Start Date changes
Posted: Tue Nov 25, 2014 3:20 am
I've transferred over some discussion regarding the starting date for LT34, and for future games.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
<Evan> Maybe once a game goes beyond a certain number of turns, say 100 or 150, the next LT starts. This would give a handicap advantage to newer players, since the veterans will have to concentrate on two games.
... ... ...
(T113 - 23:00:09) <Wieder> The problem with a 100 or 150 turn limit might be having 2 games running in parallel for a very log time. Let's say LT33 started when LT32 reached T100. LT32 ended around T230 +- few turns
(T113 - 23:01:49) <Wieder> With T150 it would be slightly better but still not that great and since LT33 probably ends before T150 it's not perfect either
(T113 - 23:07:46) <Evan> It has the benefit though of being simple. Also, it seems to be generally commented on hear that a lot of people don't read the ruleset changes before the game begins. This change could give the newer players more of a chance to see how things are working.
(T113 - 23:08:43) <Wieder> Yeah, that's true, it might work like that
(T113 - 23:08:58) <Evan> And if it makes things more of a challenge for the veterans... most of them would welcome the challenge wouldn't they?
(T113 - 23:09:16) <Wieder> I've also noticed that not only the new players usually leave the changes unread but also the old ones
(T113 - 23:09:16) <Evan> I've been meaning to spend some time on Trello, sorry.
(T113 - 23:09:43) <Wieder> Yeah, people like having challenges smile
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
Evan 24.11.14
I've read here and in the GT forum that the LT server is capable of running several simlutaneous games, so i think it would be a really good idea that if a game reaches a certain point, say turn 100, then the next game could start while the current game continues.
This would give an advantage to the players who are RIP, or are one of the smaller surviving players, because the dominant players in the current game wouldn't be able to spend as much time on it.
In the early stages of the game there isn't that much happening, but it can also be the most unforgiving time, where mistakes can be catastrophic. It's also much easier for more experienced players to get their head around ruleset changes, and adapt to the situation their new nation finds itself in.
Any rule changes to make the game more accesible for newcomers can be worked around by experienced players, whereas this change works through an effect that is external to the game: the players are human beings with lives, mostly. And if some players find it confusing and hard to follow ... well good, that gives us more intelligent players a way to make up for our lack of experience.
It would give the RIP and smaller surviving players something to look forward to, and then something to actually do, while the dominant players fight their war.
If some players are strongly against it, maybe the new games could be non-ranking, and the next ranking game waits until the last one is finished.
Most sporting leagues have things like salary caps, draft picks, etc to balance out the teams. I think this would be a good way, even a fun way to achieve this. I'd enjoy the extra colour it would bring to the current game, if LT34 were to start now.
Wieder noted that the problem might be having two games running in parallel for a long time. I suggest that this isn't a problem. A change in this direction would be self-regulating in favour of the weaker players, giving them the opportunity to become better players. And that makes the game better for everyone. More interesting. More challenging. More fun.
And it wouldn't require any coding, so it's simple in that respect.
Simple, but dynamic and interesting. And a little bit chaotic, like most free systems.
It would also mean that a current game could continue without holding up everybody else. This could allow more long term stategies. The delegation rules could be relaxed once a game moves 'into continuation', if it's technically possible that a player be active in one game but delegated in another.
It can be a very long time between games if you're RIP. I'm still alive in LT33, and still very much enjoying it, but i feel bad for all the RIP players, yes all of them, and all the smaller players who are now just observers of history.
The holiday season is coming up. Some players will have more time, some less, and some will delegate to spend time with their relatives. These people deserve our sympathy, but they shouldn't stop us from playing our next game.
On the GT forum it shows the 'most online' at any one time - it was just before the whole thing ended. How many people must come to the LT site too and lose interest through waiting. If the server is capable of doing it, we should do it.
Yes, if LT34 were to start tomorrow, it would be difficult for some, but that's the point.
If some just don't want to play two games at once, well, why does everyone have to play in every game?
Maybe they don't want to miss out on a game, and worry they might have to wait too long for the next one...
