i think the idea is to reduce the incidence of quitters and afk, by increasing options and thus making it more interesting.
@JayKyburz Can we get a turn-based Proteus test game?
I just canāt do real time games. Even with production-per-tick, I feel like thereās no way to erase the pressure to/advantages of checking the game every hour.
Agree on that!
@JayKyburz in our game I think the wormholes are really well placed. Most are long, and terminate close to edges, and crisscross the map. This has made for geographically diverse alliances and lots of options for most of the players. So far our game is very well balanced. Whatever you did, well done!
I am LOVING Proteus! Thank you for making Proteus games join-able at any time. These are by far my favorite version of Neptuneās Pride yet.
Here are some observations and reactions from my current game:
-
āScanningā is the new research tech, which Iām not sure how I feel about. If you look at the northern empires in the first Open Beta game set up; IHG, Disco, Test King, are all ahead of us southerners in technology because of setting up shared science points much, much earlier than the southern empires. I like the trust angle and cooperation involved, but the execution feels like itās missing the mark for me. I think the main sticking point for me with this is that it feels like a misnomer when you have a research tech and your own science infrastructure that is NOT providing the majority of tech. Since the main purpose of āScanningā is now āEspionageā why not call it āEspionage,ā that would align the name with the function. Because of Scanning/Espionage it seems like empires will become rather homogeneous in terms of technology, and the lack of tech trades isnāt much of a concern. If you have enough Scanning youāll get everything eventually anywaysā¦ This feels too good to me.
-
One last point about Scanning/Espionage: Iām struggling to understand why an empire would willingly let a foreign power into itās borders to scan all their science facilities. It doesnāt make logical sense to me. Maybe this is another case of a misnomer creating cognitive dissonance for me- is there another term that would be more appropriate than scanning/espionage?
-
Constant payout each tick- I have a love/hate relationship here. I feel more pressure than ever to check every hour to reinvest my Economy, because if I constantly do that the snowball effect from my econ grows and growsā¦
-
Wormholes, A+++, love em, keep em. Someday Iād love to see games with multiple smaller āclusterā galaxies connected by wormholes.
-
Carrier progressive costs, love it. Makes you think about the looping carrier routes you set up.
Forgot one:
- Not a fan of only trading ādownstream.ā If a smaller empire has technology that is valuable to a larger empire this creates interaction. I think trades should be done only in scan range, but that they shouldnāt be limited based on empire size which seems arbitrary. I know itās designed to prevent friends from entering a game as a trading block and dominating, but it feels prohibitive to solo players developing alliances in-game as well. Maybe a progressively increasing trade cost?
1 Like
Hello @JayKyburz and all other fellow neptuners.
I am playing Sigma Dheneb (proteus/6554662155321344) and Epsilon Scheat (proteus/5819016633647104) simultaneously under Proteus rules and for the general part I believe most changes are awesome. Wormholes are a big win, at least in my opinion. But the game scaling has changed and I have a few things bothering me. My personal belief is that some of the changes may hurt the game or rob it of its innate awesomeness.
-
Manufacturing: On Triton it used to be Ind*(5+Manu) ships per 24h, which gave a steady flow of ships in the beginning and made manufacturing scale at level 5 by 10% value and decreasing per manufacturing level. With the new rules it scales with IndManu ships per tick, which from the very beginning changes the scale of the game drastically. Now every attack for 12h distance needs to have at least 12manuind ships more, if you have +2 weapons on your opponent. Letās look at an example:
Player 1 has a star with 100 ships, 3 industry, level 4 manufacturing and level 5 weapons.
Player 2 has a star with 200 ships and level 5 weapons.
The two stars are 12 hours away.
In order to capture the star, Player 2 needs to send (100 + 1234)(5+2)/5 +1 ships, which is 342 ships.
