So let's talk about the random queue. The random queue has...

« Back

49 days, 2 hours, 28 minutes ago
View dungeonmaster's profile
dungeonmaster
So let's talk about the random queue. The random queue has...Write Reply
So let's talk about the random queue.
The random queue has ruined my current set of games. I'm winning in both of them, and that's the problem.
It has completely sapped the fun out of the game for me. I will never play again with a random queue, which means I'm going back to classic
despite the benefits of the floating ship limit in PQ.
To be clear: the floating ship limit is fine, the PQ point system is fine. It is specifically that planets build ships in random order that
is the major soul-sucking-retarded problem.
I believe several years ago when PQ was being designed and argued about a small vocal minority of morons advocated very strongly for this random
queue. A bunch of pathetic whinos have acheived something I though impossible: to make me hate playing the game.

Let's look at my current games, different scenarios.
Case 1: Borg. Rapidly weakened then killed my neighbours and expanded to ~150 borg planets. Spent nearly 50 turns now just building starbases everywhere
and dropping a bio into each of them. Just doing that, that alone, is 675 000 MC. And that's cheap, imagine a torp race.
Case 2: Cylon. Fed ally had a personal problem and dropped the game. Fed replacement will not be refiting my ships at some point soon going forward.
We have a crystal whoring out his services (fair and common play). I've spent the better part of game *just* barely getting my starbases filled with golems.
Now, I need to in addition to add h.phasers to everything, everywhere.
The costs, the mineral shipments, are insane. 80*5000 MC + minerals all over again. It's stupid, it's completely utterly stupid. I definitely can do it, in both games, I have strong economy, strong fleet, but I don't WANT to do it. I'm done, I'm fed up.

The normal, sequential queue, to get a good ship, you prioritize a *few* planets, the ones next in queue. You target a *few* important planets that your opponents have.
That's why the normal queue worked so well. You did not need to build ships *everywhere*. If the queue jumped by more then 20 slots post ship limit, that would be a massive leap. 30 planets max. To actually use your large empire now, to try and win goddamn game, is an absurd amount of time spent on econ.
I kid you not in the most highly anticipated TEAM WOLF 2 game we spent *#&@ing 50 turns staring at each other with like 20 odd big ship battles because if you don't base out
and queue up *everything* the other guy will. It's so dumb.
It's *#&@ing farmville. Really that's what it is. It's *#&@ing farmville. To the handful of vocal idiots that advocated this system: DIE. You are morons. I sorely regret not beating to death your inane mewling when I had the opportunity.

Anyone want to take over a highly developed cylon position? Fully refitted armed armada, MBR, falcons and excellent position, resources, very high probability of victory.
I just can't be arsed to do the necessary econ to push it over the top, I really can't, it's totally drained me.

49 days, 1 hours, 46 minutes ago
Profile Image
robobob
RE: So let's talk about the random queue. The random queue has...Write Reply
Just play PLS ;)
49 days, 1 hours, 39 minutes ago
Profile Image
talespin
RE: So let's talk about the random queue. The random queue has...Write Reply
I agree. I like that I can build heavy phaser ships with my bank of points, but that's about it. The randomness makes no sense at times. And I feel lost with trying to build up my starbases. Sometimes it doesn't even make sense to build starbases. Classic gives more purpose to your actions.
49 days, 1 hours, 38 minutes ago
Profile Image
talespin
RE: So let's talk about the random queue. The random queue has...Write Reply
@Robobob Can of worms -> opened
48 days, 23 hours, 28 minutes ago
View gnerphk's profile
gnerphk
RE: So let's talk about the random queue. The random queue has...Write Reply
This is why I play Classic most times. It's not that I dislike Standard; it's that in Classic the queue-jamming has a direction, and the race to max out starbases is predictable and therefore limited.

I've long thought that we need a different system to support a random queue, ideally a function based around different factors: planetary control, native populations, civilian populations, and interaction with other races. A ship battle could present a random chance for salvage to the victor, for example.

On the other hand, the more complexities we introduce to the game, the less predictable it becomes, and in a sense the less playable.
48 days, 19 hours, 3 minutes ago
Profile Image
mursu
RE: So let's talk about the random queue. The random queue has...Write Reply
I fully agree that there is a problem with the amount of effort needed to build up the economy. It is not only the race until the ship limit, but also afterwards.

But instead of just ranting, how about to just propose an actual concrete alternative to the current PQ? It sure could be tweaked a little to work better. Would just making 'free' builds go planet id order work or would there be some new problems? I haven't fully thought this through.

And please leave PLS out of this discussion. It has very little to do with the topic.
48 days, 18 hours, 53 minutes ago
Profile Image
zacha
RE: So let's talk about the random queue. The random queue has...Write Reply
I am not experienced with Nu-specific things so far, so I do not really have an own opinion on wether this is really a problem or not (maybe it is drawing attention to much away from the actual fighting to economy, but maybe it allows resourceful players to do both at the same time getting advantages out of both, don't know yet)

But I had a short thinking, and I think I would have a realistic idea. However, it would add yet another "Queue" concept, and of course it is doubtful if adding to many such concepts to the game really benefits it. Just using classic Queue games might also be an option (though I was never to much a fan of that Queue monitoring and managing).

Based on not changing the principle that more starbases -> more ship builds, one could introduce two new things:
1. A variable "Queue Points" (QP) for each player, starting at 0
2. A set of new friendly codes pq1-pq9 (similar to pbX, but refering to QP-Builds instead of PBP-Builds)
Logic would be: Each time a ship is built using the Queue, the builder is chosen (among those races which have at least one ship built order in any starbase) who has the highest QP (random if several share the highest count). He builds according to pqX Friendly Code (similar to pbX), if no pqX is set build at random starbase of that player which has ship build order.
After the build his QP is set back to 0. All other players get 1 QP per starbase they own (not counting mining stations).

The added complexity by new variables/FC is of course a drawback, but I think this to be very limited. Advantages are that the idea of more starbases -> more shipbuilds is still valid, and the randomness forcing to build up and queue up dozens of starbases would be gone.
This would then however effectively remove the "2 PBP" per selected but not building starbase bonus, reducing the number of PBPs players would have limiting there strategic reserves. I think this might be the most controversial aspect of this idea.
48 days, 16 hours, 59 minutes ago
View iso--t's profile
iso--t
RE: So let's talk about the random queue. The random queue has...Write Reply
DM, are u really winning the lwt2? Nice to know ;)
48 days, 16 hours, 40 minutes ago
View gnerphk's profile
gnerphk
RE: So let's talk about the random queue. The random queue has...Write Reply
Well... you're right and wrong, @Zacha, and you called it: This does in fact add complexity while not quite dealing with the core issue -- which, in a sense, is complexity. But that doesn't mean it's entirely a bad idea.

I want to be clear: Normally, I'd shoot down out of hand any post that includes the words "I am not experienced with Nu". It's very rare that a post of this nature would be at all useful without that experience, so this is a rare compliment from me. :o)

-----

Agree with @Mursu; for this topic, PLS is neither here nor there. We're talking Standard and Classic, mostly Standard.

-----

The thing here is, a lot of folks have expressed their displeasure with the queue control systems. It's seldom that a rant -- well, it IS a rant, @DungeonMaster; it definitely qualifies -- is even this detailed; usually it's a long list of uselessly vague gripes. But you've described the shortcomings of the PQ with admirable precision (and, I think, accuracy).

Nevertheless, it is worth acknowledging -- as you did, DM, albeit backhandedly -- the benefits of PQ; points are generated; the hard ship limit goes soft; queue control is not so much of a game-ender.

Balance and playability are our objectives. My usual PQ play is to spam starbases and dominate the economy -- just exactly as I do in Classic. And, let's face it: That strategy should only succeed in a very limited fashion. It echoes the unsatisfying unrealism of the numeric Classic build queue, and given effort it is equally broken. It merely demands a slightly different approach to break it. As most systems would.

Zacha's suggestion, while unworkable on its face, isn't without merit. Spamming starbases creates the problem. We don't want to limit them too sharply; that would merely militate against skilled play and efficient economics.

So here's a thought experiment. Consider a system we'll call PQ Prime:
(1) - It functions just like the Standard Queue.
(2) - However, for a starbase to construct a ship requires that it construct a Shipyard module. This can be done during starbase construction or upgraded later on, but it has a nominal price. Starbases without the module still produce PQ in the lottery, but only one per turn instead of two.
(3) - When shipyard modules are destroyed, the PQ loss to the victim is four rather than two, increasing the risk of building a shipyard. The gain by the attacker is unchanged. (This reflects the heroic efforts of the dedicated starbase crew.)
(4) - (Optional) Homeworld starbases can, for a much higher price, install a second Shipyard module.

Now, this is only one modification and a fairly minor one, but it works in the same direction Zacha suggests, and it's easy to keep track, both programmatically and by the player.

Thoughts?
48 days, 16 hours, 21 minutes ago
Profile Image
zacha
RE: So let's talk about the random queue. The random queue has...Write Reply
@Gnerphk: My suggestion is based on the assumption that it is intended that # of starbases impacts the number of ships buildable. This makes some sense to me, and to my understanding original posters pain point is not building the starbases, but having to set each and every one up with a major ship with high tech levels. So I think my suggestion is workable, just the intention is not to limit the requirement for starbases, just the need to build them up all to the max as soon as possible, being closer to the classic queue in regards to required economy (actually a little less, as in classic queue sooner or later all starbases need to be built up as well, when the Queue arrives at them, which would not be relevant in my suggestion).

From your suggestion, while interesting on its own, I fail to see how it addresses OP pain point - still you would have to spam starbases and queue high teched major ships on them (making economy very important whoel game), only you are even more increasing the cost to build the ships (by building a shipyard) and making it a little bit more risky (maybe reducing desirable number of starbases with shipyard and build queued marginally close to the borders, but no effect on the core/hinterlands).
48 days, 16 hours, 6 minutes ago
View commander koski's profile
commander koski
RE: So let's talk about the random queue. The random queue has...Write Reply
Complexity? Modules? That reminds me of... No. NO!
http://www.kolumbus.fi/sidewinder/v4devices.html

NoooOOOOOooo!!!

*Runs to play Classic Planets. And OpenXcom.*

*Comes back*

The reason why I love Classic Planets (and OpenXcom) is that I know how it works. It's just complex enough for me to enjoy it. Not a tad more. VGAP4 went too far. Too complex, too much of a chore to do turns.

And I LIKE queue management. I think it's a strategic side to the game that makes it unique. And as mentioned, through randomness the PQ system actually generates the management of star bases more of a chore, more complex than in Classic system. In Classic you can forecast quite accurately what is going to happen, plan and execute accordingly. Random is not fun for management. Take strategic approach and competitive attitude as the OP here has and you get a monster outcome.

I fully understand and support Dungeonmaster's stance here. But if one day a solution is created, I won't touch it unless it's more in the spirit of VGAP3, not VGAP4.
48 days, 16 hours, 6 minutes ago
Profile Image
mursu
RE: So let's talk about the random queue. The random queue has...Write Reply
>it is intended that # of starbases impacts the number of ships buildable

I like the idea behind Zachas suggestion, but this actually brings up another point. Why it is the number of starbases which are considered crucial in giving you builds? Why not just planets?

Yes you'd need a starbase to actually build the ship, but why wouldn't the amount of planets controlled be the main deciding factor who gets a (free) build? The added effect would be to speed up the game as expanding early would be beneficial. Starbases could also keep their current value as defensive objects.
48 days, 16 hours, 5 minutes ago
View gnerphk's profile
gnerphk
RE: So let's talk about the random queue. The random queue has...Write Reply
An excellent observation, Zacha. I do see where your second queue would impact things that way, but with Priority Points existing as a system, the two sets of codes in parallel would serve only to undercut each other.

I can see your system working if, instead, there were no Priority Points involved at all.

Removing it would create its own problems, unfortunately. There would need to be a different balance modifier, I think; there's got to be an advantage for smaller ships or things go completely out of whack in this game.
48 days, 16 hours, 2 minutes ago
View gnerphk's profile
gnerphk
RE: So let's talk about the random queue. The random queue has...Write Reply
Heh. You've just described PLS, @Mursu. :o)

Which I personally don't care to discuss in this thread; to address an issue, we must stay focused. Of course, my opinion is only my opinion.
48 days, 15 hours, 58 minutes ago
Profile Image
mursu
RE: So let's talk about the random queue. The random queue has...Write Reply
Why would you need to remove Priority Points in Zachas system? Priority Points and the soft ship limit are the thing that pretty much everyone wants to stay. No point in removing that one.

The problem DM highlights in his opening post is the 'free' builds after the ship limit has been hit (and the number of ships is temporarily below the limit). That's the area we should try to find solutions, not the Priority Builds which are working just fine.
48 days, 15 hours, 38 minutes ago
Profile Image
domodedovo
RE: So let's talk about the random queue. The random queue has...Write Reply
1) Leave the PQ cost system (weitghting in HULL MASS).

2) change random builds to wighting by SB OVERALL Tec.
a SB with "all tec 10" has a higher chance to build than a solely tec 10 hull SB.
By this you eleminate the disadvantage for torpers.

3) if this is still too much random for free builds (when shiplimit drops below 500) , then add the possibility to focus free builds by connecting Starbases (many bases join together and "point" with a Fcode to the SB in focus) -> increase the chance that this ONE SB wins the random lottery.


Problem solved... (?)
48 days, 15 hours, 29 minutes ago
Profile Image
mursu
RE: So let's talk about the random queue. The random queue has...Write Reply
>Problem solved... (?)

Depends on what is the problem. If the problem is the lottery then partly yes. If the problem is the absurd work needed to upgrade all starbases into full tech 10 because if you don't do it, your best opponents will do, then no. The latter is the problem DM describes in the opening post.
48 days, 15 hours, 18 minutes ago
Profile Image
domodedovo
RE: So let's talk about the random queue. The random queue has...Write Reply
DM descibes not only the tec upgrade (moneycosts) but also the much more problematic delivery needs of minerals etc., no needs for minerals as you don't build anything on the "assisting" SB.
48 days, 15 hours, 10 minutes ago
View gnerphk's profile
gnerphk
RE: So let's talk about the random queue. The random queue has...Write Reply
@Mursu --

https://planets.nu/#/sector/218135

Look at the Scoreboard in-game from Turn 40-44.
48 days, 15 hours, 9 minutes ago
View gnerphk's profile
gnerphk
RE: So let's talk about the random queue. The random queue has...Write Reply
Oops; wrong game. Apologies; I'll try to find it.
48 days, 15 hours, 6 minutes ago
View gnerphk's profile
gnerphk
RE: So let's talk about the random queue. The random queue has...Write Reply
https://planets.nu/#/sector/218867 from Turn 36 through to the Limit.
48 days, 14 hours, 55 minutes ago
Profile Image
mursu
RE: So let's talk about the random queue. The random queue has...Write Reply
@gnerphk
What should I see? I'm a bit lost what you are arguing.

@domodedovo
I agree that not needing to transport enough minerals to every planet partly helps. Still you'll need the money. But yeah, I'm all for making it possible to influence the randomness by some measures. Somehow "remembering" who got the last free builds would be my preferred solution.
48 days, 14 hours, 53 minutes ago
Profile Image
tannim
RE: So let's talk about the random queue. The random queue has...Write Reply
>Problem solved... (?)
No. You just eliminated all standard membership players from the game by demanding tech 10 everything on the starbases.

I just now realized that I am in the minority. I like the randomness of the free builds. That (and the soft ship limit) are why I prefer to play in these types of games. It adds a small element of surprise into the game that doesn't exist in a classic game where everything is rigidly planned out.
48 days, 14 hours, 47 minutes ago
Profile Image
domodedovo
RE: So let's talk about the random queue. The random queue has...Write Reply
> You just eliminated all standard membership players from the game by demanding tech 10 everything on the starbases

Either you don't read what i write or i can't explain what i mean.
48 days, 14 hours, 36 minutes ago
Profile Image
tannim
RE: So let's talk about the random queue. The random queue has...Write Reply
I did read what you wrote and I think I understand what your intent was. Perhaps I am the one who did not explain well. Let me try again.

>2) change random builds to wighting by SB OVERALL Tec.
a SB with "all tec 10" has a higher chance to build than a solely tec 10 hull SB.
By this you eleminate the disadvantage for torpers.

By the suggestion in point #2 above, starbases that have all tech 10 will have a higher priority for builds than starbases with only one tech 10 (such as just tech 10 hulls). This may work if all players have a premium membership. Unfortunately, there is an unintended side-effect. Most starbases owned by standard membership players have 0 or at most 1 tech 10 parameter. All other parameters will max out at tech 7 for these players. As a result of the proposed solution, the standard membership players will only receive the highest priority for homeworld starbases and for fully advanced starbases they have managed to capture intact. The disparity of priority builds is thus much larger than the disparity in total starbases between two players. As a result, the premium players with fully advanced starbases will get the vast majority of free builds while the standard player is left to wither on the vine.

I hope this better explains my concern. Thank you for your time.
48 days, 14 hours, 28 minutes ago
Profile Image
domodedovo
RE: So let's talk about the random queue. The random queue has...Write Reply
yes, thank you Tannim, i now understand your concern.
But on the other hand (this might sound evil) this is even an argument for my suggestion as there should be a penalty to non paying players as the site needs to make some money. But maybe the effect will be to severe.
But look at me, i am also standard now, but as soon as there is a need, i will change to premium for 1 or three months, depending on the need. The fee costs the same like one beer in my favourite pub but lasts for one whole month, wheres the beer is emptied within 20 minutes.
48 days, 14 hours, 19 minutes ago
Profile Image
tannim
RE: So let's talk about the random queue. The random queue has...Write Reply
Not evil, at least not completely evil. Maybe just practical evil. It probably comes down to a difference of opinion and viewpoint. As a standard player, I think the inability to advance a starbase fully is penalty enough.

I apologize if we have jacked the thread. I have to get to work now so I return you to your regularly scheduled discussion thread.

Thank you.
48 days, 14 hours, 10 minutes ago
Profile Image
domodedovo
RE: So let's talk about the random queue. The random queue has...Write Reply
@DM,

> I'm winning in both of them, and that's the problem. > It has completely sapped the fun out of the game for > me. I will never play again with a random queue,

i had a look and especially in one game there is a high chance you are winning also because of fireclouds, not because (only) of random queue i guess.
This is another aspect what should be changed imho as for example in my game with hidden scores (noone knows my real strength) there are actions going on to join against the borg to kill him early, just because they are known to be overpowered but from the current game you can't know. This is kind of silly in my eyes (if there is a borg no matter what, kill him by using a N:1 approach or he will kill you in the end). Solution: add penalties to chunneling and in compensation add the medium ship battlepower of Borg. why is there nothing done?

But of course this should be another topic. Sorry for hijacking and off.
48 days, 14 hours, 9 minutes ago
View dungeonmaster's profile
dungeonmaster
RE: So let's talk about the random queue. The random queue has...Write Reply
I don't give a flying rat's ass about a "small amount of surprise". That sort of argument needs to DIE now. I don't want to spend 50+ turns playing econ simulator 1991, carting millions of KT of materials and MC just for the fleeting chance of building a useful ship - just so that joe bag of donuts can get his "small amount of surprise". No. No. No. *#&@ that.
The random queue is FORCING me to upgrade EVERYTHING. That means millions, not figurative, literal, millions of MC for a large empire. Hundreds of thousands of kT of minerals and fuel being shipped around. That is not an exaggeration. If you have a 100 planet empire and it's 1000 kT to build an h.phaser ship - because some dickwit didn't kill of the crystals lets say (never seen that before) that is 100 000 kT. And the starbase cost. And then there's the fuel.
The numbers just keep going up the more you win. The more planets you get, to actually effectuate the territorial gain, it gets worse.

IF we played high level games where resources were abundant and everywhere, it might be a different type of game. Right now we play championship and solo victory games with low resources. Everything needs to be shipped and there's not much fuel. So this is the worst of all worlds.

In point form what the random queue does:
#1 Forces enormous, disproportionate expenditures of both in-game resources and REAL human hours. These are real hours spent moving virtual currency around just for the *chance* of building a useful ship.
#2 Grinds the mid-game, post ship limit, to a halt. No War, the econ phase continues. The transition to a war economy happens much much later and muted.
#3 And corollary to #2 - the bulk of the fleet and resources are not directed towards war. Ships are necessarily not attacking the opponent.
#4 Lessens the strategic value of specific planets - no one will fight for the next planet ID that could build a ship. Why bother?
#5 Weakens torp races enormously. The already significant carrier advantage is made worse by requiring so much more MC everywhere.
#6 And corollary to #5 - lowers the overall tech of ships in the game in an absurd random way
#7 Sum total: GAMES ARE LONGER AND LESS FUN. Unless of course econ simulator 1991 is your cup of tea, in which case: DIE.


THERE ARE NO BENEFITS. NO POSITIVES. NONE.

The standard linear queue:
#1 Allows for specific allocation of resources.
#2 The econ phase drops off rapidly after ship limit as the queue stalls
#3 War economy become important because the queue is again stalled and there is no point diverting 20k + 2000 KT of minerals to planet ID 478 when the queue is at ID 4. That stuff gets set to the fronts.
#4 If the queue is at ID 4 and you have the choice between planets ID 10 and ID 375 to attack, you're going to attack ID 10. Conflict. Plain and simple. In a game where it's very difficult to force ship combat this is very relevant. Very.
#5 Even the romulans can actually get a decent ship even with their piss poor economy from the normal queue. They have to visit a handful of planets and upgrade a handful of bases. That's it, that's all. Not 10-10-10-10 everywhere which would probably take 3 human real years.
#6 Ships post limit are all going to be higher tech. The game will speed up.
#7 Games are faster and more fun.




48 days, 14 hours, 4 minutes ago
Profile Image
hypnos hanse
RE: So let's talk about the random queue. The random queue has...Write Reply
You want to limit the time to build the economy and have more time to pit your strength against the other? Without more complicated rules? Why not limiting the starbases? Extract a root from planets you own to build a starbase. 1 planet = 1 starbase, 4 P = 2 SB 9P = 3 SB and so on. If losing planets, you can keep the starbase.
48 days, 13 hours, 59 minutes ago
View dungeonmaster's profile
dungeonmaster
RE: So let's talk about the random queue. The random queue has...Write Reply
There is no need to reinvent the wheel. The linear queue is FINE, it works well. All sorts of complicated schemes can be envisioned, but really, there's no need to make a new wheel.

I re-iterate my offer: Anyone want to take over a highly developed cylon position? Fully refitted armed armada, MBR, falcons and excellent position, resources, very high probability of victory.
All you have to do is cart minerals around for another 30 maybe 50 turns or so. And you have lots of falcons. I'm just done doing it.
48 days, 13 hours, 32 minutes ago
Profile Image
thumbtack
RE: So let's talk about the random queue. The random queue has...Write Reply
Players fear losing ships and not being able to replace them, creating stagnation. I feel this is highly detrimental to the game overall. A race can sit out of battle and build ships as two other races blow each other up. Turtling then has become a strategy of choice; build your ships until the sector hits the limit, spam starbases and wait until odds are overwhelmingly in your favor before sending in the fleet.

More needs to be done to drive and incentivize offense and punish the turtles. With the soft ship limit setting as is, the sector eventually returns to 500 ships. What if this wasn't true? If more points were given for taking enemy planets and blowing up ships, the only way you could build more ships post-limit would be to fight for it.
48 days, 12 hours, 58 minutes ago
View dines's profile
dines
RE: So let's talk about the random queue. The random queue has...Write Reply
The way i see it, PLS is good for beginner games.
It removes the risk of the massive disappointment, where you build up,lots of resources, but get surprised by the limit, and cant build any ships.
The more experienced players knows to keep a constant eye on the queue,
and make sure minerals are spread out to spend it all before the limit.

Production queue is for intermediate games.
You will always be able to build some ships after the limit, with saved up PP,
and if you build up a strong economy, you will be able to get more bases ready to build. But i would agree with DM, that its a zombie like strategy, simply setting up bases at random.

Priority build queue, or the old queue, is for expert games.
It takes a lot more planning to "surf" the queue, and set up bases the right places. But it feels a lot more purposeful.
New players can be completely screwed by the old queue.
If they forget to set PBX codes in advance, they end up spending PBP on ships that would otherwise be free.
And if you fail to keep track of the queue, you can end up building hardly any new ships.

As for games lasting forever, and getting boring enough for DM to want to stopm playing, there is a perfectly good solution. Invasion Games.
It used to be an option under Thost at some servers.
In an invasion game, you get one point for every turn you are able to conquer and hold on to an enemys hw. And loose one point a turn if you have lost your own hw.
When you get to typically 50 points, you win the game.

If anybody tries to sit back and wait for other to fight and free shipslots, they will loose the game. Everybody has to be aggressive to have a chance.

I guess i will just have to get to admiral, and win a championship game,
so i can introduce the victory condition.
If Emork can introduce artifacts, i could introduce a new winning condition/ type of game.

48 days, 12 hours, 52 minutes ago
View regicide's profile
regicide
RE: So let's talk about the random queue. The random queue has...Write Reply
A lot of different thoughts here.

ALL THREE SHIP BUILDING SYSTEMS WE HAVE STILL FAVOUR HEAVY CARRIERS OVER A FLEET OF SMALLER SHIPS.

To start the que type is not the True issue the ship limit and how the ship limit is managed is.


