I like the idea of players using different approaches to try to win as most games just turn into a Weapons-fest … so that’s why those are locked. But if we also disable Exp, then there only are 5 techs to “play” with.
I did make Exp expensive to research … so it’s a risk/reward move early on in the game … which as we saw on my current game, hammered me with two worthless hits early on.
I do think a little bit of randomness is a “good” thing - just don’t want it to be a game changer.
But we can certainly consider it for the next round of games, so let me know what you guys think work best and any other possible changes.
I prefer to leave exp in since chance (in moderate amounts) is an important element to any game, otherwise it becomes prescriptive over time. I do think that preventing exp hits on weapons is a good change.
I think we leave the parameters the same as before. I see no reason in disabling Exp. It’s worth researching now that you know that the bonuses from it aren’t going to be wasted.
I think keep the science where it is @HULK and just change exp to not hit locked techs. I am really enjoying the format as it is and it’s obviously working for me, so lets keep going!
Thanks for the feedback guys and glad its worked out well. In case @SuperDave and @Grunter wanted to start early, we can’t do that (with Exp not hitting locked techs) since we have to wait until my game with @AnnanFay completes … and then we’ll ask Jay to switch the code.
Speaking of which, that is a raging battle that could take a while.
After a requested game pause, we finished Cycle 5 on June 7th and are just about to finish Cycle 8. I’m usually able to submit fairly quickly (RL isn’t too busy right now) but most turns have been the full 24 hours … I get the Email just after that, so @AnnanFay is logging in to check the results, but am guessing his RL is busy as he often doesn’t submit. Just make sure you don’t AFK because that would be a bummer to accidentally end the game that way!
@AnnanFay has made some smart moves and reduced my lead in ships, plus jumped out in Industry.
It continues to be a wild game with attacks all over the place - truly an epic 1v1!
I’m quite surprised I’m still contesting the game with a 15 star difference. HULK 65 vs my 50. The early economy has helped a lot - but also part of the reason for the 15 star difference.
It’s anyone’s match. While I do have a lead in stars, I’ve lost my lead in ships and @AnnanFay still leads in economy and industry (as I have built some warp gates) so we’ll see how that plays out. @AnnanFay made a bold move deep in my territory … so you’ll see some Cyan stars pop up where they shouldn’t be!
In my game with @AnnanFay (super smart/tough player!), the current stats at Cycle 10 are: Player: Stars - Econ/Indy/Science - Ships/Carriers HULK: 69 - 79/105/20 - 1,836/50 (4 Warp Gates) AnnanFay: 54 - 83/112/19 - 2,073/46 (I believe just one WG)
I have Scan3 versus his Scan2 and Exp2 versus Exp1.
He has Bank3 versus my Bank2 and Manu5 versus Manu4 (I’m about to finish Manu5)
So while I’m behind in stats, the 15 star lead is pretty big … so I think it could go either way. But I just conceded defeat.
I did this because we need to get the tournament going - at the rate we are playing, this game could easily last another month - probably even longer if I’m able to pull out a victory as @AnnanFay plays some great defense. All the other games have been done for a while - @nick.muzzio & @SuperDave have been waiting for a couple of weeks and @Grunter over a week.
Also, Jay has a patch to so that Experimentation does not locked technology (recall I hammered TWICE with this from my first two Exp2 hits early in my game - D’OH!) that he had to pull back until our game is done. I have sent him a note saying go ahead and please push this out. Once this is done, I’ll setup the games for the semi-finals which will be: @nick.muzzio vs. @AnnanFay @SuperDave vs. @Grunter
Going forward, I think we need to set some sort of reasonable time limit so that the tournament keeps moving. I don’t want to impose on RL (plus want to allow players enough time to plan their moves and everyone has their own pace), but I worry about the other players losing interest if there is too long of delay to the next round. So I’d propose the following: One month for any game/round but if everyone else finishes, then you have a week (and at least 2 cycles) to finish. Winner decided by most stars with tiebreaker being most ships.
What 'ya guys think?
Finally, in a couple of days, I’ll start soliciting players for another 1v1 tournament.
All are, of course welcome to play including those still in this one.
I think it could go either way. But I just conceded defeat.
Probably the hardest and funnest NP games I’ve played. A bit sad how it ended. I agree it could have gone either way. HULK’s a great player!
Winner decided by most stars with tiebreaker being most ships.
This would make the best strategy become an aggressive early game and taking as long as possible for each turn so you never get to the end-game. It makes playing the long game a bad strategy. If your ROI for something is greater than game length you don’t bother. If you can force the game length to be shorter then you can calculate the exact game duration (in ticks) and plan accordingly.
I’ll start soliciting players for another 1v1 tournament.
A round robin tournament is worth considering. It means players who lose an early game still have a chance of winning and getting very unlucky in one game doesn’t ruin your chances. Round robin tournaments aren’t very interesting to spectators which is one reason they aren’t used often. I’ve not thought about the details though.
I think “1 month per game or 1 week plus 2 cycles after any other game in that round is finished” seems fair. It puts a different strategy into the mix if play is slow—if play is going slow than grab planets no matter what. It’s a bit drastic, but then again no one else in the tournament has to wait too long before the next round. I think it’s important to move play along to keep interest in this new type of tournament play alive and to get it to build even more interest.