Given the same amount of Manufacturing and Industry, Player 2 cannot take the star. If he tries to trick his opponent with a research on weapons while the other is researching manufacturing, that will make for the following calculation:
ships needed = (100+1235)*(5+2)/6 + 1 = 327 ships. So weapons (in the beginning) is a better strat than Manufacturing. At level 10-ish it goes the other way around. This makes for a more defence-oriented game. I agree it benefits weaker players to an extent, but also makes clusters of stars, owned by big players almost impossible to take.
Right now Iām struggling to beat a player with my 25k ships, to which he has 17k. Why? Because my advantage does not make up for the production value he gets from the distance between us. And the time for my whole fleet to come is enough for him to produce enough for the reinforcements. -
Warp Gates - the old Warp Gates were a bit overpowered, I think, but changing their scale from multiplicative to additive, at least in my opinion, robbed them of their value big time.
-
Carrier experience - when do you get a star on your carrier? I still donāt get that? Is it on a carrier kill, star capture, both? However displaying the number of kills as āExperienceā is just awesome. Maybe carrier abilities at some point?
-
Cyan - I have a color-blind colleague, who plays NP and itās difficult for him, so for him shapes work really well. More shapes are useful, no doubt about it. However - is it possible to make more colors or at least make a setting so that each player can probably choose how he displays other players? On my first game there are 4 of us cyan players, with different shapes, clashing in the middle of the galaxy. I am more of a color guy, so to me itās harder to get who is who in that situation. Maybe just a possibility to mark enemies red and allies blue?
And some things I began to like more as time goes on:
-
I had a small issue with scanning and experimentation, but the more I thought about it, the more I liked the idea of giving away stars to a player so that he could see you science. This makes strong alliances stronger and also gives additional value to those single-big-fleet strategies. So it is a thing a like.
-
Just when I started thinking that Banking is now obsolete after a certain point I understood the good relation between price scaling and banking scaling. Actually without Terraforming Banking becomes more useful and at some point it may turn the tides.
This was longer than expected, but itās driven only by my appreciation of the game and the desire to play a lot more of NP in the future.
1 Like
Great comments! Sounds like you are transitioning from early game to mid game. You are correct, in early game it is very hard to āstealā higher resource stars from distance. The early game is all about jockeying for position and for identifying neighbors you can work with. Espionage is the new trade when its comes to incentives for working with neighbors, especially since trading is now much more difficult.
In my experience the scaling changes you refer to have helped keep the game fairly balanced into mid game. But by late game the snowball effect for the leaders is more powerful than Triton
Since transit times are fixed at 12H, gates are useful only after level 7 or so. The higher the range, the higher your speed. Gates are for mid to late game, and are priced accordingly I think.
Carrier experience tracks kills I believe, but is a placeholder. It might be enabled as an increment to carrier weps.
You are correct, cash is king. If you donāt invest enough in econ and banking you will get priced out of the game. You will find by mid game that espionage research points begins to swamp conventional research points, at least for players who swap stars for that purpose.
1 Like
I love the proteus variant, i am playing epsilon sheat right now! Its a completely different experience on the same good old screen (-:
I must agree though, that the combination of trade scan only and no downwards trade made it extremley difficult to find partners or intensivy contact. The incentive is just not high enough to work together properly. Maybe that is changing with mid-game coming up, but so far communication is quite limited. That can happen in Triton matches as well, though.
When does the first turn based dark proteus match start? Thats my homeworld, thats were i want to test it (-:
One more thing. What is the star mean on a carrier? Does it have super powers now?
Hi,
Iām playing on Phi Thesis (Neptune's Pride) game.
What can I can say is:
If you make a good start strategy it will jump you up in a exponential type.
Because all your manu/exp/bank are made in combination like this: Science Level * Number of banks/ind/science. So if you move really quickly you can invest in science and for each planets you got a lot more than the others that didnāt research that thing.
I donāt find really nice, because it probably make a player develop and conquer faster than the other ones. I believe this function to make some limitations.
Keos
@JayKyburz several players in my game bought 8 layers of love from an AI for $147/level. What was -8 is now neutral. Assuming this is a bug?