The 3 systems.

1. I know PLS is different and not the issue here.

2. The Classic system with Que blocking by killing Merlins remains reason many players will not go back to playing Classic games. I did like that you could plan for what base was going to build next

3. The new PQ system in great improvement over Classic system. (to most players)
- Though it still allows the Merlin Que Blocking. It is limited in that other players can still get some builds with points but stops all free builds.
- I Dislike that you can’t plan where the next free build will happen.



Option 1
(lot of things in here that change game just a heads up don’t worry about them. They are not happening)

To fix ship limit issues. This is the true issue the que system is just one used to fix it.

Lower Total Mineral resources with some of the following.
-Set games with lower Mineral resources.
-increase Transmutation rates to up to (x)20 a turn based on density.
-Increase meteor showers.
-make merlin so only changes mineral types and not makes minerals. Would turn 600 dur into 600 Mol. (for this would want merlin much cheaper to build and smaller cargo)
-Make NRS so (x)5 supplies makes a fuel no minerals needed.
Aries would do it for (x-2)
- give every race recover minerals like the Cyborg but on any ship at location or a special ship (LDSF) give Cyborg two times everyone else
- have the remaining minerals from destroyed ships fall as meteor showers over 5-20 turns in a 200ly range.
-Torps and fighter then made from Supplies and MC with no minerals cost.(could be different for each race to sim the building fighters in space option)
Games would not hit 500 ships often most issues solved.
All of this would really change the game and balance.

Some could be test in test games first without needing any coding changes some can’t be.

Option 2
To fix the issue of having to max out the tech on each base. Could add an ability to move ships parts like in Starbase+. Starbase+ used the Medium I think it should be done using the Super Transport Freighter for a few reasons.
1. Engines take up a lot of room forget without looking at their mass.
2. The Medium is build a lot in games the STF is not.
3. Should still limit how may can fit on a ship to max 10 of any part.


Option 3
What about having total tech effect total mass that a starbase can build each turn? Thoughts?
This would weaken the EE and Borg the most. There are 40 points total and Put mass into 100kt groups.

Mass Tech required
0-100 4
101-200 8
201-300 12
301-400 16
401-500 20
501-600 24
601-700 28
701-800 32
900+ 36


Option 4
We have 3 types of Starbases now. Why not be able to build all 3 types on any planet and have each one able to build different things. ( may need to adjust there costs)

Mining Starbase: Ships under 200kt and get 2x mining.
Standard Starbase: ships Up to 500kt (No Nova, Automa, Rush, Virgo, Merlin…)
Heavy Starbase build any ship. (each HW starts with one of these) only buildable on planets with no natives.


Option 5
Adding Home Worlds able to build 2 Ships (Gorbies) a turn, does not sound good.
48 days, 11 hours, 34 minutes ago
View regicide's profile
regicide
RE: So let's talk about the random queue. The random queue has...Write Reply
Fight or fail could be seen as the issue as well.

It is set to low in most games. It should not start until turn 20 needing (x)30 planets. Then add the plus 1 very 3 to 5 turns.

the site set it to 30 planets on turn 30 when it started.

In this game http://play.planets.nu/#/sector/256858
you are talking about dropping.

if set to on Turn 30 need 30 planets. and +1 every 4 turns.
on turn 50: need 35 planets would need to take 11 planets and on 76 would be 41 planets Crystals are at 46 would only need to take 5 planets from the crystals.

on turn 100 need 47 planets to stay in game borg, Crystals, Rebels would be close do dead. Privateers would be close at 55 planets.


On turn 30 you would have 32 planets that would be close.

This FoF can be good if set higher. For 0 ally games it makes sense to be set higher.
48 days, 11 hours, 13 minutes ago
Profile Image
talespin
RE: So let's talk about the random queue. The random queue has...Write Reply
There needs to be a clear distinction between CUSTOM games and COMPETITIVE games. Nu needs to decide on one queue for competitive/championship games and stick with it, but it also needs to clear about the difference. Maybe even taking awards away from custom games, including campaign. Or have a different set of awards (or achievements which was recently brought up).

Having three queue types makes it more difficult to teach a new player this game. It makes learning things even more daunting.
48 days, 11 hours, 6 minutes ago
View tom graves's profile
tom graves
RE: So let's talk about the random queue. The random queue has...Write Reply
The whole issue of star base spamming (and then the follow on of every SB needs a heavy ship) could be eliminated by allowing only one SB/5 planets.

You can also improve the game by raising the cost of lost PP's to 6-8 instead of 2. Thus allowing smaller fleets to throw a sacrifice ship at a SB and be able to rebuild it.
48 days, 11 hours, 3 minutes ago
View dungeonmaster's profile
dungeonmaster
RE: So let's talk about the random queue. The random queue has...Write Reply
Fight or fail is an excellent rule it changed the game for the better, speeding it up and avoiding the insane 600 turn Capricorn style slugfest. An aggressive scheduling could mitigate *some* of the problems of the random queue but not all. Even if I kill off the crystal, or the romulan, to profit from my victory I still have to develop his entire space. I need to visit every planet, drop a base on it and cart MC and minerals everywhere. I go from 80 planets to 120 planets and as the victor I'm continuously stuck in the build phase of the game. With the standard linear queue, I target only the planets that I know have a chance to build for investment, all my resources otherwise go towards war efforts, and the game speeds up once again. The problem is fundamentally the random queue. There's no getting around it this queue is dumb beyond belief. It needs to go.
48 days, 10 hours, 50 minutes ago
Profile Image
thumbtack
RE: So let's talk about the random queue. The random queue has...Write Reply
Can fight or fail requirements "accelerate"?

Or how about once the ship limit is hit, you can only build with points from then on, even if it drops below 500?
48 days, 10 hours, 38 minutes ago
View regicide's profile
regicide
RE: So let's talk about the random queue. The random queue has...Write Reply
I feel the Classic Que needs to go.

Merlin locking the Que is so lame. Is it like the old Civ just need to learn how take advantage of a loop wholes in the system and every game is easy.

Is like the now old tow chunnel. There are still few issues that have not been fixed.

Webs should not work in ion Storms. They are already powerful.

or Ion Storm could be removed were only added to help balance game for Torp races but it made torp races weaker other then the Crystals.

48 days, 10 hours, 34 minutes ago
View j-zan's profile
j-zan
RE: So let's talk about the random queue. The random queue has...Write Reply
@Dungeonmaster

I couldn’t agree more. And let’s be honest, I probably would enjoy “econ simulator 1991” … but the random queue is just mind-numbing in the end-game.

My first real taste of the PQ system is “https://planets.nu/#/sector/283112” (The couple of previous games PQ games I tried were fundamentally shaped by the Capricorn time-suck I lived in.)

The fact is – I’m going to win that sector. I still have a fight or two before it’s in the bag, and the Wasps found Crystal support... but yea, I'm confident it's a winner. And every turn I’m in a panic trying keep every SB I have loaded with usable ships. It sucks away from free time, to manage this stupid economy. And I never know which corner of my empire will need a new freighter running new minerals to make sure that I have a chance at, maybe, getting another Rex. FFS, I am actively using *LCCs* away from the front lines as logistics ships. It’s nuts.

Keep production queue with its soft limit, PP gains, etc… But give us a linear queue…. It’d add interesting choices based on the strategic value of a specific planet, and lessen the insane logistical time spent in human hours.
48 days, 10 hours, 29 minutes ago
View regicide's profile
regicide
RE: So let's talk about the random queue. The random queue has...Write Reply
Web mines are truly the one think that slows the game down the most.

They are worse then the Borg and there Fireclouds at least that is fast.

If webs did not work in ionstorms players would have a change to attack the Crystals. They still have normal mines.

Having a crystal player wait 80 turns for an ionstorm to come into your space so they can attack. And you can do nothing to stop or counter it runes the game.

48 days, 10 hours, 11 minutes ago
Profile Image
martinr
RE: So let's talk about the random queue. The random queue has...Write Reply
DM simple. Stick to games with Classic Queue then.

If you cannot find one then create one. A person if your reputation will fill it quicker than most.

I am the opposite.

I hate the Classic Queue.

It is dominated by skilled players who use the Merlin tactic to block the queue so no one builds.

Those who lead the PP can PB1 SDSF and no one builds ever again.

Which kills the fun in Classic Queue games.

All valid tactics but dodgy tactics and totally not like real life.

Production Queue is random. Which I like. You can spend PP's when you like.

People can blow up Merlin's in one sided battles but I don't have to do that

So I chose not to play in Classic Queue.

I design games I want to be promoted and don't use Classic.

Simply join games with your preferred Queue system.
48 days, 9 hours, 50 minutes ago
Profile Image
mursu
RE: So let's talk about the random queue. The random queue has...Write Reply
Well there's no reason at all why we couldn't search for better alternatives. PQ is better that Classic in many ways, but there might be some flaws that CAN be fixed. If a good alternative can be found, why not?

So if PQ would lose the randomness and planets would build instead in planet id order, what's the downside?

One I that could be seen is that it would help the Borg with their Fireclouds even more than what it is now as they could easily set the builds to any base anywhere.

Could this change be paired with some kind of nerfs to Borg? Make chunneling to cost 300 fuel or even full fuel tank? Still well worth it.

And if some changes are made I definitely wouldn't mind if Crystals would receive some kind of nerf too. How about if ion storms actually DESTROY web mines? Crystals could still lay normal mines...

48 days, 9 hours, 44 minutes ago
View j-zan's profile
j-zan
RE: So let's talk about the random queue. The random queue has...Write Reply
@Martinr,

DM already noted that he's happy to go to Classic.

But he's suggesting something BETTER than the PQ and Classic. A "best of both" in my opinion.

DM is asking for a PQ change that would give ita
linear queue - and everything else the same.

The proposal would preserve these from the PQ:

a. Soft (or floating) limit: People always can build with PP
b. PP reward for killing SB's
c. +1 PP cost for ship builds (which devalues SDSFs and Merlin control)


Honestly, I don't think that the "extra fun" in the PQ is the randomness so much as (a-c). And most folks in this thread have pointed to a-c when praising the PQ.
48 days, 9 hours, 38 minutes ago
View tom graves's profile
tom graves
RE: So let's talk about the random queue. The random queue has...Write Reply
For me the problem with PQ is that sdsf spamming was replaced with SB spamming.

The only thing wrong with PQ is that it encourages SB construction in abundance. Finding a way to prevent that would make PQ a very good version of Nu.
48 days, 9 hours, 19 minutes ago
Profile Image
sirad
RE: So let's talk about the random queue. The random queue has...Write Reply
My 5 cent, as havin played all 3 kinds of queue's here:

Any change to the original game of vgaplanets perverts this game. There is no 'making better' of something that was already perfect.

There is no sense trying to grind an already perfekt diamond. It may get other shapes, but its getting smaller each time you grind.

At the end its getting small and worthless.
48 days, 9 hours, 11 minutes ago
Profile Image
ace rimmer
RE: So let's talk about the random queue. The random queue has...Write Reply
@Tom_Graves

Encourages starbase construction?? ... I don't really see a problem with this. I mean honestly the Classic que encouraged SB spamming to so you could build the SDSFs to recycle later.

Honestly if you are playing a late game race like the EE for example you should be building defensive starbases early in the game anyways so you can simply survive to the late game. It was very hard to even finish a game as the EE and you could practically forget about winning if there was good competition in the classic queue cause you couldn't build enough starbases to survive and enough Gorbies to win before the ship limit. Then you had to work the queue in a very long game to get the Gorbies that you needed.

The PQ and Starbase Fighter Transfer has changed all that for the EE and I can't think of a race that benefited more from the changes. Now you can be defensive early build the SBs so you have a good defense while building up your Fighter Transfer logistics and the PP to build more Gorbies after the ship limit hits.

It doesn't change the game for early attack races either. They still have to attack early.

But honestly I think the ship limit, PQ, Classic even PLS should be replaced with a ship limit based on number of planets owned, Starbases, & Native Races giving the player pts, or resources that manages the ship limit for that player or race. This should have been done eons ago but for some reason we are still stuck on this idea of modifying the original classic build queue. Just trash the whole thing a develop a system where the player is in charge of his own ship limit. A game like that will be easier to market to new players anyways which is what this site needs to survive in the long haul.

Ace
48 days, 8 hours, 46 minutes ago
Profile Image
talespin
RE: So let's talk about the random queue. The random queue has...Write Reply
If this Merlin-queue-lock tactic is the biggest problem with Classic, why not just lessen the amount of points a merlin receives from being destroyed?
48 days, 8 hours, 27 minutes ago
View j-zan's profile
j-zan
RE: So let's talk about the random queue. The random queue has...Write Reply
Most of ya'll are going way past the scope of DM's complaint.

His issue isn't with Classic v PQ (or PLS). It's with the random build order vs the linear build order. Nobody says that a linear build order has to be a complete reversion to Classic.

And frankly, I doubt that we'll find a real advantage to the random build order.

Both systems
1. Encourage SB production for defense.
2. Reward early SB production. (emphasize early economy).
3. Benefit the player with the stronger economy, overall.

Both, absolutely, want you to maximize SB production.
With the "Random Build Order" you have to develop those SB's beyond a 200/60 defense platform to queue a usable ship on every base.
In the "Linear Build Order", you can focus your resources to develop SB's beyond a 200/60 defense platform to queue a usable ship on the "next set of bases in the queue."

The need to put those ships at "every base" as opposed to the "next set in the queue" doesn't make much a difference when you have a small empire and a small amount of starbases.

But it makes a HUGE difference for the players in the stronger positions. It's mind-numbing. And the demand on the minerals/megacredits is excessive. It exacerbates problems with Torp v Carrier tech, and punishes poorer economies.

The linear queue had other benefits besides being less punishing of torp races, a person's time, and the in-game economy. It made the planets valuable based on their queue position which is is an excellent addition to the gameplay, providing strategic and tactical benefits to holding specific planets. And the linear queue let players be proactive about gaining builds. You could plan ahead, and work towards what you needed.

The random queue, imo, doesn't have real benefits. It has the 'illusion' of benefits (the perception that you might win the SB lottery and get a build) - but that is far outweighed by the cost.
48 days, 8 hours, 23 minutes ago
View dungeonmaster's profile
dungeonmaster
RE: So let's talk about the random queue. The random queue has...Write Reply
Precisely J-zan, in words other than my own, precisely.
48 days, 8 hours, 7 minutes ago
Profile Image
the pale destroyer
RE: So let's talk about the random queue. The random queue has...Write Reply
I'm with DM on the random queue; overall I like standard and the new features that have been added, but the SB lottery does detract from the game imo.
(I recently accidentally joined a classic game having been sticking to standard, and was surprised at the little surge of joy the thought of working the queue gave me)
48 days, 8 hours, 4 minutes ago
View regicide's profile
regicide
RE: So let's talk about the random queue. The random queue has...Write Reply
@Talespin queue-lock tactic issue can not be fixed with making a Merlin/NFS 100kt or 1 point when killed. As then the Carrier races can still do it with a tech 1 Gorbie for 7-10 points depending on the race but the Torp races can't go over 5 points. Feds can do 7.

matching FC for GsX helps but it is often done between allies in a game.
some races get advantage on getting Prisoner ships (Crystals,Privateers)
48 days, 7 hours, 59 minutes ago
Profile Image
sibiryak
RE: So let's talk about the random queue. The random queue has...Write Reply
I haven't played planets for that long (compared to others on the site), so don't have any nostalgia for the classic queue. I do have experience with all 3 queues, with particular interest in PLS (where I seem to struggle the most).

The appropriate strategies for the 3 queues seem to be:
- Classic: upgraded starbases with good builds ahead of queue
- Standard: upgraded starbases with good builds at EVERY planet
- PLS: a few well-upgraded starbases in key locations with logistics to supply them

I feel that the late game in the Standard queue is by far the worst of the 3. Having won as a Cylon with 100+ starbases, the work of setting them up and maintaining the builds is absolutely excruciating. Especially when you don't have tech to save fuel on shipping.

I do like many features of the Standard queue. SDSF building is silly, and Merlin control seems almost an exploit. That's why I really like the summary put here by @J-zan:

> a. Soft (or floating) limit: People always can build with PP
> b. PP reward for killing SB's
> c. +1 PP cost for ship builds (which devalues SDSFs and Merlin control)

(I assume that he also includes +2PP/turn/SB before limit, but forgot to include?)

Finally, I would like to note that competitive games have worked to eliminate randomness from them (with notable exception that are built around randomness, like card games). The randomn element should come from the unexpected moves of your opponent, not from the game itself.
48 days, 7 hours, 58 minutes ago
Profile Image
siggi
RE: So let's talk about the random queue. The random queue has...Write Reply
Totally agree with everything DM has said here.

My main question would be why on earth isn't this an option for private games at least?
I doubt Joshua wants to change it since PQ has had no real changes since its inception.
So make it an option.
Check a box for linear or random.
Simple really.

48 days, 7 hours, 32 minutes ago
Profile Image
quetzal
RE: So let's talk about the random queue. The random queue has...Write Reply
Have not had the 'pleasure' to manage that many planets to this level... It sound rather horrible.

Still it seemed to me that the proposal by @Zacha could be made simpler by:

---
Step1:
Randomly select the race (rather than the planet) which is allowed the free build. Draw a race weighted by the number of starbases the player has.

Step2:
Allowing PBx codes (when set) to identify where that free build will be made. If no code is set: build at some random SB of the race just like now.

Step3:
Repeat until 500 ships.
---

This :
- has the [upside/downside] of discouraging PP harvesting if you want to optimise free builds (although PP's are still useful).
- has the [upside/downside] of not having to focus on planet IDs
- does not require an additional FC or PQ point system
- has the [upside/downside] of not requiring high-tech starbases everywhere
- has the [upside/downside] of more high tech free builds

Complicated beast this game...
48 days, 7 hours, 10 minutes ago
View regicide's profile
regicide
RE: So let's talk about the random queue. The random queue has...Write Reply
The +1 to build favours the Heavy carrier races.
I understand it was done to fix the Merlin control exploit but it does not stop it. Now your merlin gives you +5 ships not +10 it is still control.

@TomGraves I like getting the 6-8 points for taking a base would make it so many races could afford to take them out it is one of the reasons many races can't win high level games. One issue with this gain is you only get them if your opponent has points to lose. most times killing a base will get you 0 vs a good player.

What if you get 4-8 points and opponent loses 2-6 but you get them even when your opponent don't have any. This could be random, for both players.
Though this would become the new Merlin exploit.

Many old time players feel exploits should not be removed. A list should be in the How to play as little know tricks. Then everyone learns them not the few. Like Star Base with only mass (x) wins more vs some Heavy carriers then when its mass is maxed. I always have to look that one one.

To capture a SSD you need to first remove of most the fighters from it. Without damaging the Hull. Your torp ship should have only less beams on it max 7 you got 50-55% if you got 10 beams you are at under 1%. 3 beams at 95%. Less beams only works if you know they got no fighters. Need to kill them first. that is with a DarkWing if you got more torps you do better less torps you need less beams.
48 days, 6 hours, 40 minutes ago
Profile Image
yakkamole
RE: So let's talk about the random queue. The random queue has...Write Reply
Apologies if I'm 7 years late to the conversation (or perhaps 17), but what is the Merlin tactic everyone is referring to?
48 days, 6 hours, 36 minutes ago
Profile Image
sibiryak
RE: So let's talk about the random queue. The random queue has...Write Reply
> Apologies if I'm 7 years late to the conversation (or perhaps 17), but what is the Merlin tactic everyone is referring to?

http://www.planetsmagazine.com/strategy/strategyguides/confessions-of-a-queue-controller/
48 days, 6 hours, 30 minutes ago
Profile Image
mursu
RE: So let's talk about the random queue. The random queue has...Write Reply
What are the main arguments for why the PQ builds should be random like it is now?

One I already mentioned is how it benefits the Borg, but it can be fixed (like increasing the cost to chunnel, but there are countless of other alternatives too).

Others?
48 days, 6 hours, 18 minutes ago
Profile Image
thumbtack
RE: So let's talk about the random queue. The random queue has...Write Reply
There is the 'Must Match GSx' feature at game creation which would stop Merlin control, or maybe require the receiving ship to have 1 clan and must have fuel.
48 days, 5 hours, 12 minutes ago
Profile Image
siggi
RE: So let's talk about the random queue. The random queue has...Write Reply
@Mursu there are no main arguments.
You claim a linear queue benefits the Borg because of their superior logistics? Surprise, surprise it benefits them even more with a random one. They are better equipped than any race to haul minerals and money to all of their bases.
I so far have not seen a single convincing argument for a random queueu.
48 days, 3 hours, 13 minutes ago
View emork the lizard king's profile
emork the lizard king
RE: So let's talk about the random queue. The random queue has...Write Reply
PQ is here for 5 years. A good time to evalute how it's different aspects affect game play and maybe adjust the system for the better.

When production queue was presented at the PlanetsCon in Franktfurt in 2014 (https://youtu.be/Deela7v8YbA?t=2547) my first thought was that the new "random queue" emphasizes mid-game economy much more than the existing "linear queue". The eco race won't end with the ship limit at T30. It continues until the spawn of high tech bases is completed in T100+. My experience since then confirms this. I personally try to have a base at every planet with two! of my big guns in stock. I don't want to miss the chance to get 2 big builds at the same base in 2 consecutive turns. A nice task for an eco maniac like me but this is not what production queue wanted to achieve.

One main idea behind production queue - as I understood it - was to encourage more and earlier combat and potentially quicker games. The idea behind it's aspect "random regular builds" was that the economic power of an empire should affect the probablility to get the next regular build. Both are good ideas but they represent conflicting goals. No problem! This conflict is inherent to many strategy games, it's even their very nature. Every Planets commander has to decide: how many resources do I spend for actual warfare and how many do I spend for infrastrucure and future builds. It's all about finding the right balance in the specific situation you're in and adjust it every turn.

Let me add that the dynamic of each sector is different. In sectors where _all_ races are heavily fighting most of the time the disadvantages of the "random queue" may not even be noticed. But if a few races in a sector hold back and focus on maximizing their builds the others have to do the same or lose (in average).


Food for thoughts: The old linear queue could be smoothly incorporated in the production queue system. Just replace the new random build selection process with the old id based process. All other aspects of production queue (soft ship limit, PP for not building, PP stealing, increased cost of priority builds) are great.
Maybe: To lessen work/troubles/confusion for beginners (and some experts, too ;) the position of the queue pointer could be shown in the score - only after the ship limit of course when bases are plenty. Yes, this gives away a small amount of information but this doesn't really affect game balance.









48 days, 3 hours, 1 minutes ago
View dungeonmaster's profile
dungeonmaster
RE: So let's talk about the random queue. The random queue has...Write Reply
I would be totally fine with a queue pointer for the record. I suggested as much many eons ago.

Do I really have no taker for my cylon game with giant completed refitted (h.phaser transwarp) and armed robot armada? MBR, loki and falcons too. I simply don't want to do the necessary econ anymore.
48 days, 1 hours, 39 minutes ago
Profile Image
elephant47
RE: So let's talk about the random queue. The random queue has...Write Reply
Agree fully with Dungeonmaster. The random build detracts from the game. More work and less fun.

*** The simple fix is change to linear builds. PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE! ***

(As I understand it the new PQ system was about stopping queue jamming with such things as destroying merlins. The random build order is not needed for the PQ system to achieve this goal.)

Pete.
48 days, 1 hours, 21 minutes ago
View regicide's profile
regicide
RE: So let's talk about the random queue. The random queue has...Write Reply
added the random as an option on/off would work. There are players that like it I am sure.
47 days, 23 hours, 46 minutes ago
View gnerphk's profile
gnerphk
RE: So let's talk about the random queue. The random queue has...Write Reply
Well, it does have the advantage of being a nice simple change.
47 days, 22 hours, 32 minutes ago
Profile Image
sirad
RE: So let's talk about the random queue. The random queue has...Write Reply
'Do I really have no taker for my cylon game with giant completed refitted (h.phaser transwarp) and armed robot armada? MBR, loki and falcons too. I simply don't want to do the necessary econ anymore.'

Hehe :-) i would have taken on, if i did not decided to start no new games here... To many things missing and the things that are here turning into the wrong direction...

How about starting a separate thread fpr your replacement question ?
46 days, 12 hours, 39 minutes ago
Profile Image
lord pollax
RE: So let's talk about the random queue. The random queue has...Write Reply
Let me first say I appreciate the good discussion here. Now on to business...

I'm very disappointed with your approach to this discussion @Dungeonmaster as it was an immediate "turn off" and hit ignore reading your rant and direct insults/threats to fellow players. That is unworthy behavior for a player of your stature. I understand your frustration, but I expect more from Emperors/top players in setting THE example of how to behave in the threads/forums. Somebody needed to say this. end coaching

Thankfully others were able to present the salient points in inoffensive manners so I figured out the issues.

So many comments, but everyone is missing the trees while standing in the forest. WHY is there a queue at all? Removal of the queue/ ship limits effectively eliminates all your complaints except for actually having to do work to finish out the game. Until they create a voting system for ending games, the work will still need to be done... sorry. I'm afraid the "I think I have won the game so everyone else must surrender or use game mechanics to make my life easier" attitude buys very little sympathy with me personally. Sounds a lot like rich people complaining about having to count their money...

I'm all for allowing game creators to have choices however, and adding the abilities described above as options sounds like a good direction to go.

