Home World Forum
Stars! AutoHost web forums

Jump to Stars! AutoHost


 
 
Home » Stars! 2.6/7 » New Game Announcements » Glacier III
Re: Glacier III Wed, 02 September 2009 08:51 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Ringo is currently offline Ringo

 
Crewman 2nd Class

Messages: 16
Registered: January 2006
Location: Lviv, Ukraine

I know I'll regret it, but still...
Count me in

Report message to a moderator

Re: Glacier III Wed, 02 September 2009 13:02 Go to previous messageGo to next message
NorthWooD is currently offline NorthWooD

 
Civilian
Stars! Nova developer
Stars! Nova developer

Messages: 1
Registered: September 2009
If there is still a spot available I would like to join

Report message to a moderator

Re: Glacier III Wed, 02 September 2009 15:21 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Mark Hewitt is currently offline Mark Hewitt

 
Master Chief Petty Officer

Messages: 105
Registered: June 2006
Location: Calgary, Alberta, Canada
mlaub wrote on Mon, 31 August 2009 16:13

Orange wrote on Mon, 31 August 2009 16:48

For clarity, please expressly note in the "rules" that the "Repair after gating loophole" on the list is NOT allowed (unless you allow it).

This is a key feature that the players may be tempted to use in these expanded universes. Thank you.


Well. I actually listed it last game as allowed, I'll add it again.

Thanks!
-Matt


As all fuel transports are banned, the "Repair after gating loophole" isn't applicable here.

***Oops!*** Just checked and I was wrong. Fuel transports make it better, but you can still use it without them.


[Updated on: Wed, 02 September 2009 15:44]

Report message to a moderator

Re: Glacier III Thu, 03 September 2009 03:19 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Mark Hewitt is currently offline Mark Hewitt

 
Master Chief Petty Officer

Messages: 105
Registered: June 2006
Location: Calgary, Alberta, Canada
To allow for cloaked fleets to sneak through enemy minefields, can their orders be set to Attack Nobody to prevent them from sweeping mines?

Report message to a moderator

Re: Glacier III Thu, 03 September 2009 04:43 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Shadow is currently offline Shadow

 
Civilian

Messages: 2
Registered: June 2008
One question to the Victory Conditions:

Game Ends no later than Y2560, Winner determined as follows:
- Annihilation of all other races. OR
- 100% consensus as winner OR
- Highest score at Y2560

I do not understand why this game has to ends no later than Y2560.
I can imagine many situations, where two or three races have a similar economic potential. IMO the conditions:
- Annihilation of all other races. OR
- 100% consensus as winner OR
are OK, but this:
- Highest score at Y2560
has not much sense.
Is it possible to disable the "Victory by Highest score" ?

In the latest Glacier game three races had a chance to win. But the #2 and #3 decided to wait and not fight against #1 - it was an error and they definitely lost this game. But supposing, the #2 and #3 decided to fight against #1 at Y2530. I do not believe, that in this case our game were definitely won by this race, which had the highest score at Y2560. The end of the game would be only the break without a really winner and fair result.
I suggest to remove the VC "Highest score at Y2560"

Report message to a moderator

Re: Glacier III Thu, 03 September 2009 10:25 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Orange

 
Officer Cadet 1st Year

Messages: 215
Registered: November 2005
Location: TO, ONT, CA
Shadow wrote on Thu, 03 September 2009 04:43

One question to the Victory Conditions:

Game Ends no later than Y2560, Winner determined as follows:
- Annihilation of all other races. OR
- 100% consensus as winner OR
- Highest score at Y2560

I do not understand why this game has to ends no later than Y2560.
I can imagine many situations, where two or three races have a similar economic potential. IMO the conditions:
- Annihilation of all other races. OR
- 100% consensus as winner OR
are OK, but this:
- Highest score at Y2560
has not much sense.
Is it possible to disable the "Victory by Highest score" ?

In the latest Glacier game three races had a chance to win. But the #2 and #3 decided to wait and not fight against #1 - it was an error and they definitely lost this game. But supposing, the #2 and #3 decided to fight against #1 at Y2530. I do not believe, that in this case our game were definitely won by this race, which had the highest score at Y2560. The end of the game would be only the break without a really winner and fair result.
I suggest to remove the VC "Highest score at Y2560"



It makes a difference whether the game ends at 2560 or not. AR races become more and more powerful as time goes on.

