I don't regard this as a real competition but a test game to find the major bugs. We'll experience lot of strange things, I'm sure. So I don't invest much time. Just building ships and sending them in all directions with mission "kill" ( = "lay webs" for the Crystal).
Webs may be useless in the long run with 5 crystals in play. Minefields may be useless in the medium term with 3 colonies. Expanding may be impossible with 4 lizards, 4 pirates and 4 romulans. For those who want to win be sure to ally with an end-game race guys, like oh say, the borg. I want to see how many turns I last...
"Sir! testing of the new cloaking systems was a success, the new
cloaking technology was so strong that even communications systems were
unable to penetrate the cloak. Unfortunately that also means the ships
were unable to receive their orders. The cloaking prototypes were all burnt out, we anticipate some time before they can be reconstructed."
Looks like Killrace is working (sorry sjharley). The message is still not right. The official rule for all games is: If you miss one of the first 3 turns you are out automatically. In games without killrace this means you can join back in. But with Killrace on, it means your empire is killed.
Gents, make sure your turn is in today or you're dead.
Joshua, I think with kill race on it doesn't make sense a race should die after missing one turn. The idea in a regular game for resigning a player after a turn is that someone else could take it over sooner before it becomes a big handicap but that clearly doesn't apply if you kill the race. In fact it creates an imbalance because there's a larger empty space around somebody else.
Also if this mode is targetted especially for beginners, they might be unpleasantly surprised to find themselves dead if they couldn't make a turn one day.
Dungeonmaster is right. The PE setting loses a lot of it's efficency with 29 enemies. But I think one can live with that. You have to decide if you know who is the possible enemy and if you don't you have to use kill mission.
But there is one thing that should be fixed: When setting PE I get a long list that has no scrolling mechanism. So I can't set PE to the players in the higher slots at all.
Haha! I didn't notice so that means you can't intercept and attack one of my fireclouds? In the words of Simpsons' Mr.Burns: I AM INVINCIBLE! This is exactly the sort of firecloud upgrade I've always wanted.
I got the full PE list if i switch to browser full screen mode (F11). Maybe it help you too. But of cause i also like DM have no problem if some people cannot set PE to higher slots 8)
@JoeSnoffy: As all races are not automatic allied the actual setup is also useful. E.g. if you'r in war with one Fed and not with the other 10 ... But of cause there are also good reasons for a PE race version.
How come planets are not kill raced when a player resign? The planets belonging to the resigning players should be stripped of clans, factories, mines, defense post, and minerals, otherwise it will be a huge advantage to find the homeplanets of a resigned player.
Am I the only who cannot see the logic of removing only ships and starbases?
Might be time to revisit the use of friendly codes. There was a nice discussion on it several months ago. But for the life of me I can't find the posts. There's been discussion of secondary ship missions, keeping the traditional fcode as just a means to determine battle order, etc... with 30 players in a game ((and apparently a strict limit of 36 players based on the numbers 0-9 and letters a-z, unless we get some case sensitivitiy in fcodes)). Not intending to turn this thread into a discussion about fcodes, but it seems the more players you add to the game the more the old fcode straight jacket seems to restrict new features. Plus primary enemy seems to be losing its effect. It makes defending against multiple enemies at the same near impossible w/o using the kill mission.
Joshua posted somewhere else that the kill race feature runs during host so if someone leaves and a replacement jumps in before host run then they are ok to take over the race (as it stands)
It might be worth a section on the help to list the functionality of kill race. I asked a different question about the behviour of kill race in later stages of the game which will determent crystal/priv pl;ayers as all ships are lost instantly, even if they were caught in web/robbed and about to be captured after some hard/cunning planning.
But seriously the more important thing to say is obviously...... who thinks they can give Thinlizzy some of the same treatment he gave the poor borg in the emperor game? ;)
"
Joshua posted somewhere else that the kill race feature runs during host so if someone leaves and a replacement jumps in before host run then they are ok to take over the race (as it stands)"
That's a good implementation because if there's a replacement immediately then presumably no advantage was gained by someone not playing.