Someone asked for reasons why PQ is good? Well, I can think of several (with a few hinted at above). Reduction in Merlin Queue control effectiveness, helps the EE a modest amount since they must build more bases than ships early on to survive, adds a small bit of logic to a terribly illogical ship building rule set (really, races are going to coordinate their shipyards to build in a numerical order?? THAT is stupid!), and does provide players in the mid spots a chance to improve their fleets to challenge the leaders should they win the lottery... (and there are likely more). So saying there is no value is simply a falsehood. One could equally argue that there is no value to classic queue, as it likely has about the same number of positive points. Different flavors taste different... news at 11.

All the negative arguments basically come down to "It's hard!! I don't want to do the work!!" While I truly can understand the lack of desire to put in long turns to drive the game to conclusion, the work all yields a more certain outcome and speeds up the end. Why do you need Golems with Hvy Phasers at every single base and planet? Capturing ship slots can be done with ANY build. The slot is what matters, not the ship produced. I produce something "useful" at every base, best I can do. But always useful. Knocking yourself out for Golems at every base is piling more frosting on the cake. I encourage it, but it is not a game requirement.

I think this discussion has some very good points, and do hope more options become available. I hope Joshua gives this thread a read and considers the points presented.

I also think all the flavors of VGAP we have here have value and can be fun to play. I personally hate the Horwasps, but don't begrudge folks from having the option to play them. Don't like PQ? Don't play PQ... there are multiple other choice out there. Suggestions to enhance our game creation option are very welcome. Advocate, and maybe they will happen. Rant, and people will ignore.

46 days, 12 hours, 17 minutes ago
View j-zan's profile
j-zan
RE: So let's talk about the random queue. The random queue has...Write Reply
Lord Pollax, I think you missed the point entirely, perhaps it's worth reading through the rants more carefully.

DM *NOT* ranting against the PQ - to the contrary, he seems to like most of the features of the PQ. He's rallying against one feature of the PQ - "SB's build in random order." That's all.

Again, you've mostly expressed defense of the PQ, but not said much to defend randomness. The randomness isn't necessary for all of the good features in PQ that you've listed. Randomness isn't needed to limit Merlin control, or other issues. Randomness isn't needed to reward PP for unbuilding SB's before the limit.


The argument isn't "PQ or Classic" it's "PQ with Randomness or PQ without the random build order."


So, a few comments to your specifics defenses of the the randomness.

1."illogical ship building rule set....coordinate their shipyards to build in a numerical order?? THAT is stupid"

I've always found this to be such a weird sort of argument... it boils down to "But the game isn't realistic!" It's a game... why would we expect it to be "realistic." Game rules should promote game play - not realism. And I simply don't think randomness promotes game play well.

2. "it does provide players in the mid spots a chance to improve their fleets to challenge the leaders should they win the lottery"
Nope, I think that's false. I think it *feels* like you have a chance, but you don't actually have one. It's a mistaken perception. Lotteries average out, and the player who is winning (most planets/sbs) will have the most winning lottery tickets. That lone "lucky" build you landed isn't going to change the situation. And that's how VGAPlanets works - at it's core game design, makes the winners stronger. It's exponential in the end-game.

Note: Being able to rally your forces for an attack on a planet that is building next - *is* - a real way of promoting fleet advancement. Good tactics net rewards.

Anyway, a last comment
"All the negative arguments basically come down to "It's hard!! I don't want to do the work!!""

Ugh. I'm personally fine with doing the work - I imagine others are as well. But it's fair to suggest that the mechanics are forcing us to do something in excess. This is an example of that. It's not a problem that winning positions take longer. It's that the random queue is forcing us to take excessively longer..

Look, a linear sb build order within the PQ would:
a. Limit the work
c. Give strategic importance to planets (by id number) - expanding gameplay and tactics
d. I would argue, provide a better chance for a player to improve their standing over the lottery.

46 days, 12 hours, 9 minutes ago
Profile Image
talespin
RE: So let's talk about the random queue. The random queue has...Write Reply
I think I've been at Nu for five years. I spent the first half of my time here training myself to play with the Classic queue. Then I saw that Championship games started using PQ, so I switch to that and have started to re-train myself. I'm not overly happy with that. And, although I can't put my finger on the exact problem, I find it much more difficult to succeed in PQ than I did in Classic. In Classic, I could see how to win. In PQ, it's much more random.

There's lots we can debate about the three queue systems, but I think it's clear that three different types of games are created.

I'd like to bring up my earlier point again: There needs to be a distinction between "custom" games and "standard/competitive" games. There is in name, but not in practice. There needs to be a clear type of game/queue that is "Championship-bound". What do I play if I want to get achievement points and drank, and what do I play if I want to be strong enough to play in a Championship game?

Custom games should allow for as much customization as a player could ever want. Combine campaign features with all the game setup customizations to allow hosts to build the type of game they want to. Open it up. Let us create whatever we want. That's fun, but it should not gain Advantage Points. It should not allow access to the Championship games.

I know this suggestion is a little different than what Dungeonmaster has brought up, but I feel it can solve the issue at the root. A SEPARATION of Custom from Standard would allow people to have the best of both worlds. Yes, you can go Custom and build whatever world you could ever want. But you can also focus on Standard games that bring you rewards, rank, achievements, advantage points, and a road to the Championship game (or even other tournaments).

In deciding what is to be a Standard/Competitive league, you must decide to stick with one queue system, preferably the queue system that puts everyone on relatively equal footing.
46 days, 12 hours, 9 minutes ago
Profile Image
sirad
RE: So let's talk about the random queue. The random queue has...Write Reply
Why not building in the order the ships get ordered ?

Why not creating a BIG queue about all ships defined by the moment they get ordered ?

So if all ships already built, any new ship has to enter a queue that is defined by the turn number they got ordered. The only way to build a ship earlyer should be the use of PBP's

Any ship that gets his beams changed , engines or whatever while it is in the Queue, should just lose the position in the queue and has to start at the end of the queue again. All other ships then advance one place.

No randomness then.

[did i ever mentioned that the random build just add to the point making it a luckers game ? well, dont tell me about tactics and strategy....
46 days, 11 hours, 55 minutes ago
Profile Image
lord pollax
RE: So let's talk about the random queue. The random queue has...Write Reply
I have no issue with your suggestions, J-Zan. As an option.

Random builds make more sense than linear ones... not much more that I can say. Yes it is a game, but I don't understand resistance to trying to make it as realistic as possible. It is a wargame after all. This is why so many complain about the lack of fleet combat. Game play and realism are not diametrically opposed you know. We can agree to disagree.

The failure of DM to present a case in an inoffensive manner is entirely his fault. Failure to glean any value from it is a highly probably outcome when you get bombarded with DIE DIE YOU SUCK equivalents. I actually appreciated your discussions a great deal as it explained what I didn't want to wallow in. He also specifically said there was not a single positive thing about PQ... not sure how you came to your conclusions.

Why would anyone know where a ship is about to build? Illogical. It is not like we share intel with our enemies. Much easier to defend "not knowing" than "knowing" in my mind.

I support the choice, but not the reasoning behind it. It would not be a game I'd play in, but then again that is the glory of choice. I can choose to play in what I want. Or make a game with settings I want (and hopefully 10 others). I will always support more choice.

I personally will never understand the " It's not a problem that winning positions take longer. It's that the random queue is forcing us to take excessively longer.. " position. The endgame is where things are interesting and VCRs abound. You guys seem to relish the first 50 turns, where little is happening. Yes, the games are often decided here, but the gameplay is generally poor compared to late game. Why build 50 Golems to only fight with 10? (shrugs)

Taking out 2 neighbors and then declaring victory is inevitable so give up seems lame. It is not just about the winning guy's game play... there are 10 other players who are playing too. How about letting them get some fights in before the end? Eleven players go in hoping to win and have fun. All 11 should have fun, and one (or more) get to be the winner. It is selfish to deny folks the ability to play out their races simply because someone thinks the outcome is determined.
46 days, 10 hours, 56 minutes ago
View tom graves's profile
tom graves
RE: So let's talk about the random queue. The random queue has...Write Reply
Perhaps a modification of classic and PQ. A player could invest PBP's into a SB and then there would be a lottery (like the NBA lottery) to determine which SB built.

This way, you could invest tek into a few SB's, invest PBP's (representing sending the best construction crews, etc to that SB), but chance happens and maybe the next SB to build is not yours.

So each PBP invested in build priority gives you a 5% chance of building on the next available queue. Requiring 20 PBP to give a 100% chance of a build, but everyone with invested PBP's gets a chance so if the roll is low many SB's would qualify to build (and be chosen randomly), but if the roll is high, only SB's that have made a significant spend on build priority PBP's would have the random chance to build.

Tom
46 days, 10 hours, 37 minutes ago
View tom graves's profile
tom graves
RE: So let's talk about the random queue. The random queue has...Write Reply
To clarify this, every SB built would get a level of 'priority'. It would begin at 0 (or maybe 1) and for every PBP you put into each individual SB that 'prioriity' score would increase by 1.

Each time a non PB build is called for, the system generates a random number from 1-100. This is the build priority for the queue build. If it is low (02) every SB with a 'priority' of 1 (5%) or better would have a random chance to build.

However if that number is high (86) then only SB's with a 'priority' tech of 18 (90%) would qualify for the random build.
46 days, 9 hours, 50 minutes ago
View dungeonmaster's profile
dungeonmaster
RE: So let's talk about the random queue. The random queue has...Write Reply
@Pollax first about decorum: I'm more old nobility, Charlemagne, rather then decadent aristocracy Hapsburg. I have no problem with a massacre or two to found a succesful Empire and we need not honorifics for every ignorant inbred son of a troll. I actually care very much about the site, the game. I know full well the sources of the random queue idea and have no problem describing a spade as a spade. The random queue is a terrible idea, it hurts the game, this site, the games are all worse off with it.

This idiotic, and make no mistake it is idiotic, this idiotic rule is now standard. Standard. STANDARD. If I want to join a game, climb the leaderboard, become a cylon Emperor, I have to play with this idiotic rule. I care a whole lot less about individual choices, custom rulesets and you-name-it infinite ship nonsense, etc... I care about the STANDARD rules.

The gameplay right now, in standard rules is so bad that I have quit one game that I was winning. And more importantly: it does not need to be this bad. There is a simple fix and it is to revert from a random queue to a linear queue. To reiterate once again (and I know J-zan and others have tried): the rest of PQ is fine, an improvement over classic queue. We are exclusively talking about how the non-priority build queue cycles post ship limit.

I've stated my points, point-form, and I see no counterpoints or valid counter-arguments.

I'm going to adress your poor arguments now.

"It's not a problem that winning positions take longer" and some nonsense "why build 50 golems when you only fight with 10 (shrugs)" - Yes, yes it is a problem and your "shrugs" indicates to me you don't understand the game. Fundamentally. In this game it is *very* difficult to have ships fight other ships. If someone wants to avoid combat, outside of certain racial abilities, they essentially always can. The static targets are the planets the armada is built to take the planets and force combat with the ships which allows you to win the game. You win by having more ships, which gives you more planets - which once you do fight ships gives you more ships. It is the "snowball effect" as many descibe it. The TIME and EFFORT necessary to acheive this effect is EXTREMELY RELEVANT. People lose interest, real life events happen, and the zero sum game should not be determined by those events. It should be determined by the afore mentioned ships taking planets forcing ship battles, i.e. strategy.

"Take out two neighbours and then declaring victory seems lame (...) It's selfish to deny folks the ability to play the game" Again, you don't understand the game. When I join a zero sum game I'm not here to let you enjoy whatever minor aspect you think is relevant to your enjoyment. I'm here to CRUSH you. You walked into a competitive ARENA. That's the point of standard rules and a competitive leaderboard. In a zero sum game I am EXPLICITLY TRYING TO DENY YOU THE ABILITY TO PLAY THE GAME.

"Why do you need golems with tw an hphasers at every base? The slot is what matters not the ship produced." This is ignorance level 100 out of 100. The ships queued in bases are for the non-priority queue explicitly. When it cycles both me and my opponent get a chance at that slot. If I put sdsf in every slot and my opponent puts tw h.phaser gorbies - I am going to LOSE. The goal of all carrier races is to get the non-priority queue to cycle. That is how they WIN. The value of your non-priority queue slot is PARAMOUNT. That's the entire goddamn point of this discussion and you've missed it entirely because you have no idea what you're talking about.

Finally your compaint about "the rich complaining about counting their money" - you might be surpised to know that my views on the economy are much more egalitarian because an economy is not or should not be a zero sum game. Likewise kindness, compassion exist outside of the arena. Within the arena you can have sportsmanship, honor and some of the greatest qualities of man. We need good rules for our game.
46 days, 9 hours, 30 minutes ago
Profile Image
martinr
RE: So let's talk about the random queue. The random queue has...Write Reply
Why is it idiotic?

Its different from Classic.

If the random was started first some people would call linear idiotic and why we cannot have random? Why do we have to change our play style to this totally different queue system?

As its a different playing style.

Maybe Admin have looked at the number of games and saw that Production Queue was happening more than Classic so that is why it is Standard.

I personally believe that the game play in a linear Production Queue would develop a hybrid game.

And that would be the fourth Queue system (Classic, Production, PLS and Linear Production).

So OK maybe Admin could come up with the option for those who cannot handle the random system and turn it off for custom games.

BUT this will not be the standard system for Championship games. It will be the random Production Queue as normal.

So if you want to play in Champions ship games you should get used to playing the random Production Queue games.

46 days, 9 hours, 30 minutes ago
Profile Image
sirad
RE: So let's talk about the random queue. The random queue has...Write Reply
@dungeonmaster:

How about my suggestion for changing the queue to a non random one ?
46 days, 9 hours, 27 minutes ago
View tom graves's profile
tom graves
RE: So let's talk about the random queue. The random queue has...Write Reply
So thoughts on the semi random queue I suggested?

You can't go back to the classic queue. It's broke.

A completely random queue removes the strategy.

What of semi-random queue.

My suggestion has strategy built into it, but it negates the problem with the classic queue control.
46 days, 9 hours, 21 minutes ago
View regicide's profile
regicide
RE: So let's talk about the random queue. The random queue has...Write Reply
@Tom Graves Would the starbases level of'priority' reset after a build?
46 days, 9 hours, 14 minutes ago
View tom graves's profile
tom graves
RE: So let's talk about the random queue. The random queue has...Write Reply
No, that would be really expensive PBP wise.

So instead of having the moving queue of classic, you would have a priority queue, with your best SB's always being the ones most likely to build.
46 days, 9 hours, 10 minutes ago
View dungeonmaster's profile
dungeonmaster
RE: So let's talk about the random queue. The random queue has...Write Reply
Just make it linear! The planet IDs are already randomly distributed across th map! This idiotic random build queue is adding randomness on top of randomness FOR NO BENEFIT!

It is insanity to think that we now spend 50+ turns doing econ when we were doing a handful in the past! This isn't progress!

Emork is *#&@ing queuing 2 gorbies in every base just so that when it cycles he can have another one in slot immdiately! And this actually happened to me in my *#&@ing bot game!

We are like corporations with bullshit jobs. Corporate lawyer is a bullshit job, it serves only one purpose: You only need corporate lawyers to attack othe companies' corporate lawyers. If no one has them, they don't need to exist. We have a layer of pointless beurocracy shifting millions of MC and hundreds of thousands of kT of minerals for no other reason then if we don't do it - the other guy will. When instead our ships could be fighting and fighting for important planets.

It's MADNESS.
46 days, 9 hours, 2 minutes ago
View emork the lizard king's profile
emork the lizard king
RE: So let's talk about the random queue. The random queue has...Write Reply
Tom Graves >> You can't go back to the classic queue. It's broke.

What do you mean with the term "classic queue"?

If you mean the classic build system as a whole then ok. But nobody in this thread advocated for this. We're talking solely about PQ and how to refine it.

If you mean the classic id based sequence of regular builds then I contradict. There are reasonable arguments that the classic build system has flaws but the id based resgular ship building wasn't the reason for these flaws. I never heared such an argument.

46 days, 9 hours, 1 minutes ago
View regicide's profile
regicide
RE: So let's talk about the random queue. The random queue has...Write Reply
So in early game you could build 3-4 bases just for +2 points a turn. That you could then, put 20 points on you HW and 2 or more other planets at 10+ and should get a lot of the free builds at the start once the ship limit is hit.

I have seen some games where a few players got 150+ points before the ship limit was hit if they spend 100 on 5 bases they would be likely to get the most builds of everyone.
46 days, 8 hours, 58 minutes ago
Profile Image
zacha
RE: So let's talk about the random queue. The random queue has...Write Reply
@martinr: "Maybe Admin have looked at the number of games and saw that Production Queue was happening more than Classic so that is why it is Standard." That's not a valid argument. Most people here and DM are saying the PQ is superior to PBP. So it is perfectly reasonable that it was prefered by most and then subsequently taken as standard.
However, this does NOT mean that the one aspect DM is critizing here about PQ is superior - the random queue.

Likely the idea behind making it random was to force people less to focus on the queue and rush building up bases and queing ships accoridng to the Queue, forcing them maybe to ship materials far aways from a perfectly fine starbase just because the starbase has an ID that was recently passed by the queue, to another starbase far away jsut because it will get chosen soon (with the risk that queue passes by while mateirals are transported...).
A very valid idea. However, maybe it does not work out, as forcing then a broad mega-economy is likely not the result that was intended.

Sadly, going back to linear will again create that issue. If it is bigger or smaller then what we have now, I will not judge on that. But that's why maybe another system, even if adding some more complexity, might be a superior option.
As just switching to another (old or new) system is not always better - sometimes the switch can be worse than the original one, especially if not all the possible implications and strategies are considered. Which is extremely difficult.

But some brainstorming might be good, and some experienced players can then, without prejudice, try to gather all cons and pros of the suggestions, narrowig it down to one option which can then be implemented as a test, and if it succeeds maybe becoming standard after some time (and if it fails, maybe move to the next suggestion and test that).

But general about VGA Planets - it is already a very good and balanced game. It can never be absolutely perfect, as there are always contradicting goals. So one needs to be very careful when trying to improve - likelyhood is big that the change is in the end worse than the original, even if it was well intended and analyzed, there still might be a loophole missed or a strategy not anticipated.
46 days, 8 hours, 43 minutes ago
Profile Image
martinr
RE: So let's talk about the random queue. The random queue has...Write Reply
Why is linear unfair?

As you know exactly which of your bases are going to be next.

Borgs can set up every SB in order with their FCC net work.

Those who block the queue know which SB is next and hold onto the queue until they have their SB's set up.

Yes they will have to spam small ships again which is expensive which may go back to the Merlin tactic again.

So random weakens the Borg and those with all the PP's who can prevent the queue from moving again.

It levels off the playing field as every base can have a build so every player can have a build.

Its random and leads to more luck being involved.

Which is probably why some people don't like it.

Random is unpredictable and cannot be controlled.
46 days, 8 hours, 38 minutes ago
View tom graves's profile
tom graves
RE: So let's talk about the random queue. The random queue has...Write Reply
@Emork

You are correct, the classic queue is broken, not a linear build part of the queue. So I was not clear there.

However, making the PQ queue a linear build does what exactly for the build queue? It makes it clear where the next ship is to be built.

However, it doesn't deal with the primary complaint that DM is addressing. With PQ every SB has to be maximized to build the best possible ship. It is simply a matter of time until every single SB has to be maxed and that is the only benefit of a linear build queue. You crawl the queue with materials developing your bases ahead of the queue and building the best possible ship when it arrives. Then that SB is useless for how many turns?

With a prioritized build queue, you get to focus on a handful of bases as your build engines. SB's don't have to be spammed at every planet (eventually they will be for defensive purposes, but it is not the priority of your strategy), SB's become strategically vastly more important as you have invested money and time and PBP's into them. In addition, the randomness of reality is still there, but is not a deciding factor.

Now take your big brain and break the idea.

Tom
46 days, 8 hours, 32 minutes ago
View regicide's profile
regicide
RE: So let's talk about the random queue. The random queue has...Write Reply
I am with Tom Graves Classic is broke.(exploits abused to often)

We have to be careful of any change to the PQ system as though not perfect it is so much better then what we had before.

There is always classic for people if they don't want to play PQ or PLS.

I am less worried about the randomness of PC System. Then I am about the fact that exploits of the Que are still there and the merlin exploit is still used. some people still build junk ships to fill the ship limit.

I don't want to go back to the Linear Que. The Linear Que give players to much control over when the Que moves.

Why should I be look planet #324 will build soon if I get a base there send 2 Large get base and get Ship X.

if a Linear Que is used again the location should be seen at lease in lower and Medium level games to help improve newer players and save everyone else time tracking it.


46 days, 8 hours, 13 minutes ago
Profile Image
mursu
RE: So let's talk about the random queue. The random queue has...Write Reply
@Tom+Graves
If I understand right, your suggestion would remove the 'soft ship limit' part of PQ which pretty much everyone prefers. IMHO that needs to stay.

If we are to create a more complex system I think it needs to address two points:
1. You need to have control which base gets the build so that you don't have to buiid a maxed ship to every starbase.
2. The chances to get a 'free' build need to be higher if you have more planets (this speeds the game and gives you an incentive to capture planets early). Note that there shouldn't be a reason why this would be based on STARBASES like it is now, but instead just PLANETS.

So in short when a new 'free' build is given I would randomize it (or use linear method) first between players who based on planets owned. Then the player in question should have a method to control which base builds it.
46 days, 8 hours, 9 minutes ago
Profile Image
sibiryak
RE: So let's talk about the random queue. The random queue has...Write Reply
If the admins feel like it, it would be quite easy to add a "linear queue" option to custom games and then we can see the pros and cons in action.

There are other ideas in the thread, but they would require more work to implement and more testing to understand (of course, it might be worth it).

Ultimately, we wouldn't know for sure until we see these play out in competitive games.
46 days, 7 hours, 0 minutes ago
View j-zan's profile
j-zan
RE: So let's talk about the random queue. The random queue has...Write Reply
@Tom Graves @Sirad (and others with brand new queue suggestions)
I think this stuff overworks the problem and goes beyond the problem/fix proposed here. But, I’m all for folks brainstorming about things… just not commenting because it feels “off-topic” in this thread.

@Lord Pollax
You wrote, “He also specifically said there was not a single positive thing about PQ”
In DM’s first post, he actually wrote, “To be clear: the floating ship limit is fine, the PQ point system is fine. It is specifically that planets build ships in random order that is the major soul-sucking problem.” [I edited out a word I don’t personally use.]

Okay, so DM definitely, and specifically praised two things about PQ. If you ask me, he praised everything about PQ that isn’t “the random build order.” I’m not pointing out this error to be a jerk (and I get that it might be kind of a jerk move) … my goal is to encourage you to re-evaluate this discussion. It’s not clear to me that you are following the discussion well.

Re: Realism
Look, game rules should be designed around the effect on game play – not around the issue of being “realistic.” That’s my argument… if we make changes to a game, they should be focused on improving game play. If that coincides with adding realism, great – I’m not opposed to that. I *am* opposed to making changes to the rules that make it more realistic, but make game play worse. Frankly, I don’t think this is something to “agree to disagree” on…. It seems quite necessary that in a game, we have game rules, that improve game play.

So the relevant question is – does PQ+random builds or PQ+linear builds promote better game play?

Now, I worry that we are not talking about the same thing when we talk about ‘game play' because you wrote, “Yes, the games are often decided here, but the gameplay is generally poor compared to late game.” And “It is not just about the winning guy’s game play…. There are 10 other players who are playing too”

Those sentences don’t actually make much sense to me…. I think you are substituting “game play” for something like “enjoyment or fun.”
When I talk about game play, I’m talking about the interaction a player has with other players and the rules of the game. I always liked Sid Meier’s take on gameplay… its about creating a series of interesting choices. If the game is being decided, then by definition the gameplay is better, because those choices had a real impact on the game.

So, how do we know when gameplay is better? It’s when a rule allows a player to make interesting choices and In a zero-sum game, interesting here would mean “increasing my position relative to others.”

Things about PQ were good for this:
* Early SB’s providing 2 PP – probably gives us more interesting choices.
* Having a soft limit and always allowing PP builds – also probably gives us more interesting choices.
* Taking PP from a player when destroying a SB – also adds interesting choices.
(This last might actually be the most important contribution of PQ – and the least discussed - because it provides a direct benefit for taking SB’s via ship combat, whichi often requires sacrificing a ship. The “super-weapons” of or game are RGA, Imperial Assault and Pillage – all ways of avoiding ship losses when taking SB’s.)

Anyway, the Random Queue doesn’t provide a benefit that creates interesting choices…. I’ll offer a detailed argument in a second post.
46 days, 6 hours, 49 minutes ago
View j-zan's profile
j-zan
RE: So let's talk about the random queue. The random queue has...Write Reply
With my previous post in mind…. here is one argument about why the Linear Queue is better for gameplay. The most common defense people seem to infer is that the “Random Queue” democratizes the game – it gives the non-winning folks a chance to win the lottery, build a ship or two and fight back!!!

I think that's probably just an illusion... here’s why….

With a Random Queue, if I’m in a non-winning position, I may get a chance to build a new ship. But I have no control of this, or option to create some control over this. In fact, my only ‘decision’ that influences this is to maximize my SB count and maximize my SB builds. If I fail to do this, if I don't maximize my SB/SB Builds.... I’m not making a different choice, I'm making the wrong choice.

