Rules and Strategy for our beloved game
![[Posting]](/test/res/icon_rsay_24x24.png){kind=icon}
Was there already a thread for such? I did not see anything. Anyway
it might be funny to play without so much conversation and negotiations. Without the need to check your mails before playing the next turn. :D
Or just with repressive rules about player interaction. A non diplo game so to say.
Was there already a thread for such? I did not see anything. Anyway
it might be funny to play without so much conversation and negotiations. Without the need to check your mails before playing the next turn. :D
Or just with repressive rules about player interaction. A non diplo game so to say.
There is already a "No Allies" building blocks for games.
To make a true "non-diplo game", we'd have to make it anonymous. Games of this type used to be popular on the Blutmagie host. I want to make this possible here, but currently the server is too chatty and tells everyone who plays.
I also have a couple of game types I want to try: for example, a small and dense universe for a fast game. Or games with all sorts of add-ons. But first we need a few players...
--Stefan
Was there already a thread for such? I did not see anything. Anyway
it might be funny to play without so much conversation and negotiations. Without the need to check your mails before playing the next turn. :D
Or just with repressive rules about player interaction. A non diplo game so to say.
There is already a "No Allies" building blocks for games.
To make a true "non-diplo game", we'd have to make it anonymous. Games of this type used to be popular on the Blutmagie host. I want to make this possible here, but currently the server is too chatty and tells everyone who plays.
I also have a couple of game types I want to try: for example, a small and dense universe for a fast game. Or games with all sorts of add-ons. But first we need a few players...
--Stefan
Well I think it is quite hard to forbid any communication - in game or outside game.
In my opinion disabling ffx/FFX-code can be enough - maybe even disable ingame communication.
Quapla
To make a true "non-diplo game", we'd have to make it anonymous. Games of this type used to be popular on the Blutmagie host. I want to make this possible here, but currently the server is too chatty and tells everyone who plays.
I also have a couple of game types I want to try: for example, a small and dense universe for a fast game. Or games with all sorts of add-ons. But first we need a few players...
Well I think it is quite hard to forbid any communication - in game or outside game.
In my opinion disabling ffx/FFX-code can be enough - maybe even disable ingame communication.
Blutmagie had anonymous games: http://torstatus.blutmagie.de/~h3s/ (Alias, Incognito, Attax)
PHost allows disabling messages, alliances, and ship names; that last one was added to support anonymous games of this style. And to avoid out-of-game communication, that host kept players anonymous.
Sure, one can still circumvent that restriction, but that needs more criminal intent than just clicking a user name and sending him a PM "hey, let's attack the lizard homeworld at #345 next turn".
--Stefan
........... ........... ...........
I also have a couple of game types I want to try: for example, a small and dense universe for a fast game. Or games with all sorts of add-ons. But first we need a few players...
--Stefan
Hello, some time ago I played a fast game with I think the following rules.
End of game as soon as only x active played races left.
So the higher x so faster the game ends.
Score only for destroyed units.
In this game it was I think.
- 100 points for a destroyed SB.
- 500 points for a destroyed HW.
- Hullmass/10 for each destroyed capital ship.
- Points for the race fighting this unit first in this turn. The score was simly made in a calculator and not with a tool. Today (This game was 1995(?) with T-HostV3.20 or so) it should be possible to make a ITA-Score setup for this kind of score or to write a own scoring program.
Important are also the starting conditions.
Shorter distances means faster game. A smaller map is also usefull.
Some Hints how to play something like this.
- A race heavy fighting may win such a game even with only one ship or planet left as long as the player upload a valid turn. This race will has at least more points than a race never fighting.
-Think twice before creating a NAP or alliance. Each race you do not fight, does not give you points.
If I has sometimes time left for this, then I will send stefan some settings for such a game. Be carefully and do not trust that this ever happen. I want to do so much...
Bye
Alexander
Get än bestuet, da get än veruet; sterft än, da get än gelueft.
Old thread, but maybe someone will read it still 
I would like to have a game with:
- random HW positions, not placed in a circle - no turn Limit: Players decide when to stop the game - experience Levels
Anyone else who might join in?
Hi all
I would like to add a daily game.
And i also support a fast and dense game.
I would like to add a daily game.
And i also support a fast and dense game.
As always, problem is finding players. If you got a bunch, I'll set it up.
Actually I have considered adding smaller games (5 players) that fill more easily, and probably make more fun in a daily game (less diplomacy, fewer relations to track -> quicker turns).
--Stefan
I would like to add a daily game.
And i also support a fast and dense game.
As always, problem is finding players. If you got a bunch, I'll set it up.
