Originally posted by inerz
Interesting stuff about sector size/ planets/ score table.
+1
This would make the game more realistic (mayby would not be possible to see the whole galaxy, who cares?). The distance between "normal" systems is big. I personally don't like the "jumping" fleets too. All what people care about now is beeing able to teleport to next system in 2 ticks, big sector size would force advanced offense/ deffense strategy.
__________________ Conquers his own planets and bombs the suns.
Originally posted by inerz
i would actually very much like to see sector 1000. it would make the game feel somewhat more like space is big, really big... it would be a strategic decision to go anywhere...not 1-2 turns to the next system hop-hop-bunny-friggen-hop.
also with 1k sectors you would have a new choice between sending early colony ships to a 50 turn voyage, or getting quantum corvettes or something better first.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
another thing i would like to see sometime in the future is a game where score table is turned off. you have no comparison with anyone else. you actually need to find out how strong people are, through diplomacy, scout, scan.
I was considering the first for this galaxy too, perhaps not 1000, but large anyway. I haven't looked to see what would be reasonable, but I was thinking along these lines too.
As for the second, that ones been on my mind for a *long* time. Personally, I find it very hard to not compare myself with other players and get discouraged quite quickly (though I haven't quite from it). The need to really do good recon to find out about your enemy is good too. My guess is that it wouldn't be possible anytime in the near future, but even so.
For Gigantiahuge, I'm all about a large and long lasting galaxy, so anything that tends to that is probably good with me.
For corruption, I believe the default should be just fine.
While I do really want to play a game with a 'no allies' rule, it doesn't have to be this one. I would really like to make it this one, but I won't cry if it's not. Does anyone else have an opinion on this one?
This post has been edited 1 time(s), it was last edited by Arcady: 18.11.2011 02:45.
I'm still for regular planet space (except hq) and for planet count 4-6 (didn't know it can be 9, so mayby 4-9). All huge planets with 36-40 stats take a big part from the game for me. There is no need to defend or conquer big planets or ones with awesome stats, because all are pretty much the same.
"No allies" sounds almost like a "no talking" rule, the galaxy will be big and last long, a lot time and space for a few alliances to emerge spontaneusly. 1-2 top players to play the ninja-tutor role would be awesome; to prevent an early "top player" alliance to rollover the galaxy (like it happens in rank <1 galaxies), and make the game more interesting.
__________________ Conquers his own planets and bombs the suns.
Well, I suppose with the 'no allies' business I'm trying to prevent situations like;
Multiple players attacking and defeating individual players
The top several players creating an alliance and unbalancing the game
--
For planet space, I'm kind of stuck on very large, though I can go with some variation there if we want. We can also make the commodities more varied too.
Perhaps planet space from 500 to 1000? Or 750 to 1000?
750 would be the same as 1000, my HQ is at <400 now, even if I build autofacts and double the defense it will be below 600. Customizable 500-600 hq? If some one wants to have it 700-800, he can put points in space. More variations- more fun, more surprises and strategy. In DC galaxy only key planets are the 5> exos and HQ's. There are no 440 space 50 science planets that look like a block of gold compared to Your average ones.
My point against xxxx pop. planets is- even if it has worser stats, If You sacrifice a couple of turns for pop/ build 1 facility more (unlimited space...), You will get the same output as other player who grows "only" to 25 or 33 pop. Much easier than going to conquer something in order to have more citizens/ space.
"individual players" can use chat. In all vs. all the top player will win because all ranks 1/ not allying people will attack each other while he grows, and than rolls over everyone (look mizzihood @ SG). Plus it won't be fair since the "middle" players will be attacked from all sides while the "corners" from 1-2... Not to mention they won't be even able to call anyone for help.
__________________ Conquers his own planets and bombs the suns.
Re: No score table:
I like it as well, but we would need to either a) disable reputation, or b) make the gain/penalty secret until you actually declare war.