LT34 soon! (and no tech-trading)
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
Corbeau 25.11.14
Evan, you should learn to put some empty lines in your posts smile Like this:
Anyway, about the new game, I think the only thing needed to start it is for one person to raise his hand and say "I will organise it". What needs to be coordinated (or chosen) are ruleset, server settings and map, but someone needs to do the final job. I'm busy as hell in RL at the moment so I'm out or I'd already have done it, sorry.
About more games simultaneously, Evan said it, but it's worth repeating: if it's too much for you, don't join, simple as that. Some people complained anyway about LT33 having too many people.
About settings:
Definitely restrictinfra. This is senseless. Anyone played Risk? With enough army, you can conquer the world in one turn. That's not a strategy simulation. Some people enjoy it, but LT33 is set that way, so let's have the next game different, please.
ZOC. Keep it for the spies, please. Maybe cancel it for diplos. That would be a compromise. Although, as was already said, if you have restrictinfra, then maybe this is not needed.
I'm also in favour of heavily limiting inciting revolt or even disabling it, but I don't know if that is possible.
Some new ideas:
Reduce cost of settlers. A lot. Maybe even set it to 1.
Reasoning: 1. realism, 2.gameplay
1. Having people turned into settlers is not "production". It's simply having some people pick up their stuff and leave. Ok, maybe need to produce some supplies, but there is already the limitation that a settler costs two population so that should be enough.
2. Game start is awfully slow exactly for this reason. This would speed it up significantly. Also, Wieder asked what would take for people to have a conflict earlier. Well, this would. A lot of early resources are spent on settlers. If they were much cheaper, people woldn't have anything else to buils but military and when you have a lot of military you get an itchy trigger finger wink
No tech sharing, stealing, conquering. How exactly does "tech leakage" work? Is it in the code or in the ruleset? It should definitely be on. That's a good way for slower players to keep up. Also, if there is a possibility to increase this effect it wold be great.
And definitely have x2 movement.
And, about people not reading and checking the new rules, screw'em. I am personally offering to post a note in the chat twice a day: "NEW RULES! READ THEM HERE: <link> IGNORE THIS AT YOUR OWN RISK!"
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
<Evan> Maybe once a game goes beyond a certain number of turns, say 100 or 150, the next LT starts. This would give a handicap advantage to newer players, since the veterans will have to concentrate on two games.
... ... ...
(T113 - 23:00:09) <Wieder> The problem with a 100 or 150 turn limit might be having 2 games running in parallel for a very log time. Let's say LT33 started when LT32 reached T100. LT32 ended around T230 +- few turns
(T113 - 23:01:49) <Wieder> With T150 it would be slightly better but still not that great and since LT33 probably ends before T150 it's not perfect either
(T113 - 23:07:46) <Evan> It has the benefit though of being simple. Also, it seems to be generally commented on hear that a lot of people don't read the ruleset changes before the game begins. This change could give the newer players more of a chance to see how things are working.
(T113 - 23:08:43) <Wieder> Yeah, that's true, it might work like that
(T113 - 23:08:58) <Evan> And if it makes things more of a challenge for the veterans... most of them would welcome the challenge wouldn't they?
(T113 - 23:09:16) <Wieder> I've also noticed that not only the new players usually leave the changes unread but also the old ones
(T113 - 23:09:16) <Evan> I've been meaning to spend some time on Trello, sorry.
(T113 - 23:09:43) <Wieder> Yeah, people like having challenges smile
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
Evan 24.11.14
I've read here and in the GT forum that the LT server is capable of running several simlutaneous games, so i think it would be a really good idea that if a game reaches a certain point, say turn 100, then the next game could start while the current game continues.
This would give an advantage to the players who are RIP, or are one of the smaller surviving players, because the dominant players in the current game wouldn't be able to spend as much time on it.
In the early stages of the game there isn't that much happening, but it can also be the most unforgiving time, where mistakes can be catastrophic. It's also much easier for more experienced players to get their head around ruleset changes, and adapt to the situation their new nation finds itself in.
