| Game Idea: We Require More Minerals! |
Wed, 29 August 2012 07:04  |
|
|
|
Simple race rules:
- Mine efficiency 5
- AR either prohibited or requires OBRM
- Factory settings no worse than 10/10/xx
Logically, Max Minerals would be off.
Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: Game Idea: We Require More Minerals! |
Wed, 05 September 2012 09:22  |
|
|
|
Alchemy might pay off eventually, but I think ARM and UR would be a lot more attractive.
Random events are fun though!
Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
|
| Re: Game Idea: We Require More Minerals! |
Wed, 05 September 2012 14:03 |
|
 Mark Hewitt |
 | Master Chief Petty Officer |
Messages: 105
Registered: June 2006
Location: Calgary, Alberta, Canada | |
|
I played in a "hard rock" game a while back, "Dig It!". It was definitely different. After your initial minerals were used up, you were definitely more mineral than resource limited. It also required factory settings no worse than 10/10/*.
You could restrict AR from having ARM. May not matter as it's so hard for AR to survive to where their remote mining really pays off. ARM would definitely be worth it for other races. If they can defend those mining ships.
MA.... Still don't think it'll be worth it. UR...maybe, but you need to bring home ships to scrap. They always seem to get "scrapped" away from home. Which leads to a lot of salvage scrambling....
Random events are fun (especially in solo games)--until one of your core planets gets the comet strike. And then *everyone's* showing up to "visit". The problem with them is the MT parts. They're cool but I think they tend to cause whatever economic difference exists to expand as the big economies can take advantage of them more. And it gives every access to more scanning and cloaking. And in a mineral poor game like this, when the techs get high enough to bring in the MT, the minerals may not be there for a lot of the players, making the difference amplifying worse.
I'd still play with randoom events, though. They are just that cool. >:)
Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
|
| Re: Game Idea: We Require More Minerals! |
Wed, 05 September 2012 20:11 |
|
|
|
How about slow tech / weapons expensive?
Slow tech would cut AR's resource curve.... would we want that? Would we even want to nerf AR much at all? That might depend on the universe size and number of players, AR is logically more effective with more room and time to grow.
I suppose the mineral crunch is going to hurt everyone else's resource curve too, though, so yeah. Maybe slow tech is enough to balance AR.
Alternative idea: Limit mines operated to 5 instead, and let players buy whatever mine efficiency they think they can afford. Minerals would be scarce throughout the game but wouldn't deplete much, as opposed to minerals depleting rapidly after an initial mining rush.
[Updated on: Wed, 05 September 2012 20:16] Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
|
| Re: Game Idea: We Require More Minerals! |
Wed, 05 September 2012 20:21 |
|
|
|
Victory condition idea:
The player with the most total minerals on their HW at the year 2500 wins the game.
It'll be a game not just of raw military clashes but of claim jumping and mineral thievery!
[Updated on: Wed, 05 September 2012 20:21] Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: Game Idea: We Require More Minerals! |
Thu, 06 September 2012 03:38 |
|
| Mark Hewitt |
| Master Chief Petty Officer |
Messages: 105
Registered: June 2006
Location: Calgary, Alberta, Canada | |
|
Coyote wrote on Wed, 05 September 2012 18:11How about slow tech / weapons expensive?
I think slow tech / weapons expensive should be the baseline for game ideas. It's kind of silly having everyone race to W26 and C26.
Quote:
Slow tech would cut AR's resource curve.... would we want that? Would we even want to nerf AR much at all? That might depend on the universe size and number of players, AR is logically more effective with more room and time to grow.
I suppose the mineral crunch is going to hurt everyone else's resource curve too, though, so yeah. Maybe slow tech is enough to balance AR.
AR is usually so weak compared to every other PRT because starbases are just so vulnerable. To other races it's the loss of part of a planet's defenses. To the AR, it's the loss of everything.
To truly give AR a chance, I think you need to have:
1. Bigger universe and higher density to give greater stars/player and distance to other players.
AR really needs strategic depth to be able to deal with war threats and minimize their losses. I'd say small normal with 8 players represents the minimum and that might be too close for an AR.
2. Banning of Alpha and Beta torpedoes on ships.
This allows an AR empire to develop to the point where they have the tools (tech and ships) to have operational options when a starbase is threatened (evacuate or reinforce and variations on both). Early in the game a small torpedo ship stack could easily take down any possible starbase and the AR just may not have enough assets to deal with it.