I like a clear ending time as these games can go very very long otherwise.

Report message to a moderator

Re: Glacier III Thu, 03 September 2009 14:49 Go to previous messageGo to next message
mlaub is currently offline mlaub

 
Lieutenant

Messages: 744
Registered: November 2003
Location: MN, USA
The reason for the Y2560 end, is that I feel GLR2 should have been over by that time. The only reason it didn't end earlier, was that the top 3 were racing for nubs, and saving our metal for that tech objective. That was why the game was scheduled for ending at 2600. I was curious to see that eventuality.

However, it setup a slight lull in the game, that was a little boring. It also took away from what I feel is the main theme of the game, and that is lower tech slug fests. Basically, a experiment in game settings I don't wish to repeat.

Turns up to ~Y2520 were fast paced and fun, and I would rather keep that pace. If everyone knows that nubs are fundamentally out of reach, then they will build out their metal and fight it out earlier. Since there is no reason to hold back, and BET makes cruisers viable against BB's, then there is even more incentive to go all out.

Saying all that, if there is no 'clear' winner at 2560 (most unlikely) we can always extend the game till a winner is apparent. However, if a race is just sitting back, doing nothing, but is still in contention by just res, expect the guy who has been busy attacking everyone to be declared the victor.

-Matt




Global Warming - A climatic change eagerly awaited by most Minnesotans.

Report message to a moderator

Re: Glacier III Thu, 03 September 2009 14:56 Go to previous messageGo to next message
mlaub is currently offline mlaub

 
Lieutenant

Messages: 744
Registered: November 2003
Location: MN, USA
Mark Hewitt wrote on Thu, 03 September 2009 02:19

To allow for cloaked fleets to sneak through enemy minefields, can their orders be set to Attack Nobody to prevent them from sweeping mines?


Nope. To many issues with accidental combat keeping those orders by accident. I see another thread out there "co-ordinated attack" that just screams in my mind "change the damn rules to <everyone as enemy>". (or at least non allied players...)

And it is nearly as easy to send out multiple sweepers with your fleet so that your enemy has no idea what you are doing.

-Matt


[Updated on: Thu, 03 September 2009 15:10]




Global Warming - A climatic change eagerly awaited by most Minnesotans.

Report message to a moderator

Re: Glacier III Thu, 03 September 2009 15:18 Go to previous messageGo to next message
mlaub is currently offline mlaub

 
Lieutenant

Messages: 744
Registered: November 2003
Location: MN, USA
This game now has 16 players. I have sent everyone email about setup and such. If you have not received this email, please let me know!

If anyone is still interested, please email me, or PM me. There is always the chance that someone will not want to play, won't submit a race, etc...

Thanks!
-Matt



Global Warming - A climatic change eagerly awaited by most Minnesotans.

Report message to a moderator

Re: Glacier III Fri, 04 September 2009 03:03 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Dogthinkers is currently offline Dogthinkers

 
Commander

Messages: 1316
Registered: August 2003
Location: Hiding from Meklar
mlaub wrote on Fri, 04 September 2009 04:56

I see another thread out there "co-ordinated attack" that just screams in my mind "change the damn rules to <everyone as enemy>". (or at least non allied players...)


You've set the rules to say alliances are not allowed, so that exception wouldn't even be needed.

Only reason left not to set someone enemy is if it's to allow a ship transfer, or perhaps if you needed to set friend because you were crazy enough to let someone use your gates in a NAPless game.

I sure hope we don't end up with a thread like that in this game. Laughing

I must say... I'm kinda expecting some drama around this pair of rules:
Quote:

- No alliances, no NAPs, single player victory only!
- Communication, co-ordination and general gossip is totally legal.


The line between co-ordination and alliance is quite subjective. I wonder when intersettlement shifts from 'I just haven't killed him yet' to 'alliance!'


[Updated on: Fri, 04 September 2009 03:11]

Report message to a moderator

Re: Glacier III Fri, 04 September 2009 05:55 Go to previous messageGo to next message
goober is currently offline goober

 
Chief Warrant Officer 3

Messages: 175
Registered: December 2003
Location: +10
Dogthinkers wrote on Fri, 04 September 2009 17:03

The line between co-ordination and alliance is quite subjective. I wonder when intersettlement shifts from 'I just haven't killed him yet' to 'alliance!'


