Home » Stars! 2.6/7 » New Game Announcements » New game: bidding for PRTs
| Re: New game: bidding for PRTs |
Wed, 17 May 2006 21:32   |
|
|
|
I'm quite interested, as I'm keen to play a game with one of the less common PRT choices... I'd consider myself upper-intermediate skill level though, so I'm a bit worried about game balance if more than one of the players consider themselves newbies. I'd be trying to get a PRT I haven't played before, which would help.
Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
| |
| Re: New game: bidding for PRTs |
Wed, 17 May 2006 23:04 |
|
|
|
For sure Ekolis, if you do that hopefully everybody else will be handicapped, although it would probably be better for you if you managed to get one of the economy races for a cheap price, as they are a little more forgiving to play  Plus you might like to try persuade an advanced player to check over your race design, to make sure you start with a strong framework.
For reference, I dredged up an old newgroup posting of proposed 'standard' handicaps, which encouraged the following for normal games:
AR 50
SS/PP 100
WM/HE 125
SD 137
IT/IS 150
JOAT 175
CA 200
Quite a lot has probably changed since then, and I've no doubt other values have been proposed. But these figures should give a rough idea the sort of numbers that would be reasonable bids, if most of the bidders value the races similarly to that old analysis.
EDIT: you'd probably need to drop 50 off all those values, since the last won PRT would presumably go for nothing.
[Updated on: Thu, 18 May 2006 01:41] Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
| |
| Re: New game: bidding for PRTs |
Fri, 19 May 2006 00:17 |
|
 vmanuel |
 | Chief Warrant Officer 3 |
Messages: 187
Registered: October 2004
Location: Dallas, TX USA | |
|
| yyyi wrote on Thu, 18 May 2006 01:08 |
Thus, I propose also not to seek for a replacement player in case if somebody stops playing. The player is set inactive and the game continues.
|
I very much agree with setting inactive players to inactive. I've been in at least three different great games that were interesting and amazing until someone stopped subbing turns and after two months of zero, the whole thing fell apart. Probably what's kept me from coming back for so long.
Oh, and perhaps we should give the nubie a handicap himself. That is, everyone bids normally, then any new players (1 game max) can take an additional 30 points off of their total. That way, it's a _little_ more even of a playing field.
Oh, and Ekolis, definitely read the FAQ and play a couple of games against the PC on 'medium' and 'tough' setting. It'll help.
Editor in Chief of the Kaynan Space News.
All Space, All The Time - Kaynan!
www.myhood.bizReport message to a moderator
|
|
|
| |
| Re: New game: bidding for PRTs |
Mon, 29 May 2006 23:52 |
|
|
|
| tgellan wrote on Tue, 23 May 2006 20:53 |
Though I own my copy of Stars! since 1996 I never played online, so this would be a primer for me...
|
Well, if you give yourself a good primer in single player first you'll have much more fun in multiplayer. I strongly recommend you throughly read the 'must know' section of the forum, make sure you can beat a few ai on expert/allied, and for economy try to get 50k resources by 2450 in a solo game. If you can do all those you are ready for your first multiplayer game. Welcome and good luck!
| Quote: |
There shouldn't be a problem with a german copy?
|
No problem. There's a download for the JRC3 patch for the German retail editon on the download page: http://starsautohost.org/kn2050.htm
| Quote: |
Are there any other restrictions I should know of?
|
Serials on AH are also a bit more restricted than those in these patches, but since you've got a legit copy you should be fine.
Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
| | | |
| Re: New game: bidding for PRTs |
Fri, 02 June 2006 02:24 |
|
| iztok |
 | Commander |
Messages: 1205
Registered: April 2003
Location: Slovenia, Europe | |
|
Hi!
| LEit wrote on Tue, 30 May 2006 17:06 |
I can never manage to beat expert AIs.
|
What???  That's what I thought when I read the first sentence, but after rading
| Quote: |
I get too bored and give up well before the game is over...
|
... it became quite clear to me. I too had started in recent years two games in small dense with 4-6 expert allied AIs, me playing 3-immune AR. The game was interesting until I produced few Jihad BBs. AIs just couldn't cope with that kind of firepower, and never managed to send after them anything appropriate. Add to that excessive MM with having 60+ planets, and both games died quietly, or got overwritten on my stars\temp dir.
