That's 30 interested so far, which is a fine enough number to go with my territory control turf war plan.
I figure we could have a game starting near the end of the month. Vote in deepskyblue for how many days you think the game should run. This game will have no player elimination, so you'll be able to (and expected to) play through to the end.
The number you expect will be a good balance between getting the data you need to iterate the game, and getting the iteration done so we can play the next version sooner.
The map will be totally different and scaled to the iteration's player count, but here is my thought on the score mechanic.
Factions of equal strength assigned at game start. Players only know their own faction, working with others you will need to trust or scan them.
Systems (the coloured groups of nodes as seen in the old map) are made up of X nodes. The faction that has the majority of players by at least X will be considered to have Control of that system. Controlling a system grants you X points after an hour and every hour after until you no longer have Control.
So 3 members of faction A in a system with 4 nodes, that system awards no points to any faction. With 4 members, it would award points to faction A. If someone from any other faction entered the system, no points are awarded further (4 - 1 < 4 nodes). If there are 2 members of faction B and 1 member of faction C in a system, then faction A would need at least 7 members in it in order to score the 4 points.
It is a scoring system similar to the bonus in Risk for continents. You hold all of one colour, you score. The systems that are highly contested are unlikely to score any points at all.
Points are not revealed until Maintenance (once a cycle), at which point a public graph showing the gains and rankings is updated.
How you accomplish this is up to you. There will be starting Macros for everyone, and a post of things known at the onset of the Iteration like commonly known Macros, but the strategies and secrets will be for the players to discover.
I really, really wanted to hack Alegis's gibson, get alll the riches.
But I had agreed not to, at least as an individual, in order to get access to information he could offer.
Then I was murdered by a village vig.
While I waltzed in, hacked a load of cash, promised Alegis I wouldn't do it anymore, then stole some more on the way out.
And then murdered me >: [
It was pretty silly for me to play for a long play of information with my survival rate, in retrospect. Though on the other hand even acquiring cash is a bit of a long play so maybe rapid networking and sleuthing is the way to go. vOv
i think turf wars should have a slightly lower player count to dominate, and rewards should also be lower, to encourage more strategic +1/-1 wars and to spread players a little thinner? unless the map is really small.
it makes sense to me that 3 players could dominate a 4-node system if they were completely uncontested, or 4 players dominate a 5-node system, or whatever. you'd have a 5-2 or 6-3 split on a 4-node system not count as any points, which encourages every faction to dogpile in regions in a ridiculous way, while having other factions stick their toe in at the last minute to screw them up.
that is, instead of spreading out your members, it sounds like the least aggressive faction wins by holding the largest region they can, which i think is contrary to the goal of player interaction, which is what drives these games, for the most part. if regions are slightly easier to dominate, it encourages more spreading out and exploring, with all the factions trying to land small groups in unpopular regions.
at least, i sort of think that's how it'll end up working. it probably would get better with more players; that is, the more players in each faction, the more power it has to spread out and work for regions of interest, which would make it more interesting. i guess it depends on how many factions there are, too, which increases player count for each faction.
i don't know. we'll see how it shakes out in this iteration. i think this is a knob that might need to be fine-tuned from iteration to iteration, though.
...
also, that block of text aside, this game sounds like a lot of fun, and i'm excited about it. looking at that interface made me want to run a webgame, actually.
I'm not sure if I am understanding things very well! But here is a suggestion, control of a system would "requires so many points to control" then assign points to players based on their "strength". Members from other factions in the system add in to the requirement to control? Would that work as a way to see who has what?
The above probably won't work for reasons I am not aware of but I want to make suggestions!
I really enjoyed this the first time around, so a turf war style game based on the same tech implementation sounds incredibly enticing. Consider this my official !sign up
for interest.
Just curious, Infy.
Did my gushing about how amazing the app was for the original game and how it should be a game unto itself have any influence on this at all?
(No matter the answer, I will assume yes.) ;-)
I would definitely be available and interested for this game.
Would a faction score points immediately when the requirements for controlling a system are met? Would faction members traveling between two nodes of the same system be considered in that system for the purpose of establishing control? What about individuals traveling into or out of a system?
What I'm trying to say is: There should probably be some kind of protection in place preventing a faction from undermining the game by repeatedly establishing control of an uncontested system, by ensuring there was no way to do that multiple times in a single hour.
I would definitely be available and interested for this game.
Would a faction score points immediately when the requirements for controlling a system are met? Would faction members traveling between two nodes of the same system be considered in that system for the purpose of establishing control? What about individuals traveling into or out of a system?
What I'm trying to say is: There should probably be some kind of protection in place preventing a faction from undermining the game by repeatedly establishing control of an uncontested system, by ensuring there was no way to do that multiple times in a single hour.
The scoring system would be "gain the points after Controlling for an hour" or such, so you have to maintain Control that entire time.
