This site is in archival mode. A replacement is being developed. In the meantime, please use the PBW2 Forums for community discussions. The replacement software for this site will use a unified account system with PBW2, and any newly created threads will carry over.
Welcome to Spaceempires.net
Login or Register

Search
Modules
· Content
· Downloads
· Forums
· Game Info
· Image Gallery
· Links
· Shipyards
· Topics
· Staff

User Info
· Welcome, Anonymous
Membership:
· New: Astorre
· New Today: 0
· New Yesterday: 0
· Overall: 3155

People Online:
· Visitors: 133
· Members: 0
· Total: 133

  

Spaceempires.net :: DJAS Game: Bands of Rubber :: View topic
Forum FAQ :: Search :: Memberlist :: Usergroups :: Profile :: Log in to check your private messages :: Log in


DJAS Game: Bands of Rubber

 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Spaceempires.net Forum Index -> SEV Play By Web
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
arthurtuxedo
Space Emperor


Joined: Sep 09, 2007

PostPosted: Fri Oct 12, 2012 5:36 pm    Post subject: DJAS Game: Bands of Rubber Reply with quote

This is an idea I had for a new DJAS PBW game that I wanted to get feedback on:

One of the main problems with DJAS (and SE V in general) multiplayer games is that the skilled, experienced players eclipse the weak ones quickly and there is no catching up. The weaker players then frequently quit or are quickly exterminated. This is how I plan to solve this problem:

3 Teams

Team 1: The game's strongest player (or two strongest depending on # of players and how far ahead is the strongest) is on their own, and cannot have any treaties with other players. It will take all of their skill and resources to stay #1 and win the game.

Team 2: The next 2 or 3 strongest players form Team 2. They work as a team and can have any treaty conditions with each other, but no tech trading or tech sharing. They can make non-tech treaties and trades with Team 3, but not with Team 1.

Team 3: Team 3 is an alliance of roughly the weakest 50% of players in the game. They can make any treaty or trade with each other, INCLUDING tech trading and sharing. They can make non-tech treaties and trades with Team 2, but not with Team 1. Unlike other players, they can also surrender to each other when they quit the game.

Victory Conditions

The game is won by any team that manages to control 2/3 of the game's Control Points. Control Points are HW's, Ringworlds, and Sphereworlds. A Control Point is taken out of play by being destroyed by Stellar Manipulation, but not by simply being glassed (since it can be recolonized).

Team Advantages and Drawbacks

Team 3 clearly has the most advantages since they can share tech and already possess roughly half of the Control Points at game start. Even with these advantages, however, they will still have a tough road since they are typically weaker, inexperienced players who do not necessarily share a contiguous border, and can be divided and conquered. Nonetheless, they have a much better incentive to stay in the game than under normal rules.

Team 2 has the potential to be the strongest since it is made up of strong, competent players working together. However, a Team 2 player that performs too well can find himself on Team 1. Smile

Team 1 is an unenviable position. Team 1 players who normally would simply walk away with the victory will find themselves in the fight of their lives.

Rankings and Determinations

Players switch teams when their rankings have swapped for at least 5 consecutive turns. Rankings can be determined solely by score, but I would prefer our own calculation, with most of the weight placed on # of colonies, but also considering resources / turn and RP / turn (adjusted for society type).

None of this would kick in until turn 30 or so, giving time to build up and truly differentiate each player's progress.

Would you guys be interested in this type of setup?


Back to top
Kingside_Bishop
Space Emperor


Joined: Jan 07, 2007

PostPosted: Sat Oct 13, 2012 6:43 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

That sounds fun, I've been missing my se fix lately, I'd be down. I think you'd need at least 8 players to make it interesting though, think you can get that tux?

Back to top
ekolis
Virtual Guru


Joined: Aug 04, 2003
Location: Cincinnati, OH, USA

PostPosted: Sat Oct 13, 2012 11:00 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Sounds like fun!

That's no space station - it's a spreadsheet!


Back to top
arthurtuxedo
Space Emperor


Joined: Sep 09, 2007

PostPosted: Sun Oct 14, 2012 4:28 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

We have a DJAS game that stubbornly refuses to process the turn, so assuming most of them join, 8 shouldn't be a problem.

Back to top
Solomani1979
Space Emperor


Joined: Mar 05, 2011

PostPosted: Sun Oct 14, 2012 4:55 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Sounds like a good idea. I am definitely interested.