BR, Iztok
[Updated on: Fri, 02 June 2006 02:25] Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
| |
| Re: New game: bidding for PRTs |
Sun, 04 June 2006 17:47 |
|
|
|
I believe we are still waiting for a few more players. Six is not enough.
Once we have enough players, I think we can probably recruit someone independent to handle the bidding. It is important that we have someone independent for the bidding and to review the races. The races should be reviewed to make sure that they conform to the players' bids. Although I am sure the players plan be honest in trying to conform to their bids, sometimes mistakes are made and an independent reviewer could catch mistakes while they can be corrected.
After the bidding, I think the game could be hosted by one of the players. I don't think that is a problem. Since yyyi started this board I assume he will be hosting unless an independent host is found.
Marduk, you mentioned rules and penalties for violations. I am not sure what you had in mind. Maybe we should explore this.
yyyi indicated:
| Quote: |
- no cooperation between players. No tech/ship trading, no alliances. All races should be set to enemy at the beginning.
- standard cheating rules.
|
So the two obvious areas of rule violation are:
1. Cooperation between players.
2. Cheats.
I think anyone using cheats should be banned from sending more turns. Cooperation between players probably needs a better definition so we know what can or can not be done. Otherwise there may be violations.
To me no cooperation would means:
All other races must be set to enemy at all times. No ship trading, no tech trading, no mineral trading, and no cooperation in planning attacks. Communications between races would be allowed which could include border discussions which could be as specific as you can have this planet if I have that planet. While two or more races may agree to stop fighting each other, any agreement to attack someone else would be a violation. Also, I don't think non-aggression treaties should be allowed if everyone is set to enemy. Of course, if non-aggression treaties aren't allowed borders are not fixed but tenative and subject to violation at any time.
Other issues:
A. Exchange of information. That is a form of cooperation but I think that should be allowed. Information could be about another race, MT gifts, or planet information. Of course since this is not from friends, any information could be a lie.
B. Trading planets that are already colonized. I guess that is a form of cooperation but perhaps these things should be voted on.
C. Threatenning is definitely not cooperation. (Example: Withdraw your colonists from this area or you will be packeted).
These are just my opinions. Whatever we decide we need to spell things out clearly.
The Universe is usually not fair.
That would be too easy.Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
|
| Re: New game: bidding for PRTs |
Sun, 04 June 2006 18:11 |
|
|
|
| DenHam wrote on Mon, 05 June 2006 07:47 |
Cooperation between players probably needs a better definition so we know what can or can not be done. Otherwise there may be violations.
To me no cooperation would means:
All other races must be set to enemy at all times. No ship trading, no tech trading, no mineral trading, and no cooperation in planning attacks. Communications between races would be allowed which could include border discussions which could be as specific as you can have this planet if I have that planet. While two or more races may agree to stop fighting each other, any agreement to attack someone else would be a violation. Also, I don't think non-aggression treaties should be allowed if everyone is set to enemy. Of course, if non-aggression treaties aren't allowed borders are not fixed but tenative and subject to violation at any time.
Other issues:
A. Exchange of information. That is a form of cooperation but I think that should be allowed. Information could be about another race, MT gifts, or planet information. Of course since this is not from friends, any information could be a lie.
B. Trading planets that are already colonized. I guess that is a form of cooperation but perhaps these things should be voted on.
C. Threatenning is definitely not cooperation. (Example: Withdraw your colonists from this area or you will be packeted).
These are just my opinions. Whatever we decide we need to spell things out clearly.
|
I would suggest that the only way for 'no cooperation' to actually result in no cooperation in the game is to define it as no communication. As soon as there's information being exchanged, players are building ties. For example sending information "race x has 26 stars" is implicitly saying "this guys is too strong, let's both attack him"...
I suggest modifying this rule to either:
A) Anything goes
B) All set enemy, no tech trading, comms permitted
C) All set enemy, no tech trading, comms forbidden
Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
|
| Re: New game: bidding for PRTs |
Sun, 04 June 2006 18:22 |
|
|
|
| Are these bid rules acceptable? (Don't vote if not enrolled in the game...)[ 6 votes ] |
| 1. |
Yes, looks good |
 3 / 50% |
| 2. |
No, what are you smoking dude...? |
0 / 0% |
| 3. |
I'm not enrolled, but I just love voting... |
3 / 50% |
| Marduk wrote on Sat, 03 June 2006 02:26 |
So far the bidding and game rules are still proposals.
|
Ok, I'll take a stab at bidding rules:
(1)Submit bids:
Every player sends a list of every PRT with a value next to it (If you don't want a particular PRT, then bid higher in all the other PRTs...)