Notice though, that the Random Queue becomes pure luck… and the luck is stacked against the non-winning positions. How is it stacked? Because the winning position will have the highest probability of getting a new ship, and overtime, will continue to get “richer and richer.” (This assumes ideal play – where each player is maximizing their SB builds and the “winning position” is the player with the most planets/SB’s.) And thus a non-winning position doesn't really have any real method for increasing their strength relative to the winning-position. If you are losing, and a bunch of random builds happen and you get some - you might feel stronger. But relative to everyone else, on average, the fact is you are still losing.



Compare that against a Linear Queue, and remember that planetary ID’s are randomly distributed on our map. In this Linear Queue, if I’m in a non-winning position, I can take control of a next build by working my resources on the next planets to build. Because the planets are already random – I could have an empire be in a lucky position with a good string planet ids – or an unlucky one. But that’s not any different than the Random Queue… it still has the element of luck.

However... the Linear queue has a bit more to the story. You see, with the linear queue I can know where the next build is - and this gives me some control.
* I could plot to take the SB with the next build, for instance. If I'm in a non-winning position, perhaps because of a smaller fleet.... I can choose to concentrate that fleet to effectively control the 3 planets I need to take the next 3 builds. Maybe I have to sacrifice some less essential planets... but when those builds occur, I've actually increased my standing relative to the others. I went up 3 ships, and they stayed the same.
And if I can do that better than others, then I can take a "non-winning" position and make it a winning one.

* I could also choose to manipulate the queue to move quickly through planet id’s I don’t own.... and have other players miss builds. It's a risk... maybe they have those gold-plated Biocides queued up... but maybe not. It's an interesting choice I can make.

* Most valuable, perhaps with the knowledge of the next build, I can create a new tactic J-Zan hasn't dreamed of to surf that queue better.

The fact is, that in Linear Queue, I get to make decisions that have an effect on my position of strength. It’s more interesting. It's better game play.




(Look, some features of this argument are a little oversimplified, but I think the argument holds even if we were to jack the complexity up a bit. )
46 days, 6 hours, 46 minutes ago
View gnerphk's profile
gnerphk
RE: So let's talk about the random queue. The random queue has...Write Reply
I'm anxious to read it, J. I've been contemplating a mindset-based post "In Defense of the Random Queue" and I'm confident from past experience that your argument will help crystallize my own thoughts.
46 days, 6 hours, 36 minutes ago
Profile Image
mursu
RE: So let's talk about the random queue. The random queue has...Write Reply
I think the only really thought out criticism against linear PQ in this thread was by @Tom+Graves. Because the truth is, even in linear PQ in the end you will need to queue that Heavy Phaser carrier to every starbase. Ok, you will not need to reserve resources for two in a row so I guess it is something. Also it is probably easier to concentrate resources into actual fighting because you do not need to allocate those resources to every. single. starbase. as. fast. as. possible. You'd only need to do this based on how the queue moves (and of course take into account how fast it _could_ move).

So in short, based on this discussion, the linear PQ would be an improvement over the current one. However, it is not the 'perfect' solution. Still, most likely it would be worth to implement.
46 days, 6 hours, 18 minutes ago
View j-zan's profile
j-zan
RE: So let's talk about the random queue. The random queue has...Write Reply
@Mursu, Thanks for highlighting @ Tom criticism of the linear PQ.

I disagree with him.... for many of the points you raised. With Linear-PQ (and perhaps a pointer to the current queue position), I can generally plan quite well where my builds have to be and plan accordingly. I can take the time over many turns to eventually, ideally, place a h.phaser carrier in every base "just in case."

However, in the random queue - I don't know where the build is - and so I have to have every base ready immediately. The "immediately" challenge is the key difference.

@Tom can answer of himself, but I think he is adding a different frustration to the one DM gave. Tom seems to be adding a frustration with the need to eventually invest in a max-base on every planet. I personally don't think that's the problem myself.
46 days, 6 hours, 15 minutes ago
View gnerphk's profile
gnerphk
RE: So let's talk about the random queue. The random queue has...Write Reply
I know this will get lost in here; that's fine. Frankly, I'm happier with it not getting top billing.

I'm here for two reasons: First, I'm here to play; second, I'm here to win.

There's Planets players who enjoy the challenge of a losing position; I confess I'm not among them. I love the MvM environment; being able to pass on my knowledge is delightful -- but the last dozen turns is sheer torture. I play them because it's good for me and better for the Mids, but I loathe losing.

Which is why I love the random queue. (Spoiler alert: I also hate it.)

At about Turn 40 of the Capricorn War, I realized that there was no way I could possibly win. Five hundred turns later, I was still playing, still doing my dogged best, but I wasn't even bothering to prep all my bases because what's the point? Instead, I'd been methodically killing off my own native populations, knocking them down to four digits so a Cyborg invasion would have no way to gain traction.

In a random game, I would instead have chosen to rely on my superior logistics to give me an advantage. Where my opponents slowly gave in to despair, I could have continued to make progress by making every captured base an instant Virgo producer. I'd have had a continual, perpetual challenge, and I'd have aced it. I still wouldn't have won the War -- I wasn't ready for it when it began -- but the random queue would have turned a soul-deadening slog into something with hope.

"It's the HOPE that's important. It's a big part of belief. I mean to say, you give people jam today and they'll just sit and eat it. But jam tomorrow, now... that'll keep them going for ever."
- Albert, "Hogfather"

Ideally, I'd like the random queue to turn into something more quasi-realistic. I'd still like it to be random; there's something delightfully refreshing about any factor that's outside our control in a game this intense, this detailed. It provides us with a degree of freedom; it removes some of the pressure of compulsive success. But in the ideal build queue, we should be able to direct it somewhat by designating local construction priorities. In RL, sometimes priorities don't work and the low-hanging fruit gets picked; sometimes they do work and you get your chromed-out Nova Class.

But that's the ideal.

Me, I'll settle for the practicable; it satisfices, as J-Zan might say. So I play an MvM because it's good for the soul; I play a Classic because it's easy to win; I play a Standard because it's fun even when I'm losing.

That's just how I feel. I don't care to proselytize, but I did want to express it.
46 days, 6 hours, 10 minutes ago
View gnerphk's profile
gnerphk
RE: So let's talk about the random queue. The random queue has...Write Reply
PS: I do agree that PQ should have an optional linear queue. Not sure about what the new Standard ought to be, but I'm interested in finding out.
46 days, 6 hours, 7 minutes ago
View j-zan's profile
j-zan
RE: So let's talk about the random queue. The random queue has...Write Reply
@Gnerphk. Good satisficing. ;)

I should say, before the PQ was a thing... I suggested that Merlin Build Control be democratized by letting players simply buy PBP using supplies/megacredits/minerals. I think that solution would have elegantly let your self-professed "superior logistics" give you a more hopeful slog.. and of course, an interesting choice, to nuke your natives in case the Cyborg calls or use them for economic advantage.
46 days, 4 hours, 11 minutes ago
Profile Image
lord pollax
RE: So let's talk about the random queue. The random queue has...Write Reply
@J-Zan He literally said this: "THERE ARE NO BENEFITS. NO POSITIVES. NONE." This comes after his earlier rant, so clearly I must be paying more attention to what has been said then you are giving me credit for. He clarified his position and refutes pretty much what you stated. Jerk or no jerk, I stand by my statement.

I'm not going to bother to dignify DM's asinine remarks about me with any comments other than this: I find it funny that I "lack understanding of the game" that I have zero difficulty winning or being in a position to win in routinely. I certainly have no problem building bases and maxxed ships with a 2nd on the surface ready to build like your complaint about Emork. I can manage hundreds of ships, planets, and bases. Without add-ons mind you. So you can shove your condescending attitude right up your dungeon.

You guys sound like you want a "Color by Numbers" version of the game established so life is easier. Arguments are being made that the end of the game is too hard for winning players with PQ yet the same folks then say PQ helping mid-positioned players is a fallacy and really only helps those in the lead. Good gravy... which is it? And why in heaven's name would we want to discourage the mid-positioned players into thinking all was hopeless? So we can have more drops and resignations? Talk about harmful game play events...

This game does not work without having at least 5-6 folks thinking a win is possible. Not as a solo mind you, but a win via teams at a minimum. The game quality is better the longer folks believe they're in a position to win in some form. Whining that players are actually trying to win, and that exploiting conquered territory is hard work for that matter, is absurd. Why should anyone care that "winning is harder in PQ" that is not in the lead? DM has stated that the whole point IS to make life hard and unenjoyably for players, so why expect the lower positioned player to feel differently? "Having a hard time winning... awww. Poor thing."

PQ is what it is. I fully support having options available to adjust the game settings. The complaint about it being STANDARD may be a genuine concern, but honestly it is less exploitable and thus easier for newer folks to grasp. Screeching and shouting death threats at folks who like the PQ isn't likely to work, but I'm not Canadian so who knows.

And for the record J-Zan, I really do like the idea of buying PBP. Always have like the idea of rewarding folks for good economies. Hence my support of no ship limits period. Let resources be the throttling mechanism.
46 days, 1 hours, 32 minutes ago
Profile Image
ace rimmer
RE: So let's talk about the random queue. The random queue has...Write Reply
@Lord_Pollox

Love everything you said. A-Freaking-MEN!

Let me take it a step further and a bit more controversial. I always thought that manipulation of the original "Classic" build queue as cheating. So did a lot of other players who simply did not have the time required to "cheat" the built in game bugs or programming to take complete control of the build queue preventing other players from having any chance of winning.

This is why I say burn it all down. Replace all queue's with a player based ship limit based on that players resources and economy. It will make games so much more competitive and fun and of course less fun for those seeking an unfair advantage by taking advantage of a system bug or programming.

I know, I know, I am a bastard who has done questionable things myself (Just ask Glyn the keeper of all past sins LOL) but I for one find this game so much more enjoyable with the Random Queue, while it's a still a global ship limit at least its a lot more fair and can't be manipulated like the classic queue was.

Please don't get too offended by what I say, in the end a lot of very good players including myself learned to manipulate the classic queue because if you wanted to win you had to because every good player was playing that way.

Ace
45 days, 22 hours, 58 minutes ago
Profile Image
chanain
RE: So let's talk about the random queue. The random queue has...Write Reply
While I can understand DM's concerns about the economic requirement slowing down the game, I'm not sure he's on the right track to a solution. It doesn't seem to me that eliminating randomness would stop starbase spamming - just change how we prioritize it. And possibly make it worse - because if we KNOW where the next few builds are coming out, I'm a lot more likely to invest the resources into building and upgrading those starbases quickly, as opposed to when each base has a <1% chance of producing anything. Then the next set. Then the next set.

And I do think that Ace Rimmer's concerns about queue manipulation are well warranted. It adds another dimension of arbitrary complexity.

There needs to be a balance between incentives to focus on economic development versus expansion and strategic development. And in most cases, there is. Sitting on your haunches building and upgrading 100 starbases will seldom be a winning strategy; in most cases, you need to actively expand at the same time to compete with your rivals. In the cases where you get multiple players embarking upon the defensive "I want to have the most starbases" approach to the game...in large numbers of scenarios, it will be a significant error for everyone but the planet-leader to engage in that particular cold war. And for the remainder...

...I tend to think that the more effective approach would be through minor tweaks to game mechanics to better reward aggressive play instead of the economic long game.
45 days, 22 hours, 19 minutes ago
View gnerphk's profile
gnerphk
RE: So let's talk about the random queue. The random queue has...Write Reply
Well, Ace... Chanain... you're both right. But what we're proposing is a complete redesign of the whole concept of the Queue.

Which is fine by me; don't get me wrong. I'd love to see something that's a bit less arbitrary and more reasonable; I hesitate to use "realistic", but at least something with a comprehensible logic to it. Long term, it makes good sense for there to be an incentivized maintenance system such that a fleet requires a supporting population, and that supporting a fleet and supporting each starbase has an attached long-term cost. Perhaps one measured in Colonists; each idle SDSF, for example, could require dedicated population to maintain it. Or, going another direction, we could make crew Experience and Morale tangible factors with game influence, and each idle fuelless ship reduces fleet morale overall; each friendly vessel gifted to another player or destroyed penalizes fleetwide experience. In an ideal world we can do all sorts of things, and by making changes in limited fashion we have the ability to make balance tweaks as and when we need them.

Nevertheless, I think the simple solution suggested, that of introducing the option for a static queue in a PQ game, needs to be properly considered and weighed. We should discuss it a lot more.
45 days, 10 hours, 51 minutes ago
View regicide's profile
regicide
RE: So let's talk about the random queue. The random queue has...Write Reply
I am with Chanain, Ace Rimmer, Lord_Pollox and many others.

In feeling that changing to a static queue would open up Que exploits that don't work with a random que.
45 days, 10 hours, 47 minutes ago
View regicide's profile
regicide
RE: So let's talk about the random queue. The random queue has...Write Reply
@Gnerphk a complete redesign is what you and some others are talking about.
But some are only asking for PQ to go to a linear queue.
45 days, 9 hours, 50 minutes ago
View capt chaos's profile
capt chaos
RE: So let's talk about the random queue. The random queue has...Write Reply
If there is no ship limit, or a high (999) ship limit, the build que doesn't matter. Everyone builds whatever ships they want/can, and there is no system to "game". IE tons of small freighters to take up slots or blowing up merlins for points to build.

BUT, that argument/suggestion has been beat to death and the small freighter/merlin killers/hey let's add a weird race types said that didn't make any sense.

So. Y'all keep ignoring the simple fix and add in fake money and badges for promotions and any other weird stuff you can think of.
45 days, 9 hours, 19 minutes ago
View dungeonmaster's profile
dungeonmaster
RE: So let's talk about the random queue. The random queue has...Write Reply
I'm going to go through every single argument and systematically dismantle them all.
I'm going to use specific examples since this seems to have more traction then simple math and words. You can read, in words, in my and other people's posts above, what the examples detail.

I'm going to start with Gnerphk's emotional "hope" argument and lets use Capricorn as his example.

Turn 40 Capricorn Gnerphk had 32 starships including zero battlestars.
This is bad, real bad. There are no ships to take planets without losses and no real muscle to fend off significant attacks. In fact there are no ships that even in combination can take out a strong starbase. Gnerphk is a much better player today, so let's just analyze it as it stands.

63 planets is not a bad starting tally, some merlins (too many) and significant base building. Right off the bat if he manages to hold his current territory and ships explode he has at best 63/500 = 12.5% chance of getting a non-priority queue build once the map is covered with bases.

To win the game he needs to have 250 planets.
Each battlestar without defenders takes down on average 3 regular max bases (60/200 ignore borg bases etc...) and will lose to but cripple a 4th. Essentially a single battlestar is 4 planets worth of planet taking firepower.
So if the map rapidly gets covered in max bases and he has to do it alone he needs to take down 250-63 = 187 bases and to do so he needs to acquire 187/4 = 46 battlestars from the non-priority queue. The actual math is a geometric progression, since he takes planets away from the opponent and acquires their building capability enhancing his % chance of getting something from the non-priority queue.


How many ships need to die for him to get 46 battlestars?
He has 12.5% of the planets 46/0.125 = 368 ships need to die.
VGA planets is a game where killing a ship is very hard. It's very hard at expert level. For 368 of the initial ships to die it would be a bloodbath of a game, and a very lengthy bloodbath unparalleled in any high level game. Almost all games are decided with a much smaller number barely cracking the 100 mark.
It's pretty bleak, mathematically Gnerphk is not going to win Capricorn.
Whether the queue is random or not, the raw numbers of ships that must die to build the requisite number of battlestars is too large.


CASE 1: RANDOM non-priority queue.


Now you might think if Gnerphk sits back on his fiefdom and the random fairy dust sprinkles well on him, Gnerphk hopes against hope, that he will get 46 battlestars from the non-priority queue.
So what must Gnerphk do to maximize his chance of acquiring a battlestar?
He needs to build a battlestar at every single base.
He never gets there because he was playing classic and it's in SMNs and Othrym's vested interests that the queue never budges and Gnerphk never get a battlestar.

Let's assume he does manage to drop a battlestar in every base on all of his planets.
What are the odds that the next 46 random builds all go to Gnerphk?

He would need to win the following lottery:
1st build 12.5% chance Whoo hoo!
2nd build 0.125*0.125 = 1.56% yeouch that drops off fast
46th build 0.125^46 = 0.00000000000000000000000000000000000000003 % chance
Gnerphk is not Capricorn Jesus, Gnerphk is not winning this goddamn lottery.
And that's IF he puts all the work in! He must first base out and ship up everything!
He needs to first pony up 64*6000 MC + 371*64 Tri + a similar amount of Dur and Moly all over his fiefdom.
And he needs to do that ASAP otherwise his rather slim chance of getting a build in the first place may turn out to be a low tech ship or merely +2 BP in the broader PQ system.

So what are Gnerphk's ACTUAL options to get more battlestars and planets?
His #1 option is diplomacy. He needs to SELL his services - not give out for free - but sell his services. His #1 trading partners are anyone close to the bots, the pirates, the romulans in general. He can either get ships, territory to increase his measely 12.5% chance, or perhaps access to friendly abilities like RGA, pillage or SSDs which bypass the need to lose a battlestar or ship in the first place against a planet.
His #2 option is actively use his racial ability and mine out the map and try to kill small ships with mines (and perhaps subsequent intercept).

So he has spent a lot of turns stocking bases with virgo, a lot of resources that could have been going towards mines just for the slim, very slim chance of winning the lottery. He literally, not figuratively, literally spends a huge chunk of time and effort to get sliver of a chance of success.


CASE 2: LINEAR non-priority queue.

The queue stops at planet 13. He knows, or there is an indicator that it is at this planet.
Gnerphk looks at his planet list and sees that he has IDs 21, 33, 41, 43, 50.
He decides to drop a base on all of these and a virgo. He'll continue to add virgo as the queue moves forward. He spends a FRACTION of the time and cost and effort of basing and queuing out everything and he gets the exact same percentage chance of building a ship.
Why? Because the planet IDs are already randomly distributed. He has the same random chance of getting a planet near in the queue as if the build planet were a number pulled from a hat.

There is an additional REAL and tangible difference here for Gnerphk aside from tons of time and resources. Because he KNOWS ID 21 will build he can MAKE THE SHIP HIGHER TECH. He can allocate the transwarps and h.phasers and the ship he subsequently gets is *very* useful at progressing the game forward.
With the random queue he first has to get virgo hulls everywhere THEN worry about engines, guns.
So the linear queue promotes better ships, faster resolution of gameplay.

The resources that would otherwise be wasted building up everything everywhere go towards higher tech at the FEW bases that will build and of course mines to try and kill opponent ships.
So his #2 option - try to kill small ships with mines is enhanced. Again, faster gameplay, more strategy, less econ.

But it's better still. Because now he has a new diplomatic option: Offering to build for an ally. A weaker torp race happens to have planet ID 22. Gnerphk can now approach that torp race and offer to take the planet and build a virgo for him.

And even better Gnerphk decides to attack the dastardly Othrym and try to TAKE p25 by force. He can send out his lone virgo with some chance of success and an STF filled with resources and try to steal the build slot. So p25 is now *important* and Othrym will want to fight for it (likely tooth and nail knowing Othrym). So the planets have acquired REAL TANGIBLE VALUE. They're not merely 1/500th of a chance of building a ship, they're 100% chance. Real targets on the map.

The weaker player has gained: less pointless economy, higher tech ships, more strategic options, targets he can hit on the map and a diplomatic option.

So in sum the linear queue has: NO DRAWBACKS. ALL BENEFITS.

Gnerphk is still not going to win Capricorn because his start was too weak, it's an extreme example. It is clear that with the random non-priority queue he is in even worse shape.


Now we're going to look at the flip side of the stronger player.
45 days, 7 hours, 55 minutes ago
View j-zan's profile
j-zan
RE: So let's talk about the random queue. The random queue has...Write Reply
@Lord Pollax, your last post - again - seems to miss something fundamental here.

You wrote "@J-Zan He literally said this: "THERE ARE NO BENEFITS. NO POSITIVES. NONE." This comes after his earlier rant, so clearly I must be paying more attention to what has been said then you are giving me credit for. He clarified his position and refutes pretty much what you stated. Jerk or no jerk, I stand by my statement. "

@Lord Pollax. The object of the sentence "There are no benefits, no positives, none" is not the Production Queue system as a whole. He's quite clear in that later post, that he is talking about "random build order" and not EVERY feature of PQ. He has agreed with what I've said, and he and I have both clarified that the PQ has good features. Your anchoring onto something that just isn't part of the discussion.

For the upteenth time, nobody here is complaining about "PQ as a whole". Instead, we're complaining about one small part of it - that has no positive, nones, period. I.e. the random build order of ships that is part of PQ.

All of these things below are part of PQ that nobody is arguing about.
1. A soft ship limit, i.e. allowing builds with PP after the 500 ship limit (part of PQ, not part of the Classic queue)
2. Gaining 2 PP for an unbuilding SB before the soft ship limit (part of PQ, not part of the Classic queue)
3. Taking PP from attacking enemy SB's (part of PQ, not part of the classic queue.)

Those features are pretty good - they help limit some "exploits or tactics" that folks didn't like in Classic. They can all work nicely with a linear queue.

You keep responding (in this last post as well as the earlier ones) as if there is complaining about the entire PQ. There's not. Also, the rest of your last post (now I think fully qualifying as a rant) mischaracterizes DM's view and/or my view. You're ignoring the good reasoning by both myself and DM about the ills of random builds orders in your characterization, and missing the point and focusing on things that are not central to the argumentation or reasoning. Honestly, this is probably my last response to you - I feel like you're (perhaps understandably) insulted by the tone DM took in the first post, and you aren't seeing much past that insult. That seems to be where you are at - pissed at the insulting tone - and not willing to get past it at this point. I'm gonna stop trying to make you do that.
45 days, 7 hours, 51 minutes ago
View j-zan's profile
j-zan
RE: So let's talk about the random queue. The random queue has...Write Reply
@Regicide,
"I am with Chanain, Ace Rimmer, Lord_Pollox and many others.

In feeling that changing to a static queue would open up Que exploits that don't work with a random que."

Like what? Help me understand....

what exploits would work in PQ-With linear build order? The old list (Merlin-Control SDSF spamming) would be just as dead in PQ-with linear control as PQ-with random builds. So what am I missing? What are the exploits we wouldn't want with PQ+linear build order?

In sum - what's the argument for randomness?
45 days, 7 hours, 8 minutes ago
View tom graves's profile
tom graves
RE: So let's talk about the random queue. The random queue has...Write Reply
My argument for randomness is that there needs to be some chance in the build queue.

They're not really queue exploits more like queue strategies based on an odd notion of building ships based on the number of the SB.

And my counter question is, why should the number of your SB determine the next ship built.

The pure randomness of PQ queue can be frustrating, just as can the randomness in natives, minerals, density, fighters dogfighting, torps missing, etc. that are inherent in Nu.

The suggestion of building a strategy with a build queue priority system removes much of the randomness, but something similar could be added to a linear queue. For example we return to the linear queue, but we add a percentage chance to it.

For example, SB 100 just built, the next build is determined as such...

101 - 1-40%
102 - 41-65%
103 - 66-80%
104 - 81-90%
105 - 91-95%
106 - 96-98%
107 - 99-100%

Adds randomness, but not total randomness. Nothing in life or war games is or should be absolutely certain.
45 days, 6 hours, 44 minutes ago
Profile Image
trainee 49705
RE: So let's talk about the random queue. The random queue has...Write Reply
All builds should have a chance to fail. Why should you get a Borg cube just because there are free ship slots, and you have enough tech, and enough money, and enough minerals, and you gathered them in one place, and you clicked a bunch of buttons? There should be a random chance for a drone to drop a wrench and delay construction for a turn. You shouldn't be able to punish the drone either, because that would be mean.

Why should you get the same number of minerals every turn, just because you built a certain number of mines on a planet with a certain mineral density? The density should change randomly every turn... no... there should be a random chance for it to change randomly or not... say, why do you always have the same number of mines when you don't buy more... the number of mines that you have on a planet should change randomly....

Sure, it just means you have to do 100x the work to get exactly the same result in the end, but what are you, a whiner who doesn't like to click buttons? You don't like randomness? Do you even play video games?

Since we are all in favor of randomness, this seems like a great place to ask why I can't play more than three level games before getting told that I have to delete some. I finished them all! There's nothing to delete, except my account! And I'm getting tired of deleting accounts!

Actually, not really. I like making new accounts every few minutes. I get a nice new random number in my name. It's different every time! Fun!
45 days, 6 hours, 39 minutes ago
View regicide's profile
regicide
RE: So let's talk about the random queue. The random queue has...Write Reply

You Feel you should know where the next builds are going to happen. (why?)

I feel a player should not know that were the next build is going happen. (you as Why?)

We disagree, it is that simple.

That does not make you more right then anyone else.


But wait, Merlin control still works you get +4 ships vs the old +9 if there was an linear build order players could use it still. It would be harder and take more merlins but it works.

Players just don't use it was much in the random build order. Or build as many slot fillers.

As Tom said nothing in war is or should be absolutely certain.

I once saw a standard Gemini (not fed) destroy an illwind it lunched fighters as if it was a fed Biocide and almost every torp missed it.