We've actually made a small change on the rules around Killrace.
After looking at it for a few turns here we have decided that Killrace will actually take effect 3 turns after a player drops/resigns if no replacement arrives. The primary purpose of killrace is to open up ship slots and prevent huge advantages for privateers particularly in games where many players may be dropping.
But if a privateer is attacking a player and about to capture a big ship or two we don't want to allow that player to just resign and take the prize away from the attacker. So this way there are 3 turns for attackers to take what they can get before those ships and bases self destruct.
Thinking about it more. yes it is more of a problem for crystal/priv players in the mid/end game.
But the original approach of next turn kill race for someone resigning would also hamper any race who was lucky enough to encounter a frieghter early in the game and wanted to steal using ntp etc.
Crystals need more than three turn to drain this Virgo!!!
:) Just a joke. No problem with the 3 turns until killrace. Time will show what exploits of the melee format are found by the creative players. I wouldn't be surprised if some more small adjustments will be needed.
Jadefire had the top military too? Very odd. I suspect pirate. Always. Pirate. Has nothing to do with borg. Ignore the borg. We are weak, late game race.
I dropped because the game was advertised as killrace with specific parameters (miss a turn, race is killed) as per the announcement and was changed while the game was running without proper play testing. I joined the game to test how it would work. Now if Joshua and his development team figure out how to properly play test I may try another beta in the future until then it seems like amateur hour at the playground. I truly hate snap changes to games based on no empirical process, take for example World of Warcraft. An awesome game when it first came out, now you cant log in without some change that effects game play all for the sake of the vocal minority or someone close to the developers. Anyhow I wish you all well in the beta.
I don't get it? You wanted people who miss a turn to drop instantly? I think the spirit of the game is a grand melee and the killrace is really just another experimental feature. It has limited impact on the flow of the grand melee, surely. If anyone thinks they're winning at this stage, they're sorely wrong.
"It's the spirit of the game, not the rules that matter." -- E.G. Gygax
You don't get it? Have you read the post for "Giant Melee" game format? Like the part that says when a player resigns kill race is executed and all ships and starbase are destroyed, or how about Joshua's post in this very thread, "You get dropped if you miss the first turn of any game. The message is wrong.".
My issue is only this. If you beta/playtest a game you should make changes after the game is completed so you have a full picture of how changes may impact future test games. You repeat the process until a vast majority of testers are satisfied with gameplay. Product development, check it out on the interwebz ;)
@ Crackpot, Haha. I don't think it really matters anymore as I really have nothing to hide. :-(
So far in this game I have been severly probed with Dark Sense, Lizard GA'd multiple times, RGA'd x 2, Pillaged x 2 (incl. my HW), HW attacked x 2 and all in the space of 14 turns. :-((
Still well in the game though. Now I'm just waiting to be SSD'd, Robbed, Super Spy'd and what the hell, why don't we get some Colonial sweeping in as well. :-) Any takers?
@darvster, Dont complain, if my vikies didnt hit 4 mines before landing, you would have lost your HW. By the way, why was there an MBR on your HW when my ships popped? Collateral damage?
This is a 1 ally game people. I frankly am getting tired of seeing multiple races working together and not fighting, even on a 1 ally melee map. Border agreements, sure thing but all the layers of diplomacy with Nu treaties have gotten out of hand and there is far too much direct cooperation. Some portions of this map have not seen a single damn explosion and you people should be ashamed.
This game is exposing front and center many serious flaws with the NU diplomacy system. At the very least the label "max allies=1" needs to be changed because that's damn well not what's happening. I think of someone who is playing VGA planets for the first time, as this melee game format is intended, and enters a game labeled "max allies =1" with 3 people working against him would have a lot to complain about and would probably drop the game and never return.
For all the stink that was made about killrace not allowing pirates to loot the corpses of their defeated enemy there is definitely not enough discussion about people just flat out giving their ships away to their neighbors or cooperating on many levels.
I see your ships lizzy. Should I? This is dumb. That I can form a coalition to crush you in a game labeled "1 ally" is likewise dumb.