(2)Select 'most wanted' PRT:
Referee chooses the PRT that has the higest bid. Ties resolved by looking at 2nd highest bids etc., resolve by coinflip if stil tied at last bid...
(3)Choose bidding winner:
Player with the highest bid in that PRT wins that PRT with a value of the 2nd highest bid. Ties are resolved by coinflip.
(4)Remove player bids and won PRT:
Referee then removes that player's bids and that PRT from the list, then returns to step (2) to choose next PRT.
(5)Referee then announces the values of the winning bids, and secretly tells each player which PRT they won.
Run two rounds of bidding, with the first being a 'dummy' round. Do not permit reduction of bids between rounds, only hold/increases.
I've put a poll on this post, please don't vote in the poll if you aren't enrolled in the game.
[Updated on: Sun, 04 June 2006 18:23] Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
|
| Re: New game: bidding for PRTs |
Sun, 04 June 2006 23:52 |
|
|
|
I like it. It is simple but should work. I will vote yes but I think there are a few wrinkles to work out:
1. How do you resolve ties between bidders? I suggested a tie breaking rule a few posts ago (1st Tie Breaker ... Total points bid on all races, Second tie breaker, number of Points bid higher on this race higher than next highest race, 3rd tie breaker random number). Other tie breaker schemes are acceptable but we need to have one.
2. I suggest that we also allow a bid of -1. This is really a bid of zero but indicating a race preference against that race. In our examples both Zorg (yyyi) and I suggested bids of -1.
3. If we have less than 10 players, I assume the last player gets his highest remaining race for zero ... or does he have to take the number he bet if it is higher than zero? The -1 voting might help here.
The Universe is usually not fair.
That would be too easy.Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
|
| Re: New game: bidding for PRTs |
Mon, 05 June 2006 00:12 |
|
|
|
| DenHam wrote on Mon, 05 June 2006 13:52 |
1. How do you resolve ties between bidders? I suggested a tie breaking rule a few posts ago (1st Tie Breaker ... Total points bid on all races, Second tie breaker, number of Points bid higher on this race higher than next highest race, 3rd tie breaker random number). Other tie breaker schemes are acceptable but we need to have one.
|
I figured keep it as simple as possible - if you check back you'll see I suggested a coin flip.
| Quote: |
2. I suggest that we also allow a bid of -1. This is really a bid of zero but indicating a race preference against that race. In our examples both Zorg (yyyi) and I suggested bids of -1.
|
Again, keep it simple - there's no need for this as you could accomlish the same thing by having a minimum of '1' bid on everything else.
| Quote: |
3. If we have less than 10 players, I assume the last player gets his highest remaining race for zero ... or does he have to take the number he bet if it is higher than zero? The -1 voting might help here.
|
I would say he get's his PRT for zero. Give him the remaining PRT that he had the highest bid set on. If he has several remaining PRTs tied, he obviously didn't mind which he got so coin flip it.
Here's an example bid:
HE 75
SS 3
WM 2
CA 200
IS 125
SD 100
PP 1
IT 149
AR 0
JoAT 150
You can see this bid would be from someone really keen for an econ PRT, but arranged so if he misses his targets he's got a implicit preference order of SS>WM>PP>AR (this guy really doesn't like AR)
Word of warning though - if everybody just puts bids on 2 or 3 PRTs they feel like playing, instead of rating most/all of the PRTs by what they think they could win with, then several people will get some GREAT deals. I'd say bidding in the "Bidding for Techs" game suffered pretty badly from this, with very few decent bids in certain fields leading to some unexpectedly high values, most notably con going at a higher level than elect.
For example I really DON'T want to play CA in this game, but I will be putting in a decent bid instead of '0', just to try to make sure it doesn't go to someone else for too low if most players put in 0 for it.
