Home » Stars! 2.6/7 » The Bar » "Anti-Monster" game settings (How to even the playing field in game setup)
| "Anti-Monster" game settings |
Tue, 15 October 2013 14:48  |
|
 skoormit |
 | Lieutenant |
Messages: 665
Registered: July 2008
Location: Alabama | |
|
In my experience, a lot of games are won or lost during race design. Players with more experience tailoring a race for particular game parameters have an advantage against players with less experience, starting in year 2400. By restricting the race design options, we can make the game outcome more of a reflection of actual game play skills. One way to do this would be to have everyone play the same race. But that sounds bland to me.
So, earlier this year I hosted a game with the following race restrictions:
1--No immunities
2--No more than two clicks on any single setting on the production/factories/mines page.
3--CA Banned
4--AR Banned (since rule #2 doesn't really apply in the same way)
5--JoaT can't take NAS or OBRM
One nice side effect of these rules is that players have an opportunity to make race design decisions that would otherwise be underpowered in a normal game.
As I expressed in the game thread, "if you don't have to worry about facing a monster, you don't have to worry about building your own monster."
I'm curious what others think of the race design restrictions. Would you add/remove/change anything? Would you be interested in a game like this?
What we need's a few good taters.Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
| |
| Re: "Anti-Monster" game settings |
Wed, 16 October 2013 09:03  |
|
|
|
It also depends on universe/available map size. Quite mediocre JoAT race design can become monstrous in larger territory really quickly.
I think that race design has only 50% influence on whether it becomes monster or not. The rest is in-game luck (starting position and planets hab draw + universe size - 30%), neighbors experience and activity (10%), game restrictions and conditions (10%). Of course, it is when assume that you are experienced player. And, BTW JoAT races become monstrous when getting more space much better than others, so I would completely ban JoAT races together with CAs.
About AR - probably allow them with only 1 click on economy page, not 2 ))
BTW, AR has no much chances with STA (because other races economy at year 50 will be almost the same as without STA, while AR's economy will be way behind). So if play STA game, you may not care about AR much )
WBR, Vlad
Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
| |
| Re: "Anti-Monster" game settings |
Wed, 16 October 2013 11:27 |
|
| skoormit |
| Lieutenant |
Messages: 665
Registered: July 2008
Location: Alabama | |
|
XAPBob wrote on Wed, 16 October 2013 05:36
I suspect that decent play/hab draw could still allow one race I have in mind to come very close to monster territory. 12/8/12 isn't an unreasonable factory rate (<7 year payback)- 12/3/12 mines would have it drowning in metal (and without the additional clicks on factories the mine efficiency is affordable - allows you to take factories cost 4 Germ as well if you want to).
If we define "monster" as a certain production capacity by a certain year, the way we measure races in testbeds, then sure, you could get close to a reasonable definition of "monster" within these restrictions. The goal is not to make it impossible to make a race that has reasonably strong or even very strong production capacity. In fact, the goal is only to rule out the extreme race designs (-f, HP, etc) so that the players don't have to worry about facing them. I find this goal desirable for two reasons:
1) It gives less-experienced race builders a better chance of an enjoyable game.
2) By capping how much late-game power a player can sacrifice for early-game power, and vice-versa, it narrows the power peak window of the opponents you are likely to face. This gives everyone more freedom to make race design decisions that would not be viable in an unrestricted game. Example: TT. If there's a chance that I could start next to a -f WM or some other race optimized for early aggression, I'm simply never going to take TT. It's an expensive LRT that takes a long time to pay dividends, and I don't want to lose a game right out of the gate because I designed a long-term powerhouse and ended up next to one or two early-game powerhouses. But if I know that these race restrictions are in place, then I know that each player is limited in how much long-term production he can sacrifice for early power, and I am willing to at least think about trading off some of my own early power for something like TT.
