I thought it might be nice to have a place for people to talk about the kind of galaxies they'd like to play and why. I'll start...
First off, I feel like they have to be 'war-only', at least for the time being. With the current player base, I think standard diplomacy basically amounts to 'which 2 players are going to ruin it for everybody else?' With 6-8 dedicated players, a team galaxy might work though.
One thing I always liked about the game under standard settings is that there's a constant dynamic tension between the pursuit of peaceful growth vs. aggression. There are various points where one can be more profitable and plenty of others where it flips around.
Somehow that seems missing under the current series of WO galaxies. Defence is too easy and I feel forced into a standard strategy of rushing through the tech tree and building for 3/4 of the game before cranking out an unstoppable uber-fleet.
Off the top of my head, a few options I think might encourage more and earlier conflict, thus more diversity of strategies: slower tech, smaller less rich planets, more planets in fewer systems, more variability among planets, fewer starting picks, likely more I'm not thinking of at the moment...
Registration Date: 20.06.2014
Posts: 2,068
Location: New York
RE: Galaxy brainstorming
quote:
Originally posted by Bard of Prey
I thought it might be nice to have a place for people to talk about the kind of galaxies they'd like to play and why. I'll start...
First off, I feel like they have to be 'war-only', at least for the time being. With the current player base, I think standard diplomacy basically amounts to 'which 2 players are going to ruin it for everybody else?' With 6-8 dedicated players, a team galaxy might work though.
One thing I always liked about the game under standard settings is that there's a constant dynamic tension between the pursuit of peaceful growth vs. aggression. There are various points where one can be more profitable and plenty of others where it flips around.
Somehow that seems missing under the current series of WO galaxies. Defence is too easy and I feel forced into a standard strategy of rushing through the tech tree and building for 3/4 of the game before cranking out an unstoppable uber-fleet.
Off the top of my head, a few options I think might encourage more and earlier conflict, thus more diversity of strategies: slower tech, smaller less rich planets, more planets in fewer systems, more variability among planets, fewer starting picks, likely more I'm not thinking of at the moment...
What kind of galaxies do the rest of you like?
I have thought about and argued these points a million times. I will explain my reasoning as to how my galaxy settings are what they are. It took a lot of debating and trial runs to end up here.
Trying to promote fairness and remove loop holes and quirks that could give a player an advantage over others, while promoting fleet battles in a small galaxy with limited planets and ticks. Where your HQ spawns in a galaxy, and what resources your juicy planets have are the only early advantages a player should be able to enjoy. All systems have the same number of planets because with random numbers, a person with 6 planets in their home system has a huge advantage over a player with 3. I have requested Erwin to make it possible to allow the home systems to have an equal amount of planets and allow the other systems to have random planets, but as yet no change to the code has been made.
Having smaller planets with less resources only drags the game on longer and gives the more experienced players who colonize quickly a huge advantage.Your first paragraph is about adding luck back into the game. This should be a game of strategy ... not luck. With only 240 turns, the galaxy can be played in 1 month instead of 4 months of searching for planets with resources and commodities and destroying the hopes of newbies and boring people so they quit or fall to sleep.
The dynamic tension between the pursuit of peaceful growth vs. aggression still exists, but forces you to try and win of your own accord, as you can't make peace treaties (with rep hit for breaking them), share resources, gold or galaxy maps with other players. You have to try and win using only your own strategies and skills. Most importantly ... with the addition of auto-attack, you can't join fleets with other empires and drive around the galaxy with one giant slug crushing everything in sight. This is very bad because a few experienced players can ally and win game after game. Thus discouraging players who quit and never return.
I understand that players with weak strategy or limited experience would like a bit of luck giving them a chance to do well. But this is a strategy game not a luck game. Otherwise we would need to roll dice to move ships or see the results of a battle.
This post has been edited 2 time(s), it was last edited by War_Cross: 17.03.2020 14:43.
I've never tried a batched galaxy, but I don't think I'd like it. I could handle giving up planetary micro, but I think I'd lose a lot of my edge if I didn't have tactical control of my fleets when I needed it. I don't trust admirals.
For similar reasons, I don't think I'd want a huge galaxy with hundreds of planets each either. That's a lot of ships to coordinate over large distances, especially with turns of several hours. Everything feels less special at that scale too. I like to name my systems and play with smaller, lower-tech fleets most of the time.
Originally posted by Bard of Prey
I've never tried a batched galaxy, but I don't think I'd like it. I could handle giving up planetary micro, but I think I'd lose a lot of my edge if I didn't have tactical control of my fleets when I needed it. I don't trust admirals.
A lot of players said the same thing until they gave it a try. It is a different beast to play, but the cool thing is no one has an advantage based on when the turns happen or turn length. I like them because of the greater risk involved and the planning needed before each batch.
quote:
Originally posted by Bard of Prey
For similar reasons, I don't think I'd want a huge galaxy with hundreds of planets each either. That's a lot of ships to coordinate over large distances, especially with turns of several hours. Everything feels less special at that scale too. I like to name my systems and play with smaller, lower-tech fleets most of the time.
Most of the galaxies I have been posting recently have been huge for a very simple reason. To keep it open for sign up longer. To keep the various empires manageable we have explored having high Colony ship modifiers. Or using extremely high Colony ship modifiers coupled with a set number of starting Colony Ships. Also using a wide variety of planets from worthless to worth fighting over adds a certain element to the game...Maybe the next system has better planets?
I do agree with you about the number of civ traits (starting picks) they need to be limited. They are what sets each player or species strengths and weakness. Having to many and everyone will pick the same thing.
Well let's get this started and set up the perfect galaxy for the current player base. Since most of my idea's are frowned on, or not understood, I'll let someone else start the dialog.
I think especially for new people team galaxy's are a great way for more expirienced players to teach them the ropes.
We will see what the future brings!
Couldn't agree with you more. I learned more about the game playing Team galaxies then any other type of galaxy. I was teammates with some of the best players this game has ever seen, Such as Raf7, ElderRace, Mizzihood, Powers, and Tingling to name a few. Each one helped me understand the game in greater depth.
Registration Date: 20.06.2014
Posts: 2,068
Location: New York
Teams
I disagree 100% that teams are the best way for new players to learn the game. I've never played a team galaxy and am not interested in doing so.
Raf7, tingling and Sygor answered all my questions about game play. New players have the wiki, the forum, live chat, personal message, and in game messaging to learn. They don't need to be the pawn of a team leader to acquire knowledge.
Teams are a drawing card for weak players to earn fame points even if they are inactive, no help to the team, work against the team or even if their team looses. If one team has a couple of inactive players or players that retire, don't follow instructions from the team leader, or act as a spy to work against their team, then that team is screwed. Also teams are never balanced. One team always starts with an advantage of having a few stronger players.
The new or weaker players have zero chance of getting the top score because naturally the team leader will make sure that his pawns lead their empire to the highest score.
The looser's get a participation trophy of 25 fame points for loosing.
This post has been edited 1 time(s), it was last edited by War_Cross: 26.03.2020 13:14.
Originally posted by Sygor
So who is interested in a Team galaxy? Trust me they are fun to play. For me the ones I liked the most had some role playing goes on.
Guess I'm too late to say yes to this :p Never knew team galaxies gained such a negative reputation with some of the newer players - they never saw it in action during its golden age :(
p.s. I'm not a fan of the big galaxies btw.. takes too long to play out.. I can be free for a month or so.. but 4-6h galaxies for 500 turns is 3 months and i cant commit to a game for that long.. personally i prefer if games were over at 200 turns
__________________ Reminder to self: Patience is a virtue
