Home » Stars! 2.6/7 » The Bar » Game Concept: Larger Map with Less MM
| | | | |
| Re: Game Concept: Larger Map with Less MM |
Thu, 06 February 2014 12:46   |
|
 skoormit |
 | Lieutenant |
Messages: 665
Registered: July 2008
Location: Alabama | |
|
m.a@stars wrote on Thu, 06 February 2014 06:21
Quote:I like the principle behind Altruist's suggestion to limit alliances to 2 players. But how do you enforce that?
2 ways: a vigilant Host, or some vigilant players.
What I mean is, isn't it difficult to define "alliance" sufficiently enough for the rule to be enforceable?
One could say, for example: "Game victor will be a single player or a single two-player alliance." That suffices for the end game. But that doesn't keep three people from deciding to cooperate closely in the mid game, with the understanding that after the other players are eliminated, they'll have a three-for-all for the win.
One could say: "No more than one player set to friend at a time. All others must be set to enemy." That prevents sharing gates and allowing passage through minefields with more than one person at a time, but it doesn't prevent close cooperation, coordination of attacks, sharing intel, tech trades, mineral gifts, diplomatic support, etc.
What we need's a few good taters.Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
| | | |
| Re: Game Concept: Larger Map with Less MM |
Sat, 08 February 2014 00:31 |
|
|
|
skoormit wrote on Thu, 06 February 2014 18:46m.a@stars wrote on Thu, 06 February 2014 06:21
Quote:I like the principle behind Altruist's suggestion to limit alliances to 2 players. But how do you enforce that?
2 ways: a vigilant Host, or some vigilant players.
What I mean is, isn't it difficult to define "alliance" sufficiently enough for the rule to be enforceable?
[...]
One could say: "No more than one player set to friend at a time. All others must be set to enemy." That prevents sharing gates and allowing passage through minefields with more than one person at a time, but it doesn't prevent close cooperation, coordination of attacks, sharing intel, tech trades, mineral gifts, diplomatic support, etc.
Well, my most used phrase for this purpose in the Fledgling Admiral games is:
"Only one other player may be set to friend and traded tech with at any one time, all others must be set to enemy. You can change an ally after the alliance lasted for 10 years or more."
If you want to, you might also add "Battle orders of all armed ships must be set to target Neutrals & Enemies."
And while cheating is always possible it seldomly happens and usually the player gets more or less banned from the whole community. You also have a non-playing host who can check things from time to time.
Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
| | |
| Re: Game Concept: Larger Map with Less MM |
Sun, 09 February 2014 10:56 |
|
|
|
limiting comms to in-game actually increases MM. Speaking from experience.
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 Concept: Larger Map with Less MM |
Sun, 09 February 2014 10:56 |
|
| skoormit |
| Lieutenant |
Messages: 665
Registered: July 2008
Location: Alabama | |
|
Altruist wrote on Fri, 07 February 2014 23:31...And while cheating is always possible it seldomly happens and usually the player gets more or less banned from the whole community. You also have a non-playing host who can check things from time to time.
Just to be clear: I'm not worried about cheating. Not at all. I trust players not to cheat.
In this case, I'm searching for a well-worded rule simply to achieve the goal of reducing diplo MM. We have to be specific about what it means to be "allied," otherwise players won't know which actions violate the rules, and which do not.
Another crazy idea: A player may send private communication (in game or out of game) to only one other player during any given game year. All other communication must be in-game and addressed to everyone.
[Updated on: Sun, 09 February 2014 10:57]
What we need's a few good taters.Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
| |
| Re: Game Concept: Larger Map with Less MM |
Sun, 09 February 2014 11:07 |
|
|
|
That's true, but I dislike limited comms  .
Also, coming to think about it... in this case, reducing planet/organizing MM will give us some spare time to put into diplomacy, without too much of a strain.
[Updated on: Sun, 09 February 2014 11:07]
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 Concept: Larger Map with Less MM |
Sun, 09 February 2014 11:09 |
|
| skoormit |
| Lieutenant |
Messages: 665
Registered: July 2008
Location: Alabama | |
|
nmid wrote on Sat, 08 February 2014 16:03I would be interested in this game setup.
