )
Anyway, 5 teams might indeed be better for diplomacy, I still have to point out again: one team will be in the middle no "safe" places like the other 4 teams, and showing the slightest sign of weakness (in military power or in diplomacy) it will get attacked from 4 sides and devoured in no time ...
mch
...
[Updated on: Thu, 06 October 2005 16:45] Report message to a moderator
|
|
| | | |
Re: New game idea - Expert: Minimum Minerals |
Thu, 06 October 2005 17:13 |
|
iztok | | Commander | Messages: 1207
Registered: April 2003 Location: Slovenia, Europe | |
|
Hi!
Micha wrote on Thu, 06 October 2005 22:05 | Funny to haven't seen any number crunching yet comparing max mines versus MA, or the various mineral/resource outputs of the different PRTs ...
|
Hey, I alrady said I'll not participate in this game!
I admit I'm intrigued, but I'm feed-up with slow games for a while.
Quote: | Another thing that makes the game (or should make it) interesting is the duality that comes from MA: spend resources on higher tech and find yourself outgunned by low level hordes afterall, or the other way around.
|
IMO there will NOT be low-tech hordes. Minerals will be too valuable to be spent on hulls with 1/3 FP of the ones with higher-tech. Players will be building only what they'll absolutely must, saving minerals for better tech. No packets, hordes, factories, defences, suicidal attacks... Like playing AR without remote miners, constantly checking what, where and when you'll need something... No thanks.
BR, Iztok
Report message to a moderator
|
|
| |
Re: New game idea - Expert: Minimum Minerals |
Thu, 06 October 2005 17:32 |
|
mlaub | | Lieutenant | Messages: 744
Registered: November 2003 Location: MN, USA | |
|
Micha wrote on Thu, 06 October 2005 15:18 | I did only once IIRC (or in two similtaneous games).
|
Yes, my team played in the second one (101 years or something). Alot of fun.
mlaub wrote on Thu, 06 October 2005 17:58 |
I don't see an issue with IT's. While that race would be nice, it isn't necessarily the next best choice in a game like this. I've been in a team game like this, and our team opted for a different PRT.
|
Quote: |
So someone with experience. Any pointers?
mch
|
Well, without giving to much away, I'll say this much. I have played in 2 team games like this, and both without an IT PRT. IT has some great advantages, it is great for transport, waging an early war, and incredible for fleet mobility. However, in a min min game there are several PRT's that would probably yield much better *overall* results, especially in combination of 2 other PRT's designed to work together. My first 2 dream teams that came to mind, didn't have an IT on them. Just not enough worth, IMO, compared to potential gains/uses of other PRT's.
-Matt
Global Warming - A climatic change eagerly awaited by most Minnesotans.
Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
Re: New game idea - Expert: Minimum Minerals - Diplomacy |
Thu, 06 October 2005 18:02 |
|
mlaub | | Lieutenant | Messages: 744
Registered: November 2003 Location: MN, USA | |
|
Quote: |
In a teamgame there are no seperate players, each team is one entity. I always highly appreciate teams actually playing and coming out as a team, upto race and teamname. (large part of our pre-game discussion are those names )
|
Agreed! I think Larry, Moe, and Curly was one of our teams theme. Can't think of the others off hand... Can you imagine the ship names?
Quote: |
Anyway, 5 teams might indeed be better for diplomacy, I still have to point out again: one team will be in the middle no "safe" places like the other 4 teams
|
Why not? You could make the universe into a big fat donut with a Star shape in the center, which effectively divids it into fifths (Picture a star circumscibed by a circle plus a little buffer). Just make the star middle and the corners empty of planets. I think that would be pretty easy, as I have played with that utility before. Not sure it would work with the other utilities, but it would be interesting to try it.
-Matt
Global Warming - A climatic change eagerly awaited by most Minnesotans.
Report message to a moderator
|
|
| |
Re: New game idea - Expert: Minimum Minerals - Diplomacy |
Thu, 06 October 2005 19:24 |
|
|
Micha: Re single winner only.
The best way of ensuring this is probably to use a "Reclaimation" style victory conditions. To win, a race (or each team member) must hold 1 (or more) pre-specified worlds (usually remapped to center of universe w/ very distinctly different habs) for a specified number of years w/ a starbase of X rating (usually in excess of 10,000).
The problem is the setup is a pain in the ass. The upshot is that it almost ensures that the victory conditions you are trying to enforce hold up without losing diplomacy (which is just about my favorite part of the game).
In more advanced games, my experience is that more nuanced diplomatic relations (and personal honor) tend to prevent allied players from giving up. Generally most don't ally until one team is totally destroyed... Relations tend to change. In less advanced games, well...they do tend to end prematurely.
g.e.
====
"When the newspapers have been read, the TV sets shut off, the cars parked
in their various garages. Then, faintly, I hear voices from another star.
(I clocked it once, and the reception is best between 3:00 A.M. and 4:45
A.M.). Of course, I don't usually tell people this when they ask, "Say,
where do you get your ideas?" I just say I don't know. It's safer."
-P. K. DickReport message to a moderator
|
|
|
Re: New game idea - Expert: Minimum Minerals - Univers size |
Thu, 06 October 2005 20:01 |
|
|
Kotk wrote on Thu, 06 October 2005 15:48 | Snip all -re mines/mining robotes
|
...But what about non OBRM/non ARM? I'm not at home and near stars! so unable to look this up, but I'd wage non ARM/non OBRM would be slightly more efficient....
{Mod edit: fixed quote}
[Updated on: Fri, 07 October 2005 02:30] by Moderator
g.e.
====
"When the newspapers have been read, the TV sets shut off, the cars parked
in their various garages. Then, faintly, I hear voices from another star.
(I clocked it once, and the reception is best between 3:00 A.M. and 4:45
A.M.). Of course, I don't usually tell people this when they ask, "Say,
where do you get your ideas?" I just say I don't know. It's safer."
-P. K. DickReport message to a moderator
|
|
| | |
Goto Forum:
Current Time: Mon May 13 04:16:16 EDT 2024
|