Accounts e-mail HP

Under new mangement

New releases, projects, multiplayer games, etc.

Re: Under new mangement

Postby Corbeau » Wed Oct 22, 2014 10:19 am

This post should be carved in stone :) You should write on this forum more often :)
User avatar
Corbeau
 
Posts: 505
Joined: Sat Feb 01, 2014 1:23 am

Re: Under new mangement

Postby morphles » Thu Oct 23, 2014 11:07 am

There should be some balancing though. Full on FFA is bs for civ. But all living happily ever after from the start is even bigger crap. And currently it's way too easy/beneficial to simply join as many nations as possible, there are little down sides, and if you are not it it's close to sucidal to not try to get in, thats the main problem. And it must be adressed in some way. I'm sure I'll have some sugestions in a future, though I think I have talked about such stuff before. Mainly I think game would be much improved with some quick win condition, and a condition that does not respect "allied victory", that is it's one mans victory.
morphles
Co-Admin of GT10-Hexmap
 
Posts: 446
Joined: Thu Jul 18, 2013 4:43 pm

Re: Under new mangement

Postby vidlius » Thu Oct 23, 2014 6:08 pm

This is why I like both the space race and scoring. Having the game end on a date, like 2000 ad and using score.

Even players who don't "win", will still be scored to see progress and how well they did even when they lose.
User avatar
vidlius
 
Posts: 12
Joined: Thu Apr 10, 2014 3:46 am

Re: Under new mangement

Postby morphles » Thu Oct 23, 2014 9:16 pm

No bot of these are weak, conquest is also weak. All of them require immense resources and time. Thus they fail to introduce any surprising/swift possibilities.

There should be some other goals, that if not providing outright victory should at least provide some very very serious advantages, like wonders on steroids. Moderately nice thing was "dynasty" game GT6 where everyone had 3 leaders, if all of them die, they loose. Though weakening enemies is not the same as gaining advantage yourself.
morphles
Co-Admin of GT10-Hexmap
 
Posts: 446
Joined: Thu Jul 18, 2013 4:43 pm

Re: Under new mangement

Postby Corbeau » Fri Oct 24, 2014 12:25 am

If scoring is not satisfactory, maybe use all Historian Reports to determine a score manually? Simply, at game end, run all reports and do some math?
User avatar
Corbeau
 
Posts: 505
Joined: Sat Feb 01, 2014 1:23 am

Re: Under new mangement

Postby chill » Fri Oct 24, 2014 5:41 am

One interesting possibility would depend on development of a rating system. Given a rating system, games could be algorithmically created with pre-defined, balanced and permanent alliances such that the standard deviation and mean of the ratings for each alliance are within agreed ranges. The goals of this approach would be to ensure more competitive games, while enabling newbies to learn from stronger allies without penalizing the stronger players for having some weaker allies. This could make the game friendlier to newbies, since the stronger players in an alliance would be highly motivated to tutor their weaker allies in the finer points of the game. Additionally, over time players would get to know more other players, since this would reduce the tendency for the same alliances forming over and over again from game to game.
chill
 
Posts: 10
Joined: Sat Jan 05, 2013 11:50 pm
Location: Tucson, Arizona, USA

Re: Under new mangement

Postby ifaesfu » Fri Oct 24, 2014 1:25 pm

chill wrote:One interesting possibility would depend on development of a rating system. Given a rating system, games could be algorithmically created with pre-defined, balanced and permanent alliances such that the standard deviation and mean of the ratings for each alliance are within agreed ranges. The goals of this approach would be to ensure more competitive games, while enabling newbies to learn from stronger allies without penalizing the stronger players for having some weaker allies. This could make the game friendlier to newbies, since the stronger players in an alliance would be highly motivated to tutor their weaker allies in the finer points of the game. Additionally, over time players would get to know more other players, since this would reduce the tendency for the same alliances forming over and over again from game to game.