Any rule changes to make the game more accesible for newcomers can be worked around by experienced players, whereas this change works through an effect that is external to the game: the players are human beings with lives, mostly. And if some players find it confusing and hard to follow ... well good, that gives us more intelligent players a way to make up for our lack of experience.
It would give the RIP and smaller surviving players something to look forward to, and then something to actually do, while the dominant players fight their war.
If some players are strongly against it, maybe the new games could be non-ranking, and the next ranking game waits until the last one is finished.
Most sporting leagues have things like salary caps, draft picks, etc to balance out the teams. I think this would be a good way, even a fun way to achieve this. I'd enjoy the extra colour it would bring to the current game, if LT34 were to start now.
Wieder noted that the problem might be having two games running in parallel for a long time. I suggest that this isn't a problem. A change in this direction would be self-regulating in favour of the weaker players, giving them the opportunity to become better players. And that makes the game better for everyone. More interesting. More challenging. More fun.
And it wouldn't require any coding, so it's simple in that respect.
Simple, but dynamic and interesting. And a little bit chaotic, like most free systems.
It would also mean that a current game could continue without holding up everybody else. This could allow more long term stategies. The delegation rules could be relaxed once a game moves 'into continuation', if it's technically possible that a player be active in one game but delegated in another.
It can be a very long time between games if you're RIP. I'm still alive in LT33, and still very much enjoying it, but i feel bad for all the RIP players, yes all of them, and all the smaller players who are now just observers of history.
The holiday season is coming up. Some players will have more time, some less, and some will delegate to spend time with their relatives. These people deserve our sympathy, but they shouldn't stop us from playing our next game.
On the GT forum it shows the 'most online' at any one time - it was just before the whole thing ended. How many people must come to the LT site too and lose interest through waiting. If the server is capable of doing it, we should do it.
Yes, if LT34 were to start tomorrow, it would be difficult for some, but that's the point.
If some just don't want to play two games at once, well, why does everyone have to play in every game?
Maybe they don't want to miss out on a game, and worry they might have to wait too long for the next one...
LT34 soon! (and no tech-trading)
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
Corbeau 25.11.14
Evan, you should learn to put some empty lines in your posts smile Like this:
Anyway, about the new game, I think the only thing needed to start it is for one person to raise his hand and say "I will organise it". What needs to be coordinated (or chosen) are ruleset, server settings and map, but someone needs to do the final job. I'm busy as hell in RL at the moment so I'm out or I'd already have done it, sorry.
About more games simultaneously, Evan said it, but it's worth repeating: if it's too much for you, don't join, simple as that. Some people complained anyway about LT33 having too many people.
About settings:
Definitely restrictinfra. This is senseless. Anyone played Risk? With enough army, you can conquer the world in one turn. That's not a strategy simulation. Some people enjoy it, but LT33 is set that way, so let's have the next game different, please.
ZOC. Keep it for the spies, please. Maybe cancel it for diplos. That would be a compromise. Although, as was already said, if you have restrictinfra, then maybe this is not needed.
I'm also in favour of heavily limiting inciting revolt or even disabling it, but I don't know if that is possible.
Some new ideas:
Reduce cost of settlers. A lot. Maybe even set it to 1.
Reasoning: 1. realism, 2.gameplay
1. Having people turned into settlers is not "production". It's simply having some people pick up their stuff and leave. Ok, maybe need to produce some supplies, but there is already the limitation that a settler costs two population so that should be enough.
2. Game start is awfully slow exactly for this reason. This would speed it up significantly. Also, Wieder asked what would take for people to have a conflict earlier. Well, this would. A lot of early resources are spent on settlers. If they were much cheaper, people woldn't have anything else to buils but military and when you have a lot of military you get an itchy trigger finger wink
No tech sharing, stealing, conquering. How exactly does "tech leakage" work? Is it in the code or in the ruleset? It should definitely be on. That's a good way for slower players to keep up. Also, if there is a possibility to increase this effect it wold be great.
And definitely have x2 movement.
And, about people not reading and checking the new rules, screw'em. I am personally offering to post a note in the chat twice a day: "NEW RULES! READ THEM HERE: <link> IGNORE THIS AT YOUR OWN RISK!"
