| New gametype |
Sat, 08 October 2005 18:19  |
|
 Lord Mushroom |
 | Crewman 1st Class |
Messages: 25
Registered: February 2005
Location: Norway | |
|
I have an idea of a new type of game.
(I wouldnīt be joining of course, unless I manage to make a deal with the Underestimated where he takes over when it gets too much for me, then I MIGHT join)
A problem with stars! is that you often donīt get the big advantage you deserve of being the best player. The universe will simply gang up on you.
And in games where diplomacy is forbidden, it often doesnīt pay to attack anyone because even if you win the war you will be so weakened someone else can easily defeat you and steal your kill.
Here is the solution:
Make a game where everyone have a predetermined enemy (player 1 vs player 2, player 3 vs player 4 and so on).
You set your predetermined enemy to "enemy" and the others to "friend". Communication is not allowed and neither is helping others (intentionally).
When a player is out of planets, he is set to inactive and his enemy won ("the first round").
The winners meet in "the 2nd round" (still in the same game). Winner of 1/2 vs winner of 3/4, winner of 5/6 vs winner of 7/8 and (possibly) so on.
Then there is another round and possibly one more after that (if there are 16 players).
When someone has won his round, but his 2 possible predetermined enemies for the next round have not come to a conclusion yet, he must simply wait (read: lick his wounds and prepare for the next war).
And when this conclusion occurs (one of them is out of planets) there is a 5 year peace-period before the next round starts.
This way some players might still be in round 1 while others are in round 2 or even 3.
The rules and terms I have described here was just an example of how it can be done. I know there will arise problems with such a scheme, but I think those problems can be solved.
Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: New gametype |
Sat, 08 October 2005 23:58  |
|
| Lord Mushroom |
| Crewman 1st Class |
Messages: 25
Registered: February 2005
Location: Norway | |
|
| Kotk wrote on Sun, 09 October 2005 04:14 |
Depends what you are calling the best...
|
In this case I meant best as in best player overall excluding diplomatic-skills.
| Quote: |
Minuses of your suggestion compared to duel championship are:
 Races success depends on starting position (in duel stating position is lot more fair).
|
I know duels are more fair, but many players consider them less fun. This new gametype is meant to give duel-hating players a more fair game than the current gametypes available. Although not as fair as duels.
Starting positions can be manipulated to be as fair as possible.
| Quote: |
Totally anhillating someone before proceeding is boring (duel is usually decided after major fleet battle).
|
This was only a suggestion. Having an x percent higher score than your enemy as a "victory condition" for example, should make winning less turn-consuming.
| Quote: |
Outcome of current fight depends on course of previous fights (in duel you start each war from scratch).
|
True, this is the main reason why duels are more fair. But if fairness was the only thing that mattered, we would all be playing chess.
| Quote: |
Final is tiresome 1:1 battle in medium or large (duel is usually in small or tiny).
|
8 players in tiny and small works fine. 16 in small also works. Fairness decreases, though, with fewer planets per player.
With the percentage higher score VC, the final will often be decided before it even starts (also in big universes).
| Quote: |
So ... duel championship seems more interesting and fair. 
|
It is certainly more fair, but some people might disagree in terms of interesting, and there is room for people to play both modes.
Hmm, my shrewd mind tells me you wonīt be the most active player in such games.
Thanks for input.
Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
|
Members
Search
Help
Register
Login
Home