Well, then, I may be on to something here. 
Quote:
The limits currently being discussed are
> 20 stations/docks per player
> no limit on number of planets colonised as long as the number of docks is limited.
> Alliances limited to 2 players
Clarification: Limit of 20 orbitals of any type, including forts.
Quote:
Possible other suggestions include:
> minefields
> Communication limitations
> No cloaking?
> all races having Pen-scan (no NAS) - My suggestion
Hm...NAS requires players to chaff-ping and to use planet squatters. I suppose that is a MM reduction if NAS is off the table.
No cloaking...well, yes, I suppose that reduces MM a good bit. We don't have to send out our galleon snoopers in the midgame. But is it worth the tradeoff?
Again, my goal is to enjoy the strategic depth that a large uni provides, but without the hours-per-turn commitment to MM usually required to have a chance at victory.
In other words, I'd like it to be possible for me to enjoy a large stars game, actually have a chance at winning, and also keep my job and spend time with the kids (and perhaps also the wife).
Quote:Ps - A MM fanatic will find ways to create MM, no matter what conditions you come up with
Truer words were never spoke. Again, though, my goal is to reduce the MM load required to have a chance at winning. An MM fanatic will still optimize everything he can. But if we can curtail the number of opportunities that MM can be applied to for maximum gain in chance of winning, maybe we will have levelled the playing field enough between the MM fanatics and the, well, non-crazy people. (And I'm an MM fanatic, btw.)
What we need's a few good taters.Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
|
| Re: Game Concept: Larger Map with Less MM |
Mon, 17 February 2014 15:57 |
|
| m.a@stars |
 | Commander |
Messages: 2765
Registered: October 2004
Location: Third star to the left | |
|
skoormit wrote on Sun, 09 February 2014 17:09my goal is to enjoy the strategic depth that a large uni provides, but without the hours-per-turn commitment to MM usually required to have a chance at victory.
Crazy thought: create a Team game with 2 or more "teammates" per race, and share the MM by having each "teammate" work on a different thing: planetary Qs, exploration/colonization, spying/counterspying, laying/sweeping mines, Research, Diplo, designing/assembling warfleets, ordering said warfleets around, picking up the debris...       
Or not so crazy, as that's one of the ways I split my MM into different days. 
So many Stars, so few Missiles!
In space no one can hear you scheme!  Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
|
| Re: Game Concept: Larger Map with Less MM |
Sun, 23 February 2014 15:05 |
|
| Shadow Whist |
 | Chief Warrant Officer 2 |
Messages: 167
Registered: August 2003
Location: Vancouver, WA | |
|
I would question the option of removing cloaks and even pen scanners in this type of game. I would not contest that MM elements would increase due to cloaks. But these decisions would be ones that make gameplay more interesting. (maybe just to me )
With fewer stars, it will be easier to see fleets approach through open space. With the distances involved, there could be a lot of depth involving around the unknown and trying to conceal raids and such. Without those elements, I think a lot of game-play would become very static. With them, there is Tension. Did my fleet remain undetected? or was I discovered? My cloaked scouting fleet has discovered the enemy's star bases - so now I know where to focus my attack. Did I slip by his sensor net? Oh-no, my sensor asset in the area was hit - now what is he doing?!? It will take 10 years to get a replacement in the area! Without cloaks and pen scanners, it would be like playing poker with most of your cards revealed. I think the game needs something to balance the distances involved.
As a final musing, I wonder if restricting minefields might be better then eliminating them. They could get really tedious but with some restrictions in place there could be some interesting choices to make. Say you can only have 40-50 minefields at any one time. Now you have to make a choice. Do my core worlds get mine-fields? Do I use a few to protect invasion fleets? Do I use some layered mine-fields to secure a more likely invasion path? Oh, and if the limit is reached now you need to wait for them to decay - or enlist some help from an ally. Restriction rather then elimination would add some gameplay elements.
Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
| |
Goto Forum:
Current Time: Mon May 06 11:31:20 EDT 2024
|
Members
Search
Help
Register
Login
Home
But here we're trying to come up with ways to reduce MM, even if many would say it makes gameplay more interesting. 
