@Brian_Flowers You should definitely check this - suggested changes to terraforming.
This approach reduces the inflation by 30%!
(calculated as difference of economy totals on 5 stars with base resources 50,40,30,20,10)
I looked at it when you first posted it, but didn’t quite wrap my head around it. I guess I would need to apply it to one of my calculation spreadsheets to get a better idea of it at work. While I generally don’t have an issue with inflation, I agree though that good stars should be fought over.
I go back to my previous assertion: Small games with expensive settings is the perfect counter to hyperinflation.
For example, in the 8 player small (16stars/player) dark game LDG created and several of us from the team game are in, after 23 days, Terra is only at level 10. Infrastructure has been expensive almost the whole game, and only the two lead players ever broke 100 for Econ.
I think the smaller games are just much more fun than larger games. I think people generally like the idea of very big games, but i think the smaller games just work better.
@Qwerty in the game where you have 178 sci, what is your weapons tech? Would the EXP bonus still be useless if those values were swapped around?
@wfmcgillicuddy At the moment, yes, I think Terra is on the chopping block. If we decide to keep it we will implement @Qwerty’s suggestion but I’m not convinced we need the tech at all.
I think a Terraforming that just pushes the price of everything down overlaps conceptually with banking which provides you more money.
I’ve also been enjoying the 64 player game I am in with trade limited to scanning. Its kind of interesting that you are doing ok in your little circle, but then a neighbour disappears and all of the sudden there is a new enemy with better tech.
I agree that chopping Terraforming is a good thing to do. Sadly, because @Qwerty’s suggestion is excellent. But my suggestion is: don’t remove it, just make non-Terraforming games the default, by making default the option to disallow it’s research.
I believe many players will be angry (at least for a while) without Terraforming. They love the game the way it is, so I don’t see why to take that away from them, when you can only make that an option.
I have some ideas to improve the other techs, but I think it is much easier if we focus on the real problem, and that is Weapons. This being a conquest game, of course the main military tech is always more important than any other. I can’t figure out a way to reduce Weapon’s power and keep the rules simple at the same time. So, what I think should be done is: “chop” Weapons, the same way Terra should be “chopped”. Manufacturing will become the most important tech, but Manufacturing is already a lower-power version of Weapons.
I think a big mistake to cut TF - Qwerty’s suggestion is great … consider implementing!
I’ve said for a while that all the mega-galaxy games turn into a Weapons-fest … but I think the addition of Expensive tech can help address that at game creation.
I.e. with the current parameters and using just the tools available, I’d try to balance by making Weapons Crazy Expensive, and Menu/TF expensive.
Ditto what Jay said that big games are kinda cool, but the small games (knife fights) are really a blast … plus they get done a lot quicker. Ironically, I haven’t played one for a while … so maybe after the Dark Spiral is done (and summer vacations are over), I’ll give one a shot.
Haha, you know I have never thought about it before, but this is not completely crazy you know. One of the most difficult concepts to teach, and one of the things I like least about the game is that you need a calculator to work out who will win a combat.
If we could simply say the player with the most forces wins I think it would be much clearer and more obvious.
We would then need some kind of defenses mechanic to prevent the tank rush, but you know what, we could have a static defense infrastructure that just adds to your forces when defending. A shield kind of thing. Or a minefield that destroys X incoming ships.
1 Like
Make the minefield/shield a very cheap infrastructure.
Just thinking out loud… Level one is automatic, so you still get a defenders bonus, but each level increases it’s effectiveness. Maybe the Base level takes out 5-10% of the enemies. You can buy each additional percent up to 50% max. Maybe the price goes up each 10%. Per level cost- Upgrade to from level 5 to 10 at $1, 11-20 at $2, 21-30 at $3, 31-40 at $4 and 41-50 at $5. All prices could be tweaked. Defense infrastructure cut in half with each attack and must be rebuilt. Completely destroyed when star is lost, and new owner must start again with automatic base amount.
Yeah, I think thats kind of interesting… First level free, then more expensive as you build more…
But I think this is one area of the game where we do want them to be less effective as the game progresses so that they are quite good at the start of the game when folks are just building up and forming alliances and working things out, but are not nearly effective near the mid to late game where we want players who have played well and are in the lead to be able to take out the smaller players without the game dragging.