Nearly finished with Delta Shaula, and I must say, it was far from an enjoyable experience, and I doubt Iāll be back unless there are more changesā¦
The discussion about the game made by Silent One has led me to believe we need something desperately, for either Proteus or a hypothetical NP3, that renders betrayal a rewarding option.
That, or combat must change in some fundamentally dramatic fashion. Iām going for the concept that maybe weapons should disappear altogether, and thus put the focus on ship strategy.
I donāt like the idea of forgoing weapons, though, so Iām not sure what to say further on my experiences.
1 Like
@wfmcgillicuddy The bug is that the AI sends tech without restriction. Also the prices it was sending at is funny. $95 for level 19. Thatās a pretty major bug, surprised no one tried it out until nowā¦
Delta Shaula is indeed drawing to a close, even though I have about halfway to go in terms of stars, but I donāt expect any changes to gameplay so Iāll dump all my thoughts now.
We had some other pretty important discussions in Delta Shaula, and like @Smulm mentioned, the problem with the risk to reward ratio of backstabbing in both NP2 and Proteus was brought up, compared with the high one in NP1.
A lot of players like me wonāt backstab as a rule, but there are definitely plenty other apart from Apavite and I who would like to see a game more oriented towards it. I know that both the NP games were designed to be this way, @JayKyburz, but we agree the problem here is that itās simply not worth it in most situations. Would love to see changes to proteus to turn this around.
Secondly, Iām still unhappy with the trading restriction and carrier pricing. Trading restrictions isnāt a simple topic, but I think simply reducing the scaling factor/ initial price of carrier prices would do.
Thirdly, I suggest removing range and giving scanning itās features. Like I said in game, I love how the techs are balanced with the exception of range. Alternatively, add one or two more features to range. Not sure what atm, but range is definitely the one far less important tech and this should be fixed imo.
Krab suggested destroying industry and Iām all up for this. I feel completely destroying industry would be a bit extreme, so maybe destroying half?
I donāt think the plan to stop the four/three player alliances worked. Our game divided into two factions at around 45 stars to the leader and itās been that way since. Imo, the game mechanics encourage alliances even more than triton.
Donāt think ship stagnating is fixed either as @DarylZero elaborated and the +2 defender weps isnāt helping. This is my first game so I donāt know about other leaders, but a weps lead of 3-4 on the other players gives me a +5 to +6 weps lead when defending, and from attacking weps 10 to 25, this means at least 1.5x to 1.2x more ships lost when attacking. 1.2 seems small, but on a star with 50k ships, I can fight off 60k, WITHOUT moving any ships during the travel time. Travel time taken to be 12 hrs, a large star at that point produces ~150 ships, which means an additional 2.2k ships needed to take it due to production at the star itself.
And thatās not considering the fact that sending 60k to attack safely would mean having another ~50k to defend against a full counterattack.
All this means itās possible for me to keep two players at bay while eating through who used to be second with an allyā¦
I hope carrier and star experience isnāt implemented as it was because I feel this would exacerbate this problem wildly.
I think you may be overstating things a bit. Your alliance is picking off my alliance member by member, because your side is playing better. All else is just scaling, I think, and isnāt that much different than Triton. Except that all the techs stay relevant longer. And wormholes!!!
Star experience would definitely increase the defender advantage. Carrier experience could cut wither way, depending on how cleverly a player could manage those carriers that accumulate experience. I really look forward to that being implemented.
I agree with Omnimal on all his points.
One thing Iād like to mention is that, if Proteus is supposed to be merely a Triton variant, that it could be made explicit to players that Proteus is for treasonous acts. That way, both sides of the playing style are satisfied. When one of us wants to be a nefarious cutthroat, we go have a game in Proteus. No one would hold it against anyone else simply because this is what people go to Proteus for. Sort of like spilling a glass of water on somebody in a waterpark. They may not be intent on getting wet JUST yet, but hey, they plan to, so itās no big issue.
Whereas with Triton, we can return to the honorable universal society of sovereign conquerors wiping out the plebes. Adjusts monocle
Hello all, sorry for being away for a while.
Thanks for all the great feedback and discussions. Itās been really valuable.