[Updated on: Wed, 16 October 2013 11:28]
What we need's a few good taters.Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
| | | | | | | |
| Re: "Anti-Monster" game settings |
Wed, 16 October 2013 14:46 |
|
|
|
skoormit wrote on Wed, 16 October 2013 16:29XAPBob wrote on Wed, 16 October 2013 05:36I don't see why the "two clicks" thing doesn't apply to AR - although you could potentially allow AR any setting they like - I'm not sure they're that overpowered are they?
OK - it will mean you either get 1/8 or 1/10 races, but isn't that the point - relatively limited flexibility in economy design?
I agree. AR is not overpowered in this setup.
It's just that they don't lose as much design flexibility with these rules as the other races. I'm very much a non-expert on AR. Isn't 1/8 to 1/12 standard territory for AR design?
I dare answer this question. Yes, 1/12 is - at least for me - standard territory for AR design, and in fact, my first AR monster did have 1/12, and 16% PGR. Sure, it had an immunity to boot, but without immunity it would fare pretty much the same, only with different hab settings (which your rules don't restrict). At any rate, it had some 1/5 hab, 3 techs cheap, 3 expensive. 45,6K@2450.
Bottom line: race design is important, but the way a race is played is equally important (what Tomasoid also said). Limitations on race design can make monster creation harder, but will by no means prevent it. The easiest-monsterified econ setting - the HG - doesn't need "more than two clicks on any given production/mines/factories setting" anyway; as XAPBob points out, it's perfectly possible to build a monster economy within the confines of this ruleset.
Making the playing field fairer is a noble notion, but limiting race design like this is IMHO not a good way to get there.
Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
|
| Re: "Anti-Monster" game settings |
Wed, 16 October 2013 16:11 |
|
| skoormit |
| Lieutenant |
Messages: 665
Registered: July 2008
Location: Alabama | |
|
Thanks for the input on AR. Maybe Tomasoid's idea about 1-click only for AR is a reasonable rule. Not that anyone would play AR, I don't think.
Loucipher wrote on Wed, 16 October 2013 13:46
Bottom line: race design is important, but the way a race is played is equally important (what Tomasoid also said).
It sounds like you are agreeing with me. The point you make here is implied by the third sentence of my first post: "By restricting the race design options, we can make the game outcome more of a reflection of actual game play skills."
Loucipher wrote on Wed, 16 October 2013 13:46
Limitations on race design can make monster creation harder, but will by no means prevent it.
If only I had avoided using the word "monster" at all, perhaps my intent would not be so easily misconstrued.
From one of my replies to XAPBob, above: "The goal is not to make it impossible to make a race that has reasonably strong or even very strong production capacity. In fact, the goal is only to rule out the extreme race designs (-f, HP, etc) so that the players don't have to worry about facing them."
I have nothing against "monster" race designs. I love to play them, and I love to play against them. But sometimes I want to play something else, and I also don't want to have zero chance of winning from the beginning of the game. Do you think these rules make it possible to play in such a way? If not, do you have any ideas how it might best be accomplished, with a ruleset that still allows for considerable flexibility?
What we need's a few good taters.Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
|
| Re: "Anti-Monster" game settings |
Wed, 16 October 2013 16:58 |
|
|
|
skoormit wrote on Wed, 16 October 2013 22:11Thanks for the input on AR. Maybe Tomasoid's idea about 1-click only for AR is a reasonable rule. Not that anyone would play AR, I don't think.
Can you explain why do you think so? If the playing field is really even (which is impossible - more on that below), there should be no reason to ban any PRT, am I right?
skoormit wrote on Wed, 16 October 2013 22:11Loucipher wrote on Wed, 16 October 2013 13:46
Bottom line: race design is important, but the way a race is played is equally important (what Tomasoid also said).
It sounds like you are agreeing with me. The point you make here is implied by the third sentence of my first post: "By restricting the race design options, we can make the game outcome more of a reflection of actual game play skills."
We completely agree in this area. That's what I referred to when I called your notion to even out the playing field a noble one.
skoormit wrote on Wed, 16 October 2013 22:11Loucipher wrote on Wed, 16 October 2013 13:46
Limitations on race design can make monster creation harder, but will by no means prevent it.
If only I had avoided using the word "monster" at all, perhaps my intent would not be so easily misconstrued.