The instant just before you backstab them with a wicked blade Twisted Evil



Goober.

Report message to a moderator

Re: Glacier III Fri, 04 September 2009 11:45 Go to previous messageGo to next message
mlaub is currently offline mlaub

 
Lieutenant

Messages: 744
Registered: November 2003
Location: MN, USA
goober wrote on Fri, 04 September 2009 04:55

Dogthinkers wrote on Fri, 04 September 2009 17:03

The line between co-ordination and alliance is quite subjective. I wonder when intersettlement shifts from 'I just haven't killed him yet' to 'alliance!'


The instant just before you backstab them with a wicked blade Twisted Evil


lol.

I have not disallowed cooperation and coordination. If you feel you can trust another race not to attack you, as Goober points out, then you are more than welcome to trust other races to help you in a campaign. I would imagine that most conversations will now descend to "this is the line, don't cross it!". However, you are still able to gossip and conspire against the big ugly race that can't be stopped. Heck someone might even believe you. Smile

I know last game it worked quite well against the peace loving Xeelee. Several races were fooled into thinking that the Xeelee were aggressive blood thirsty savages, when all they wanted was a hug. Wink

-Matt



Global Warming - A climatic change eagerly awaited by most Minnesotans.

Report message to a moderator

Re: Glacier III Fri, 04 September 2009 12:45 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Dogthinkers is currently offline Dogthinkers

 
Commander

Messages: 1316
Registered: August 2003
Location: Hiding from Meklar
mlaub wrote on Sat, 05 September 2009 01:45

I would imagine that most conversations will now descend to "this is the line, don't cross it!".


The funny thing, is you couldn't actually answer that with "I won't cross that line", because that would be a simple NAP.

Quote:

Several races were fooled into thinking that the Xeelee were aggressive blood thirsty savages


Outrageous! I would never be fooled into thinking they were savages.

Report message to a moderator

Re: Glacier III Fri, 04 September 2009 19:42 Go to previous messageGo to next message
mlaub is currently offline mlaub

 
Lieutenant

Messages: 744
Registered: November 2003
Location: MN, USA
Dogthinkers wrote on Fri, 04 September 2009 11:45

mlaub wrote on Sat, 05 September 2009 01:45

I would imagine that most conversations will now descend to "this is the line, don't cross it!".


The funny thing, is you couldn't actually answer that with "I won't cross that line", because that would be a simple NAP.


Well, not really what I mean. The typical real world meaning is "A non-aggression pact is an international treaty between two or more states agreeing to avoid war or armed conflict between them." So, if you look at it from the standpoint of "I won't cross this line" in a typical game of stars, yes you are in fact agreeing to a basic form of a NAP. Although, it is doubtful many people would agree with that basic definition NAP, without a out clause and/or year termination date...Further, most players will go out of their way to follow those NAP's to the letter, to the point you spend the entire game negotiating instead of fighting.

What I mean by the rule, is strictly this- No race can be bound by NAPs, and there are no alliances. This doesn't mean you can't converse with your neighbor, and agree to a division of planets. So, go ahead and agree to that line in the sand with your neighbor, then attack him, if you want, as soon as he looks elsewhere. Meaning, I want people to feel free to do whatever they want, unlike a normal game with NAP's. You are not to be burdened by your sense of honor this game. Sure, you can negotiate all you want, but there are to be no bindings from such talk. Hence, you need not go overboard negotiating...

I see this as a real plus for the players that complained about the amount of time they spent negotiating in the last Glacier game. One person suggested that I eliminate all communication in this game.

I really don't want to eliminate communications, as frankly, sometimes you need to tell people about that "big ugly race over there". Or that you *really* need that planet, but could careless about the others. There were a couple players that made my life difficult in GLR2, and if they hadn't been stirring up trouble for me, it would not have been nearly as much fun. Wink

So, if you have any ideas of how to reword that rule, taking into consideration what I said above, please offer them.

Thanks!
-Matt







Global Warming - A climatic change eagerly awaited by most Minnesotans.