[Updated on: Mon, 05 June 2006 00:15] Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
|
| Re: New game: bidding for PRTs |
Mon, 05 June 2006 01:47 |
|
| Marduk |
 | Ensign |
Messages: 345
Registered: January 2003
Location: Dayton, OH | |
|
| DenHam wrote on Sun, 04 June 2006 17:47 |
Once we have enough players, I think we can probably recruit someone independent to handle the bidding. It is important that we have someone independent for the bidding and to review the races. The races should be reviewed to make sure that they conform to the players' bids. Although I am sure the players plan be honest in trying to conform to their bids, sometimes mistakes are made and an independent reviewer could catch mistakes while they can be corrected.
After the bidding, I think the game could be hosted by one of the players. I don't think that is a problem. Since yyyi started this board I assume he will be hosting unless an independent host is found.
Marduk, you mentioned rules and penalties for violations. I am not sure what you had in mind. Maybe we should explore this.
|
If there is a rule against tech trading, say, that is something the host would have to check for. Not an ideal situation for a playing host, and yyyi indicated he wanted to play in this one. An independent host might as well also run the bidding.
Any penalties would of course depend on what rules you use. If there is a ban on tech trading, what would be appropriate punishment for violators? A one-year ban, perhaps? Naturally there will be loopholes that can be exploited in a limited way - is it tech trading if one player sends a scout each year to one or two enemy systems? I've done this to keep an up-to-date count on defending ships, and didn't realize I was feeding my enemy tech until he thanked me for my gifts. Who knew he'd totally neglected propulsion research for 60 years?
If the rules are pretty clear and the penalties for infractions are pre-decided, that makes hosting go much faster. I figure I can check the messages for 10 races in about a half hour, perhaps less, and that should provide all the information needed to catch violations of most rules.
Communication bans, outside of in-game messages, are really a 'take it on faith' kind of thing. So that wouldn't add any time to hosting if the game ends up with such a rule.
I do suggest that any of you who haven't already done so read the Bidding for Techs topic and see how that turned out before voting on any kind of bidding system for this game. I was rather expecting some HP race to bid weapon tech at level six to make sure no one else started with a big advantage in weaponry (and to be equal to any WMs out there). It didn't happen, but it could have. Keep that sort of thing in mind when deciding whether a given bid system is appropriate.
Also, I like vmanuel's idea of discounting the final cost of the bid for the newbies. Say a newbie wins CA with a bid of 200, they get 30 (or however many) points off and only need to have 170 points left over. I'd suggest a 50 point discount for real newbies, and 20 points for the anyone coming back to the game after a long break.
Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
| |
| Re: New game: bidding for PRTs |
Mon, 05 June 2006 12:31 |
|
| vmanuel |
| Chief Warrant Officer 3 |
Messages: 187
Registered: October 2004
Location: Dallas, TX USA | |
|
Thanks for the advice on bidding, Dogthinker. Sounds good so far.
I have a couple of opinions on this that need to be taken into account. First is that if we allow a minimum bid of -1, I'm going to bid as follows:
AR: 10
Everything else -1.
Since nobody wants an AR race, everyone should bid that one at -1. This should give me either AR at near 0, or any other race at near 0. Because of this, I feel we should have a minimum bid of 50 on ALL PRT's. Otherwise, I'm going to screw the lot of you.
Second is that if new players are with us, they really need communication and cooperation more than anyone, and it would be a sin to keep it from them.
I would propose that we only ban pre-game alliances, not in-game, and that the minimum bids on all races is 50. That way, the only people who get a race for less than 50 points leftover would be new players.
Editor in Chief of the Kaynan Space News.
All Space, All The Time - Kaynan!
www.myhood.bizReport message to a moderator
|
|
|
|
| Re: New game: bidding for PRTs |
Mon, 05 June 2006 18:50 |
|
|
|
| vmanuel wrote on Tue, 06 June 2006 02:31 |
Thanks for the advice on bidding, Dogthinker. Sounds good so far.
I have a couple of opinions on this that need to be taken into account. First is that if we allow a minimum bid of -1, I'm going to bid as follows:
AR: 10
Everything else -1.
Since nobody wants an AR race, everyone should bid that one at -1. This should give me either AR at near 0, or any other race at near 0. Because of this, I feel we should have a minimum bid of 50 on ALL PRT's. Otherwise, I'm going to screw the lot of you.
Second is that if new players are with us, they really need communication and cooperation more than anyone, and it would be a sin to keep it from them.
I would propose that we only ban pre-game alliances, not in-game, and that the minimum bids on all races is 50. That way, the only people who get a race for less than 50 points leftover would be new players.
|
Thing is, there's no practical difference between setting a minimum of -1, 0 or 50. All it does is set the benchmark level.