45 days, 6 hours, 39 minutes ago
View dungeonmaster's profile
dungeonmaster
RE: So let's talk about the random queue. The random queue has...Write Reply
Pollax you can play the game for a long time, have some success, and never really understand it. I can tell from your posts that's precisely the case for you. Just this line of yours: "Hence my support of no ship limits period. Let resources be the throttling mechanism." is enough. This is a game with built in infinite resources, by definition supplies are produced every turn regardless of circumstance and there are ships to convert supplies into minerals and fuel. I don't want to discuss this topic with you here. That's the last I say of it, and really the last that needs to be said. If we made that idea "standard" Nu would die in under a year.

Now there are also two types of ignorance, one which is just simply you didn't know and are at no fault for simply not knowing, two wilful ignorance. In which case you're in a different category all together known as intellectual sin and you should be dealt with accordingly. I usually give the benefit of the doubt, at first. People have tried to explain to you repeatedly, after these examples if you don't understand the subject we're discussing I'm going to label you #2.

Quote:
"Why should anyone care that "winning is harder"?"

Let's take a cylon game I decided to drop from and explain a bit. I'm not going to give full details because the game is ongoing with his reigning excellency at the helm. But let's run through some speculative approximate numbers.

The cylons end the initial build phase of the game with a massive warfleet. Let's say a nice round number of 50 heavy carriers.
1/5th of the ship slots, 50 carriers, and about the same size and the Gnerphk example but that kind of firepower will not be contained to 60 planets for very long, and rapidly balloons to 125 planets.

These zero ally games, eventually, you must stand alone.
The cylon fleet all on its own is amazing at killing ships, they produce tear inducing BP trades. Their achilles heel is taking planets. Golem vs. even a standard 60/200 base goes down 44% of the time.

So why should you care about the "poor commander" standing alone with the 50 carrier death fleet sitting on 125 planets poised to win?

Because ths simple math is: Until I have won the game I never ever break even. Every single time I engage a max base and lose a ship and the non-priority queue cycles I am never breaking even.
That is the math. Whether the victory condition is 200 planets or 250 planets doesn't matter, until I've actually crossed 250 planets every time I lose a ship my opponents GAIN.
So my attempt to win within the zero sum framework is laced with poison. I *help* my opponents with my attempt to win. Every planet I try to take from them gives them on average *more* ships to hit me back with. Mathematically. I haven't crossed 250 planets, anything that blows up has a higher probability of giving them a build from the non-priority queue.

So how do I go about winning with said cylon death fleet and sitting on 125 planets.
Golem dies 44% of the time and so 50 golem take down 114 planets. Almost there.
That assumes ideal no-ship trades, just raw ship vs base. Cannot quite win.
Some of the builds from the non-priority queue are necessarily going to have to be ships capable of taking bases.



CASE 1: RANDOM non-priority queue.

I need to build ships capable of taking out bases. If I base out and ship up 1/4 of my 125 planet empire what's the math?
Well I'm actually hoping worse then Gnerphk. 32 planets will give me on average 6.4% of the non-priority builds.
I use my 50 ships to break on average 114 planets and if I just stopped building bases and loading ships into them I'm going to get back on average 50*32/500 = 3 ships.
So my giant armada would be whittled down to 3 ships on average if I just stopped my econ phase after 32 planets. You cannot defend a 250 planet empire with 3 baseships.
So if I just sit on 32 starbases with nice golems in them I've just given 47 ship slots to my opponents.
They're going to take those 47 ship slots, and fight back.
So I CAN'T sit on 32 bases. An intensive tiny economy is NOT going to WORK.

I am FORCED to base out *everything*. Everything needs a base, everywhere.

So my 125 planet empire now has a base everywhere. Let's say I load up every base with a build, a cat or something and again 32 planets with good tech golems.
So now when my 50 carriers go to take the map and die trying I get 50*125/500 = 12 ships and I only give my opponents 50-12 = 38 ship slots. NICE. GOOD DEAL.
I went to all that effort to base everything up and every time one of my golems goes boom they still get way more ships. They are going to fight back and win.

So what's my REAL solution, my real path to victory here? The one Emork, Mentar, basically anyone who understands the game are doing?

Base up EVERYTHING, drop a big ship EVERYWHERE.

In the best scenario, where I've expanded to 125 planets based up and dropped a big ship in every base and begin launching my assault to become ruler of the cluster I'm still looking at giving my opponents 38 ship slots for my 12.
That is what the random non-priority queue forces the good player to do. Your hand is FORCED. You have no real choice. That's the game with this rule.
You are literally consigning the victor to countless hours of real life time spent manipulating virtual currency for the purposes of just not bleeding out too much as he tries to climb the throne.

And now for the corollary consequences:
The good player is FORCED to build lower quality ships. Because the build is random I cannot target resources and build a ship that will progress the game faster. We are playing warp5 disruptors until kingdom come. This massively slows and hinders an already slow game, the fleets are all lower quality.

The good player once territory is acquired is FORCED to drop a base on it, and drop a large ship. Again, he does not have a choice. Every ship lost gives more to his opponents. What does this produce? STALL. The midgame STALLS.
He can't use his resources to FIGHT. He must build, and build and build. Continous build phase.

The example given is for cylons. Substitute romulans trying to be king of the hill and they now need much more MC and they are forced to lose a ship vs. bases with their base fleet. The numbers get very ugly.

You are now forcibly playing a lengthier game, with lower quality ships. Weakening the torp races and strengthening the logistics races and the crystals. It's everything wrong, all in one package.



CASE 2: LINEAR non-priority build queue.

I have a large empire, 125 planets. If I'm really paranoid that the queue might jump by a lot I build up a quarter of the planets next in line.
30 planets is absolutely plenty. I can have an intensive small economy for the non-priority builds and I can go to WAR. I know with 100% accuracy that those planets are going to build.
Additional bases will be built and upgraded tactically, at the fronts.
The ships produced will be high quality. The game will advance faster.
It is a small number of important planets that need to be managed.
You can be winning in multiple high level games and not suffer burnout.

And now I have an additional important element. I can target specific planets that would build ships for my enemies. I can try to deny them builds. If I do then I improve my already bad odds of just giving them ships. They can try to defend my attempt to deny them. CONFLICT. WAR.
Planets now have STRATEGIC VALUE and not merely 1/500th of a piece of the queue.

The game is shorter and more fun.


The random non-priority build queue is an aberration and should DIE. This rule needs to go. The game will be much better off without it.
45 days, 5 hours, 59 minutes ago
Profile Image
greywolf
RE: So let's talk about the random queue. The random queue has...Write Reply
I agree.

GW
45 days, 5 hours, 28 minutes ago
Profile Image
martinr
RE: So let's talk about the random queue. The random queue has...Write Reply
DM

So the old Championship games did not get to a lot of SB's under the old Queue?

They did not last for a very long time?

Championship games took a very long time under the old queue system.

So your theory about shorter games is based on high ranking predictable queue systems are fast games?

I think any game with experienced player in takes a long time what ever the queue system.

And having lots of SB's is what most game go to. Not because you need them more but a maxed SB takes out a lot of ships.

You have just rage quit from a game and are blaming the queue.

It was a min rank Commodore Difficulty Modifier 2.25 zero ally win.

The last Championship games have had DM 2.25 or less.

So you were playing with Championship level players in zero ally game and they may have had more experience with the Production Queue system.

I think this is no reason to change the Production Queue.

You just need more experience with it.

45 days, 5 hours, 24 minutes ago
Profile Image
frostriese
RE: So let's talk about the random queue. The random queue has...Write Reply
@MartinR: check DMs history first ... DMs tone is not soft, but the message is very clear and the arguments / theory is valid.

Check Libra War for the last 70 turns for Colonial score and you will see how a lame duck becomes stronger while others fight.
45 days, 5 hours, 18 minutes ago
Profile Image
martinr
RE: So let's talk about the random queue. The random queue has...Write Reply
Hey if they change PQ to linear can we have classic changed to random?

Some people may like Classic as random?

As some people want PQ as linear.

And you can always try PLS instead of either.

All different queues.

But I still think random PQ should be random.

Maybe Admin could do a survey of all players to find out?
45 days, 5 hours, 8 minutes ago
Profile Image
backinfuture
RE: So let's talk about the random queue. The random queue has...Write Reply
Completely agree with DM. Midgame is aweful now. Instead of fighting, everyone is going into econ development for another 30-40 turns. Real warfare begins at turn 70-90 when everyone is stacked with SBs and queued their top battleships all over the map.

Standard has a lot of nice features just not the random queue. Will stick to Classic or PLS until this is fixed.
45 days, 5 hours, 7 minutes ago
View whisperer's profile
whisperer
RE: So let's talk about the random queue. The random queue has...Write Reply
I believe that a flag for sequential/random build in the game generation would solve these issues. PBP/Classic defaults to Sequential, PQ/New and PLS default to random.
45 days, 5 hours, 7 minutes ago
Profile Image
jovian goose
RE: So let's talk about the random queue. The random queue has...Write Reply
I think Classic should be left alone for the original purists.
45 days, 4 hours, 14 minutes ago
Profile Image
mursu
RE: So let's talk about the random queue. The random queue has...Write Reply
I find it a bit strange that the most vocal people against changing PQ into linear are those who actually do not personally favor current PQ, but some alternative instead (PLS, Unlimited). And there has still been pretty much no reasoning why. This talk about unfair queue control tricks and Merlin farming is or isn't a deal no matter if PQ is random or linear. Why would these be a thing with linear queue more than with random?
45 days, 3 hours, 59 minutes ago
Profile Image
martinr
RE: So let's talk about the random queue. The random queue has...Write Reply
I play, PQ check out my current games.

And have played more PQ than Classic and PLS.

So I have the experience of PQ.

So does my experience count for nothing?

It's just that recently there has been no posts about linear PQ.

Only this one.

So how popular is linear PQ?

Enough for Admin to have linear PQ?

Enough for linear PQ to become the new Standard?

Over to Admin to decide. Anyone highlighted this thread to them so they can comment?
45 days, 3 hours, 58 minutes ago
Profile Image
ace rimmer
RE: So let's talk about the random queue. The random queue has...Write Reply
I still find all this arguing over how to change the global queue, quite a waste of time. Any future redevelopment of how ships are built should focus on the PLS version. Player and race based ship limits are the way to go that are a direct reflection of how powerful of a empire and economy that you can build. Future players the ones who have no experience with the long history of planets look at a global queue and say "let me get this straight even though I have the means to build 5 more of my best ships I can't cause there is a global ship limit that I have to compete against even though I have the most planets and starbases". They then quit playing and move on. So I hate to keep beating the same horse but it's just time to take the idea of a global queue, which was only instituted originally due to the computing power of computers in the late 80s and early 90s, and put it in the trash can where it belongs.

Ace
45 days, 3 hours, 49 minutes ago
Profile Image
mihai2303
RE: So let's talk about the random queue. The random queue has...Write Reply
The ~500 ship limit is a VERY good thing. Imagine having to manage 300 ships. It would take TOO MUCH TIME and it isn't doable.

There are though some advantages in having a queue in order, instead of random (but with the PBQ and flexible ship limit - this works well)
45 days, 0 hours, 56 minutes ago
Profile Image
ace rimmer
RE: So let's talk about the random queue. The random queue has...Write Reply
@Mihal2303

I don't want to manage 300 ships either. I agree there should be limitations, but those limits should be based per player & race and not based on an global queue that all players have to share.

A long time ago a player named "Ereburus" I believe suggested a overall of the PBQ by replacing it with a Player Based ship limit based on Maintenance Pts (MP). Every player would have the same base of Maintenance Points to start the game with lets say 50 for example. Then every Planet Owned would provide an additional 1pts, Starbases would add another 2pts and planets with natives would add another 1pt, and planets with populations over 500k another 1pt. The total number of pts generated by a players empire would then be used to govern the size of their fleet. The larger the ship the more it costs to maintain. It would be beautiful.

It could even be tweaked based the level of play in the game. For example a Commodore's Game would have a lower starting pool of MP to make the game tougher while games with all Rookies would get a larger pool of MP to start. Custom games could modify the settings for MP starting pool and MP generation for their own scenarios or types of games.

If Planets NU ever wants to attract new players in serious numbers a player based ship limit is what is needed because new players don't want to compete or understand the global queue and it's history with Planets NU. Classic and Random Queue's could be kept around as alternate formats for Purists who want to play them.

Ace
44 days, 23 hours, 14 minutes ago
View j-zan's profile
j-zan
RE: So let's talk about the random queue. The random queue has...Write Reply
@Regicide
You wrote, "You Feel you should know where the next builds are going to happen. (why?)

I feel a player should not know that were the next build is going happen. (you as Why?)

We disagree, it is that simple.

That does not make you more right then anyone else."

Sure we disagree - but it's not that simple.

I've made arguments for why a PQ+Linear Queue would make for better game play. That's something that I don't see from folks supporting the PQ+Random.

Look, I'm not trying to be pedantic, but someone is "more right", I take it, when they have good reasons/evidence or logic behind their positions. At this point, I've been happy to provide reasons and logic behind my position. I haven't just aid, "But I like it better this way." My enjoyment isn't driving my argument.... I have reasons. You can disagree with them, by of course providing other reasons for why I'm wrong. That's the essence of a reasoned discourse.

Right now, I'm not seeing reasoned discourse.... nobody is showing me why the "random build order" alongside PQ would make for better game play. I'll offer another take of my earlier argument later in this post. I encourage your, or anyone, to pick it apart and show me why my thinking is wrong.



@Tom Graves
"Nothing in life or war games is or should be absolutely certain."

Nah. I don't agree that nothing in war games is or should be absolutely certain. I'm absolutely certain of lots of things in Planets... like that my mines will mine X amount of ore and that my factories will produce Y supplies. Or that my ships will move after mines are laid, and that my beams will sweep X webmines. Look, there are plenty of certainties in this game. And generally I think those certainties allow for better game play.

And look, I'm not opposed to "all randomness", just randomness that doesn't support better game play. For example, some randomness in the VCR - I think - supports better game play. It creates risk when engaging in ship to ship combat - and that risk allows us to make interesting choices. I mean, how risky do I want to be? I *think* I can knock out that opposing ship without a loss... but I might not.... is it worth that risk? True story, I've been spending some time in a sector tow-killing ships with an LCC and T-Rex combo. Some of those fights almost went against me... and the battle sims say that they could have. I took a risk - using an LCC to tow off something to fight a T-Rex... if I had a bad combat simulation, and that Rex bit the dust, I'd have lost my LCC as well. I had to weigh the economic value of that risk (would I gain more in value than I lost?) and the strategic value of that risk (even if I lost more, would it be worth it to remove that ship from that specific point on the map?) The truth is, there could have been different choices I made... perhaps I would have waited until I had more backup for that T-Rex. Or a Rush there instead (so that I'd be more certain of the win.) Of course, waiting would have risked losing the opportunity.... ugh! See, the point is - I had to make decisions. And I had interesting, different, options available to me. When I clicked "end turn", it was possible that any of them could have been the "right decision." Consider that if the combat simulation didn't have some randomness.... I could just know "Yes this works" or "No this doesn't." I wouldn't have had decisions to weigh and consider. The right decision would be known before I hit end turn - it wouldn't interesting. Chalk up one win for the awesomeness of randomness. It works in that situation.



The problem is that the random build order doesn't provide risk or uncertainty in a way that opens up decisions for players to consider. It reduces them.... because it's random I have to play the odds, and maximize SBs and builds. And of course maximizing those SB's and builds comes at the expense of using those same resources to build torps or fighters. I have to devote more ships for logistics, rather than war. If I choose to do otherwise, I'm not making a "different choice", I'm making the "wrong choice."

In a linear build - I *could* do the same thing and maximize by SB's and builds everywhere. Or I could make different choices. I could focus on the next 10 builds, or 20, or 30... I mean, how fast do I think the queue might move? And so I can make some real choices here... about how much of my fleet will be devoted to warfare, or logistics. I can make choices about using those 9000mc on raising tech levels at a SB or building torps. The linear build expands the decisions I have to make. It makes for better game play.




At the end of the day, I fail to see why the random queue (as opposed to some randomness in the VCR, for instance) would make the game play better. In what way does PQ+Random make for more interesting choices as a player? The only argument for the random queue that addresses game play (the interactions between a player and the game systems / other players) yet provided in this thread is that "Randomness gives someone a chance of winning that lottery." I think I've countered that in an earlier post. And DM is demonstrating that counter by walking through Gneprhk's position in Capricorn. The fact is that Gnerphk wouldn't have a stronger chance of winning with a random build queue than he would have with a linear one.
44 days, 23 hours, 3 minutes ago
View j-zan's profile
j-zan
RE: So let's talk about the random queue. The random queue has...Write Reply
Something to consider:

This is the "Failure Mesasge". When I open a turn and see this message after the soft limit, I have failed a little bit:

From: New Chicago ID#417
Since we were not building a ship we have updated the ship building facilities at New Chicago ID#417 space dock. (2 production points awarded)



The fact is that those measly 2 PP are just not equal to the value of my opponents tw/h.phaser Rush, or Golem, or Nova, or Cube, or pretty much anything in the game.


The only message you want to see is this:
From: Cestus 3 ID#34
A new T-Rex Class Battleship has been constructed at Cestus 3 ID#34 space dock.


The random build queue is really responsible for many of those "Failure Messages".... but with a linear build queue, if I see the failure message, well I have nothing to blame but my poor choices.
44 days, 21 hours, 30 minutes ago
Profile Image
purebloodprince
RE: So let's talk about the random queue. The random queue has...Write Reply
@Dungeonmaster

Lifehack: build Merlins with 2xrays everywhere and take an enemy's freighter as a "prisoner".
44 days, 21 hours, 25 minutes ago
Profile Image
chanain
RE: So let's talk about the random queue. The random queue has...Write Reply
"The random build queue is really responsible for many of those "Failure Messages".... but with a linear build queue, if I see the failure message, well I have nothing to blame but my poor choices."

That was kind of my point.

In the random queue, you have to *expect* a certain number of those messages. Even for players like Emork, as far as I can tell, it's still REALLY rare to get 100% saturation of valuable ship builds queued up.

With a linear queue, even a single one of those messages is unacceptable. Rather than relieving DM's complaint about the drive 'base up', it actually *increases* the pressure to do so (and tells you what order to do it in).
44 days, 19 hours, 57 minutes ago
View tom graves's profile
tom graves
RE: So let's talk about the random queue. The random queue has...Write Reply
>>The random build queue is really responsible for many of those "Failure Messages".... but with a linear build queue, if I see the failure message, well I have nothing to blame but my poor choices.<<

This message is caused by having more SB's then you can effectively supply. This is the ultimate failure of PQ that it has become a SB spamming queue.

This is the real issue that needs to be addressed with the PQ queue. Not random builds.

Possible ways to prevent SB spamming:

Increase cost of losing a SB to 8 PP's
Require a maintenance cost for SB's of -1 PP each turn at or above soft ship limit
Limit SB's to a percentage of planets owned 1 SB/5 planets or tie SB maintenance or loss costs to the ratio of planets to SB's
Create priority build stat for SB's to allow players to prioritize which SB they want building by investing PP's in that stat.
44 days, 19 hours, 35 minutes ago
Profile Image
lord pollax
RE: So let's talk about the random queue. The random queue has...Write Reply
This is basically dissolving into a "This is what I like so I'm right" argument. Some of you like the idea of linear and some of us do not. I cannot for the life of me understand why you folks think having 100% precise intel on where ships are going to be built across an entire map (and frankly a good time table of "when") makes the game better to play. It is absurd in my opinion. Throw all the math you want out there, but it doesn't change the completely illogical nature of linear building. You think it is perfectly great to know where your enemy is building, and I think it is a level of intel that NO ONE should ever have of opposing players. It is linear building that should DIE.

Easier? Certainly. Have an option to set this up in a private game? Absolutely. I think almost everyone here can agree to that.

There is an awful lot of pure bollocks being tossed out as facts though, and I think that needs to stop. DM, you have not a single PLS or Unlimited* game under your belt, so your words are more hysteria and completely misrepresenting facts. Play one, and learn just how limited your "unlimited resources" actually are. Fuel throttles all fleets eventually without Cobol intervention. No fuel means no logistics. That means no more ships or Merlin conversion. Money is another huge factor. It is being made every turn, but it takes forever to build up large quantities when not named Lizard or maybe Feds. It is rather simple to observe, once you actually play a game like that. Manage your economies well and be less impacted. End result: Better games with the better players rising to the top due to skill, not a stupid game mechanic. These are real results too, not conjecture.

Nice straw man argument on me advocating for making PLS/Unlimited a STANDARD feature too. You forgot to add Horwasps and forcing all to play on cell phones too.

Our 950 ship limit "Unlimited" (created BEFORE Joshua created the means to go 9999) was met fairly easily, but fueling all those ships is the real challenge. Higher limits will curb the economies sooner as more ships get built needing fuel. Even the Colonies will feel the squeeze, but in other areas rather than fuel.

No need to worry about losses in the unlimited/PLS flavors either, so worrying about loss to base ratios is meaningless. Go ahead build cheap lead ships... you got the luxury to actually build them now.

J-Zan, your last statement is odd. You recognize the importance of the ship slots and the lack of value getting 2pp for missing a build... but apparently lack the understanding of that importance enough to make a ship build at every base (even a SDSF) in order to prevent the Hvy Phaser Carrier coming out into your enemies hands??? Anyone getting a failure message is entirely a poor choice period, unless the base just literally was built. Getting "many" of those messages is being a poor player, and frankly linear ship building isn't going to help in the long run.

Your logic about being more correct because you made more arguments is sort of odd too. You and others have stated a preference and some opinions. While I support allowing choices, I don't like linear building. Your preferences now trump my preferences and are "more right"? I don't think it creates better games, just easier games. My opinion. And being pedantic, people can't really be wrong about what they like and dislike, no matter what your opinion is on the topic. Yelling louder doesn't make you more right either.

The most laughable of the arguments is about that the random builds were mostly giving ships to the enemy, implying that the linear builds would solve that issue. Knowing where the builds will be does not magically make them near you. Statistics would indicate the majority would fall well outside your own race's ability to build at, so you are essentially left with similar builds regardless. Assuming an even spread, the example of 50 builds would result in 12 builds random or the exact same 12 builds if linear. The only difference is in "quality", and assumes you did not have the economy to put good ships everywhere. This is where I see you folks as not having a good understanding of the game, to use a DM term. Ship slots are the commodity. Every slot gained is a step closer to winning. AND it appears DM assumes it is 1 vs 10 all at once, and not factoring in the combat taking place elsewhere which are also giving him builds that cost him nothing (no losses to achieve). It averages out.

I know, I know... "I clearly don't understand the game". I'll save you the typing.
44 days, 18 hours, 30 minutes ago
Profile Image
mursu
RE: So let's talk about the random queue. The random queue has...Write Reply
@lord+pollax
>Nice straw man argument on me advocating for making PLS/Unlimited a
>STANDARD feature too. You forgot to add Horwasps and forcing all to play on
>cell phones too.

I'm not sure if this was directed towards me or not, but at least I didn't say so. I just mentioned that the most vocal opponents do not seem to be happy with current PQ and thus look for and promote other types of games. I have no idea if you or someone else want to make those Standard or not. Ace Rimmer above proposed how we should give up global ship limit in favor of some PLS type system so maybe he is the one who would want to make it a Standard feature.

I think the vast majority of the players on this site agree that the global ship limit is a good thing (otherwise we would see the player numbers in PLS/Unlimited experiments skyrocket). It falls far into off topic region to talk why, so probably best to leave it out of this discussion. I'm personally very open to experiment and discuss other types of games, but until the game developers are ready to commit quite a lot of resources into such development, I don't think we will get a system that would be superior to the global limit.

But in any case this discussion is about making a small but potentially significant change to the current PQ. So about a tiny tweak hopefully for the better. Because no one in here has experience with the linear PQ, our arguments in favor or against should IMHO be based on logical reasoning, not only just "I like this" or "I don't like this".

I think there are very strong arguments in favor of linear PQ. The arguments against sound more like arguing for the sake of argument (like frightening how linear PQ would bring back the worst strategies of PBP queue when this change has nothing to do with those).

But does the linear PQ give you 100% intel where ships are being built? I would say no. First you don't know where the queue is at the moment unless a ship was just built at your own planet and you happen to own also the next planet in line. Or if you gather intel. I know one proposition was to make it visible where the queue stands, but that can be a different discussion if it is a good thing or not.

Also if someone uses PP to build ships you will not know where this happens. Also you do not know what ships are being built. This is very far from 100% intel of shipbuilding.

But even if you knew exactly where ships are being built, is it bad for the game? How is it worse than just knowing which player got the build like it is know? For "realism" point of view both cases are as feasible. Some planet has gathered enough resources, tech and workforce that your spies are certain there will be a starship built soon (PQ linear) or some player has gathered enough resources, tech and workforce that your spies report a starship was just built (PQ random). As demonstrated, knowing where shipbuilding is about to take place creates some interesting possibilities and that potentially enhances the game play.
44 days, 12 hours, 19 minutes ago
Profile Image
lord pollax
RE: So let's talk about the random queue. The random queue has...Write Reply
@Mursu I was not directing my comments to you.

Some discussion on your points though:

1. The vast majority of players on this site have zero experience relating to relaxing the ship limit. It is great that they have opinions, but it doesn't mean they are based on facts. 2+2=4 even if 90% of folks say it is 5. That is my main reason for trying to bust that myth and get more people to at least try the format before making disparaging comments on it. Informed opinions mean so much more.