Back to top
arthurtuxedo
Space Emperor


Joined: Sep 09, 2007

PostPosted: Sun Oct 14, 2012 5:10 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Here is the link to the game: http://pbw.spaceempires.net/game/rubber

Back to top
Zap
Space Emperor


Joined: Oct 14, 2012

PostPosted: Sun Oct 14, 2012 7:07 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Seeing as the other game might be lost for good and I like the mod, I joined.
The concets in DJAS are really fun to play out and make for interesting choices, that's definetly something I'll play again Smile

The rules you laid out are interesting and I'd play them like this, but I have a few concerns:

Are the teams you are proposing fixed and determined before the game, or are they going to be fluently altered throughout the game, with the players with the best scores being assigned to team X this turn, and team Y the next turn? This wasn't stated quite clearly. I'm just going to assume we're going to play with predetermined fixed teams, maybe determined from their performance in the current game and other experiences.

Even the player that knows the most tricks is only one player and will - especially in the early phases - be weaker then the other teams simply due to their greater numbers. Similar the strongest player will have to do a lot more capturing then team 3 will have to do in order to get the control points, so maybe we should weigh in his control point more then others.
Then there's tech trading - if its just allowed for team 3 that doesn't seem quite fair, as even the newer and weaker players under us will benefit from this so strongly that they are not only outnumbering, but outteching the other teams as well. So maybe we should allow each team to trade techs internally, but not externally, or prohibit tech trading completely so every player will have to research stuff on their own. If so, high research costs might not be the way to go, else breakthroughs will take eternities.

It would be a possibility to distribute the players controlled over a map so that each team will have about a third of the map for itself. Team 3 will have a strong advantage, being able to colonise much faster then the lone guy, who will be in expansion phase for longer and thus be more vulnerable in the early game.

Another point are the control points. I have no experience with that in DJAS yet, but are ring/sphereworlds not a little bit deep down in the tech tree? In theory it would be cool to be able to build yourself additonal victory points with that, but there's not much point in trying to if its so far down the tech tree that if you have it you'd have won anyway.

My proposal would be that we put a minimum of at least two players together in team 1 so you aren't totally dependant on your own and have someone to trade with. Let's see how many people we get until we start to determine the exact player numbers.

Then, thinking about fluently switching teams, that might be comperable to some kind of "king of the hill" gametype. We could determine the ranking and team assignments of the players every 10 turns, requiring everyone to break current treaties and form new ones. However tech trading should probably be prohibited then. Trading itself wouldn't be very useful as well due to the way this system works, so that might encourage the ship numbers to not explode just as high as they can. However I think it would be stupid to sometimes fight a player and sometimes be their ally, depending on score. Essentially this will be every-man-for-himself since you wouldn't want to give someone any tactical information about you or a resource/tech advantage if your relation to each other might change just in a couple turns.


Back to top
ekolis
Virtual Guru


Joined: Aug 04, 2003
Location: Cincinnati, OH, USA

PostPosted: Sun Oct 14, 2012 9:00 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Yeah, the original post did say that teams would be recalculated every 5 turns! Wink

I agree that penalizing the top player too much by forbidding all treaties would be kind of cruel; maybe he could form very limited treaties with other players (e.g. no trade or migration, but nonaggression is allowed)? Or if we get enough players, making team 1 consist of 2 players, team 2 consist of somewhat less than half of the remainder, and team 3 consist of the rest would help! But this would require at least 9 total players to be workable (2 in team 1, 3 in team 2, 4 in team 3).

edit: actually, as arthurtuxedo suggested in the game description, we could have the teams' very *sizes* fluctuate based on relative scores! So if player 1 is pulling way ahead of the pack, he gets placed in a team by himself, but if he's neck-and-neck with players 2 and 3, then he could wind up in a team with both of them...


That's no space station - it's a spreadsheet!


Back to top
Veni_Vidi_Vici
Space Emperor


Joined: Oct 18, 2009

PostPosted: Sun Oct 14, 2012 11:47 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I might use this game to teach the game to my room mate so I would be a little concerned with teams.

I would make the rules vary with scores.

All players start out in tier 2.

Scores will be adjusted by multiplying by the number of planets. (Its possible to be player one because of a tech bonus but fall behind rapidly because of no space.)