I would say there's no practical difference between 10AR & 0 all others, and 10AR & -1 all others. If all minimums were set to 50, then I would consider those bids to be identical to 60AR & 50 all others.
I guess one way to try to enforce 'healthy' bidding, would be to force people to have a minimum *total* bid of say, 400 points. Or to have to spend *exactly* 1000 points in bidding. Now that I think about it, the latter may be best.
Definately agree that restricted diplomacy probably hurts stars newbies more than experts (not as good at generating own intel, need access to in-game advice to be able to learn well / dodge basic mistake, may well already be adept at diplomacy from other multiplayer games) so I'd agree that unrestricted in-game diplomacy is probably the way to go, but that's for Zorg to decide since this is his baby. I'd definately go with one extreme or the other.
Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
| |
| Re: New game: bidding for PRTs |
Tue, 06 June 2006 17:29 |
|
|
|
Restrictions on Alliances and Discussions:
I agree that restrictions on alliances would make it harder for new players and for that reason it may be a bit fairer to new players to allow at least limited alliances. If we allow alliances that will effect the value of races. For example, AR races are more attractive if alliances are permited.
Having no alliances and setting everyone to enemy is not as fair but it is OK. In that case it is very important to me that we at least allow certain "in game" communication. Although setting everyone to enemy creates a "free-for-all" fight, the tendency isn't to fight everyone at once. A center race could find itself attacked on several sides. If "enemy" discussions are allowed, then that race has a chance to threaten or otherwise negotiate a peace with at least one of the races attacking it. Otherwise it may not matter how strong your race is but rather its location. Without discussions a center location could be worth 200 points less than edge locations to any PRT with the possible exception of an HE race.
Minimum Bids:| Quote: |
VManual Writes: This should give me either AR at near 0, or any other race at near 0. Because of this, I feel we should have a minimum bid of 50 on ALL PRT's. Otherwise, I'm going to screw the lot of you.
|
The whole point of the bidding system is to level the playing field between the better PRTs and the less desirable PRTs. You would value your bid against the least desirable race being worth 0. If the minimum bid is 50 then you would increase other bids to recognize the difference. Of course, the relationship may not be linear. You may find that if you have to leave 50 points left over in that least desirable race, that you need even more points to make it equal to another race.
Penalties for Violations:
| Quote: |
Marduch Writes: Any penalties would of course depend on what rules you use. If there is a ban on tech trading, what would be appropriate punishment for violators? A one-year ban, perhaps? Naturally there will be loopholes that can be exploited in a limited way - is it tech trading if one player sends a scout each year to one or two enemy systems? I've done this to keep an up-to-date count on defending ships, and didn't realize I was feeding my enemy tech until he thanked me for my gifts. Who knew he'd totally neglected propulsion research for 60 years?
|
The trouble I have with this is that it suggests that a player can feel free to violate the rule if he thinks it is worth the penatly of occassionally being caught. I think it important to be clear that rules aren't to be broken or circumvented. Single violations where it could be a mistake or violation should be treated with some lenancy but a repeated violator who violates rules because he thinks it is worth the penalty cost, should be dealt with harshly even if that means his expulsion from the game.
The Universe is usually not fair.
That would be too easy.Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
| |
| Re: New game: bidding for PRTs |
Tue, 06 June 2006 18:58 |
|
|
|
| Luhego wrote on Tue, 06 June 2006 04:11 |
Hi all,
I would like to play this game. I do not know if it would be a problem, but I do not own a legal copy of Stars though I would gladly buy one if I knew how to. I got some serial numbers but I do not know if I can use them to play on Autohost.
Luhego
|
Note that Autohost bans a significant number of serials that the even most recent version of Stars allows to be used. So if you use a serial from a generator be warned that you may have issues very early on. I think there's a generator out there that works fine, but there is also at least one that won't work with SAH at all. I'm not sure on the current state of play on buying serial numbers is though. Check the threads in the bar for details and to discuss it further.
Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
|
| Pages (3): [ 2 ] |
  |
Goto Forum:
Current Time: Fri Apr 26 00:34:39 EDT 2024
|
Members
Search
Help
Register
Login
Home
Even if to take small/dense with 4 or so expert/allied AI-s and set victory condition to be "Best score at 2450"?