Don't make light of it, this is a big problem. There are 40 votes here: http://planets.uservoice.com/forums/136520-general/suggestions/2502025-max-allies-needs-to-include-intel-agreements
Actually it makes a lot of sense to me why this happens. There is a lot to gain by working with other people beyond the 1 ally constraint, and the ones that don't will get destroyed by the ones that do. In the Emperor game that only allows 1 victor you see this happening too.
This is fundamentally a diplomacy game and short of playing gunboat and forbiding ingame communication, there will always be informal alliances and coalitions.
dungeonmasters point is that the "rules" for the game states one alliance. In his mind what you refer to as "informal" alliances are also alliances. and therefore they are breaking the rules of the game.
Yes its a diplomatic game. But the diplomatic rules should be clear. Does one alliance mean that can only work with one other player at a time? Or does it mean that you can work with as many as you want, but only pair with one for victory?
This is not clear in the rules. Some people take it to be one, some take it to be the other.
Some sneaky cloaker told for example the empire to show up at a fully defended star base of mine with only a super star destroyer and leave the gorbie at home.
Meister, it's still a game... Come on over and we form a gang of Borg vs all those Lizards hanging around here ... (If you can live with several chunnel rollercoasters ending up in the wrong position) They are all against us, because we are the Borg.
But resistance is... a hot dog (or so)
----------------------- Ah, seveiht was faster... There is a clear distinction between Full Alliance (Win condition), Shared Intel (No win condition) and Safe Passage (No win condition)
The rules are pretty clear. You can win but with only one ally. Other than that, there is no set restriction.
How do you intend to legislate for no cooperation with other people? Once you get an ally you ban communication with other people? Any solution to this "problem" seems very artificial.
I do agree with DM that something funky is going on with intel-sharing though. I see a lot more than I think I should be able to.
As stated by seveiht, I think there is a place for coalitions, backstabs and everything in between. The problem is the explicit label - particularly for new players - of "max allies" and as a corollary the desire from a non-negligible portion of the NU players to have games with clear, restricted, diplomatic options. That feedback thread is 12th from the top in popularity, it's a real issue. I for one do want to play in games with vibrant free flow diplomacy AND games where everyone actually has just 1 ally and not "1 guy I share final stats with + 10 others I don't ". They are not mutually exclusive nor should they be. We need clear groundrules.
I'm sure I can manage a large coalition in this game thin if I really want one. It'll get really ugly, really fast. :P
So it's not an assumption, I know from previous experience that max allies: 1 refers to 1 full alliance but that you can have multiple intel sharing. I do agree that this could and should be clarified on the how to page (I think, in general, more documentation would be very nice).
I think you could also make it such that you only have intel sharing being the same as max allies although I don't necessarily think this is needed, but I don't think you could forbid "informal" coalitions or alliances.
Yes Max Allies -1 means only 2 people can be on the winning team (and get bonus points) at game end. those people could have numerous other share intel agreements with others but those would not benefit in the end game win points.
I have always been uneasy about this as really you can operate a perfectly good alliance using share intel. often people do that until they are ready to formally 'declare'. this can lead to messy situations as descibed in this thread.
However having said that it is feasible for a player to have agreed safe borders with neighbours which leaves them with only one viable expansion route where they are agressive. If that route (and target) is the same as one currnetly targeted by another unconnected alliance it can seem like ganging up.
There is a fine line here as it is strategically beneficial to attack someone already engaged elsewhere. We also wouldnt want to stop these complex diplomacy discussions but i fnd it hard ot draw the line as inevitably there will be some ganging up in some circumstances.
What is important though is once that target race is defeated those victors should not hapiliy co-exist then all turn against another race in co-ordinated fashion....
I think my point is that currently it is your interpretation that Max allies : 1 means that. Thats an assumption until we get clarification on the site. New people coming into the game may not draw the same conclusion. This is obvious since others have also not drawn that conclusion.
My conclusion when I saw a stipulation of max allies : 1 meant that I'm only allowed to work with 1 player period. That other people have drawn a different conclusion is not surprising though. My point however is that there is no clarification on the site as to which is correct and therefore different people could be playing by different rules.