Actually I have considered adding smaller games (5 players) that fill more easily, and probably make more fun in a daily game (less diplomacy, fewer relations to track -> quicker turns).
--Stefan
Is it difficult to ste up a game and wait for players to join? Sometimes people only want a game after it exists
I want play in a non-alliance game.
Stefan, could you create a game with these parameters?:
CPEnableGive = No
CPEnableAllies = No
CPEnableRemote = No
I want play in a non-alliance game.
Stefan, could you create a game with these parameters?:
CPEnableGive = No
CPEnableAllies = No
CPEnableRemote = No
Yes, he could 
But he'll ask you to find bunch of players for this game.
And, i think, anonymous playing also needed for it.
If i could play wolf games here, i'd never play phoenixes/pleiades...
Stefan, could you add to "Titan" game (standart shiplist) a Four Experience Levels (PHost) add-on?
Stefan, could you add to "Titan" game (standart shiplist) a Four Experience Levels (PHost) add-on?
This would defeat the purpose of the Titan series to be Timhost-like, thus I won't change the series. I can change an individual instance, or make a new series.
--Stefan
Greetings all
Looks like this thread lost interest. So lets see if it gets revived.
I would like a faster game with less fuss about things...
Say a smaller map, maybe less players. The end condition would be x players left. If you miss a turn too bad. No emergency delays of the host. No drop of the player. This way you have to conquer him even if he is not playing. And maybe 4 turns a week.
One of the things i don't like much is the fact that i have to wait too long to get the turn and if my neighbors are conquered and i want to go after the first 3 players they are too far away... and start to loose interest.
About not having players, just set up the game and see if it fills quickly
Ricardo
Looks like this thread lost interest. So lets see if it gets revived.
Nothing gets lost, I'm making weekly backups
Say a smaller map, maybe less players. The end condition would be x players left. If you miss a turn too bad. No emergency delays of the host. No drop of the player. This way you have to conquer him even if he is not playing. And maybe 4 turns a week.
One of the things i don't like much is the fact that i have to wait too long to get the turn and if my neighbors are conquered and i want to go after the first 3 players they are too far away... and start to loose interest.
I have been thinking of something alike to this as well.
Here's my excuse why it is not there yet: such a game needs new features in the host software. The current software is hard to test, and therefore I spent most of 2017 reworking it and making it testable. I know I already broke things in updates previously (as in "host ran when it shouldn't have run"), and I want to be sure this does not happen. Currently, the only updated part is the forum, but I plan on updating the remaining services as well, hopefully using the upcoming holiday break for it.
--Stefan
After Stefan's post about a game map I look at the maps that present on site and found these two maps: Neutral Zone and Rift.
And I had an idea. Maybe we will create a new team game in 5x5 format using one of these maps. Conditions of the game - allied relations are predefined and cannot be changed. However, I believe that it is necessary to cancel the giveness of ships within one team in order to avoid combining the various properties of the races to achieve maximum combat effect, and to focus on coordinating the interaction of players within each team. The victory condition is when one of the parties takes control of 80% of the planets.
What are You opinion guys? Will someone play this?
And I had an idea. Maybe we will create a new team game in 5x5 format using one of these maps.
Not me.
And, usually, team games settings was 3x3x3
And, usually, team games settings was 3x3x3
I am not against the 4x3 option, but this will require changing existing maps.
I liked the idea of two groups of planets that are separated from each other by empty space. It would be possible to place 5-10 lonely planets there and change the conditions of victory. The winner is the team that holds all the planets for 5 turns starting, for example, from the turn #50.
p.s. We can use the Flower map for this scenario or its modifications.
Look at old League maps from Pantera or VCHC host, don't remember correctly.
And, usually, team games settings was 3x3x3
I am not against the 4x3 option, but this will require changing existing maps.
I liked the idea of two groups of planets that are separated from each other by empty space. It would be possible to place 5-10 lonely planets there and change the conditions of victory. The winner is the team that holds all the planets for 5 turns starting, for example, from the turn #50.
p.s. We can use the Flower map for this scenario or its modifications.
And I had an idea. Maybe we will create a new team game in 5x5 format using one of these maps.
Not me.
And, usually, team games settings was 3x3x3
My 2 cents: a fixed-alliance game needs some way to build these teams, and it needs reliable players. With these restrictions, I guess only smaller teams are realistic for now (3vs3?).
PlanetsServer had the problem that you sometimes were playing against five sockpuppets of the same guy in one game. This is annoying in a 11-individuals game, but totally kills a team game. PlanetsCentral's scoring tries to counter this a little, but that won't help in a rigged team game. I don't want to throw big data analytics, super-cookies and what-not at you to counter that.
