Team Games and Duels

[Gump]

I'd like to get Skotos opinion on dueling games and team games. That is a smaller map, 2 player game (for grudge matches) and 6 vs. 6 player team games with predetermined teamates.

Thnx.

-g

[Morat]

I'd be really interested in a duel game. Also in games with less than 12 players, maybe 6 to 8. With 12 players, usually 2 or 3 get knocked out fairly early on.

[ShannonA]

Originally posted by Morat
I'd be really interested in a duel game. Also in games with less than 12 players, maybe 6 to 8. With 12 players, usually 2 or 3 get knocked out fairly early on.

We'd love to be able to offer some type of duel. Not would the regular Hegemony players enjoy it, but I think players of other Skotos game would too (so that, say, the Duelists and Watchmen of Marrach can fight).

Not sure when we'd actually add functionality for something like this, but I've added it to my list of possibilities.

Shannon

[Gump]

I'm interested in a dueling league. Specificly an elimination style, pyramid with a championship game. First round 16 players,
second 8players , third 4 players, and finally a 2 player championship match.

[Prcval]

What about an Ego Check as duel No 1?

I'd be at your service ...

-Prcval

[ShannonA]

Richard, if you're about, any thoughts on why you decided on 12-player games instead of 8 or 16?

Any players' thoughts on why 12 players works better?

Shannon

[Steve]

Originally posted by ShannonA
Any players' thoughts on why 12 players works better?

Twelve is a good number, but I think it could go up and not cause too many problems. I think any smaller than twelve would be too small. As it is, the game is typically over by day 17 since the remaining players are in an alliance of some sort.

Going to 16 may stretch the game out a little longer and make it harder for a group of players to come up with a decisive victory. (That's a good thing, in my opinion.) It would also give you something to watch on the fringe as you're eliminating your nearest neighbor.

The big question is how it would affect map layout and the number of stars per player. I'm not sure how easy it would be in the VBP to change from the current 150 stars or 50x50 galaxy. Putting more stars into the same size galaxy would make them closer together, which would seriously affect the dynamics of the game.

Steve

[Morhk]

As I can remember, Richard mentioned something about the im-possibility of different player numbers because of his "crappy code".

[rwolfe]

Originally posted by ShannonA
Richard, if you're about, any thoughts on why you decided on 12-player games instead of 8 or 16?


No particular reason. I think in the very beginning, I only knew twelve people who really wanted to play (this during the SpaceWar era). So the number was chosen arbitrarily. It probably wouldn't be all that difficult to change, but if you go higher than twelve it will involve modifying the Java.

-Richard

[Morat]

Originally posted by ShannonA
Any players' thoughts on why 12 players works better?


Personally, I think 12 is too many for the map size. It worked pretty much OK in the free games as there would usually be some no-shows, but in the regular games usually one to three players would be eliminated very early on (which meant that up to a 1/4 of the players wouldn't get to play past the opening stages).

The first few days are fairly simple - your ships are slow, and you don't have very many. The interesting part of the game (for me, anyway) is once you have around 15-20 stars and a reasonable income. At that point you really have to decide what you're going to spend your money on, and where you're going to go next, rather than spending your income on little bits and pieces, and taking (and losing) a star here and there.

In the free games that could happen within the first 4-5 days. In the regular games it might not happen at all. With 12 players and 150 stars, each player would end the initial expansion phase with about 12 +- 2 stars, with an average income of around $75 per day. That makes each individual player fairly weak, and unable to expand much without allies. No problem so far. However, as diplomacy is essential to a regular game, one player who messes with his agreements can screw the game for a good portion of the other players. And as each player is fairly weak, and also relying on their agreements, they have little recourse but to go along with the offending player (leaving aside for the moment that a player who did this would be slammed after the game in the player comments: it hasn't stopped regular players from doing just this in the past, and continuing to do so now).

There is a kind of 'critical mass' for an SE Empire which is reached at around 20 stars. At that point you can both defend yourself and attack, and you have enough income to be able to save up for some of the sneakier stuff (like Death Probes, sudden boosts to Battle, etc.). Before then, you're effectively limited to buying a few factories each day, and occasionally boosting your range or speed a little. With 12 players and 150 stars, it would require that 4-5 players be eliminated or effectively eliminated for the remaining players to reach 'critical mass'.

Again, personally I invest quite a lot of time and effort in SE, as I know many others do, and it is very frustrating to be stuck fighting over one or two stars because you don't have the cash to do anything else. That would be OK in an open-ended game as you would still have a chance (however remote) at pulling off a master stroke and catching up with the leaders, but with a three week time limit you can tell quite early on that it won't matter whether you win your little war or not, 'cos' the other guys are going to swarm all over you as soon as they get 'round to it.

