A new player will get more benefit to his playing skills if he plays in a game where race design skills are less important.

if you start next to a couple bi-immune -f WM, because they are going to eat you alive. If you have 30 years of peace, then you can reap the benefits of TT. But if you are playing a medium game with 8 players, even with Distant starting positions, you are going to be close enough to other players from the very start that races designed for early aggression will overpower you before your econ can catch up.

skoormit wrote on Thu, 17 October 2013 18:04

if you start next to a couple bi-immune -f WM, because they are going to eat you alive. If you have 30 years of peace, then you can reap the benefits of TT. But if you are playing a medium game with 8 players, even with Distant starting positions, you are going to be close enough to other players from the very start that races designed for early aggression will overpower you before your econ can catch up.

That's why I don't like cramped games. For these I'd rather use a QS or an HG race.

skoormit wrote on Thu, 17 October 2013 18:09

A new player will get more benefit to his playing skills if he plays in a game where race design skills are less important.

For starters, yes. But they'll also need to find their own playstyle, and sooner or later a taylor-made race that best suits their interests. Putting limits to race designs isn't the only (or the best) way to help them along.

I like playing cramped games, and I think cramped games are good for beginners.

(Also, cramped games are fairly popular nowadays. There seem to be fewer games getting off with lots of space per player. I guess there aren't as many people around with an appetite for those long long long games.)

I agree that slow tech would seem to hurt an AR a lot more than other races. I haven't played any slow tech games. Other than the effect on AR, do you think slow tech would significantly alter the impact of the race restrictions?

Tomasoid wrote on Wed, 16 October 2013 08:03

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.

Luck is going to play a role, for sure. It always does. Some race designs depend more on luck than others.

Do you think that these restrictions make luck play more of a role than it does in a game without these restrictions?

Tomasoid wrote on Wed, 16 October 2013 08:03

And, BTW JoAT races become monstrous when getting more space much better than others, so I would completely ban JoAT races together with CAs.

A JOAT has a built in +20% production ceiling advantage over other races. I don't necessarily agree that they benefit the most from more space. ITs love space. HEs love space. Heck, SS loves space.

By preventing JOAT from taking NAS or OBRM, they are rather lacking for rw points relative to other races.

Tomasoid wrote on Wed, 16 October 2013 08:03

It also depends on universe/available map size. Quite mediocre JoAT race design can become monstrous in larger territory really quickly.

Sure. But for a given size/density/# players configuration, these restrictions should keep players closer together on the power curve than in an unrestricted game.

skoormit wrote on Wed, 16 October 2013 18:58

I agree that slow tech would seem to hurt an AR a lot more than other races. I haven't played any slow tech games. Other than the effect on AR, do you think slow tech would significantly alter the impact of the race restrictions?

STA affects lots of things. Its hard to tell whether it breaks balance for other than AR races. Your judge:

STA double-affects AR the most because Energy (economy) and ISB (Ultra Stations = more space = economy is too late).

STA also slightly affects:
- IT races (getting better gates later)
- JOaT (getting slower with better scan range from intrinsic scanning)
- PP (getting very sow on getting good Mass Drivers)
- SS (good cloaking)
- SD and IS toys
- WM - WM's advantage, Dreads, come quite slower
- CA - slow TT if rely on TT, otherwise just a bit slower terraforming
- HE - -f high-tech strategies are completely lowered down because STA

LRTs:
- it is actually hard to play STA with no IFE, unless you IT.
- ISB - Ultra Stations are late
- TT - slow Bio

-f and/+ High-tech is not recommended for STA

There are also things for which STA give _advantage_. UR is example )

skoormit wrote on Wed, 16 October 2013 18:48

Do you think that these restrictions make luck play more of a role than it does in a game without these restrictions?

Of course. Especially for JoAT.

XAPBob wrote on Wed, 16 October 2013 05:36

I 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?

Tomasoid wrote on Fri, 18 October 2013 07:19

skoormit wrote on Wed, 16 October 2013 18:48

Do you think that these restrictions make luck play more of a role than it does in a game without these restrictions?

Of course. Especially for JoAT.

You say "of course" but it is not obvious to me. You have not explained how these restrictions make luck play more of a role than in games without these restrictions.

And you haven't explained why it matters more for JOAT than others. I don't think it does. It matters the same for everyone.

Consider a JOAT and a non-JOAT with same growth and econ settings, with the same number of planets. Call it x.
In this case, the JOAT has a 20% higher production ceiling than the non-JOAT, and will get there in about the same amount of time (assuming both players manage growth the same way).

Suppose they each have a weak neighbor and are able to take the same amount of planets from him. Call it y. Now they both have x + y planets.
In this case, the JOAT has a 20% higher production ceiling than the non-JOAT, and will get there in about the same amount of time (assuming they both manage growth the same).

Nothing is different other than the raw numbers. 12k resources vs 10k resources is an advantage equivalent to 60k resources vs 50k resources.

Also, the non-JOAT race has some other relative advantage. Economy is the primary advantage of JOATs, so if all we talk about is econ then of course JOAT looks great.

Yu could hqve just used the crae economy calculator

http://craebild.dk/hab_range_tool/habcalc.html
see: http://s21.postimg.org/fot8cvgcn/CAinitial_Hab.png

TT is very powerful IN THE LONG RUN. But your investment of RW points in an expensive LRT and then in resources terraforming your planets is never going to pay you back if you start next to a couple bi-immune -f WM, because they are going to eat you alive. If you have 30 years of peace, then you can reap the benefits of TT. But if you are playing a medium game with 8 players, even with Distant starting positions, you are going to be close enough to other players from the very start that races designed for early aggression will overpower you before your econ can catch up.

Ah. Nice tool. Seems like something I should have known about.

My numbers are slightly different than craebild's. Probably I have a defect somewhere. Why do people put bugs in their code?

Diplomacy in these games?


The original new game announcement added an all silence rule, does anyone think that diplo would break the spirit of the game?