I agree that it would be good to alternate standard settings and randomized settings. But perhaps one randomized setting that should remain constant is the map variation - I think that’s pretty cool.
1 Like
Love this
I hope with the tech rewrite we can support more players.
I’m finding in the first week of 64player game I am the $50 trades are still worth it. I pretty much had to trade for weapons or get invaded. Then It was a tossup whether to buy two industry at 40+ each or trade for manu. And Banking 2 will pay its self off in the first production after you get it.
Does anybody have any thoughts about turning on extra anonymity for some of the big games too?
I think this is a difficult one. The big games already suffer from a metagame problem where the more people you know in the big game the bigger an advantage you have both finding allies and guessing who the other likely alliances are. Extra anonymity may make some of the regular players choose new guises which would add to the fun, but also makes it very hard for a new player to figure out which of their neighbours is more experienced to try to select good allies at the start of the game.
Now if there was a way to turn on extra anonymity and force everyone to choose a never-before-seen name, that would really level the playing field, and everyone would have to rely on diplomacy to figure out what’s going on. It would then also be important to say “you can’t just join this one with your friends” and/or outlaw out-of-game comms. When I set up private games for my friends, we normally play by those rules and for the first several cycles half the game is about figuring out who is who. However, all those players are similarly experienced/inexperienced, so I don’t need to worry about new players being at some big disadvantage.
Osric
Sounds awesome to me!
Hrm, I wonder if I could just name the players based on starting color and shape, or just some random numbers or something.
1 Like
The friendship meta is only a problem if you don’t embrace it. Make friends and you can simply turn it into an advantage.
I am enjoying the higher tech cost on the hex map over the mega_circle because the stars are more sparse. Additionally, the sparse stars are compensated with high scanning & hyperspace makes the stars feel farther apart. The higher cost of trade in this one feels more natural because being zoomed in almost makes the game have a slower tempo.
→ I like the settings
- Home star distance close
- Natural Resources Plentiful
- Trade Cost: Very Expensive $50/lvl
- Random Warp Gates: Rare
On the hexgrid, but I think on the quad flower would be nice too
1 Like
The game I played had sparse resources and it was really hard to get a fleet together. Then after doing all the hard work my “allies” nabbed the enemy home stars. 
Adding extra anonymity as an occasional setting could be fun - although I’ll bet you many players will join with their true alias not having seen the settings before you start.
I think with the random settings - which by the way I like in general, although I think you need to tweak the map alogorithms - you need to make the custom settings more obvious before you join the game.
Edit: But allow us to buy badges afterwards, even if we can’t see it.
1 Like
With the first 64p game with custom settings being finished I wanted to share my reflections on these new trade costs (50 credits in this game). There are some positives and negatives in my opinion. I liked that it made tech more valuable, also it made the economy tighter. Normally in the midgame you have loads of cash and economy and industry just become big abstract numbers. In this game, for a longer time I had to evaluate the benefits of different investment options. And until the end I had to consider if I would have enough cash to transfer techs in the cycle. The main thing I disliked is that it provides less flexibility in alliances. Trading tech in bigger alliances became untenable in the mid game. I / our alliance felt more directed than normally to make certain choices in the game in order to play optimally due to these trade costs.
Another key element it eliminated or reduced was the ability to pump up weapons of a losing player/ai to slow someone else’s growth. Just too expensive.
Im still unsure if that was good or bad. Maybe it allowed the big guys to roll the small fish more easily which probably isnt good for game balance.
I’d like to chime in and say that my game with 100 credit transfers was pretty brutal. I think it put everyone who did tech trades at a disadvantage. It might be better to just remove tech transfer altogether if you want to go this route. I personally don’t think it added anything especially with a “only trade in scanning range” restriction added on as well.
Yes, I made the $100 credit version to effectively try and stop trades, but many people don’t really evaluate the costs and damage their own economy. I think even $50 are borderline not worth it.
I traded because it felt so integral to diplomacy and proving allegiance. Maybe it could work to make a base trade cost $100 but incrementing each level of tech by the standard $15. But I personally didn’t care for it. A lot of us didn’t realize the transfers were so expensive until we had already negotiated transfers. Made the early game a little akward 
The idea of 64 player games with less trading and more direct competition sounds intriguing. It could definitely add an extra layer of challenge and excitement to Neptune’s Pride. I’m sure many players would be interested in giving it a try. It’s always exciting to see how rule variations can change the dynamics of a game. If you’re into exploring different gaming experiences, you might want to check out solitare cash. It’s a unique blend of classic solitaire with a chance to earn rewards while playing. It’s a fun way to relax and potentially boost your gaming wallet.
1 Like
I can totally see the appeal of shaking things up in a 64 player game! Imagine the intensity and thrill when there’s less trading and more of a survival challenge. It would really test players’ skills and resourcefulness.
Reducing the emphasis on trading and focusing more on individual survival in a 64 player game could add a whole new level of challenge and excitement. I’m sure there are gamers out there who’d be up for the adrenaline rush of fighting for themselves in such a scenario. It’s all about survival of the fittest, right? Also, I recently discovered some real money games for cash app. They’re a fun way to enjoy gaming while having a chance to earn some real cash. So, if you decide to dive into this modified 64 player game, I’m sure it’ll be a thrilling experience for all involved.