Re: Sector Size:
I think going up 1000 in first go is probably risky. How about we see how it feels with 5-700?
Re: Planet Commodities:
I would prefer them fairly varied. Even if the planets are all huge, a great variance in commodities would preserve the tension created by some planet being worth more than others.
There was another tricky thing I liked to experiment with in Dark Crusade. However after some discussion I've dropped it (so only one thing will be tested at a time.
it was about :
- very small sector size(110-130)
- small amount of planets per system 2 or 3
- huge galaxy.
this should create dynamic borderlines between players. Also there will be more place for inter-system economy management and other interesting aspects.
Another thing is fame distribution.
What about "Winner takes all" fame distribution. Galaxy winner will get 200 score and everyone else will get 0. So clearly anti-top-player alliances. If you are second then you have lost so it's pointless to have alliance with first player.
You could ask Erwin if he can manually increase galaxy size to for example 12x12x12
Originally posted by xmer
There was another tricky thing I liked to experiment with in Dark Crusade. However after some discussion I've dropped it (so only one thing will be tested at a time.
it was about :
- very small sector size(110-130)
- small amount of planets per system 2 or 3
- huge galaxy.
this should create dynamic borderlines between players. Also there will be more place for inter-system economy management and other interesting aspects.
heh. Would be interesting.
quote:
Another thing is fame distribution.
What about "Winner takes all" fame distribution. Galaxy winner will get 200 score and everyone else will get 0. So clearly anti-top-player alliances. If you are second then you have lost so it's pointless to have alliance with first player.
hm. I think this might get some resistance, but you have my vote.
quote:
You could ask Erwin if he can manually increase galaxy size to for example 12x12x12
heh. I think you must be stressed these day or sumpting. At least you don't read carefully enough. Galaxy dimensions must be single digit:
quote:
Erwin Wrote:
9 is the technical maximum for 3D galaxies. I know what you are thinking, why is it not 10? That would still allow single digit coordinates. Unfortunately there are some areas in the code, where the size of the galaxy is expressed in single digit values, so 9 is the highest.
Registration Date: 26.12.2004
Posts: 8,274
Location: Vienna, Austria
quote:
Originally posted by inerz
isnt it possible to replace the score formula output variables that go to the scoretable with constants like 0?
or did i just get hit by sarcasm really hard right now ? : )
The latter.
However, we would really have to do something about the "rep to gain/lose" in diplomacy as well, because that gives away "score" as well. Not displaying it until you declared war might not be the fairest thing. Maybe it should simply be set to +1 for all players that are bigger than you, and -1 for all players smaller than you? Or do away with it altogether?
Originally posted by Erwin [CS]
However, we would really have to do something about the "rep to gain/lose" in diplomacy as well, because that gives away "score" as well. Not displaying it until you declared war might not be the fairest thing. Maybe it should simply be set to +1 for all players that are bigger than you, and -1 for all players smaller than you? Or do away with it altogether?
If You want it smaller than 7x7x7 would be better... not flatties or bricks. A cube allows more freedom and alliance options.
Speed- we could make it 3-step, 30min-1h during colonization (huge sectors, will take many turns anyway), than 1.30-2h and than 3h, when the game becomes more advanced.
__________________ Conquers his own planets and bombs the suns.
About the scoretable, it has actually been working as a powermeter, and it does reveal a lot about each Empire, both by following its progression and by observing its immediate values. It's a kind of "Empire status scan", free and permanent.
The hidden scoretable could be a very interesting option (costumizable at galaxy creation), that would automatically set the reputation multiplier to zero when checked (thus solving the war rep hit question). With this, a different kind of galaxies would become possible, but we could still play with the scoretable on.
So Erwin, just to make sure, your intervention would affect this galaxy only, would it not? I ask this because setting reputation to zero has further implications, namely on defensive options - troop defense and ability to biobomb.
__________________ A Jedi's strength flows from the Force.