I would also point out that linear queue games are few and far between. There have been more PLS and Unlimited format games than linear queue since they were allowed. It takes time to build momentum in a game world that takes months to finish even "quick" games.

Mursu, do you like grean or red better? Now give factual, logical reasoning for that choice and explain why those liking the other are wrong. This is why your points are questionable when discussing the anti-linear side. You saying that just liking or disliking something is an invalid reason/ without merit. I say that stance actually trumps all the supposed facts (which are opinions) for most folks. I don't like peas, so telling me they are good for me is not going to change how I feel about their taste. Using this same analogy, most of the players here have not even eaten peas, yet feel their opinion on how they taste is important (link to PLS comment about).

2. I agree that "100% shipbuilding intel" is an incorrect statement; it should be 100% regular builds. Far from 100%? No. But more than 90% certainly. Don't get hung up on the exact percentage. The fact that it is not zero is what the big deal is about.

Some comments are trying to obfuscate just how easy it is to figure out the planet build number in games... only newbies and poor players fail to note where the builds are. That number plus or minus 2 or 3 is accurate enough for the strategies given by folks to be implemented. It is supreme level intel, and should not be available. All builds should be like those PP spent... hidden.

3. Knowing that someone built a ship is fixable. We have choices that turn off the scores and eliminate much of the free intel. Linear defeats that because once I have a build I can range the build number, sometimes to very exact values. Knowing someone built a ship is a tiny amount of useless intel anyhow when compared to knowing where exactly he was building it.

Can you take actions on knowing a player just built a ship? Not really. Can you take actions knowing exactly where a player is ABOUT TO build a ship? You bet! And that is fundamentally wrong. That intel should not be available to players ever.

I've met some players in here that are supremely smart, and they figure out tricks that exploit the game mechanics to their advantage. I know several folks that have spreadsheets that can tell exactly what ship was built (equipment and all) based on the points created. It is not 100% foolproof, but it is at least 95% accurate. It is amazing. Now is it ethical? (shrugs) . It is not against the rules. It still feels wrong to me though, but I suppose that it is only my opinion and not fact. Merlin Queue control was another. There are numerous other "tactics" too.

There are lots of add-ons that are also questionable. Personally I think they should all be banned. Having software manage your games does not make you a better player, though it might improve your results. My point here is that this software process the "free" intel out there and takes automatic actions. So every bit of intel provided can have major impacts. Thinking that knowing where all future ship builds will be is a minor item is simply wrong, hence the big arguments of DM and J-Zan.

Let me be clear: I support the choice to allow linear play in any game. X a box and create away.

I don't support bashing random builds... don't like it, don't play it. We have tons of choices here. The "I can't earn ranks for championships" arguments is hogwash. I'm earning points/ranks right now for an Unlimited test game I created. Make the game public, and you earn ranks. Simple.
44 days, 10 hours, 27 minutes ago
View dines's profile
dines
RE: So let's talk about the random queue. The random queue has...Write Reply
I recently upgraded my pc, so now i can play some CIV6.
Won once on pangea, emperor,
and then i tried archipelago(islands), emperor.
I managed to build a huge fleet of warships, and have taken out the techleader.
But now the game is boring. The challenge is over, as i have techlead, and by far the biggest army.
But i wont be playing that particular game anymore.
At this stage, there is no thrill, just a lot of hard work in order to meet some winconditions.
Like so many other strategy games where the same happens,i will save the game with the title Walkover, and never load the game again.

Does this sound familiar ?

The purpose of playing computer games, is to have fun.
Once games feel decided, it becomes a chore, and no fun.
This is the basis of DMs initial Post.
End game with a random queue simply magnifies this problem.
A LOT of mindless work, but no thrill.

Removing the shiplimit, would only make things worse.
I dont know if Lord Pollax mentioned it, but in his unlimited game, the leading player stopped playing partially because it became too much work.

You may find a few players, that like to run huge empires,
but im pretty sure that most players find the beginning and the deciding phases of the game most interesting.

I think the solution is to force everybody to play more aggressively.
Then the type of ship limit will matter much less.

I still hope to see the invasion type games getting introduced,
as fighting over hws is just more intense.

But i guess a game with a very high FoF, would have a similar effect.

I will start a new thread, and ask for input about the settings, before i host it. But since we already had a succesful "Die Hard" series, i think the title of the game is clear: Do or Die

44 days, 9 hours, 2 minutes ago
Profile Image
mursu
RE: So let's talk about the random queue. The random queue has...Write Reply
Thanks for your answer Lord Pollax. I'll comment a few points.

>Can you take actions knowing exactly where a player is ABOUT TO build a
>ship? You bet! And that is fundamentally wrong. That intel should not be
>available to players ever.

I really cannot see why it is fundamentally wrong. I already gave a valid explanation. Your spies have found out that the enemy has gathered resources to a planet and is about to build a ship there. You can then spoil their plans and capture those resources to build the ship instead (we must assume that the 'resources' is a broad term not limited to minerals/money in game terms).

And as DM has argued, that encourages combat. That is only a good thing.


>I know several folks that have spreadsheets that can tell exactly what ship
>was built (equipment and all) based on the points created. It is not 100%
>foolproof, but it is at least 95% accurate.

This is not anything special. You, me or anyone can look the cost of each ship for example from here:
http://onebit.ca/cgi-bin/vgaplanets.py/Shipyard

But this only works for the very early turns of the game when there are few builds per player (and not ton of other military score influencing builds). And if you are good, you can mislead your opponents by building a few extra fighters, defense posts or torpedoes along with your early builds. This is actually one of the really great things in this game in my opinion. It is about how every ship is important and how you can bluff your opponents.

Maybe this is one of the key differences between players in here. I'm fully in the camp you favors things like the above and other small details how you could win tiny advantage over your opponents. Then there's the players who prefer lots of combat and slamming ships into each other. This is where PLS is far superior and it really doesn't matter how many ships you lose as long as you capture some planet. I won't go farther into off-topic, but this probably explains partly why there are differences.

And all in all, we haven't seen any games with linear PQ because it is not possible. I will take non-linear PQ any day over the old linear queue, but would be very eager to try linear PQ. Maybe there will be some new problem no one has mentioned in this discussion. Most likely not, but we can be sure only if we try.
44 days, 4 hours, 46 minutes ago
View j-zan's profile
j-zan
RE: So let's talk about the random queue. The random queue has...Write Reply
@Chanain,
“In the random queue, you have to *expect* a certain number of those messages. Even for players like Emork, as far as I can tell, it's still REALLY rare to get 100% saturation of valuable ship builds queued up.

With a linear queue, even a single one of those messages is unacceptable. Rather than relieving DM's complaint about the drive to 'base up', it actually *increases* the pressure to do so (and tells you what order to do it in).”

Look, the "effort" is a valid concern I think @Dines says it well in his post, but the complaint as I see it isn’t "that it takes effort (or has pressure)" but rather, "that it has pressure or effort in a way that doesn’t create interesting choices."

The linear queue has a similar pressure to base out everywhere. But linear queue allows a player to make interesting choices.

Back to the "failure messages" in the random queue – those messages happen outside of my control to some extent. It’s inevitable that I will see some failure messages, sure. But it’s not a choice I get to make that gives me interesting options. If I accept that I will get some failure messages, I’m making poor choices. Period. Notice that Emork commented that he’s supplying Sb’s (all of them) to queue “2 Gorbies” at every base! That’s the *right* decision – and everything else is a wrong decision – he’s insuring himself on the off chance that Planet-104 builds 2 turns in a row. If you aren't doing that (looking forward and insuring yourself against the randomness), then you are playing poorly. I don't really have a choice.... I have to insure myself against the randomness.

So, the random queue is taking away my choices, and to a large extent it becomes outside of my control (See my final bit to Pollax in the next post ).

Now compare that to the linear queue – I have pressure to make the next set of bases and builds – same as before. What’s different is that I have the options for how deep I want to go to get the value out of it. Do I want to max the next 10? 30? 50? It’s not likely that a linear queue will move 50 in a turn… but it could… so I , the player, get to make interesting choices.
44 days, 4 hours, 33 minutes ago
View j-zan's profile
j-zan
RE: So let's talk about the random queue. The random queue has...Write Reply
@Lord Pollax, who straw figured you as saying that PLS should be unlimited?

A few replies:

-------

- I’ve never said I’m “more right” because I’ve made “more arguments.” Nor am I “yelling louder.” What I have said is that I think I’m more right because I’m not seeing good reasons for PQ+Random. And I am offering arguments (that I take to be well-reasoned) for folks to discuss. I’ve also encouraged folks to engage those reasons. Chainan has above, and I’m responding. Tom has as well to an extent, but I’m not responding to him directly. (Sorry @Tom, you and I disagree about something prior to the issue. I just don't think it's bad that we end up with 500 SB's. We could chat about this another time I suppose. I figure the “best” position here can sot itself out when folks try to reason and engage in discussion in good faith.

To be clear: I’m not asking anyone here to just think that my preferences are the right ones. In fact, I don’t actually know what my preference would be…. because I’ve never played Pq+linear. But I think that the evidence of how the game works shows that PQ+linear would make for better game play. It would give us the best of the Classic queue with the best of the PQ. I might hate it - but right now, it stands to reason that it's better. I'll continue to offer argumentation that suggests it would be better. (Note: I'm open to being wrong about this. But not based on someone's "preference" or frustration with global ship limits. Show me why the random queue makes for better game play.)

-------

-This conversation isn’t one where I am arguing against PLS or in favor of the global limit. So I’m not sure that my (or DM’s for that matter) “experience” with PLS or unlimited games matters for this discussion. I feel like you want to have an argument about “PLS or Unlimited” that is tangential to this topic. I think that folks vote with their gaming hours, and PLS doesn’t draw much interest because folks aren’t into it -despite the vocal PLS supporters. But I’ll tell ya what, I’m happy to give it a try when I have more free time – hit me up when you are starting a new PLS sector and let me know. I'll see if I can add another game to my dance card.

-------

-I don’t agree with you about all the builds averaging out random vs linear. You are right that there are “Free builds” from others people combat, and that knowing where the builds will be does not magically make them near us. But… the planets we have and control are randomly distributed at the start of the game. So we've already randomized the build order for any given player... My *PRIMARY* point though isn't that linear will give me more builds. It's that knowing the build order lets me go out and FIGHT for those planets that are building soon. It lets me (using skill, tactics, diplomacy or strategy) improve my position. It gives me control, and thus gives me interesting choices about how to proceed.

-------

-You wrote to Mursu, “Can you take actions knowing exactly where a player is ABOUT TO build a ship? You bet! And that is fundamentally wrong”

I agree with Mursu's reply. It sounds amaizng to me that we can take actions. It gives me options for how to play the game – I can choose to try and fight there, or elsewhere, or avoid it, or... The bottom line: It opens up my decision-making. That allows for skill and interesting tactics to shine. It adds choices.

-------

-You also wrote to Mursu, “
Thinking that knowing where all future ship builds will be is a minor item is simply wrong, hence the big arguments of DM and J-Zan. “

Ooops, I’m not saying this is a “minor item” – I’m saying that the linear build would be a small tweak (random to linear) that makes for BIG IMPROVEMENTS in game play. It opens up choices, tactics, etc… It’s not “no big deal” – it’s a big deal – A good one!

--------

-Ship Slots.
I think you missed my point – but to address your concerns first. Yes, I’m well aware of the value of the ship slot, thanks. I argued aggressively about the value of those slots in the forums in the great “Merlin Build Control” debates that gave us PQ (and PLS).

I’m not sure that in our current PQ system that an "sdsf ship slot built in the back of my empire" is worth the same as the "2 PP and the x% chance of another build going to me." It might be, but the weight has changed here from the Classic queue because of the floating limit, and the added costs for building ships. Anyway, in the current PQ game I’m focusing on, I’m actually sticking to that wisdom. I have mostly queued tech-1 Eros’ everywhere I can’t put a sexy Rexy. But at any given time I find myself with about 10% of my bases with nothing queued. It sucks… but it is what it is. The point of my first post seems to have missed you though - the issue is that the random build control hands me "failure messages" that are not fully in my control. Let's try the argument again.

In PQ+Random, the ability to queue meaningful ships becomes “outside of my control.” Now, that’s obviously false in hindsight… I can always look backwards and say that a failure message is my fault – I didn’t queue something, and I should be. But stopping there is just falling into a hindsight bias - it's the wrong way to consider the problem.

What we want to consider is if I made a mistake in the turn, before the host runs, that yields the failure message. And we often have to make choices (build here or build there, move the ship here or there). We have limited ships, limited resources, and so we have to make choices each turn about where to set the builds. With the Random Queue, I can’t make an informed choice about what is best to do with those resource – the “best choice” is out of my control. I run the turn, and I find out that my decisions were the wrong ones. I didn't have the ability to make a good choice - it was just the throw of a die.

That's different for the linear queue. It puts the ability to make good choices about SB builds back into my control (and everyone else’s). It let’s us plot against each other, or with each other. It expands our options for what decisions we make.


--------

TLDR; PQ+linear isn't my "personal taste" opposed to someone else's personal taste for another variation. It looks like PQ+linear would be the option that promotes more options in game play, and for that reason is the better variation.
44 days, 4 hours, 31 minutes ago
View j-zan's profile
j-zan
RE: So let's talk about the random queue. The random queue has...Write Reply
@Mursu
"And all in all, we haven't seen any games with linear PQ because it is not possible. I will take non-linear PQ any day over the old linear queue, but would be very eager to try linear PQ. Maybe there will be some new problem no one has mentioned in this discussion. Most likely not, but we can be sure only if we can try."

I agree wholeheartedly, except the 'most likely not.' Honestly, I just don't know if its likely or unlikely that there is something we don't know or are not anticipating that becomes a problem. ;-)
44 days, 2 hours, 33 minutes ago
Profile Image
lord pollax
RE: So let's talk about the random queue. The random queue has...Write Reply
@Dines While part of what you stated about our leader leaving is correct, he was having major medical issues and starting a new business opportunity requiring serious RL time commitment. RL trumps game life. I have no issues with that at all. But I think you give his leaving too much negative tone with your statement. My opinion. Maybe he told you something he didn't tell me or the others.
44 days, 2 hours, 18 minutes ago
Profile Image
lord pollax
RE: So let's talk about the random queue. The random queue has...Write Reply
@J-Zan I respect your opinion and honest discussions here. You would be most welcome in any game I create. You have been respectful to the group of players in this thread, and that is appreciated. We may have differing viewpoints, but the overall goal of the discussion was the merit of having the choice to put a linear queue on PQ, which I think consensus is in agreement that such a choice would be good. Not my cup of tea, but choices are a good thing for game creators to have.

I do think you folks are judging the PLS process a bit harshly, as I simply thing we have a limited audience in total for Nu and we all are about maxxed out on games. The games I've seen created fill quickly and I've heard generally favorable comments from all the players I have spoken to who have played. It is truly a liberating game to be able to build fully to your potential. PLS does a decent job making that happen.

If there is more PLS interest and a lack of games, I would be glad to host them and get them started. I've been super busy dropping my game load down to just 1, so I might not play... but hosting is easy enough.
44 days, 1 hours, 40 minutes ago
View capt chaos's profile
capt chaos
RE: So let's talk about the random queue. The random queue has...Write Reply
Couple people said, "500 ship limit is a good thing". This had a use at one time, but no longer. The little 8088 processer had to chew through turns for an hour, but this hasn't been an issue for a decade at least.

Someone else said, "I don't want to manage 300 ships". Great. Don't build 300 ships and you don't have to manage 300 ships.

But don't make it impossible for me to build 300 ships if that is what I want to do, and what I have the resources to do.


done
44 days, 0 hours, 23 minutes ago
View gnerphk's profile
gnerphk
RE: So let's talk about the random queue. The random queue has...Write Reply
@Capt+Chaos --

With infinite fleets, the game changes drastically. I win most of my games, and in them I usually have a 300-ship fleet, which is how I win. I don't mind managing 300 ships; it's a sight better than managing against an enemy with 300 ships. Given the choice (and make no mistake, that's the choice I'm faced with), I prefer if they're mine.

However, for the Crystals, the Privateers, and to a slightly lesser extent the Fascists and Birds, the game is won by controlling the majority of ships, thereby limiting the adversary's numbers. I realize you might not be aware of this; you've got a ton of turns under your belt, but not so many victories as small-ship races. This is why I'm informing you that better than a third of the game is badly skewed when there's no intrinsic balance from a ship limit.

We could play an infinite ship game; it's certainly possible. But we'd need to drastically alter the Privateer, the Crystal, the Fascist, and the Bird or there would be significant balance issues. (Incidentally: This is why I don't play PLS; the new balance doesn't suit my play style.) Likewise, there would also need to be changes to other ship lists or the Cyborg would nearly always win when played competently; without priority point advantages, the Feds and Lizards are underpowered. Ergo, we'd need to significantly redesign the entire game.

I'm not offering these statements as opinion. Admittedly, they're generalities, but I believe they're universally accepted among high-end players.
44 days, 0 hours, 18 minutes ago
View gnerphk's profile
gnerphk
RE: So let's talk about the random queue. The random queue has...Write Reply
@J+-+Zan -- I'm moderately confident that any drastic change carries unforeseeable consequences. It's pretty much a law of complex systems, which we have. So, yeah, I'm with you there.

I'll say this: It would have seriously changed Capricorn.
43 days, 22 hours, 34 minutes ago
Profile Image
lord pollax
RE: So let's talk about the random queue. The random queue has...Write Reply
My real life experience with the Fascists right now in a no limit game has been very positive. I should really say a 950 ship limit game. I am driving about 205+ ships now and we are hard against the limit as it stands, so it is now more "classic-esque" since we outlawed priority building. Long story, but it involved a game glitch where all priority builds went in racial order. We can't allow that, so we went with no priority building to allow the game to continue while remaining fair for all. Random builds, no pbp used.

I'd say it sounds grim for me, but I'm in 3rd place and plan to compete for the win. Why? Because I have bases everywhere with good ships in triplicate ready to build. I have had the lead or been in 2nd with base construction pretty much throughout. It is an active game, so I can't speak too much more.

I am thinking my experience does not align with your analysis @Gnerphk. Crystals are in 2nd place. Birds and Pirates are dead (lol, so are the EE... shock face everyone), but they fought the Crystals and Borg. Outcome predictable. Borg were nearly killed by the Birds first though. Lizards are dead too, by Rebel and Fascist efforts.

I think the balance is sort of made by the fact they can throw vast quantities of ships out easily. A topic for another thread perhaps, but I do think it is not as grim as portrayed. Skill, diplomacy, and economy look to still rule. We shall see...
43 days, 8 hours, 4 minutes ago
View tom n's profile
tom n
RE: So let's talk about the random queue. The random queue has...Write Reply
Interesting thread. I fully agree with Dungeonmaster. I never understood the reason behind adding randomness to the queue system. I guess adding some luck and surprise, but at great cost. I hope the admins consider removing the random aspect to the PQ system, and the sooner the better.
43 days, 6 hours, 35 minutes ago
Profile Image
greywolf
RE: So let's talk about the random queue. The random queue has...Write Reply
I would really like to be able to have control over what you add to your fleet.

As the EE, sometimes you would like to have an extra Merlin or Neutronic in the mix, but you are forced to have all Gorbie's queued up.

Fleet stagnation and frustration occurs.

GW
43 days, 5 hours, 14 minutes ago
Profile Image
martinr
RE: So let's talk about the random queue. The random queue has...Write Reply
@Greywolf PLS is your answer then. You build what you need. Scrap a ship that is not needed and build a Merlin.
43 days, 5 hours, 7 minutes ago
Profile Image
frostriese
RE: So let's talk about the random queue. The random queue has...Write Reply
@MartinR: PLS has total different style of warfare ... in Queue controlled games you attack the fleet first and take ground later on - in PLS you have to take ground to fight back the enemy.

Most players like the "classical" warfare - so PLS is not the option they searching for.
43 days, 2 hours, 25 minutes ago
Profile Image
lord pollax
RE: So let's talk about the random queue. The random queue has...Write Reply
Once you try though, you will never go back. : )
42 days, 2 hours, 46 minutes ago
Profile Image
ace rimmer
RE: So let's talk about the random queue. The random queue has...Write Reply
147 comments, this horse of a subject matter has been beat, whipped, chained and then beaten and whipped some more, and then Lord_Pollax and J-Zan ran it over with a steam roller. LOL

Ace
42 days, 2 hours, 6 minutes ago
View dungeonmaster's profile
dungeonmaster
RE: So let's talk about the random queue. The random queue has...Write Reply
Well I haven't commented for a day or so, specifically to let more people hash arguments out.

As it turns out the "random queue" camp has advanced only one additional feeble argument: "the opponent shouldn't know where I build my ships"
Which has already been countered by an understanding that they simply can't have full knowledge as the queue can move. Anyone can recycle ships and battle can happen.

The "linear queue" camp have added: "better fleet customization by being able to add a merlin or fuel refinery without the exorbitant BP cost."
Which is another very good argument for having a linear queue.

So there really is no reason to have this random queue. It was a terrible idea, it needs to go. We're all wasting all this time with this idiotic random queue and the standard rules should absolutely go linear. The random queue has literally no justification, it literally only drags gameplay down.


As an addendum, once again this thread is not about the ship-limit despite attempts to drag it in that direction.
I'll also point out to Pollax that despite his emphatic statements that I have no experience with adjusting the limit upwards, I was in fact playing Host999 ~20 years ago. I knew then, as I know now, that it also ruins the game because the turns take far too long.
For your edification: http://www.vgaplanets.com/host999.htm
It did not catch on. It would make a terrible standard ruleset.
Next time before you make assumptions: I'm not talking in absence of experience, it's called learning from the past.

Down with the random queue!

42 days, 1 hours, 31 minutes ago
Profile Image
lord pollax
RE: So let's talk about the random queue. The random queue has...Write Reply
Yawn
41 days, 21 hours, 4 minutes ago
Profile Image
martinr
RE: So let's talk about the random queue. The random queue has...Write Reply
DM your insistence of it being wrong because of one reason is easily countered by it being right for another.

We can all get emotional about it.

I am sure newer players players who have played mostly random queue can equally get emotional about how wrong linear is.

PQ was brought in to be the opposite of linear.

To break the linear play it was random for a reason.

And you are emotionally attacking Joshua for creating it.

And PLS was created over linear PQ.

Possibly because there was a more logical and calm request for a change in the queue and at the time no one was mentioning linear PQ?

So a reply to your reply from a supporter of keeping random PQ.

Until Admin comments I don't think this will progress much further do you think?

How is you private contact request with Admin doing?
41 days, 20 hours, 49 minutes ago
Profile Image
martinr
RE: So let's talk about the random queue. The random queue has...Write Reply
Don't get me wrong. I am all up for customisation.

And if Joshua wants to have a linear and random option for customisation in custom games.

But not to make it Standard.

PQ became Standard how long after it came out?

Maybe open the options and see how many games are created and how many will try it out before it is considered for Standard.
41 days, 14 hours, 59 minutes ago
Profile Image
mursu
RE: So let's talk about the random queue. The random queue has...Write Reply
>PQ became Standard how long after it came out?

This is actually a relevant question. Who knows?

But worth noting that this proposed change is much smaller than creating a new queue. It is a relatively minor tweak as the main point of PQ over old queue is the soft ship limit. So while I'd be happy to see both linear and random options available with PQ, it would also make sense to just apply linear builds to the current PQ right away and call it a day.
41 days, 14 hours, 58 minutes ago
View dungeonmaster's profile
dungeonmaster
RE: So let's talk about the random queue. The random queue has...Write Reply
I'm not attacking Joshua in the least bit, when you can't win an argument misdirection and lies will get you no where.

I do owe an apology and it is to everyone who has played for the past many years under this idiotic standard system. I didn't fight hard enough against the "small vocal minority of morons" and "pathetic whinos" who yelled loud enough to get their idiocy into the standard rules. I knew better then, but I never thought it would come to pass and my life was headed a different direction. To you good people who have needlessly suffered under this ruleset: I'm sorry.

This is going to kill the game. We will decrease the already small playerbase by raw boredom and attrition. The good players WILL LEAVE as you force them to do all this pointless econ and all that will be left are yawming mewling turds.
41 days, 14 hours, 37 minutes ago
Profile Image
mursu
RE: So let's talk about the random queue. The random queue has...Write Reply
Because I was interested, I did search for the old discussion when PQ was released.
http://play.planets.nu/#/activity/1514688

I don't have time to dig that one through right now, but someone else might like to read.

It also seems that it didn't make many months after the release until PQ was the Standard rule set.
41 days, 13 hours, 45 minutes ago
Profile Image
martinr
RE: So let's talk about the random queue. The random queue has...Write Reply
Will if no one else has asked Admin to participate in this discussion I have done so.

I am not happy with the language being used.

But hey I know I am a bit OTT on this.

Last comment I make until Admin finally comments or this dissapears from the forums.
41 days, 13 hours, 43 minutes ago
Profile Image
rsk
RE: So let's talk about the random queue. The random queue has...Write Reply
IIRC, Joshua stated that PQ was supposed to be implemented at a "glacial pace" but it was Standard within a few months.