If players fall behind the median in the adjusted score they join tier 3. Tier three will exists when the top player has twice the adjusted score of the lowest player and at least 150% of the median player. Elevation from tier a tier will happen over three calculations. It takes time to change treaties and scores do fluctuate. A player can stay in tier three if the nearest tier 2 player has a score that's 33% higher than theirs. This allows tier three to grow. If a tier three player breaks that gap, tier three will shrink.

A tier 1 player has a score that is at least 150% of the next highest tier 2 player.

Tier 3 players may use any treaty conditions in the Alliance that they form. (I know the function is "broken" but I believe it would work well in forcing them to have the same treaty elements.)
Tier 2 players may not share tech or territory or pay tributes. They may demand tribute.
Tier 1 players may not trade above 10%, have peace beyond all systems, or agree to not use super weapons. They may demand tribute.


Back to top
arthurtuxedo
Space Emperor


Joined: Sep 09, 2007

PostPosted: Mon Oct 15, 2012 4:36 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

ekolis hit the nail on the head. Team 1 will only consist of 1 player if that person is way ahead of everyone else or if we have a low # of total players. I was thinking something like this:

Your score is a weighted average:

50% of the score is # of colonies. Facility tonnage would be better, but it doesn't show up in Empire comparisons and I prefer to avoid the honor system unless necessary.

25% of the score is resources / turn.

25% of the score is research / turn, adjusted for Scientist / Berzerker / Salvager.

Each team should represent roughly 1/3 of the total score in the game. If the top player has 40% of everyone's score, he is on Team 1 by himself, but if he has only 20% and the #2 has 15%, they will be on Team 1 together. If the #1 increases his score to 33%+ and keeps it there for at least 5 turns (maybe 10 is a better number for less volatility?), however, his team-mate will join Team 2.

@Zap: I understand your concerns about Team 3 both outnumbering and out-teching, but what you have to realize is that these are the weakest, most inexperienced players by definition. I don't think I've ever seen a game of SE V where the strongest player couldn't outproduce and outresearch at least the weakest 50% combined. Also, if you re-read the original post, you will see that Team 3 is already prohibited from tech trading outside their team.

@Veni_Vidi_Vici: Your idea of "Tiers" instead of teams that are forced to ally is a good one. That would make the politics less volatile. Alliances are completely and utterly broken, however, and should never be used.

Maybe something along these lines?

Tier 3 players can be on the receiving end of any treaty elements and trades. Anyone can give a Tier 3 player tech, ships, planets, or anything else.

Tier 2 players cannot receive tech by any means, including as a gift, trade, treaty element, or analyzing gifted ships. They can give a Tier 3 player any allowable gift or one-sided treaty element, and can receive anything other than tech from a Tier 1 player.

Tier 1 players cannot receive tech, ships, planets, or more than 10% resources / turn. They can give anything that a lower-tiered player is allowed to receive.


Back to top
ekolis
Virtual Guru


Joined: Aug 04, 2003
Location: Cincinnati, OH, USA

PostPosted: Mon Oct 15, 2012 6:58 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

So if you go with tiers instead of teams, how would that affect victory conditions? Would the tiers still effectively be teams for victory purposes?

As for the scoring, when you say 50% is from number of colonies, etc., does that mean that you take your colony count, divide by the total colony count of all players, and divide by 2, to get the contribution toward a player's score from colonies? (Same for resources and weighted research, but divide by 4 instead since they're only 25%). This would mean that everyone's score is represented as a percentage of the total "pie", an interesting concept... and it would make it easy to group players into teams/tiers as you described! (If player 1's score is over 33%, put him in a team by himself, else add in player 2, unless his score plus player 1's score is TOO much over 33%, etc.)


That's no space station - it's a spreadsheet!


Back to top
ekolis
Virtual Guru


Joined: Aug 04, 2003
Location: Cincinnati, OH, USA

PostPosted: Mon Oct 15, 2012 6:59 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Oh, also, might want to define rules for migration treaties, as well as the less controversial treaty types such as medical aid...

That's no space station - it's a spreadsheet!


Back to top
arthurtuxedo
Space Emperor


Joined: Sep 09, 2007

PostPosted: Mon Oct 15, 2012 7:22 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

ekolis wrote:
So if you go with tiers instead of teams, how would that affect victory conditions? Would the tiers still effectively be teams for victory purposes?