Coming soon. There are a few bugs and balances I would like to make first.
I agree that this is a little weird right now. I think I would like to make it less effective, and have some percentage chance that the spying simply doesnāt produce any results. Question is, do we want more randomness in the system?
I also agree that this has given a little too much advantage to the defender. I remember thinking it in our last Proteus games but then forgot all about until this game. Iām not sure what the answer is, but perhaps one simple thing we can do is to reduce the WS advantage for defenders back to +1.
I initially increased it because I liked that the +1 bonus prevented Tank Rushes at the start of the game in Triton, but now that you make massive numbers of ships on your home world, I actually think this will be less of an issue.
Would anybody be interested in trying a game with NO Defender WS bonus?
Will fix this today. Iām not sure what the price of friendship should be. Perhaps some ratio of your own economy.
Suggestions Welcome!
Iām interested in hearing more about this. What do people feel the differences were in the games? Does anybody have have any ideas about how to improve it?
Perhaps its a case of the Defender having too much advantage now? Perhaps the exponential growth of the leaders makes it less likely the a stab will succeed.
I was hoping that simply having a lot less trade, and much of the trade being one directional would mean the alliances are more fragile than Triton.
Perhaps the issue is that, once the big empires start fighting, the smaller empires are not incentivised to switch teams because there is almost no chance they will become a big player as a result. All they will do is cripple their former ally, force them to fight on two fronts, and give the third player the win. Has that not always been the case?
Is the problem that its simply to easy to move defenders to a new front now? Too easy to move ships around?
What would we do to make an attack that you were not expecting more effective?
At the risk of oversimplifying, I think there are two sorts of players. The āDiplomacy in Spaceā types, who think the shank is part of the game. And the āStars!ā players, who like the technical stuff. Or maybe the distinction is between competitive and cooperative players.
Anyway, NP1 was a simple game in terms of the math oriented stuff. Very little alternative to guile and deception.
NP2 introduced much more technology. And saw the rise of the technology alliance in the large games. Proteus has increased the complexity.
I think the impulse to complexity and team orientation is worth satisfying. Maybe thatās what you are trying to do with your other games, donāt know, not my cup of tea.
But otherwise you are up against human nature. Many, perhaps most, donāt like to shank. Maybe a version of NP1 with better graphics for raw competition, and alliance-enabled Proteus for the rest?
(I hope I donāt get ninjaādā¦)
Minutes from Delta Shaula Galactic Summit of Strategic Observances, hosted by the not so silent Silent One:
Earlier transcripts lostā¦
ā¦
Apavite (me) wrote:
After thinking about it, I firmly believe the badges are the root of the recognition problem. They telegraph a personās motives before they even contact you, shape diplomatic proceedings, inspire various sentiments and tag a person so that they become more memorable.
I like the badges, but they need to go. Maybe have it so badges become visible in the post-game credits? That would still ensure they donāt completely go away.
If we want to have everyone constantly at each otherās throats, I think the secret is to make it BENEFICIAL to do so. In the game, sticking with your alliance members through thick and thin is the most beneficial path. It ensures at least one of you will achieve victory in the end. Betrayal is uncertain and costly. Tech trades are still an issue in all this, regardless if itās Triton or Protean rulesets guiding it.
The traitor and the tempter need to both gain something from unifying, preferably in secret, but also in a way that they donāt just leach this hypothetical benefit without due action to carry though with the backstab. Itās tough, as I canāt imagine such a means exists, not without significant alterations to the game mechanics.
ā¦
SulphoR wrote:
One of the things ive always disliked is the neccessity to have an alliance BEFORE any kind of betrayal happens. multiple times when i first started playing i could get crushed from either side by people who had chosen to ally. I think there should be the option to alliance with others. but not be as nearly mandatory as it currently is. Ergo you must pay a tradepact with someone prior to giving them tech. so poeple who choose to alliance are making the tradeoff of having safety on a boarder but less available funds.