3. Banning of Kill Starbase battle plans (ie. no "Starbase" as Primary or Secondary Target in any Battle Plan).
With enough tiles and ships in a battle, starbases have a tendency to die anyway. This makes just a bit harder for smaller battles. And this should apply to all races in all battles to keep the mod simple and just to make starbases a bit more useful.
Quote:
Alternative idea: Limit mines operated to 5 instead, and let players buy whatever mine efficiency they think they can afford. Minerals would be scarce throughout the game but wouldn't deplete much, as opposed to minerals depleting rapidly after an initial mining rush.
Interesting idea. I'd say limit it to 10 to match the original number on homeworlds. The problem with this limit is it has to be followed during the game as opposed to set in the race files. Mistakes would be more likely.
As well, 5 or 10 is very small and would make this a harder "hard rock" game than any other. Max 15/10 mines efficiency, ARM, and MA would almost be compulsory and every bit of salvage would have to be scavenged. With so many resources not having enough minerals to make much, players again would start waiting for crucial techs to build stuff and that would likely be the correct strategy for the situation. The game would be truly glacial in its progress, perhaps too much.
Forcing the mines to a particular range of settings is likely a better way to do this. It makes mineral efficiency more critical in the entire game and gives a reason to use remote mining, but can be adjusted to keep the game lively enough.
Coyote wrote on Wed, 05 September 2012 18:21Victory condition idea:
The player with the most total minerals on their HW at the year 2500 wins the game.
It'll be a game not just of raw military clashes but of claim jumping and mineral thievery!
Interesting. I wonder if this may make Stars! too much of a mining game. (And The Kobold warns not to delve too deep looking for The True Candy without care elst you may release the Clowns from the Circus and doom us all!)
Piles of minerals are important but only if they look cool (and then you don't need a whole lot) and for what we can do with them. As one condition among many, it could work. And it does give a reason to try out SS races....
Oh hell, why not. Gold fever strikes the most practical of people and makes them do anything. Why not have a game where it's who has the biggest pile of loot wins. >:)
...
[Updated on: Thu, 06 September 2012 03:40] Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
|
| Re: Game Idea: We Require More Minerals! |
Thu, 06 September 2012 03:49 |
|
|
|
I meant 5 mines/10k colonists in the race design~r
Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
|
| Re: Game Idea: We Require More Minerals! |
Thu, 06 September 2012 03:57 |
|
|
|
Coyote wrote on Thu, 06 September 2012 05:41How about slow tech / weapons expensive?
Slow tech would cut AR's resource curve.... would we want that? Would we even want to nerf AR much at all? That might depend on the universe size and number of players, AR is logically more effective with more room and time to grow.
I suppose the mineral crunch is going to hurt everyone else's resource curve too, though, so yeah. Maybe slow tech is enough to balance AR.
Alternative idea: Limit mines operated to 5 instead, and let players buy whatever mine efficiency they think they can afford. Minerals would be scarce throughout the game but wouldn't deplete much, as opposed to minerals depleting rapidly after an initial mining rush.
I think that's a brilliant idea...
As for the biggest pile wins the game, SS do have an advantage, but only in the manner that they don't have to bomb out the anet to get hands on the minerals.. Perhaps saves 1-4 years per planet.
It's easy enough to have anti baron torp ccs stationed on each planet to snipe down baron raiders.
I know my minefields.. but I'm a chaff sweeper.
I used to curse when I got stuck in traffic... till I realised I AM traffic.Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: Game Idea: We Require More Minerals! |
Thu, 06 September 2012 04:22 |
|
|
|
I'm thinking that it might work to offer a choice between efficiency 5 and unlimited # operated, or 5/10k operated and unlimited efficiency.
Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: Game Idea: We Require More Minerals! |
Tue, 11 September 2012 03:11 |
|
| magic9mushroom |
 | Commander |
Messages: 1361
Registered: May 2008 | |
|
There's also the metagame to consider. In practically any setup, ARs are at the top of their neighbours' hit-list. Allying with an AR is suicide unless you're a 3i HE or there's team victory, they can't fight back until they've beaten the iron crunch, and in many cases a platoon of torpedo destroyers will suffice to take out half their planets.
Their vulnerability itself makes them even more vulnerable, simply because they're such a tempting target.
[Updated on: Tue, 11 September 2012 03:12] Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
|
) 3 Votes
Members
Search
Help
Register
Login
Home
