Proteus Test Game

Maybe have the initial defenders bonus as +3, then at 4-4 the bonus is +2, then 5-5 and so on the defender bonus is +1 as normal.

I outspent everyone on industry and research manufacturing with a perk in it, and I never managed to reach a point of being more than double an opponents ships. Since ships are being produced so fast, all they have to do is sit and grab defenders bonus of +3 while I throw ships at them.

I actually thought you came close to dominating with ship count. Iā€™m only now scrambling to catch up!

I almost did, but that +3 weapons bonus stopped me. I couldnā€™t capitalize on my ships very well. Weā€™ll see how things play out, I might be trapped between lots of enemies very soon.

I 100% agree with this. One of the reasons I do well in a lot of games is because I have tons of carriers looping ships in a very specific pattern. That strategy is out the window with the new carrier prices.

I recently posted my opinion on starting weapons level. But yeah, I am always aggressive from the start, and I couldnā€™t really do that here either.

1 Like

What I was hoping with the carrier pricing is to add some player skill in deciding whether or not those optimisations are worth it. Right now in triton, I build a carrier for every star and loop it to send ship into the flow of ā€œwarp gate riverā€. Sometimes 2 or more carriers per star.

When Iā€™m making 2k a day, $25 it not even a consideration.

Now at least there are some tough decisions to make. How many carriers? how big are the loops? can I afford one per star? Is that a good use of my cash?

2 Likes

I completely agree, otherwise itā€™s just a who can throw the most ships competition. It shouldnā€™t just be how many ships you can build but how effectively you can use them.

May I throw in that when you start in the centre there is more surface area to defend so I build more carriers thenā€¦ Compared to corner players who might be stuck in a choke point and only need 3 carriers to quickly move ships through the choke pointā€¦ the centre has the entire border to protect.

Or is the centre also fixed in proteus?

Maybe if manufacturing had some addition that actually reduced carrier pricing every X number of levels, or so, I would feel better about the lack of carriers. Of course, I do win by River of Ships, so I am biased.

You got me thinking. Theyā€™re completely unrelated to each other, but if scanning reduced carrier price it would become WAY more valuable without changing any more of the core aspects of the game. I for one would be researching it a lot all game.

That being said, it makes no sense for carrier price to be affected by scanning level.

Not really, they ARE related. Knowing the environment types a carrier may encounter means you can build on account for that. Of course, thatā€™s not a good enough excuse mechanics-wise, but RP wise it works. :smiley:

1 Like

How about this: Scanning another playerā€™s stars causes attrition in shipcount at the star(s) being scanned, and the attrition rate increases as scan level increases. You would need to formally ally to make a player immune.

Thatā€™s a specific reference to my Interference idea, that the scanning somehow causes extra effects, so yes, I have to agree with that proposal.

Hereā€™s another thought, donā€™t know if others mentioned it, but perhaps Scanning would work like Jamming as well, blocking others with weaker Scanning from seeing your own stars?

1 Like

You just reminded me this was in a super early version of NP. We may have even play tested it. It almost became too important!

I would be interested in testing a version where, if you had 2 levels of scanning above an opponent, you could block them scanning your stars.

1 Like

I forgot about. I played in one of those games. Very cool feature, I forget why you dropped it.

I think it was too brutal.

Lets give it a try in the next game.

I think you will always have to see carrier movements. You dont want to be losing stars to invisible enemies. (not sure if you should be able to see ship numbers?)

Iā€™ll also have to change how much reseach you need to each tech level. I think it needs to be ā€œsome amountā€ * ā€œyour current levelā€ squared. I got two level on Experimentation Last night while I was sleeping.

I like this idea. Maybe say that scanning always reveals the player that owns a star. Then if the players are within 1-2 scan levels of each other they can see each otherā€™s ship counts. If you have more than 2 levels on someone then you can see their ship counts but they canā€™t see yours. I agree that carriers should always be visible.

Yeah, there definitely needs to be some kind of exponential growth on tech costs.

Sounds great. So, when is game 2, since Iā€¦ wellā€¦(Shuffles feet awkwardly)

I think I would like to like to make some of the proposed changes on Monday or Tuesday, then kick off another larger game.

Also, better make sure the players in the current game are OK with the rules changing in the current game.

Iā€™m good with the changes. Only thing I would suggest that we havenā€™t decided on is the defender bonus scaling off later game. Itā€™s totally necessary early game, but I donā€™t like how itā€™s such a determining factor all game long.

Yes, I need to sit down with spreadsheet. If I increase tech prices exponentially, it will slow tech growth a little.

What did people think of the idea of getting a weapons bonus for combat experience. (on stars and carriers)

Perhaps there is no built in weapon bonus at all, but every Star starts with Exp 1 or 2 or even 3 (random?) and it grows over time as battles are fought at the star?

hrm, I wonder if it would be intresting to buy an experience point at a star.