Though I won't argue as vociferously as DM, I wholeheartedly agree that "The Build Lottery" is a terrible feature of Production Queue, for all of the reasons that have been shared.

From personal experience in PQ games, I've actually done quite well in being awarded quality ship builds, to the extent that it may have skewed some games. I'd rather not win (or lose) at least partially due to randomness of ship builds. Randomness in combat (destruction) makes sense. Randomness in ship builds (construction) does not. (Of course, it's a game, so not everything is realistic)

IMHO: The "linear" queue is just better, plain and simple.

Just 2 more cents: I think one reason so many folks were cool with the random SB builds is 1) the controversy about Merlin Build Control and 2) a lack of understanding of how the original VGA Planets queue worked. I think a good explanation of the mechanics of the linear queue (much of which could be supplied by this thread) would be helpful should it ever be implemented with the rest of the PQ settings.
41 days, 13 hours, 32 minutes ago
View emork the lizard king's profile
emork the lizard king
RE: So let's talk about the random queue. The random queue has...Write Reply
Dungeonmaster, I absolutly share your opinion that regarding game play the random queue is inferior to the liner queue. And I also shake my head about some of the arguments which are just a miss on topic (like suggesting PLS) or are obviously backed up by little experience. Just let me add that rude language doesn't help any argumention.
41 days, 12 hours, 41 minutes ago
View dungeonmaster's profile
dungeonmaster
RE: So let's talk about the random queue. The random queue has...Write Reply
Emork, if you look back in the old thread, your missgivings on the random queue were obvious then as well. I know we had many discussions in forums and via email. I deeply regret not pushing harder back then.

I'm fiery because I see this is an existential issue for the site. I'll refrain from being so easily baited again.
41 days, 12 hours, 7 minutes ago
View tom graves's profile
tom graves
RE: So let's talk about the random queue. The random queue has...Write Reply
Beating the dead horse.

There is middle ground between pure random queue and pure linear queue.

I think both are not valuable to good game play and the reasons have been exhaustively given.

Choosing to give priority to your SB builds through some process (FC, PBP spend or something else) gives the player a linear queue for their own builds while hiding the build queue for their opponents builds.

This solves the problem of each queue and makes for a superior game.

Tom
41 days, 11 hours, 58 minutes ago
Profile Image
zacha
RE: So let's talk about the random queue. The random queue has...Write Reply
@Tom: Aye that should also work, something like what I proposed in the beginning, but a little bit simpler which does not need to distribute number of builds acc. to the number of starbases (like my "Queue Points"), but making a random choice on starbase to built, but then not really using that starbase but another starbase of same player with some specific Priority Friendly Code (like pq1-pq9).
Personally I would prefer to avoid the randomness (using something like my "Queue Points"), but that's not critical (and most seem to be in some favor of "some randomness", even on classic queue due to the planets numbering) and still would adress the main pain point.
41 days, 11 hours, 57 minutes ago
View regicide's profile
regicide
RE: So let's talk about the random queue. The random queue has...Write Reply
The Question could be asked which side is the "small vocal minority" for random or for linear?

seems like it could be both, When you Count all that comments here for both sides we are still a every small minority of the total players on the site. The others may be happy as it is or may not be.

If you want to know were your next build is going to happen you got Classic or PLS. Yes PLS and Classic are valid points in this discussion about Queues and options even if you are wanting to only talk about PQ. The 3 combined are what give all players there options on what to play. As there should be a Linear Queue there should also be an random one for players to pick as there is now. you want to make a change that could make that could make PLS the only game option left for them as they don't like the Linear Que.

The Random Que option can not be removed for the options as there are players that want it same as there are players that want to keep Classic (got me as to why)



@Dungeonmaster This is going to kill the game. It will decrease the already small playerbase by raw boredom and attrition. The good players WILL LEAVE as you force them to do all this pointless econ and all that will be left are yawming mewling turds.

Spending months fighting Crystals is more likely to cause people to leave of boredom. They are the only race that slows the game down. I find it hard to say this. but I would rather have Horwasps in a game then the Crystals. At last it doesn't take them 3 months to take a few planets.

Randomness is ok in combat? Yes. ( we all agree there it seems or do we) but not else where in the game? except ion storms they are good as well. Why these 2 but not other places? I know most of the game is not random if removing this because is is random outside of combat why not remove ion storms at the same time? No why not they add disorder to the game you move in to attack then out of no where ion storm you can't plan for.


Here is a reason why some form of voting to end games needs to be added. Or remove the hit to TENACITY so players can drop and move on to a fun game vs playing months waiting for the end that is known. Players that like Campaign games can't afford to have that Drop they need the Kin. I was 4 years waiting for the resources to be pooled. This game does move slow with many changes. look at the slow adjustment to the races.


I am happy to have Linear as on option as many people here have said but don't removed the Random option.

Changes to speed up the game seam like they will be best to keep new and old players alike. That could be one reason why starting games don't have the Crystals.

I have a number of friends I use to play with years ago I got many to join Nu but some leave for times mostly when they finish a game that when to long and they got bored waiting for it to end. many of these games the end is known for a long time. not always because of Crystals.

The game you say you were going to win depended on a player that had all ready back stabbed other players what was to stop him from doing the same to you? and yes it would have been easy for it to happen (I can think of 4 ways) Using that game as part of your reasoning here? I don't see it. I don't see that the que slowed this game down but the Crystals did. Was they want to do. Truly what is slowing that game down is Webs. and your attacking them will never work if you get unlucky with on ion Storms or allies like you did.




41 days, 9 hours, 23 minutes ago
View darvster's profile
darvster
RE: So let's talk about the random queue. The random queue has...Write Reply
Probably going to get shot down for this but going to make the suggestion anyway. And btw, I don't really have any preference on the PQ or classic queue although I feel that the classic queue does favour the experienced/veteran players over the new players because of the system and methods of distorting it.

Anyway, my suggestion would be to stick with the PQ system but change random normal build queue to a player preferential/proportional system based on individual progress, agressiveness and success. Progressed could be measured by any single or combined number of methods like planet count, ships detroyed, tonnage destroyed etc etc. Having a number apportioned to each players progress would then give that player a % chance of getting a build at one of ther SB's regardless of how many SB's they have. I.e Feds 20 points, Lizards 80 points, Birds 100 points and therefore Birds would have a 50% chance of a random build and the Feds/Lizards would have 10%/40% chance respectively. This could also be coupled with each player setting their own preference of SB build order rather than in ID or random.

This way, PQ points would still be king but the random builds would promote attacking and not sitting back and therefore faster games.

Probably would create a whole new set of problems but food for thought anyway.
41 days, 7 hours, 37 minutes ago
Profile Image
domodedovo
RE: So let's talk about the random queue. The random queue has...Write Reply
@Darvster: while this might be a good overall idea, this is not the problem the original poster describes.

His problem is the randomness that forces him put alot of (stupid) effort (he has to do so as he is a perfectionist and wants to make sure he wins the game). Details can be read in the previous 160 posts.
41 days, 7 hours, 31 minutes ago
View darvster's profile
darvster
RE: So let's talk about the random queue. The random queue has...Write Reply
@Domodedovo Thats what I suggested which was to replace the random part with something less random and more proportional.
41 days, 7 hours, 2 minutes ago
View j-zan's profile
j-zan
RE: So let's talk about the random queue. The random queue has...Write Reply
@Tom Graves,
"There is middle ground between pure random queue and pure linear queue.

I think both are not valuable to good game play and the reasons have been exhaustively given."

Seriously, help me out - I've followed this thread and I must be too dense to get it... because I just I don't think the reasons for half of this have been exhaustively given.

So, assuming the PQ system in every way except random/linear, I haven't seen exhaustive lists of reasons for how the "random queue" is valuable to game play nor have I seen how the "linear queue" is detrimental to game play.

So, I'm just asking - what are those reasons for why the random queue is valuable to game play and what are the reasons the linear queue is detrimental to game play.

Help me out - what am I missing?





Note: I have seen these three positions stated.
1. That the "Build Lottery" (random queue) makes it so that a loser has a chance to improve their position. I think that's probably false (or an illusion) and I've argued for why. Is there something I'm missing here?
2. Random is good because opponents shouldn't know where I build my ships. I'm not sure why that's better for game play (although I understand why it might feel more "realistic" or "logical." Can you explain why that makes the game play better?
41 days, 7 hours, 1 minutes ago
Profile Image
emulation
RE: So let's talk about the random queue. The random queue has...Write Reply
@darvster
You are lacking a lot of details in how you get "progress" points. This sounds a lot more complex than keeping PQ but with linear build order.

To all those in support of the random queue, I ask simply...why?

I see the standpoint of those who want it linear, but can anyone explain why the queue should be random with the PQ points and soft limit. What does the random queue solve that a linear queue with the PQ points and soft limit does not?
41 days, 6 hours, 58 minutes ago
View j-zan's profile
j-zan
RE: So let's talk about the random queue. The random queue has...Write Reply
Re: Everyone talking about other methods of using the Queue or weighting SB builds.

Of course there could be any number of other methods - but all of those reflect more significant changes to the game mechanics. I'm not addressing those because they don't feel necessary. We can spitball dozens ideas of how to build ships in a game like this.... but if they are changing the game significantly I wouldn't advocate adding them. Random vs Linear is a simple change. It wouldn't drastically change the game balance or core mechanics of the game. Pretty much every other suggestion provided here would change the core mechanics in some way and cause more issues.

At this point, I think the perceived "problems" of Classic were solved with PQ. And the problems of PQ+Random are easily solved using PQ+Linear.
41 days, 6 hours, 54 minutes ago
View tom graves's profile
tom graves
RE: So let's talk about the random queue. The random queue has...Write Reply
Will PQ and linear halt SB spamming?
41 days, 6 hours, 49 minutes ago
View dungeonmaster's profile
dungeonmaster
RE: So let's talk about the random queue. The random queue has...Write Reply
The map will eventually get covered in bases, but at a much lower rate! If you spend the resources to build a SB in your far back country where the queue will not cycle to for a long time and I spend the same resources on war then I will come out on top.
With random queue it is the opposite. The person spamming bases is rewarded and war is ill-advised until map is covered.
41 days, 6 hours, 13 minutes ago
Profile Image
quetzal
RE: So let's talk about the random queue. The random queue has...Write Reply
@J-zan: Given that you are asking for arguments perhaps i might add something to your summary.

I think one additional argument for a random queue is that it is conceptually simpler to grasp. As noted by @Darvster the linear queue would seem to benefit the highly skilled players. This is i think largely because the linear queue is a 'hidden' mechanism rather than an overt game mechanism.

I will also remark that much of the debate so far has focused on very high level play. The change would also have consequences for less-skilled sectors.
41 days, 6 hours, 5 minutes ago
Profile Image
rsk
RE: So let's talk about the random queue. The random queue has...Write Reply
@Quetzal - once upon a time I had no clue how the classic "linear" queue worked. Then in one game I got some coaching from a very good player (@Bondservant, thank you!!).

Once the queue was explained, it was a game-changer (quite literally) for me.

And I agree that it is somewhat hidden, though not necessarily more than other planets mechanics. This could be helped via interface changes, scripts, documentation, etc.
41 days, 5 hours, 45 minutes ago
Profile Image
mursu
RE: So let's talk about the random queue. The random queue has...Write Reply
The rules used for the games for the best players should be those that award the most skilled plays. Worth noting is that we also do have now rulesets more appropriate for less experienced players such as PLS.

But naturally there are several ways how to make rules more clear as Rsk just said. Conceptually I don't think it is at all harder to grasp that planets are building in id order than that planets are building in random order.
41 days, 2 hours, 41 minutes ago
View tom graves's profile
tom graves
RE: So let's talk about the random queue. The random queue has...Write Reply
I say if we can get Joshua to do it. Let's try it in private games and stop talking about it.

I think SB spamming is the result of the PQ queue and that linear progression will not resolve this issue.

@J-Zan you asked what was the down side of linear and I think the primary down side for me is the meta-knowledge that you have over other player's build queue and your ability to interdict it. That being said, we know where everyone's home world is generally, so that may not be any more relevant to the game than that set of meta-knowledge.

So try it. I don't think it resolves DM's original complaint about the PQ queue. It is a lot of work to manage all those SB's and fill them with quality ships. A linear queue is not going to change that. It will move it deeper into the game instead of from ship limit to turn ~75, but that is all.
41 days, 2 hours, 1 minutes ago
Profile Image
lord pollax
RE: So let's talk about the random queue. The random queue has...Write Reply
It is really hard to make arguments @J-Zan as it is a war of preferences being debated. I've heard repeatedly that Linear+PQ is better. It gets stated like it is a fact, simply because several of you say it is so. I like random+PQ (and other game varients) and have stated so, but get insulted and declared VGAP incompetent. Why bother even engaging you folks honestly? It is insults and immediate discarding of anything we say and declared terrible for the game. Again stated as some kind of fact.

The broken record of complaints and insults are clearly steering away any desire for folks to contribute to this discussion. Who wants to be a "mewling turd" if they disagree with the original poster?

Fortunately I have thick skin and don't frankly care much what DM thinks; any respect for his rank went out the window days ago and "emperor" was replaced with "troll".

But you J-Zan and few others are making a reasonable effort, so I will as well. Reminder here: opinions do not equal facts. Preferences do not equal being right.

I have seen consistent arguments being made that the resources not used for building stations everywhere would get "used for war". Ship limit is hit. Exactly what kind of game-changing purchases are you making to get "used for war" that are ending the games so obviously earlier and easier? You have the next 20 bases all set to build maxxed out ships, and know where every build is happening... what exactly are you buying for war? Mines? Stocking torpedoes on stations? Mines are defensive primarily, with some exceptions. Can't buy ships, and even the bestest armed ships can only fly so many sorties...hmmm. So where are all those resources for war going then?

So far as knowing where the builds are, even a well tuned fleet is only going to have a very limited of opportunities to "steal" a build by capturing a base. A few each game. Not 50. Nice, but not really game changing.

Forces engagements you say? Maybe. No assurances on that as the power of a "fleet in being" is significant. The power of a single ship build not so much. I only have to cost you more than you gain in the build, and that is easy to arrange. The slot has value of course, but it is not worth potentially losing many slots in an ill suited fight not of my choosing. I feel this argument is being overstated in value.

So all of this boils down to the real issue: a person needing to max out their entire empire economy to ensure the most military gain when builds happen. This perfectionists hate. I get that. But is it really a problem other than being something certain folks don't like? Example in real game life: I just got 3 ship slots obtained last turn with 3 enemy ships lost. Not even my war. My cost? Zip. My gain? Huge. Why? Because I took the effort that some are not willing to do and got my empire covered in bases and created best builds possible on each. With exception of one other player, I've set myself up to capture a higher percentage of builds and am doing so. I consider that effective use of resources for war, and they allow me the luxury of not having to have ships available everywhere for defenses. Most invasions cannot handle very many maxxed out bases before sputtering to a halt (without SSD or Rebel RGA support), and give plenty of time for counter responses.

So I disagree with the fundamental argument being made by you all that the construction of bases and economy building is "wasting resources for war". Every single base I build is earning me steps toward victory, one slot at a time.

I will not disagree with you about your opinions on having to do that industrial work to leverage the power of your empire... that is your right to like or dislike that feature. But if you do not have a fleet capable of taking down my starbases and smashing my defenses, then you cannot yet claim to be the winner. Some of us Diehard. Earn the win.

So I've effectively naysaid your arguments for saying linear added to PQ is better. It boils down to preferences and a perfectionist/OCD person's desire to absolutely eliminate variables and chaos from the game. I say linear is unrealistic and removes the chaos of war. With finite ship slots, randomness is the only way to fairly distribute builds. If randomness is not desired, then perhaps removing artificial constraints on ship limits would help. You will always know where your ships will build then.

I support game setting choices, and would again support options to allow linear+ PQ. The criticisms of the sort DM is making are pretty likely to land on deaf ears however. Unless calling the site owners idiots frequently is a well known pathway to success. I doubt it though. I also think the forecasting of the eminent failure of NU if this change is not made right now is also a little wonky. Ship limits options are now at 9999, and am not really seeing any mass exodus of players. STANDARD games keep filling, so that indicates to me a healthy interest level. PLS games are doing well. Seems variety is the spice of life here at NU.

So I wish you luck J-Zan and others wanting a choice for the linear option to PQ.

41 days, 2 hours, 0 minutes ago
Profile Image
lord pollax
RE: So let's talk about the random queue. The random queue has...Write Reply
Clearing the wall of text : )
41 days, 0 hours, 52 minutes ago
Profile Image
aelfgar
RE: So let's talk about the random queue. The random queue has...Write Reply
Pfeh... It's not going to get 'fixed'. Ever. Too many (as we're called in AD&D), "grognards." (I am a proud AD&D 1st edition grognard. I'm sure there are a few people here who are not surprised by this in any way at all.)

Oh, and if you're listening, @Gnerphic, I'm a fecesbook pariah for my blasphemy. Again. LMAO. Permanentlypoliticallyincorrect.
41 days, 0 hours, 3 minutes ago
View dungeonmaster's profile
dungeonmaster
RE: So let's talk about the random queue. The random queue has...Write Reply
Nope. It is not a war of "preference". This is the wet noodle of flacid debaters when they have been broken.
I don't want to keep engaging you, I want you crushed. And I'm going to keep pointing out your vacuous nonsense until you do stop replying.

Resources "used for war" is PRECISELY minefields, armament, and forward bases. PRECISELY.
I've spent 675 000 MC in LW2 filling out bases over 40 turns. It would be 135 000 MC with a linear queue.

The ability to "steal" builds is PRECISELY what won Taurus for me. I did exactly, that. I crushed in order all the bases what were going to build. I can give you exact turns if you truly can't grasp the concept. And I'll make sure to write it in crayon with friendly colors. EVERY SINGLE TOP PLAYER HAS DONE THIS.

As for forcing engagements, if they're not an ignoramus, they will fight. Or die. Take your pick.
When you say stuff like "the power of a single ship slot not so much"... oh my word...

Your pseudo attempt at backbone: "Some of us Diehard. Earn the win." and "Every single base I build is earning me steps toward victory, one slot at a time." is hilarious in how misplaced and invertebrate it truly is. WE ALL BUILD BASES UNDER A LINEAR QUEUE. The difference once again: WE DON'T NEED TO BUILD AND UPGRADE 200+ JUST TO WIN. Everything stops after a nice, reasonable amount of bases lined up for the queue. Capish?
Then we go to war with all the remaining resources. Simple, elegant, works brilliantly. Worked brilliantly in the past. A strategy game, not farmville.

It does not boil down to preferences, once again. You're flat wrong.

There is no "removing the chaos of war". Sitting around building bases aimlessly upgrading for an eternity is neither chaos nor war. You are flat wrong.

Removing the "artificial ship limit" which is once again, not the topic of this thread, has lead to this:
http://play.planets.nu/#/activity/4042715
Your ideas have been tried, tested and they are dumb. The better players leave. Because it is a boring chore. And those are not my words.

I have not called the site owner (singular) an idiot, misdirection and lies again have no impact on the truth.
I'm currently playing in a game with the site owner, I assure you beyond some casual trash talk there's nothing but respect.
You will be called out again, and again on misdirection and lies. You're not escaping this time.
I never doubt the power of idiocy and mewling complaining, I intend to crush it. I didn't do it 5 years ago, I'm going to do it now. Here.










40 days, 23 hours, 32 minutes ago
View tom graves's profile
tom graves
RE: So let's talk about the random queue. The random queue has...Write Reply
@Joshua - Did you consider maintaining the linear queue with PQ?

If so, why did you choose the random build mechanic?

Tom
40 days, 23 hours, 29 minutes ago
View tom graves's profile
tom graves
RE: So let's talk about the random queue. The random queue has...Write Reply
I also sent this through the contact button.
40 days, 22 hours, 56 minutes ago
Profile Image
lord pollax
RE: So let's talk about the random queue. The random queue has...Write Reply
DM, you are crushing nothing except your image of being reasonable, knowledgeable, or even a good debater. Blunt force "my way of the highway" rants are pathetic... which sums up you in general.

Could you be any more hysterical? I guess the sky is falling for you. Poor guy.

Why don't you go hide in the closet and let us grown ups talk, ok? You are adding nothing of value, and really are making arguments for the sake of yelling. Strawmans and the usual are not impressive. Waaaah, Farmville! Waaahh, I'm not wrong... you are! You ought to run for Parliament with those skills...

This is even funnier: "Your ideas have been tried, tested and they are dumb. The better players leave. Because it is a boring chore. And those are not my words." Actually they are your words. You get an "F" for effort though. "F" for funny, fantasy, or Fail... all the same here. Seems everyone else is having a good time, but that doesn't fit your agenda. And we will ignore his real life reasons for leaving all of Nu, not just my game. Nice try... amateur.

Is that you Glyn? Pulling all of our chains?

FYI, TYPING IN ALL CAPS LOOKS REALLY STUPID AND EMPHASIZES YOUR FAILURE TO HAVE A GOODPOINT. TRY HARDER. CRUSH THOSE TYPING DEFICIENCIES BY TURNING OFF CAPS LOCK. YOU CAN DO IT!

Otherwise it is just more DM blah, blah, blah... yawn
40 days, 22 hours, 36 minutes ago
View dungeonmaster's profile
dungeonmaster
RE: So let's talk about the random queue. The random queue has...Write Reply
Bait, hyperbole and infantilism.

Pathetic.
40 days, 20 hours, 6 minutes ago
Profile Image
greywolf
RE: So let's talk about the random queue. The random queue has...Write Reply
ok. Beating the dead horse a little more.

My 2 cents.

I love the soft ship limit and PBP's. I think that is an awesome system. Strategic reserve and short term goals and options. But heading from mid game to end game random builds comes heavily into play and causes me personal negative impacts.

The impacts to me personally of this format are:
1) I have to cancel all other games to focus on the championship game. Mainly because even after turn 100 I am focused on economy across all my planets. Optimisation over a large number of planets takes work and does not add to game pleasure.

2) I have no short term tactical goals. No near term objectives. No taking of this hill or that supply base. It is just take the enemy to FoF in the best manner possible to maximise PBP's, whilst bleeding builds to the neutral players. That is boring and anyone who understands game construction and gamification realises that short term goals and success (badges) are required.

3) No fleet planning. I cannot schedule up 3 Gorbies, then a Merlin, then a Neutronic to match my planetary expansion. I have to have all Gorbies and I cannot plan the layout of my future fleet. It is difficult to understand that a game structured around space empires create a system that doesn't allow the a choice as to what ships are rolled off the docks.

If I was the game designer I would still have soft ship limit, PBP's in exactly the same cost and design, but I would do linear builds. It does open up more tactic's, more options and less grind.

Anyway, back to my PL21's, FCC's, MBR's and Merlin's as I still have 40% of my planets without a second build resourced.

GW
40 days, 18 hours, 47 minutes ago
View smn's profile
smn
RE: So let's talk about the random queue. The random queue has...Write Reply
All things considered I agree that linear queue should become the standard option for PQ.

The major problem with random is the negative effect on overall gameplay: in a highly competitive setting, it forces players to focus heavily on economy, and when eco takes longer and needs more attention it increases the 'work' in contrast to the 'fun'. Another negative side effect was already mentioned but I still want to emphasize it: The overall quality of builds dwindles. It's simply not possible to stack high quality builds everywhere. This cuts heavily into maneuverability of fleets. Less games one can play at the same time, less fun playing them.

The positive arguments for random I can think of are:
a) Queue manipulation is too hardcore for new players, and it's hard/impossible to win over new crowd if veterans win by default due to the knowledge of these arcane mechanics
b) Linear queue makes 95% of planets to lose all strategical value in the end game, randomness would change this and make planets valuable based on their economic value and location.

Point a) is very true BUT it is nowadays much better addressed by personal ship limit aka PLS for beginner settings.
Point b) is more valid as it deals also with seasoned players game experience. However within the context of universal ship limit, the interesting game decisions brought by linear queue balances it. Again, PLS achieves the desired effect much better.

In conclusion I feel system-generated games would be best served by three core options for the queue model:
1) PLS
2) PQ with linear builds
3) Classic queue

I'm highly skeptic of the option of just adding a configuration choice. The linear PQ option will have significant demand and start quickly eating into the random PQ player base. Too much fragmentation and it will take months to get games started.
40 days, 15 hours, 5 minutes ago
View gnerphk's profile
gnerphk
RE: So let's talk about the random queue. The random queue has...Write Reply
You do make a compelling argument, @SMN. Nevertheless, I can't help but feel that Standard/Random is an excellent system for anyone that is _not_ hardened -- for beginners and casual players. The power of hope should not be underestimated.