Report message to a moderator

Re: Glacier III Sat, 05 September 2009 04:01 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Dogthinkers is currently offline Dogthinkers

 
Commander

Messages: 1316
Registered: August 2003
Location: Hiding from Meklar
Oh dear... If that's what you intend by the rule, I see it as a massive shot to the foot.

As I read it, effectively you are saying people CAN make NAPs (that's implicit in dividing up territory, which you have said is ok) they just can't define exit terms, and no one should consider bound by them.

This leaves 'honourable' players who try to stick to their word with the choice of either:
(1) Not negotiating, thus putting themselves at a massive disadvantage by not participating in diplomacy.
(2) Inevitably breaking their word, since they were not permitted to agree terms to dissolve any agreements.

I'm not going to agree to divide up planets with a player, then go ahead and completely ignore that agreement because the rules say I'm not bound by it. It's going against my word, I'd rather not make an agreement at all. But playing without diplomacy in a game where diplomacy is allowed is a massive handicap... So count me out of the game if we're playing like this.

Either allow NAP *and exit agreements* or don't allow them at all, IMHO. I thought you'd gone with the latter (leaving us only to plot wars together etc... Not permitting us to give any guarantees not to attack any place / ship / time.)

Report message to a moderator

Re: Glacier III Sat, 05 September 2009 05:47 Go to previous messageGo to next message
goober is currently offline goober

 
Chief Warrant Officer 3

Messages: 175
Registered: December 2003
Location: +10
Dogthinkers wrote on Sat, 05 September 2009 18:01

Oh dear... If that's what you intend by the rule, I see it as a massive shot to the foot.

As I read it, effectively you are saying people CAN make NAPs (that's implicit in dividing up territory, which you have said is ok) they just can't define exit terms, and no one should consider bound by them.

This leaves 'honourable' players who try to stick to their word with the choice of either:
(1) Not negotiating, thus putting themselves at a massive disadvantage by not participating in diplomacy.
(2) Inevitably breaking their word, since they were not permitted to agree terms to dissolve any agreements.

I'm not going to agree to divide up planets with a player, then go ahead and completely ignore that agreement because the rules say I'm not bound by it. It's going against my word, I'd rather not make an agreement at all. But playing without diplomacy in a game where diplomacy is allowed is a massive handicap... So count me out of the game if we're playing like this.

Either allow NAP *and exit agreements* or don't allow them at all, IMHO. I thought you'd gone with the latter (leaving us only to plot wars together etc... Not permitting us to give any guarantees not to attack any place / ship / time.)


I read it as:

There are no terms to be bound by, because you can't agree any definite terms. You can talk to each other but you are not permitted to make any binding arrangements. You can't break your word because you are not permitted to give it.

I can say to my neighbour, I'm doing this. They can say they are doing that. This may amount to colonising a planet in "each others space" for example. You note you won't be getting in each others way while this is going on. Believing that this state of affairs will continue is done at your own risk. Not taking this risky option when you have another neighbour with habs just like your own knocking at your perimeter is again done at your own risk.

Diplomatic Russian Roullette if you will.

I say lets spin that wheel ROFLMAO



Goober.

Report message to a moderator

Re: Glacier III Sat, 05 September 2009 11:19 Go to previous messageGo to next message
mlaub is currently offline mlaub

 
Lieutenant

Messages: 744
Registered: November 2003
Location: MN, USA
goober wrote on Sat, 05 September 2009 04:47



I read it as:

There are no terms to be bound by, because you can't agree any definite terms. You can talk to each other but you are not permitted to make any binding arrangements. You can't break your word because you are not permitted to give it.

I can say to my neighbour, I'm doing this. They can say they are doing that. This may amount to colonising a planet in "each others space" for example. You note you won't be getting in each others way while this is going on. Believing that this state of affairs will continue is done at your own risk. Not taking this risky option when you have another neighbour with habs just like your own knocking at your perimeter is again done at your own risk.

Diplomatic Russian Roullette if you will.

I say lets spin that wheel ROFLMAO


Goober nailed it. It should be fun!

-Matt



Global Warming - A climatic change eagerly awaited by most Minnesotans.

Report message to a moderator

Re: Glacier III Sat, 05 September 2009 12:24 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Dogthinkers is currently offline Dogthinkers

 
Commander

Messages: 1316
Registered: August 2003
Location: Hiding from Meklar
Heh, well, that's what I was describing when Matt corrected me.