I'm all for this, but unfortunately, it would require some kind of coding. I'd like games where you can or can't ally depending on the rank of the members of the alliance and the total number of nations. That way, there woudn't be any problem for big alliances if they were formed by low ranking players.
But all this should be wisely rated, what is very hard and even harder to code the game to take into account this ratings when the players form their alliances in the game.
User avatar
ifaesfu
 
Posts: 242
Joined: Sun Aug 26, 2012 1:03 pm
Location: Huelva, Spain

Re: Under new mangement

Postby wieder » Sat Oct 25, 2014 8:32 pm

I agree that people should be allowed to play with the way the want to play. However since the game needs to end at some point, there must be a way to achieve a reasonable ending and that's where the rules step in. We had a talk about possible endings for a LT game and there were three main outcomes. The first is a victory through conquering everyone and the rest of the players destroyed. The second one is a victory by domination and some players surrendering and surviving. The third one would be a space race victory but while that's currently disable on Longturn, it's possible that it will be restored with a considerably high cost for the spaceship.

It's also not forbidden on Longturn to establish huge alliances or even ones with almost every single player on the game. Only the number of the winners is limited.

The number of winners is limited to discourage huge alliances, not for preventing them or making it impossible to play with simcitying only. There were lots of changes for LT with LT30 and all that was pretty surprising for the majority of the players. Probably :DPP Today there are once again lots of new players in LT33 but it's not really like it was on LT30. The old players now have some idea about how to deal with this and the new ones seem to be having allies, at least that's how it looks like from my point of view. There has been some rumors about a massive alliance formed by GT players and while I have no idea if that's true or not, no one seems to be trying to bad it or preventing it from happening from the admin point of view.

For the future games there will be lots of changes to the ruleset and also some that will benefit the simcityers and those who wish to play with a less militaristic style. Even LT33 had some changes making that easier. Of course there are also lots of changes making it possible to have a wider variety of strategies for those who wish to fight and conquer.

If anyone has good ideas of how to improve the gameplay, please talk about those ideas. You don't need to have solutions but the issues and the problems with some strategies may be enough.

Evan mentioned the almost clinical atmosphere on LT. I have few explanations for that. The old players are most likely careful with the new ones because they don't know how they will react. Will they attack you or are they going to idle if they are allied with. Chatting will help for that. Really. I posted a message about that on the LT forums. Another reason for the old LT people not getting excited about most of the suggestions and propositions is that they have seen hundreds of people wanting some specific features often without even really understanding or explaining how those features would impact on the gameplay. I know that the LT admins will listen to ideas and are open to new stuff but you really need to explain what, how and why something should be implemented on the regular games.

As usual, I may have misunderstood something about GT or LT and all the opinions and view here are my my personal stuff. If I got something wrong, I got it wrong :)

What else? Stuff and stuff. Stuff is important :)
wieder
 

Re: Under new mangement

Postby Corbeau » Sat Oct 25, 2014 11:22 pm

wieder wrote:I agree that people should be allowed to play with the way the want to play. However since the game needs to end at some point, there must be a way to achieve a reasonable ending and that's where the rules step in. We had a talk about possible endings for a LT game and there were three main outcomes. The first is a victory through conquering everyone and the rest of the players destroyed. The second one is a victory by domination and some players surrendering and surviving. The third one would be a space race victory but while that's currently disable on Longturn, it's possible that it will be restored with a considerably high cost for the spaceship.


You missed one: victory by points at year 2000 CE, where points could really be anything agreed on by players. Maybe the in-game score, but not neccessarily; maybe a combination of various Historian Reports. Which ones? To be determined. Unlike the three kinds of victory you mentioned where there can be one (or a few) winner(s) and everybody else is a loser, with this you can have a rank and make it possible for people to actually compare their performance with everybody else's.
User avatar
Corbeau
 
Posts: 505
Joined: Sat Feb 01, 2014 1:23 am

Re: Under new mangement

Postby wieder » Sun Oct 26, 2014 12:12 am

In theory it could end at Y2000 or around T350, which would probably be around that time. Actually LT31 ended at T180 but there were no winners as far as the rankings were concerned. Score yes, but barely anyone looked at those. LT31 was a special case and the ranking games usually don't have a predefined end turn. There could be one, but who would want to play 350 turns? LT32 lasted about 230 turns and it was way too many for most players. Predefined end turns have this problem of potentially ending the game just before the natural resolution like on LT31 or the game might become too long.

What is your opinion on this? How many actual turns would be enough for determining the winners?
wieder
 

PreviousNext

Return to Announcements

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests

cron