From one of my replies to XAPBob, above: "The goal is not to make it impossible to make a race that has reasonably strong or even very strong production capacity. In fact, the goal is only to rule out the extreme race designs (-f, HP, etc) so that the players don't have to worry about facing them."
I have nothing against "monster" race designs. I love to play them, and I love to play against them. But sometimes I want to play something else, and I also don't want to have zero chance of winning from the beginning of the game. Do you think these rules make it possible to play in such a way? If not, do you have any ideas how it might best be accomplished, with a ruleset that still allows for considerable flexibility?
Conscious players will always look for ways to maximize their economic output, even in the so-called "beginner" games. I played such a "beginner" game once... and guess what? Out of the six participants, four were IS. 'Course, they did it for added colonist growth and ease of defence, as both these factors contribute heavily to economic well-being: the first helps you accelerate your economy, the second helps you defend it, allowing you to pump more output into growing even bigger. This has taught me that even newbies will try to make the math work for them, not against them. So, in a sense, it is impossible to prevent "monsters" or at least "demi-monsters" from appearing.
The simplest and most straightforward answer to the problem of extreme designs seems obvious: ban the settings you don't want to see in your game. Sure, it's not elegant, but it should work, at least in theory. That's basically what you do here. Both designs require the designer to push certain controls (especially factory controls) all the way to the end. This is something your ruleset expressly forbids. Clicking no more than 2 times away from default setting will get you into the HG area, and not much else. So, in a sense, your ruleset does just that - bans the designs which would be impossible to create without breaking the rules. Still, it allows for basically unrestricted flexibility as far as LRTs, habs and tech settings are concerned. Particularly good or bad choices made on these pages can set a race up for victory or defeat just as easily as the economic settings. This alone prevents you from making the game even for all players, but it doesn't end there. The game itself has a certain randomness factor built-in - mineral concentrations (unless MaxMin enabled), planet distribution (in terms of habitability and their location on the galaxy map, unless galaxy is hand-made and/or player starting positions carefully hand-picked) and random events (unless turned off) can all happen to benefit or handicap any given player.
...
Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
| | | | |
| Re: "Anti-Monster" game settings |
Thu, 17 October 2013 05:18 |
|
| m.a@stars |
 | Commander |
Messages: 2765
Registered: October 2004
Location: Third star to the left | |
|
skoormit wrote on Tue, 15 October 2013 20:48In my experience, a lot of games are won or lost during race design. Players with more experience tailoring a race for particular game parameters have an advantage against players with less experience
Indeed.   
But wasn't the answer found long ago? With all the "25K by turn50" tutorials, the "how to design a race" walk-thrus, and the endless repetition of the "always testbed 1st" advice? 
The best way for novices to improve their design & play is still to practice, practice, and practice. Because it's not just the clever race design that's strong, not without the clever playing of the race. Or lots and lots and lots of luck. 
Monster-ish races are also fun to play because they tend to get ppl faster to where they want to be: blowing up stuff!  As so many of the "speed start" setups point to. 
Getting a new player to try on a monsterised race is a great eye-opener and a real blast. It sure was for me. It hooks ppl to the game, and makes them want to try other things instead of just slavering over how to make a crippled design competitive enough to survive. 
I've been in games where everybody played the same race, or slight variations of it, and they were always interesting, they at least forced me (and most others) to expand our bags of tricks, to deal with design choices, handicaps and boosts we wouldn't normally consider, and to beat competition not from the get-go, but from the playing it to the last. 
Last but not least, too often rules to enforce "a level playing field" end up doing just the opposite by favoring those who've found a way to exploit them. If you want a fair game, get everyone to play the Humanoids, or some simple (and stronger) version of them, or perhaps a vanilla CA monster, so they can concentrate on mayhem and not just econ. 
So many Stars, so few Missiles!
In space no one can hear you scheme!  Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
| | | | | |
Goto Forum:
Current Time: Mon May 06 07:36:05 EDT 2024
|
Members
Search
Help
Register
Login
Home