I'm not sure what to make of it now Laughing

Report message to a moderator

Re: Glacier III Sat, 05 September 2009 14:03 Go to previous messageGo to next message
mlaub is currently offline mlaub

 
Lieutenant

Messages: 744
Registered: November 2003
Location: MN, USA
Dogthinkers wrote on Sat, 05 September 2009 11:24

Heh, well, that's what I was describing when Matt corrected me.

I'm not sure what to make of it now Laughing


I think you are reading to much into the rule. Frankly, even this civil conversation could be considered NAP of sorts, as we are obviously not trolling each other, but are exploring a common problem. I am not interested in nitpicking to that level.

A typical Stars NAP (what I am forbidding) is defined by number of years, an out clause, and the understanding that neither party will commence hostilities.

Your example of:
Quote:

"I won't cross that line"


In response to my
Quote:

"this is the line, don't cross it!".

isn't really necessary. My proclamation is a statement, not a NAP proposal. You can either follow it, or ignore it. I don't see an issue here. You can respond with your own proclamation also.

So, back to your statement:
Quote:

This leaves 'honourable' players who try to stick to their word with the choice of either:

This statement is invalid, as you can't give your word. Hence, this solves your problem the way I see it.

Make sense?
-Matt











Global Warming - A climatic change eagerly awaited by most Minnesotans.

Report message to a moderator

Re: Glacier III Thu, 10 September 2009 13:24 Go to previous messageGo to next message
mlaub is currently offline mlaub

 
Lieutenant

Messages: 744
Registered: November 2003
Location: MN, USA
I have a player that dropped before the game has even been setup. So, if anyone is interested, and can get a race together within the next day or so, email or pm me right away!

Dave, our mod, has not gotten back to me yet, so we have a little time to get someone else in the game.

-Matt



Global Warming - A climatic change eagerly awaited by most Minnesotans.

Report message to a moderator

Re: Glacier III Mon, 14 September 2009 18:15 Go to previous messageGo to next message
johng316 is currently offline johng316

 
Chief Warrant Officer 3

Messages: 177
Registered: November 2002
Location: Indiana, USA
Sorely tempted to join this game. Sounds like so much fun!!


All Your Base Are Belong To Us.

Report message to a moderator

Re: Glacier III Sun, 20 September 2009 08:08 Go to previous messageGo to next message
neogrendal is currently offline neogrendal

 
Petty Officer 1st Class

Messages: 65
Registered: September 2005
Location: Seattle

You can count me in... if you still have a slot.

Report message to a moderator

Re: Glacier III Sun, 20 September 2009 12:14 Go to previous messageGo to next message
mlaub is currently offline mlaub

 
Lieutenant

Messages: 744
Registered: November 2003
Location: MN, USA
I sent you a pm with info. If you can get your race in, before Dave creates the game, you are in. Supposedly today sometime.

-Matt



Global Warming - A climatic change eagerly awaited by most Minnesotans.

Report message to a moderator

Re: Glacier III Sun, 20 September 2009 16:35 Go to previous messageGo to next message
mlaub is currently offline mlaub

 
Lieutenant

Messages: 744
Registered: November 2003
Location: MN, USA
Game has been created by Dave, and sent to Ron. This thread can be closed. Finally!

Now just have to wait for Ron to get back from vacation... <sigh>

Thanks!
-Matt



Global Warming - A climatic change eagerly awaited by most Minnesotans.

Report message to a moderator

Topic locked (Re: Glacier III) Sun, 27 September 2009 03:58 Go to previous message
Micha

 

Messages: 2342
Registered: November 2002
Location: Belgium GMT +1
mlaub wrote on Sun, 20 September 2009 22:35

Game has been created by Dave, and sent to Ron. This thread can be closed. Finally!

Glad Dave could help you out.

Quote:

Now just have to wait for Ron to get back from vacation... <sigh>

Ron should be back by now. Though that does not mean he has the time to post the game.

Good luck with the game, topic locked,
mch,
modaw

Report message to a moderator

Previous Topic: Open War X
Next Topic: New game - Tranquility
Goto Forum:
  


Current Time: Mon Jul 22 11:01:58 EDT 2024