Holding something uncontested is, well, no one is contesting them. :P Holding one system isn't going to get you as many points as two systems, and the point of the score being flat is that you can use 10 members to hold a single system sure but you will be giving up points you might earn elsewhere with the unnecessary members.
In other words, you would have to maintain unbroken control of a system for a full hour in order to receive points? And the timer would begin as soon as the conditions for control were met?
In other words, you would have to maintain unbroken control of a system for a full hour in order to receive points? And the timer would begin as soon as the conditions for control were met?
Exactly, and end as soon as they were not.
If you hold 4 nodes with 4, expect your points to stop if a single person entered.
Posts
thing
person
The Black Hole of Cygnus X-1
also, infinite city is my domain. stay out, mere limited mortals.
I figure we could have a game starting near the end of the month. Vote in deepskyblue for how many days you think the game should run. This game will have no player elimination, so you'll be able to (and expected to) play through to the end.
Say, a fortnight?
Factions of equal strength assigned at game start. Players only know their own faction, working with others you will need to trust or scan them.
Systems (the coloured groups of nodes as seen in the old map) are made up of X nodes. The faction that has the majority of players by at least X will be considered to have Control of that system. Controlling a system grants you X points after an hour and every hour after until you no longer have Control.
So 3 members of faction A in a system with 4 nodes, that system awards no points to any faction. With 4 members, it would award points to faction A. If someone from any other faction entered the system, no points are awarded further (4 - 1 < 4 nodes). If there are 2 members of faction B and 1 member of faction C in a system, then faction A would need at least 7 members in it in order to score the 4 points.
It is a scoring system similar to the bonus in Risk for continents. You hold all of one colour, you score. The systems that are highly contested are unlikely to score any points at all.
Points are not revealed until Maintenance (once a cycle), at which point a public graph showing the gains and rankings is updated.
How you accomplish this is up to you. There will be starting Macros for everyone, and a post of things known at the onset of the Iteration like commonly known Macros, but the strategies and secrets will be for the players to discover.
Thoughts?
Hahahaha yes.
!reserve interest
I'm pretty busy for the next month so missing out on the first iteration of this actually works for me. Will still keep an eye on the thread.
I could be very ... persuasive
The whole thing around us would have made for a great mafia cover role though
But I had agreed not to, at least as an individual, in order to get access to information he could offer.
Then I was murdered by a village vig.
3DS FCode: 1993-7512-8991
Are player locations revealed or just points awarded?
And then murdered me >: [
It was pretty silly for me to play for a long play of information with my survival rate, in retrospect. Though on the other hand even acquiring cash is a bit of a long play so maybe rapid networking and sleuthing is the way to go. vOv
Also, no one wants to get stuck being D&D.
it makes sense to me that 3 players could dominate a 4-node system if they were completely uncontested, or 4 players dominate a 5-node system, or whatever. you'd have a 5-2 or 6-3 split on a 4-node system not count as any points, which encourages every faction to dogpile in regions in a ridiculous way, while having other factions stick their toe in at the last minute to screw them up.
that is, instead of spreading out your members, it sounds like the least aggressive faction wins by holding the largest region they can, which i think is contrary to the goal of player interaction, which is what drives these games, for the most part. if regions are slightly easier to dominate, it encourages more spreading out and exploring, with all the factions trying to land small groups in unpopular regions.
at least, i sort of think that's how it'll end up working. it probably would get better with more players; that is, the more players in each faction, the more power it has to spread out and work for regions of interest, which would make it more interesting. i guess it depends on how many factions there are, too, which increases player count for each faction.
i don't know. we'll see how it shakes out in this iteration. i think this is a knob that might need to be fine-tuned from iteration to iteration, though.
...
also, that block of text aside, this game sounds like a lot of fun, and i'm excited about it. looking at that interface made me want to run a webgame, actually.
The above probably won't work for reasons I am not aware of but I want to make suggestions!
!sign up
for interest.
Did my gushing about how amazing the app was for the original game and how it should be a game unto itself have any influence on this at all?
(No matter the answer, I will assume yes.) ;-)
The Black Hole of Cygnus X-1
// Switch: SW-5306-0651-6424 //
Would a faction score points immediately when the requirements for controlling a system are met? Would faction members traveling between two nodes of the same system be considered in that system for the purpose of establishing control? What about individuals traveling into or out of a system?
What I'm trying to say is: There should probably be some kind of protection in place preventing a faction from undermining the game by repeatedly establishing control of an uncontested system, by ensuring there was no way to do that multiple times in a single hour.
The scoring system would be "gain the points after Controlling for an hour" or such, so you have to maintain Control that entire time.
Holding something uncontested is, well, no one is contesting them. :P Holding one system isn't going to get you as many points as two systems, and the point of the score being flat is that you can use 10 members to hold a single system sure but you will be giving up points you might earn elsewhere with the unnecessary members.
Exactly, and end as soon as they were not.
If you hold 4 nodes with 4, expect your points to stop if a single person entered.
// Switch: SW-5306-0651-6424 //