|
|
| Re: Game setup for HP viability |
Mon, 04 July 2011 07:32   |
|
 iztok |
 | Commander |
Messages: 1206
Registered: April 2003
Location: Slovenia, Europe | |
|
Hi!
| Quote: |
Demanding 1/1500 pop efficiency and very narrow habs almost kills HGs entirely, would it not?
|
Umm, not really. They'd still get ~66% more resources from pop vs. the 1/2500 pop of the HP. If you think that's too harsh a demand, adjust it to your liking. But I wouldn't go below 1/1300.
After I checked with Stars! the first "demands", it actually looks like I've over-nerfed the races. There isn't anything remaining that a player could spend RW points on, but factories and mines. So the difference in econ between HG and "HP" is not large, but the HP can spend LOTS of points for mine eff.
I tried some other settings, but it looks like I can't find a really good solution. So as a revised proposal for races I'd demand:
- 1/1300-1500 pop eff or worse,
- no tech cheap, weapons expensive,
- ban CA, no NAS for JoaT.
The universe and game settings would remain the same, I just removed the 50 planets per player, since hab isn't limited anymore:
- no AccBBS,
- no Random events (so no Mistery Trader to help with tech levels and Alien Miner),
- slow tech,
- sparse uni,
- no tech trade. Everyone needs to crunch those expensive techs by himself.
BR, Iztok
[Updated on: Mon, 04 July 2011 07:33] Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
|
| Re: Game setup for HP viability |
Mon, 04 July 2011 11:20 |
|
| Void |
 | Ensign |
Messages: 369
Registered: January 2011
Location: California, GMT -7 | |
|
| iztok wrote on Mon, 04 July 2011 04:32 |
Umm, not really. They'd still get ~66% more resources from pop vs. the 1/2500 pop of the HP. If you think that's too harsh a demand, adjust it to your liking. But I wouldn't go below 1/1300.
|
That's a good way to look at it. Makes sense. Although, even at 1/1300 is this as more of an RG - Regular Growth - as opposed to an HG - Hyper Growth. But that's semantics. Thanks for working through the options to come up with a viable game setup.
Next question: with such a unique game setup, what's the risk of folks building unviable races and skewing the game? For the more typical game setups, most folks have a good sense for what works and what doesn't, so there's a good chance of a competitive game. For these atypical game setups, I have to think some folks, either because they spend more time designing and testbedding or by chance, design a better race for the uni settings, whereas others do not. Does this unbalance the game once it gets going?
Cheers,
Void
Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
|
|
|
Members
Search
Help
Register
Login
Home