And yes, even if it meant 1 ally was working with 1 person only, there is no way we can enforce out of game communication and collusion. However, if it was clarified I would hope that MOST people would honour the rules as they are laid out. This is like the crazy game of 'one ship' where everyone agreed to kill everyone elses diplomat and there would be no communication or cooperation at all. There is no way to enforce it, but i trust everyone is behaving ;)
So... I'm not arguing one way or the other. I just want it clear on the site, in the rules section, so that this discussion can end :P
So...the confusion is[for the moderators of this awesome game ;) ]: Does max allies 1 mean : you can work with as many allies as you want in a fluid system BUT only win with 1 other person. OR Does max allies 1 mean : You can only work with one ally, temporary or not, at a time AND only win with 1 other person
Once this is clarified by the host, then we can discuss whether the other option should be made available as a different type of game or if a third option in between the two should somehow be made available.
I'm also thinking of this scenario. There's a Borg player and his Privateer ally who are at 200 planets and 40% military score on turn 50. I think it doesn't make sense to say there is an unenforceable rule that prevents the other players from trying to form a coalition to stop them.
Also, since you can have multiple share intel agreements and peace treaties there is not much interpretation necessary to see that you can work with whoever you want and make whatever agreements you want for any period of time but at the end of the day you can only declare victory with one other person.
Just to put this to rest and clarify as Seveiht has requested. The answer is:
Max allies means : you can work with as many allies as you want in a fluid system BUT only win with 1 other person.
We do agree with the feedback request of the number of intel agreements also being equal to the max allies (but not safe passage). We have that on our to-do list. So consider that accepted and it will be implemented soon.
Thanks joshua. Sometimes i feel i should have been a lawyer haha.
@coldsteel : i understand you can make more intel agreements than the max allies now, but until recently I had not tried because I assumed you could not and therefore did not try. .. actually i still haven't tried, I don't like giving out too much intel and only do so with people i trust.
Folks, this is a multi-player game. There are only 2 rules I recognize:
1. Don't play with 2 accounts.
2. Don't hack the system.
Anything else goes. When someone says, "Proper play . . .," or "To behave . . . ," I hear, "I am your God and will decide what is morally correct for you. Bow down and kiss my ass."
Someone who says that negotiations should be limited in a multi-player game is like someone saying they should be able to move your pieces in a two-player games because you are making bad moves and keep beating them.
ALL multiplayer games with 3 to a million players involve diplomacy with EVERY other player. Even if you don't talk with someone, you are negotiating with them by telling them they are not important enough to talk to.
I laugh at people who say, "I am better than these other players but they keep ganging up on me." What they are really saying is, "I suck at VGA Planets. We need to fix it so I can win."
I agree with seveiht, there should be a big warning on the front page:
WARNING!!! THIS IS A MULTIPLAYER GAME. PEOPLE HERE WILL INDIVIDUALLY AND COLLECTIVELY TRY TO GUT YOU AND CUT YOUR HEART OUT. UNTIL YOU CONTROL ALL 500 PLANETS AND 500 SHIPS, ASSUME EVERYONE ELSE IS OUT TO GET YOU - THEY PROBABLY ARE. IF YOU CANNOT HANDLE THIS, YOU BEST GO ELSEWHERE.
Even in a 2-player game there is diplomacy. Watch, "Searching For Bobby Fischer," and listen hard to the teacher, Lawrence Fishburn. Even in the ultimate, 2-player game, Chess, you "play the player, not the game."
mjs68508 you take a particular interest in this game - but you're not actually playing in it? Are you breaking either of your own rules?
I do in fact believe very strongly in proper play, sportsmanship, integrity and honor. Many here have won repeatedly respecting the ally "restriction" it its literal sense. It can in fact be done and does not detriment the quality of play, quite the contrary it improves it. It's not to be high and mighty, I took the posted "max allies" at face value and played by it. Since the discussion here is closed in this respect that is my last word on this matter here, we can continue discussion in the appropriate thread.