As for the scoring, when you say 50% is from number of colonies, etc., does that mean that you take your colony count, divide by the total colony count of all players, and divide by 2, to get the contribution toward a player's score from colonies? (Same for resources and weighted research, but divide by 4 instead since they're only 25%). This would mean that everyone's score is represented as a percentage of the total "pie", an interesting concept... and it would make it easy to group players into teams/tiers as you described! (If player 1's score is over 33%, put him in a team by himself, else add in player 2, unless his score plus player 1's score is TOO much over 33%, etc.)

That's the idea, yes.

I haven't thought the tier vs team thing through re: victory conditions, but am open to suggestions.


Back to top
Veni_Vidi_Vici
Space Emperor


Joined: Oct 18, 2009

PostPosted: Tue Oct 16, 2012 3:23 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I would make the Victory condition be that an alliance that exists across at most 2 adjacent tiers with at most 2/3rds of the allowable empires in said tiers controls 75% of the Galaxy.

Back to top
arthurtuxedo
Space Emperor


Joined: Sep 09, 2007

PostPosted: Tue Oct 16, 2012 4:08 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I updated the game's description. I think we have the rules pretty much nailed down now, but take a look and let me know if anything has the potential to cause headaches.

Also, let's try to move further discussion onto the game's forum page.


Back to top
Zap
Space Emperor


Joined: Oct 14, 2012

PostPosted: Wed Oct 17, 2012 3:05 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

The idea of "tiers" instead of "teams" looks better to me.
I'm just a little bit afraid players might be encouraged to artificially keep their score down by skipping small dome colonies and only carefully increasing the resource/research income to not get pushed into a higher tier and more restrictions, but I guess thats not avoidable and adds to the challenge Very Happy


Back to top
ekolis
Virtual Guru


Joined: Aug 04, 2003
Location: Cincinnati, OH, USA

PostPosted: Wed Oct 17, 2012 4:43 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I wonder if it would be advantageous to wipe out competitors before the 30 turns elapse? Smile

That's no space station - it's a spreadsheet!


Back to top
Lorq13
Space Emperor


Joined: Oct 03, 2007

PostPosted: Thu Oct 18, 2012 5:06 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Totally. If you can take a HW, you will probably be #1 player, and they will be against you after the 309 turn mark, anyway.

Any scoring system can be manipulated, but so can ship designs and colony choices. It does seem important to either fight for the top 3 places(to grow the best) or try to stay in the bottom, to maximize trade with others.


Back to top
arthurtuxedo
Space Emperor


Joined: Sep 09, 2007

PostPosted: Fri Oct 19, 2012 2:36 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Zap wrote:
The idea of "tiers" instead of "teams" looks better to me.
I'm just a little bit afraid players might be encouraged to artificially keep their score down by skipping small dome colonies and only carefully increasing the resource/research income to not get pushed into a higher tier and more restrictions, but I guess thats not avoidable and adds to the challenge Very Happy

I thought about that, but figured that the player who forges ahead full steam knowing full well they will end up Tier 1 might have such an early advantage that it will balance out. We'll see how it goes.


Back to top
arthurtuxedo
Space Emperor


Joined: Sep 09, 2007

PostPosted: Tue Oct 23, 2012 5:47 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

By the way, the target # of players is 8. We have 6 now, and I know there's at least 1 person who is going to join and hasn't yet, so we just need 1 more besides.

Back to top
marhawkman
Space Emperor


Joined: Mar 24, 2008

PostPosted: Wed Oct 24, 2012 3:06 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I could fill a spot.

Back to top
Veni_Vidi_Vici
Space Emperor


Joined: Oct 18, 2009

PostPosted: Wed Oct 24, 2012 4:31 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Please do

Back to top
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Spaceempires.net Forum Index -> SEV Play By Web All times are GMT
Page 1 of 1

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum


Powered by phpBB
All logos and trademarks used on this site, all comments and stories posted for reading, all files hosted for download,
and all art work hosted for viewing are property of their respective owners; all the rest copyright 2003-2010 Nolan Kelly.
Syndicate news: SpaceEmpires.net News RSS Feed - Syndicate forums: SpaceEmpires.net Forums RSS Feed
Page Generation: 0.46 Seconds