But, if you have a roster of players, I can set you up
--Stefan
PlanetsServer had the problem that you sometimes were playing against five sockpuppets of the same guy in one game. This is annoying in a 11-individuals game, but totally kills a team game.
Hmm. Think, in a TEAM game it's not a problem (if one guy plays for a whole team). But if that same guy will not have spies in other teams
I am not against the 4x3 option, but this will require changing existing maps.
League https://file1.uafile.com/487528 https://file1.uafile.com/903853
Ukraine https://file1.uafile.com/49264
Greetinx!
Due to the fact that games are filling up very slowly and usually some slots change back to open after turn one I wonder if some of you guys are interested in 1on1 games.
What I have in mind is:
- Based on the Pleiades series
- Small universe (800x800 LYs)
- Wrapped map
- 100 planets only
- Fog of War
- Hidden race selection: Open slots are #1 and #2, but both players inform Stefan about their race of choice via PM
- ~ 40 turns
- Host runs when all turns are in
The question is if anybody would be up for this kind of challenge and also if Stefan is willing to set it up with these parameters (or whatever is possible from the above list)
Cheers,
Mike
"Inform Stephan" is not automatic.
Seems it's possible to make standart automatic game with such parameters, for 2 players, that may choose any race to play. But it'll kill the ranking system
Greetinx!
Due to the fact that games are filling up very slowly and usually some slots change back to open after turn one I wonder if some of you guys are interested in 1on1 games.
What I have in mind is:
- Based on the Pleiades series
- Small universe (800x800 LYs)
- Wrapped map
- 100 planets only
- Fog of War
- Hidden race selection: Open slots are #1 and #2, but both players inform Stefan about their race of choice via PM
- ~ 40 turns
- Host runs when all turns are in
The question is if anybody would be up for this kind of challenge and also if Stefan is willing to set it up with these parameters (or whatever is possible from the above list)
Cheers,
Mike
Hi,
"pick your preferred race" in an automatic way would need some extra code, but handling it manually will not kill me.
An idea I have been tossing around would be to have, like, five Federations pitted at each other. Or five Lizards. This would also solve potential fairness issues, Robot-vs-Colony probably is totally different than Robot-vs-Pirate or Robot-vs-Tholian.
Regarding ranking system: a smaller game gets your fewer points (the Position_points = Table_value * (Num_players / 11) part), but otherwise, a game's ranking can be scaled up or down using the difficulty rating. But let's not overdo THAT detail. I'll not be handing out trophies for the first to reach 100k points or so.
--Stefan
Hi,
both players could be obliged for a rematch with interchanged races and the total winner is determined by the total score of both games by turn 40. Or by the number of turns it takes the winner to achieve victory. This should make sure that the contest is fair and still allow for a free race choice for both players. And might cause certain players to come out of their comfort zone... 
Cheers,
Mike
Hey,
@Stefan: If there's nothing to be said against it, would you like to set up this kind of game? It goes without saying that I will throw my hat in the ring and I have a feeling that there might be some players who would like to accept the challenge
Cheers,
Mike
@Stefan: If there's nothing to be said against it, would you like to set up this kind of game? It goes without saying that I will throw my hat in the ring and I have a feeling that there might be some players who would like to accept the challenge
I've been tossing ideas around how this could be done.
I have a feeling that forcing someone to a re-match isn't the best approach if what we're trying to counter is droppers.
So my idea for such a 1:1 game goes for a "Mirror Universe" setup: a starmap with two clusters, far away. Player one plays, say, Feds in one cluster and Klingons in the other; player two plays Klingons in the first, and Feds in the other. Means, everyone submits two TRN files per turn. I'm not sure how that's going to work out. Anyway, no matter how we do it, this "choose your own race" thing needs some coding in front-end and back-end (or manual setup).
--Stefan
So my idea for such a 1:1 game goes for a "Mirror Universe" setup: a starmap with two clusters, far away. Player one plays, say, Feds in one cluster and Klingons in the other; player two plays Klingons in the first, and Feds in the other. Means, everyone submits two TRN files per turn. I'm not sure how that's going to work out. Anyway, no matter how we do it, this "choose your own race" thing needs some coding in front-end and back-end (or manual setup).
This sounds like a great idea, match and rematch in one game. Perfect solution in my mind!
I just hope that a substantial number of players will appreciate the time and effort you put into this. So far there was just very little feedback and I would hate to cause you additional work for a project that lacks acceptance from those it is meant for...
Cheers,
Mike