Clearly this host need games with no diplomacy at all, if not, I fear that a lot of players become tired of having to fight multiple races at the same time and will stop playing.
Yes, dungeonmaster, I do take a particular interest in this thread. This is the ONLY thread where Joshua lists the changes to the Melee game rules. I am not going to apologize for keeping up with the rule changes for Melee games.
joesnoffy, I agree with you in the sense that a game with diplomacy and a game without diplomacy are different. And, fortunately, we have some of those already: 2-player blitz games, 6 vs 6 team games, and private games that people make for 2 players. Hopefully, as the site grows and matures, there will be official 2-player large games and maybe even a ladder. The site is still young.
But, a multiplayer game with no diplomacy? Think what that would mean. If you have 3 neighbors and don't attack all 3 equally, that is diplomacy. So, if you have 3 neighbors, you must send an identical ship against each neighbor so you won't be guilty of diplomacy. You must also lay the exact same mines vs each neighbor, or you are conducting diplomacy. Got the Privateer attacking on one side and the Colonies on the other? No fair laying a minefield vs the Privateer until you can afford to waste a minefield vs. the Colonies. Likewise, Starbases must be of equal strength on each border. This would become a boring game if we can't attack who we want.
I don't agree regarding the multiplayer games without diplomacy. You decide how you will play depending on the race of your neighbour, location of planets, the race next the your neighbours on the other side and so forth.
What you don't have is the security that will allow you to hit one neighbour with full strength without taken any risk yourself. In my opinion, this makes no-diplomacy games more interesting.
You make a qualified guess and hope that you remember just a little bit about the position, of the race in mind, on the specific web page for that game. This is my solution, but if anyone have a better solution I would like to know.
Here are some interesting numbers, I honestly did not expect them to
work out like this when the game started. Will be interesting to
compile these with the other games.
But from Our starting numbers I compiled a table of what we started with, who is dead, open races and who is on an obvious decline at the moment. I found the results a little surprising.
Starting
Dead
Open
Dying(subjective)
Total
Percent success
Fed
0
0
N/A
Liz
5
2
2
60%
bird
4
1
1
75%
fascists
2
1
1
50%
priv
3
1
2
3
0%
borg
2
1
1
50%
crystal
5
2
1
3
40%
empire
2
1
1
50%
robot
3
1
1
2
33%
rebel
1
0
100%
colony
3
2
2
33%
Now we can ignore the rebel outlier ;) Especially since I don't see myself being able to expand much in the future with it expecting to rain webs and lizards for the foreseeable future. But I did manage to claim two of those race deaths for my own ;)
And no one is playing the federation at all.
But races like the robots and crystals i had expected to fair better but overall have faired rather poorly. With the exception of Emork who has now taken first place. The lizards are also on the decline, there is another out there on the downward trend, but i haven't included them in the dying column yet because they still have a showing of strength. Dying for me meant low military percent AND low planet count.
Must be friday, I got bored with reading this thesis so took a break to compile more numbers :P
Starting
Dead
Open
Dying(subjective)
Total
Percent success
Fed
20
12
1
3
16
20%
Liz
30
10
2
4
16
47%
bird
20
10
4
0
14
30%
fascists
11
3
0
3
6
45%
priv
32
13
0
5
18
44%
borg
24
8
1
7
16
33%
crystal
26
8
1
2
11
58%
empire
24
13
1
3
17
29%
robot
26
5
0
1
6
77%
rebel
6
2
0
1
3
50%
colony
16
11
0
0
11
31%
These are compiled from most of the 30 player games. With a better statistical sample, the robots are now in number 1 place for being able to survive. Its interesting the the feds are quite a popular choice to play, but have the lowest survivability percentage. Rebels are by far the least popular choice for this game ;)
don't suppose there is any chance the recent rash of bugs messed with the percent chance to hit a web mine? Or am i just this unlucky that all my ships seem to hit the first mine they come across three turns running?
I think so. Emork is only at about 350 at this point. Soon we will hit the minefield queue and that will be a big surprise for our resident web nazi. "What do you mean they just sailed right in?! Where is the web?!"