Some thoughts I’m having on the pros and cons to a time limit to get a bit of discussion on the idea so we can decide what to do for the next round and to help “sharpen the parameters” for this new style of 1vs1 tournament play.
I will start with the con…I like how @AnnanFay came from behind and pulled ahead on ship count and ship/hour production because he invested in economy/terra/banking early. That’s a new style of play that we haven’t seen before in a game. It’s the “long game” approach. However, if there is time limits in the game, then, imo, he won’t be able to play it again. I think he would eventually have won the game of him vs Hulk in the end no matter what, but it would take him another 4-5 cycles or so to take the planet lead. His ship count lead (due to his greater financially ability early that still persisted even now) would just keep building and be the deciding factor no matter what. I hate to to see this game strategy be made moot. It’s an interesting way of playing vs the more industry heavy approach I like that would favor a shorter game time.
The pros for a time limit…I looked and on May 23rd there is a message from Hulk of:
“@AnnanFay are two cycles into our game 6 and we just had our first very minor skirmish … but a mega-fleet just popped up on my scanners - D’OH! ”
That was 28 days ago. If it’s now at the top of the 10th cycle, that’s roughly only 22-23 moves that happened since then. My game with KarmaDrome went 19 cycles. At that rate this game could have taken another month or so. Somewhere a line needs to be drawn on when to end it time wise.
I will say this…if time limits are put into place, then it’s important they are decided before a game starts so both players take them into consideration. Perhaps we do them for the next round and next tournament and see how it plays out and can adjust them later if necessary. As we’ve seen even in this tournament, there is still tweaking needs to be done to really make this 1vs1 play really good. I like that it’s getting there
Maybe there could be two “types” of tournaments - one with rules such as “one month limit on games” … and then one with unlimited time. Note that even in the “one month limit”, you can still play a “long game” … but if turns are only happening every 24 hours, that limits you to 10 cycles. By contrast, I’m going to guess that @SuperDave versus @Karmadrome did that 19 cycles in under 2 weeks.
I think we want a reasonable framework/rules that allows games to get done in a reasonable time, but not encourage people to “game” the system … plus also respect their RL issues (ability to login/submit turns) plus their style of play. Note that I said if everyone else is done, you have one week to finish (AND 2 cycles) … this is to prevent players from doing the stall routine and waiting the entire 48 hours each turn. Personally, I think it is lame (in any sport/competition/game) to win by letting the clock run out.
I agree @SuperDave that the rules (expectations) need to be known in advance … and maybe some more emphasis on those will weed out those people that want to slow play (can select the “unlimited” tournament) and those willing to move the game along a bit quicker. Again, I just feel bad we have all the other players waiting on our game, so it was just “better” to concede to we can get things going again.
Ideally, the time limit never comes into play!
It would be great if the remaining 4 players (@nick.muzzio & @Grunter should chime in) could agree on the time-based rules (open for ideas to how to change) since as @SuperDave said, this is all a work in progress and I’d like to see how that plays out. I do think we have some pretty darn good parameters for some very exciting 1v1 matches.
FYI that I did I think doing a round-robin “pool play” … with winners advancing. But thought that would be too complicated.
@AnnanFay - I would totally be up for a rematch and since it’s outside the tournament, there would be no rush to finish as we couldn’t be holding up others. It really was a fun/challenging game with many twists - lotta respect for your bold incursion deep into my territory!
One interesting thing about future round robin tournaments is it can be set up so people play multiple games at the same time. The turn based nature of the game means this is possible.
For current rules, I think we should keep it the same as we have been doing. 48 hour deadlines, no overall time limit, same game configuration.
For future tournaments the only fair way I see to have a time limit is to set an in-game limit otherwise it can be manipulated.
Another possibility is for Jay to have a new game mode similar to timed chess: 1) no turn deadlines, 2) both players have a time allocation - say 1 weeks, 3) when 1 player has submitted the other player’s time pool decreases, 4) when a players time runs out they auto submit and get +8 hours.
From a vastly different standpoint, it’s possible to turn NP into an RTS style game. To quote myself from Discord:
Hmm, I think a fast paced 1v1 game mode could do really well. By fast paced I mean 1 hour games.
The UI would need to be streamlined.
Say games take 2 weeks, or ~336 ticks, compressed into an hour is about 1 tick every 10 seconds
Which is the tick rate of Offworld Shipping Company - an economy based RTS.
This would take a lot of work so it’s unlikely to happen. However it’s interesting to think about. There’s probably a significant portion of the current players who would not play this game mode but at the same time it might attract new players.
Oh, @HULK, in case Jay didn’t message you the Experimentation fix has been applied.
I’m letting the 4 remaining players decide about the time limits (if any) for wrap up this tournament.
I’ll fire up another tournament, but will definitely have time limits to move it along. As discussed, there certainly could be another tournament with unlimited time for those that would rather do that.
I would rather have people focus on a single game (and submit in a timely fashion) than have round-robin play with players in multiple games as that could slow things down more.
Thanks for the heads-up that Exp fix has been applied - I tried a test game and yea, looks good.