ā¦
Apavite wrote:
One issue is combat. allies mean SAFE BORDERS. Safe borders means ships go to the frontlines. Unstable borders means a tendency to turtle ships as garrisons at important places that look threatened.
In other words, combat is static. Changing weapons tech advantages, adding star/carrier experience, none of that adds anything new to the toy chest, it only adds onto existing toys, the ships and their carriers.
If the mechanics of combat are altered, player wartime objectives will respond with change to match. Therefore, itās only a matter of making frequent betrayal or heavy emphasis Lack. of. Trust heavy emphasis coincide and reinforce player wartime objectivesā¦
How is the big problem. How, how, how? Not with the current game as-is. Speed tech was a problem, but it was the tactical toy missing from classic Neptuneās Pride. It was the means to invade swifty, the assurance that, should a player turn on their foolishly trusting ally, they could conquer swiftly and precisely without fear of the inevitable counterattack.
Modern Triton combat is glacial. Even leaders, in my experience, are easily stalled or annoyed unto frustration. Proteus slows combat to a crawl. Stars are more defensible than in the past, and star experience could turn choke-points or fortress stars into excellent obstacles to annoy invaders on one side of the map while a player engages new threats/opportunities cough in another.
The concept of fortifications intrigues me. The issue I take with star experience is its cumulative nature. I am 99% certain star experience was active in the first Proteus test gameā¦ as there was a certain star that was nigh-impossible to take, and with each subsequent failure became ever more impervious.
A fortress, in my eyes, would be like an infrastructure. It builds star experience for defense continuously, possibly leeching from the other infrastructures. This can accumulate, but upon being overrun the fortress, or dyson shield or whatever a space equivalent would be to big walls with murder holes, the starās defense points would reset, making certain that the cost of taking it wouldnāt sky rocket unto impassibility.
As for other measures, I approve of the Silent Oneās advocacy for hyperspace/scanning combination. The two would work well together in the current setup, and would force players who choose the superior banking/ inferior range option to instead select something of high value to be bad at. Same goes for scanning priority players like me. I chose experimentation, which has hurt me more than if I had gone with hyperspace.
ā¦
Brian Boru wrote:
I donāt miss speed at all. Np1 end-games were almost like twitch games. After adding in sleep deprivation, I was usually pretty danged twitchy
ā¦
Apavite wrote:
Iām not a fan of speed tech either. Iām merely pointing out it tactical effects and consequences of removal.
ā¦
The Silent One Thinks:
Okay āsevere disadvantageā is an overstatement. But I canāt make up the tech deficit because weapons is the main thing thatās going for me. I have to sacrifice the other techs for a faster attack on map.
Again, aptavite is absolutely right. There are a ton of factors which make the no backstabbing policy so popular and theyāre not easy redesign. It needs to be easier and more rewarding to do so because right now itās not usually worth it.
Agree with the badges too, make all games like the extra anonymity games, and maybe show badges and renown only once the game is over.
No one LIKED speed tech 
but it definitely was the one factor that let backstabbing be a viable and worthwhile option in the original. Not saying bring it back either (except maybe for tb games?) but something needs to be added that has the same effect.
Speaking of tb games, the 24 jump games really come close to what weāre looking for here. Formal Alliances can be cancelled without notice and backstabbing has huge benefits because of how much happens during a jump. You can take out half of an unsuspecting playerās stars if you play right.
As for range, it definitely will become more and more important, but I doubt itāll ever reach the significance of the other techs, especially if experience is implemented again and turtling up until until you can get better ship flow becomes really easy.
ā¦
Ok, so I would like to extrapolate the possibility of a game where the defense point bonus is implemented as an infrastructural feature. I really like this idea and am now toying with what it might be like to actually replace weapons entirely with this concept. Carrier experience and star fortification would become very important. Iām not sure how that would affect alliances exactly, but as has been mentioned before, trying to make people turn against each other is counter to human nature.
I think thereās just too many people in Triton currently who approve of trustworthy alliance agreements. Itās too easy for someone to suicide against you. So basically, the reason we hold to our agreements is the age old issue ofā¦ REVENGE. 