</rant> ;)

I'd keep the map size the same, but reduce the players to 8 or 9. That'd give everyone a fair chance at being able to defend themselves regardless of how the diplomacy goes, give everyone a chance at the cool stuff (like DPs), and mean a faster start to new games, so that if you get wiped out early there'll be another game along in a minute.

[Morat]

Hmm. Thinking about it, I guess it's the micromanagement needed when you don't have many ships/stars/cash that I don't like. Every couple of ships makes a difference - woo hoo!


(Just an excuse for testing my sig :)

[Prcval]

Originally posted by Morat
Hmm. Thinking about it, I guess it's the micromanagement needed when you don't have many ships/stars/cash that I don't like. Every couple of ships makes a difference - woo hoo!


(Just an excuse for testing my sig :)

Thanks for mentioning the signature feature ... :)

-Prcval

[Steve]

However, as diplomacy is essential to a regular game, one player who messes with his agreements can screw the game for a good portion of the other players. And as each player is fairly weak, and also relying on their agreements, they have little recourse but to go along with the offending player (leaving aside for the moment that a player who did this would be slammed after the game in the player comments: it hasn't stopped regular players from doing just this in the past, and continuing to do so now).


I was just thinking to myself, "Self, I remember a game like that and I wonder if Morat is thinking about the same game." Then I remembered ... Morat was in that game.

Steve

[Morat]

Eckshully, I was referring to that game, my current game, and another game. Although the one you mentioned did rather open my eyes to the wonderful world of Diplomacy By Lying Through Your Teeth, I've had comparable experiences with other players.

Well, fairly comparable. For instance, the player who allies with you before the game starts, then you find out he's also allied with half the map and can't help you out without breaking his agreements with other people, leaving you isolated in a corner because you can't break your agreement with him lest the wrath of the player comments falls upon you.

Plus the fact that you agreed to an alliance with the dippity-doo-wad in the first place :mad:

[KidFrey]

Hey, I told you you should ally with *me*, Morat! :)

Anyhoo, to get back to the original topic, I think duels suck. I have done one, so I know what I am talking about. (It was with Llc.)

But team games rock.

So my vote: duels no, team games yeah! But hey, if you disagree, try it yourself and figure it out the hard way. It might even appeal to a certain type of player.

[Mongul]

morat is right in everything he says except his conclusion...and i dont take opposing morat lightly since he and i are allies in one game and potential opponents in another....all the reasons he listed for the 8-9 player scenario re-inforce the 12 player scenario for me...screwups will and do happen, lousy alliances happen, and i think i hold the record for being bumped out of a regular game (5 moves by rufus and i aint fergittin' that!!!) but as i have said on several s.e. posts, i like the diplomacy and the resource management....strategically i suck, i could have 100 systems to your 50 and still lose......and dont forget the luck factor, one time i had 13 systems that were bringing only 58 credits....i didnt know so many 2's and 3's existed.....
just to repeat, read all of morats column, the facts he presents are clear and correct, what do others think???? i think they support the 12 player game.....

[Faer]

BAH!!!!

Let the Watch and the Duelists (smirks at herself) do their duels in CM. However, I could see a duelish like reason maybe for a grudge match here if two players really want to face off against each other for some reason to pit strategies. Make it a duel of strategies where maybe if its possible to change the rules of duel fights.

Of course, this being my own first time playing this particular game, I still have heaps to learn about the mechanics of it.

[Bolex]

Game starts with all empires built; no free stars left. Up to you in the first days to find alliances or attack. There could be two variations of this as well.

1- All players have same number of systems and ships (randomly dispersed or equally dispersed)

2- Random # of stars per player. This would have the game start off seemingly imbalanced, however if you only have two stars, you have BP of something like 500 and have lots of ships. If you have 20 stars, you have lower BP and/or number of ships.

This isn't really a completely thought out thing here, but I leave that to the powers that be. I'm just a Big Idea kinda person.

Bolex

[ChristopherA]

BTW, if 12 of you want to get together in advance for a private game, you can request that. The game will not not count for score, however.

There will be no 'charge' for this for the next few months, but after that because there is some setup time involved we'll be charging StoryPoints (https://www.skotos.net/user/about_sp.php), so go mentor some of these new players! Private games for fewer people, or more custom features will cost more StoryPoints.

Just write CE@skotos.net with the list of player skotos logins.

-- Christopher Allen