I'm certain that in this thread we've counted enough supporters of PQ/Linear that we should have no trouble filling a test game or three if it becomes possible.
40 days, 13 hours, 19 minutes ago
Profile Image
siggi
RE: So let's talk about the random queue. The random queue has...Write Reply
About the build quality.
As stated previously random decreases overall build quality.
But the +1 PP in PQ (which I will always hate) was to encourage people to build better and bigger ships.
Seems counter-intuitive.
40 days, 10 hours, 7 minutes ago
View emork the lizard king's profile
emork the lizard king
RE: So let's talk about the random queue. The random queue has...Write Reply
Siggi, you're right that the +1 PP hits small ships more than big ships. But your assumption about the intention behind this measure is just one of many possible. I never heared that PQ should push people to build big ships. It should encourage more ship combat, that's all I know.
40 days, 9 hours, 48 minutes ago
View tom graves's profile
tom graves
RE: So let's talk about the random queue. The random queue has...Write Reply
It is my experience that PQ:

Encourages tactical SB building (spamming) prior to ship limit to earn PBP's, but this serves no strategic purpose.
It makes sense to push out as many high PBP cost ships prior to the ship limit as possible.
It delays the ship limit by 5-10 turns on average because people build SB's rather than ships (the percentage of SB builds per turn is lower).
It makes sense to push out low PBP cost support ships after the ship limit to control other players ability to build quality big ships.
It requires every planet to get a SB.
It requires every SB to have a high quality ship.
It requires a different type of strategy where your goal is to knock out other players to get 'surge builds' when the dead players ship slots become available.
You can manage the rhythm of the build queue through offensive operations against players with large numbers of ship slots and small numbers of planets (low quality fleets).
It is different tactically than classic queue and the randomness of the builds can be frustrating at times (or beneficial as it was for me in Pisces).
I think it probably discourages combat because of the high number of SB's which might be maxed out or because of the opportunity cost of losing PBP exchange.

I would be interested in trying a linear queue with PQ, but I think the results will be disappointing for classic players.
I would guess Joshua considered what we have discussed in this thread and I would like to hear his thoughts if he did.


40 days, 8 hours, 36 minutes ago
Profile Image
siggi
RE: So let's talk about the random queue. The random queue has...Write Reply
@Emork this comes from Joshua himself. He named it as one of the reasons behind the +1. Not particularly inclined to find the thread though since this was way back when PQ was becoming standard. It was in response to several complaints about the +1.
I may be misremembering but I am 90% sure I am not.
40 days, 7 hours, 32 minutes ago
View mentar's profile
mentar
RE: So let's talk about the random queue. The random queue has...Write Reply
I know I'm kind of late to the party, but I'd like to slice and dice things a little bit differently. There have been several changes from the old Classic to the new Standard which are fundamentally independent and should be considered as such.

1) Soft ship limit with guaranteed PP builds: Fantastic addition and universally liked. Want to keep.

2) PP build cost +1: Again, fantastic addition, since it drastically penalizes Queue blocking attempts (which are already limited in effect with the soft ship limit). Want to keep.

3) Now, random queue or linear queue is open to debate. The reason Joshua gave back then was that he didn't want queue clogging+frontloading to screw over inexperienced players, who would build without focus. Personally, I kind of like opening new turns to see if new bigships dropped out, but Dungeonmaster has a good point in that linear queue offers more tactical structure to the game (random queue _requires_ massive basebuilding efforts in high-level games, which is not to everyone's taste).

I see no reason not to make random/linear queue toggleable at game creation. I would consider linear queue more suited for top-skilllevel games with random queue better for lower/intermediate games. But both could be easily combinable with 1) and 2).
40 days, 6 hours, 18 minutes ago
Profile Image
qinic
RE: So let's talk about the random queue. The random queue has...Write Reply
Well you could also easily remove the base building if the random selected player just selects the player that builds. E.g. random planet gets selected for build owned by player x, player x has no SB at planet, check if he has planet with a build queued, if he has build if not, run random select again, rinse and repeat until either all slots have filled or all SB queues are empty.
40 days, 5 hours, 7 minutes ago
Profile Image
lord pollax
RE: So let's talk about the random queue. The random queue has...Write Reply
Perhaps assigning builds to a random player, and not a random planet ID#? This would allow economic focus to primary shipyards, and just sufficient assets to ensure you have enough yards for large ship count flux caused by larger battles or FoF. Defensive bases would obviously still be considered, but would remain focused to sectors needed.

This does seem to harm the EE as it is their only method to obtain free fighters and at least others were required to keep up or lose pbp/ build opportunities (ensuring EE enemies had to commit resources to SB and not just a handful). Adding some balance for the EE would probably be relatively easy though to counter the added burden. Maybe cheaper SB for EE perhaps.
39 days, 22 hours, 4 minutes ago
Profile Image
robobob
RE: So let's talk about the random queue. The random queue has...Write Reply
I like the idea of cheap bases for EE, particularly in PLS where they are disadvantaged by the format.
39 days, 21 hours, 34 minutes ago
Profile Image
chanain
RE: So let's talk about the random queue. The random queue has...Write Reply
Well, hey, if we're talking about balance implications of non-random builds...

...*cough* FEDS *cough*...
39 days, 13 hours, 22 minutes ago
Profile Image
elephant47
RE: So let's talk about the random queue. The random queue has...Write Reply
Can I make note, just in case it has not been mentioned, that the current "Classic" games have a low tenacity requirement. This seems to translate to lower level players taking part. I suspect that a lot of the more experienced players here avoid the classic games for this reason, even if they dislike the radom builds of the PQ system.

Yes, I agree that the 'linear queue' best suits experienced players, but currently the experienced players are not playing the only linear queue option available.

I also fear the the slower take-up of classic games by experienced players may mean that the Admins feel that a linear queue is not what people want.

The PQ system I understood when introduced was a big change that would be under review. I think that the review says that it is a good change, except for the random queue, and changing the queue back to a linear queue would be both an improvement and a return to how the game should be played. Make linear queue an option if you wish, but we have enough options already.

Pete.
39 days, 11 hours, 43 minutes ago
View emork the lizard king's profile
emork the lizard king
RE: So let's talk about the random queue. The random queue has...Write Reply
You're right, Pete.

I advocate for making linear queue the standard for the PQ system (until someone invents something better) and random queue an option at maximum. Keep in mind that the building system is one of the more difficult game mechanics and the more options you have the more confusing it gets - especially for beginners who don't know the whole history of it's evolution.

Because of this I also think it's not a good approach to make beginners play with PLS and later confront them with a global ship limit of whatever kind. These lead to a VERY different game, not only in the build mechanic but also in at least 50% of all tactics and strategies.
In my opinion it would be better to tell them earlier that there are two quite different game variants so they can build a better mental model how to minmax and get better.

Btw, because of the notorious dropper problem I only play high level system generated games or custom games with doorman. That's the selection crititeria number ONE. As soon as PQ became standard the system generated classic games dropped to very low joining requirements and therefore became a no go for me. I assume I'm not the only one who thinks that no queue mechanism can be worse than a sector full of droppers. So it has no informative value to compare the number or filling time of classic games with PQ games.
39 days, 11 hours, 31 minutes ago
View j-zan's profile
j-zan
RE: So let's talk about the random queue. The random queue has...Write Reply
@Lord Pollax,
Very quickly –

>>Re: Preferences
Look, I’ve said this multiple times, I’m not asking anyone to believe my “preference” is right –I’ve said this before. This isn’t about who likes what flavors of ice cream….. the argument argument isn’t, “I would like this more so it should be Standard.” My argument is, “This would make the game play better, so it should be Standard.” And I offer reasons for why it would make the game play better.

>> Re: opening up resources for war
Dm is right, that means torps/fighters. But it also means fleet composition. If I have 100 ship slots, and I have to use 40 for logistics… well, that’s fewer ships I have for war. Ship slots are a valuable resource, we’ve agreed – and being able to use more of them to fight is important.

>> “Forcing Engagements”
Two things. 1. What I’ve actually argued is that it allows the player to make more choices. If I have to lose 6 ship slots to steal a build at planet-x. Maybe I think that’s worth it to deny the ‘Borg another Cube – and of course run the queue XX number of slots. Maybe I don’t think it’s worth it…. It opens up my strategic thinking – which may or may not force more combat. 2. It isn’t just the value of the ship I might get for taking the planet… it’s also the value of the ship I deny my opponent.

>>”I get ship slots in Random Queue when others fight”
That happens in a linear queue as well. There is no guarantee that my bases are the next in the queue – and plaent ids are already random.

>>”The work required”
I think you are misunderstanding the issue. People aren’t saying that winning should be easy or not require effort. The complaint is that we end up putting in “mindless” effort because our decision making doesn’t have any options. In PQ+Random, the *only* correct decision looking forward (without a hindsight bias) is to max out each build in each base. Under a PQ+Linear, there are other potentially many correct decisions that I can make looking forward. So the effort when I don't have options is "mindless", the effort when I do have options is chosen.

In addition to not being able to choose differently – the effort required is exponentially worse than it would be under PQ+Linear.
39 days, 11 hours, 28 minutes ago
View j-zan's profile
j-zan
RE: So let's talk about the random queue. The random queue has...Write Reply
@Tom Graves

“Will PQ and linear halt SB spamming?”

I don’t think that DM’s complaint is that we have SB spamming. I personally don’t think SB spamming is the problem… the problem is having to queue a perfect build at every SB I own, vs just queuing them at strategic set in front of the queue. Sure, eventually, we will work our economies to have have a maxed-ship at every base. But I can make an actual decision about how long I choose to spread that work out. With the PQ+Random, the only right decision is “NOW”.

“J-Zan you asked what was the down side of linear and I think the primary down side for me is the meta-knowledge that you have over other player's build queue and your ability to interdict it. That being said, we know where everyone's home world is generally, so that may not be any more relevant to the game than that set of meta-knowledge.”

Look, I’m sympathetic to this a little… it does feel like a lot of meta-knowledge. But it comes down to game play for me – and that meta-knowledge enhances my set of decisions that I can make. And it isn’t very different than other bits of meta-knowledge (HW starting locations, ratio and quantity of war ships to freighters, etc…)

Re: Different strategy “surge builds”
Yea, I think that has changed things a bit in this game – but that isn’t because of PQ, that’s because of Fight or Fail. With fight or fail – we can open up large chunks of ship slots, but that would allow surge building in classic as well as PQ.

Re: Different Build Strategy
(I mean, maxing out SB's, building low PP ships after the soft limit, etc...)
Honestly, I don't know that I've seen a situation where changing your tactics has changed the game much. But even if I did, I don't know that it's a bad thing. At this point, it's a "different" strategy for how to manage our economy prior to the ship limit. I'm not sure it's a "worse" strategy? I'd have to think about it - and probably review some games where this difference is pronounced. In my (limited) personal experience, I'm not changing much in terms of my opening economy, except that I'm not building SDSFs or other slot-fillers.
39 days, 11 hours, 27 minutes ago
View j-zan's profile
j-zan
RE: So let's talk about the random queue. The random queue has...Write Reply
@Quetzal
“This is i think largely because the linear queue is a 'hidden' mechanism rather than an overt game mechanism. “

I don’t know that it’s too hard to think that SB’s will build in id order – but one thing that *is* tricky is that in the classic game, players need to keep track of where in the list the queue is sitting. It’s been suggested in this thread that we make that information (a "queue pointer") public; so that everyone has that information. I’d support that change.


@Smn
Well said – and I appreciate you noting that the linear queue makes X% of planets lose strategic value – that’s something that hasn’t been mentioned as a downside to PQ+Linear. I would clarify, that at any given turn some % of planets have low value, and others have high value. Which planets have that value changes throughout the game, so the relative value of a planet is dynamic. I think that’s less of a problem than the overall value of a planet in the random queue (1/500th - assuming all planets have SB's.) which stays constant. I do agree that the benefits of the linear queue balance any issues.

@Mentar,
Well stated sir, although I wonder if the issue of "clogging+frontloading to screw over inexperienced players, who would build without focus" isn't a false problem though. It strikes me that with most of the other PQ features, this issue is already diminished - AND - it strikes me as bad form to not teach folks how to play at a high level. However, an easy fix might to be make PQ+Linear the default setting games with higher difficulty in Standard and PQ+Random remain for lower difficulty games in Standard. Would that be too much variation?

@Greywolf
Your points 2 and 3 are very well-stated. Much more eloquent than my long-winded explanations.
39 days, 9 hours, 11 minutes ago
Profile Image
domodedovo
RE: So let's talk about the random queue. The random queue has...Write Reply
200 !
39 days, 8 hours, 48 minutes ago
View whisperer's profile
whisperer
RE: So let's talk about the random queue. The random queue has...Write Reply
@Emork,

> I only play high level system generated games or custom games with doorman

You might be interested in this game:

http://play.planets.nu/#/sector/238211
39 days, 8 hours, 31 minutes ago
Profile Image
sibiryak
RE: So let's talk about the random queue. The random queue has...Write Reply
@Whisperer

This is also a high level classic game:
http://play.planets.nu/#/sector/309105

The current emperor has signed up.
39 days, 2 hours, 13 minutes ago
Profile Image
lord pollax
RE: So let's talk about the random queue. The random queue has...Write Reply
@J-Zan Saying: "My argument is, “This would make the game play better, so it should be Standard.” And I offer reasons for why it would make the game play better." is you literally stating an opinion, not a fact. I do not agree that it will make for a better game. Thus you have a preference for your opinion, and I have a preference for mine. This isn't rocket science. Having 1, 4, or 20 reasons why you think your opinion has merit doesn't change the fundamental fact that it is still your opinion. "Better game play" is not a defined element fixed by the community. It is defined by each player through their game play experiences. I've played hundreds of games with the linear approach, and welcome the chances to play games that are more logical with random builds. I like these better, and they produce better games in my opinion. Your mileage may vary.

The resource arguments are also a bit overstated. Few are sacrificing ship builds for bases until the limit is met for the most part. Slots are too valuable and even freighters built at this time are very important. "Most" of the base spamming comes after the limit. Resources are far more available at this time as all the planets are max producing and your Merlins are contributing. The most complained about resource is of course cash. It takes a ton to tech up bases. But not to build quality ships that help the war effort. The arguments here are for all T10 fully loaded top tier ships. Nice ones to build, but not a required condition in order to build a base. Cubes with disruptors and T6 engines are quite adequate, till additional resources can be provided later to up those to T10. Maybe just a NFC with transwarps. Those engines work on any future builds and I'm out very little in building the NFC hull. Or it get s built as is... not a bad thing honestly. It is an excellent useful ship. Wants and needs are two different things, and I'll take a NFC over my opponents gaining a warship every time. Wise building leads to little waste.

I play the EE often, so it is important for me to get bases up early and get fighters to load my carriers. The folks building solely for pbp have to judge if those points outweigh the capture of slots early... it is a strategy choice.

Building logistics is a strategic choice also. I have certain methodologies I use for that planning, and end most games with about the same ration of warships to logistics of 3 or 4 to 1. My ratio aligns well with other players considered high caliber. No matter the queue used, this ratio is pretty well required. More warships require more logistics to maintain. Linear queue does not magically free you from this reality. Your point is not honestly true over the long haul of a game.

We digress however...

I want you folks to have the choice of adding linear to PQ. Real game testing sure beats speculation any day. We should be talking about how to convince Joshua to allow this setting to be configurable for the host, and not game play strategies.

I think Joshua and BigBeefer would be open to such a change, especially with the support of several former Emperors. After game play and testing, the next step would be to them see if a change to STANDARD is appropriate based on the gathered data. Our PLS testing bore fruit, and I think you folks could as well if you followed the same path. It is hard to argue with real data.

I appreciate the comments J-Zan. I think you will be successful at getting the choice eventually.
38 days, 11 hours, 33 minutes ago
View j-zan's profile
j-zan
RE: So let's talk about the random queue. The random queue has...Write Reply
@Lord Pollax,

Re: Preferences
I think you are mixing up some concepts here.....A preference is something that one likes over other alternatives. I'm not asking folks to agree with what I like, because I like it. Instead, I am offering a claim (PQ+Linear is better for game play than PQ+Random) based on reasons. Having reasons (above and beyond, "I like it") gives my "opinion" some epistemic backing - what we might call "warrant" using logical jargon. That warrant I provide for "opinion" can be evaluated - we can consider if my warrant is any good. My "opinion" is stronger or weaker based on the quality of that warrant. If I give poor reasons, then I have a poor opinion. And the fact that we can give reasons (and evaluate them) makes this discussion something more than simply a debate over preferences. Now, my reasons are all fixated on the idea of "game play", which I've defined ("a series of interesting choices," following Sid Meier). So the standard I am judging my opinion/warrant against isn't "does this make some individual player have more pleasure when playing" but rather which option creates more "interesting choices" in the way a player interacts with the game. My individual pleasure or gaming experience isn't my metric - although it does seem to be yours. Now, that idnividual pleasure or gaming experience would just circle back to preferences, i.e. This is my opinion because I like it better. But that's not what I'm doing - at no point have I asked anyone here to think my opinion is right because I like my opinion. You may be debating preferences (You simply aren't giving any arguments FOR PQ+Random (although I think you are trying to give arguments AGAINST PQ+Linear) - but I'm offering opinions with justification, which are strong or weak based on the quality of that justification.,

To say that the arguments in favor of PQ+Linear are merely "debating preferences" is to straw figure my view - it's ignoring the epistemic backing provided for the view and failing to account for an objective(ish) standard regarding what creates more interesting choices. That's probably the last I'll say on this point of yours - my assumption is that you're inclined to dig in your heels.

Re: The Resource arguments portion f your post.
I don't understand what you're talking about - were you addressing me? You seem to be talking about life pre-the ship limit. But I don't think anyone has made these arguments about life "pre the ship limit" and resource scarcity. I merely said that with a PQ+Random, (after the limit) I have to dedicate resources (mc, supplies/minerals AND ships) to logistics that would be better served in other areas to make the right choice (have a usable ship queued NOW).

Now, you mention this a little - and I think you are straw figuring the issue of having a ratio of ships for logistics. I didn't argue that I shouldn't have any ships dedicated to logistics - nor that the linear queue frees me from logistics. Of course it doesn't! But I'm arguing that the ratio is skewed from where it would be better. One thing to recognize is that you shouldn't have a ratio of "warships and logistics ships" .... all ships participate in logistics. I'm assuming what you mean is ratio of "warships and freighters" ... but really, warships can do meaningful logisitics. Your Gorbie can have 250 fighters when it attacks that planet... or 200 fighters and 50 clans. Those clans are the jumpstart for your new planet. The Gorbie is functioning both logistically and tactically. A Rebel Rush is a fantastic freighter for jumpstarting a planet after it attacks it - and I've given a nice presentation about how amazing the Falcon is as a logistics ship. =) The point I made is not that a linear queue "magically frees me" from needing logistics.

My argument is that with a PQ+Random, it's *necessary* for there to be more of your fleet dedicated to the logistics, particularly of your back end economy. The ratio is skewed - and all for a 0.002% chance of a build. That's absolutely born out in reality over the long run - maintaining 80-100 back end SB's with usable ships absolutely requires more logistics than maintaining the "next 20 or 30" in the queue.
38 days, 11 hours, 9 minutes ago
Profile Image
siggi
RE: So let's talk about the random queue. The random queue has...Write Reply
To say it in less words than J-zan.
It's not even debatable that random leads to more micromanagement.
If you want to win that is.
So the "opinion" here is whether or not more micromanagement leads to more fun or vice versa.
Which in my book is not an opinion really.
38 days, 10 hours, 49 minutes ago
Profile Image
lord pollax
RE: So let's talk about the random queue. The random queue has...Write Reply
You do what you got to do to win. It won't be zero "micromanagement" with linear, just different micromanagement. The good players are too OCD to not min-max everything, so not having bases being built/ ships in queue at one location means moving minerals and resources to the linear build locations. Same efforts, just different flavors. I enjoy the managing of my economy, to see if I can get the maximum out of what the game provided me to start with. Others must as well or there wouldn't be dozens of add-ons and folks creating spreadsheets to get super micromanaging at insane levels. That is not really an opinion either.

Thanks for your thoughts, as opinions on other's opinions are always appreciated in discussions on opinions Siggi. : )

A lot of folks have stated openly that the Championship games are not fun. Strains on RL caused, the forced back stabs in order to win, real diplomatic anxieties, etc. Should we abolish those too? This game isn't always about "fun" clearly. There is a lot of work and social efforts here at Nu. Hell, even these threads can be taxing.

Many of us have had 25+ years and hundreds of games to formulate our opinions. I know I will not change yours any more than you are likely to change mine. But I listen respectfully and appreciate well thought out posts. I hope our admins do the same and consider the request to add some more game choices.
38 days, 9 hours, 29 minutes ago
View j-zan's profile
j-zan
RE: So let's talk about the random queue. The random queue has...Write Reply
@Lord Pollax
"You do what you got to do to win. It won't be zero "micromanagement" with linear, just different micromanagement."

Exactly. And "different" in linear will make the decision-making of micromanaging more meaningful. I can actually make meaningful choices when I know the build order. I will still be micromanaging - and my spreadsheets will still be in use - but there will be multiple strategies for how to manage that workload - not just one. It's the better choice. ;)
38 days, 5 hours, 28 minutes ago
View regicide's profile
regicide
RE: So let's talk about the random queue. The random queue has...Write Reply
@Lord Pollax keep up the great work defending the random part of the Que. I also see this is as a preference of play issue. Though others seem to disagree.

I feel we need a better way to deal with the Merlin Exploit then the +1 to builds. as I really miss being able to move ship components with small ships had games where I did it 50 plus times that way only had to upgrade Hull tech.

unless we get the some ship to move ship parts.
37 days, 10 hours, 55 minutes ago
Profile Image
ace rimmer
RE: So let's talk about the random queue. The random queue has...Write Reply
So just gonna throw this out there. Why is everyone complaining? Last time I checked there were 3 game formats on this site. THREE!!!!!

Classic PBQ, Standard - Random, and the new PLS. So if you don't like Random and wish someone "Would make Planets great again." Then play the Classic Version with the peeps who like to play that version. If you like the new Random Queue play the standard version, which while it's not perfect it's more fair and can't be manipulated by players like the PBQ was, which seems to piss off the crowd who loved to over manipulate the Classic Queue.

Then you have PLS - Which is my personal favorite and I look forward to playing it once my current games are over because it takes all this stupid queue management and flushes it down the toilet where it honestly belongs and puts the player in charge of their own queue which is managed by the number of planets they own. I wish it was a little more complicated than that being based on a couple of other things besides planets owned. But it is a step in the right direction.

So Let's stop this at 200ish comments because it's getting all FaceBook in here with everyone arguing and no opinions or minds being changed just endless arguing of the keyboard warriors!!! LOL

Play the format you like. 209 comments and counting ... YAWN.

Ace
37 days, 8 hours, 58 minutes ago
View emork the lizard king's profile
emork the lizard king
RE: So let's talk about the random queue. The random queue has...Write Reply
As an alternative to tell others to stop discussing you could just stop listening, Ace. There is a an ignore button.
37 days, 8 hours, 53 minutes ago
Profile Image
mursu
RE: So let's talk about the random queue. The random queue has...Write Reply
I honestly do not understand at all why talking about improving the game would be wrong. At least for me PQ is miles better than Classic queue (without even taking into account the other new Standard features over Classic) because of the soft ship limit. But it is not perfect (pretty much nothing is) and could be improved. This is what this discussion is all about.

People who favor PLS instead could go and play the format. It is not your loss if other formats are improved at the same time. Worth noting is that PLS has a very wide amount of customization options. You can set the min amount of ships, ships per planet and extra ships. There's not just one option given. And even if there was, I don't think many of the ones who would like to improve PQ would be there saying PLS shouldn't get more options.
37 days, 8 hours, 9 minutes ago
Profile Image
chanain
RE: So let's talk about the random queue. The random queue has...Write Reply
While I don't share Ace's objection to the discussion itself, his point about the existing number of formats is not off base.

There is such a thing as too much customization, especially when the player base is small.

I'm currently waiting for a system-generated Captain's game to start that has been in the joining phase for four months. It's become something of a revolving door, as people get tired of waiting and leave.

Three types of queue, three types of rule sets, and that's without other Boolean settings like artifacts, stealth, fog of war, Wasps, wormholes, etc....there are a lot of different game configurations.

Especially given that we're talking about a rule set that, to the extent of any consensus here, appears to appeal to a relatively elite group of players, I think we need to be really cognizant of the diffusing effect of additional configurations.
37 days, 7 hours, 9 minutes ago
Profile Image
glynsalternate
RE: So let's talk about the random queue. The random queue has...Write Reply
The optional 9,999 Global Ship Limit essentially is a 4th format, aka 'No Ship Limit'. It also enables Melee Sectors in all three formats to play out more like 11 Race Sectors. For me it enables a simple PLS format that should achieve the perfect Planet to Ship ratio (more than 999 Global Ship limit but under 9,999).
_ _ _

I think NuQueue should have an option like Dungeonmaster wants. He's right, it encourages players to waste resources beefing up Starbases that may otherwise get spent on warfare which in theory results in a longer duller game.

But I think NuQueue is just garbage... it encourages building Starbases to farm PBPs, but the PLS camp shouldn't sabotage the ClassicQueue/NuQueue camps.
_ _ _

@Dungeonmaster: Make a UserVoice suggestion and I'll vote for it.



37 days, 4 hours, 7 minutes ago
Profile Image
ace rimmer
RE: So let's talk about the random queue. The random queue has...Write Reply
@Emork

Touche. : )

Just a whole lot of arguing going one here and I don't think anyone is changing their mind. So I just think further arguments are wasted breath and time. But you are right, I could just ignore ... thought I probably won't. LOL


Ace
34 days, 6 hours, 5 minutes ago
Profile Image
glynsalternate
RE: So let's talk about the random queue. The random queue has...Write Reply
"Ace Rimmer: I don't think anyone is changing their mind."

True dat.

"Ace Rimmer: further arguments are wasted breath and time."

Possibly... I like to think these threads is akin to little kids jumping up and down and trying to get daddy Joshua's attention.