To do that I would make the defenses scale linearly, while ship production is scaling much faster.
So level 1 defenses could be 10 ships, level 2 defenses 20 ships, level 3 defenses 30 ships… that kind of thing.
1 Like
I still pine for carrier experience. Perhaps it would be even more valuable in the context of no weps tech. It would reward both successful offense and successful defense, and be more dynamic than fixed defenses.
I would also be a little wary of incentivizing a defensive/turtling strategy. That might slow gameplay a bit.
Ditto the battle calc comment. Damned thing seems not to work as well after cocktail hour!
1 Like
I agree with that. The defense bonus is a very important thing to keep. It could be 25% bonus. It’s a very easy number to do the math in your head. So, the strength of the defense is the number of ships plus 1/4 of itself and the strength of the attack is just the number of ships. Whichever is greater wins the battle. To know how many ships are left, just subtract the loser strength from the winner strength, and multiply for 4/5 in the case the defense wins.
I think it will be also interesting that the bonus stay fixed throughout tha game. Now, in the late-game, with super-high Weapons, the bonus of defense is too big for single-ship stars but is insignificant for well-defended stars.
It would be very close to games with fixed level 4 Weapons, so pleople who played those games can say what they felt.
Hey also, I also thought I should pop in and say that I enjoy talking crazy ideas, but I don’t want you all to freak out too much that I am planning huge changes to the game.
I like to explore crazy ideas because one day we might stumble across something that is really cool.
I normally don’t discuss the most crazy ideas in public because it can stress folks out a little who like the game the way it is, but I’ve really been appreciating peoples thoughts, ideas and feedback.
If you are experiencing a high level of anxiety while reading the various threads about big changes, please rest assured that anything substantial will be tested in its own branch and will only go live once we are sure its fun.
4 Likes
I guess you’re doing a bit of…
Sunglasses
EXPERIMENTATION
eyyyyyyyy!
Concerning New Tech Ideas
They sound good. I still like the idea of having two techs for Economy and Science. One which modifies the facilities, and one which gives direct money or science boosts.
Banking-Gives X*Banking Level credits per turn
Economics-At Payment, you gain 10+Economics Level credits per Economy Facility
Other names: Development, Management, Entrepernuership
Experimentation-Gives X*Experimentation Level science points per turn
Innovation-At Payment, you gain X+Science Level credits per Scientific Facility
Other names: Integration, Iteration, Research
For Weapons, I have several ideas.
-
Standard Start Base Weapons isn’t 1. In my paper and pencil game (I keep referencing that!) I started all techs at 5. This makes new techs less uberawesomeamazing because it increases capabilities by 20% instead of 100%. Simplest solution which works mostly in the early game.
-
Lowest of X: There are several weapons techs, and your active weapons tech is the lowest tech level among them. You can name them things like Blasters, Missles, etc. Doesn’t make much sense but will slow overall weapons growth, emphasize teamwork, and make betrayals more strategic and interesting.
-
Experience: Winning battles and conserving veteran carriers mean more now, when each XP level gives you localized Weapons advantage! Pretty complicated to implement. Easiest way to handle multicarrier battles is to just have ships in each carrier fight at their carrier’s XP level, and when all those ships die go to the next carrier.
-
Nothing: Weapons IS the most important tech. Players should work together to fight weapons tech kingpins, with betrayals in support of said kingpins for valuable weapons a constant threat. Close alliances should be easily deduced. Balance of power should be allowed to flourish. With scan-trade, one is hard-pressed to support long distance alliances and sneaky weapons trades, and everyone you can trade weapons to is generally a neighbor… and an immediate potential threat.
EDITEDIT 5 NEW IDEA FROM ANOTHER THREAD.
Combat is based on comparing ship sizes. Weapons will determine casualties taken by the winner. This makes Industry and Manufacturing more important than just Weapons, which in turn makes Economy more important than Science.
On Defense Bonuses: You can do it like that Zombie game. Each level gives you a base +X to defense, with X being phantom ships that take initial casualties. It should cost a whole lot, and I think it can safely grow 2x geometrically. Like 10->20->40->60->120 etc.
1 Like
The “Feature Requests” tag should be “Feature Requests - DON’T PANIC!”
2 Likes
The idea in your post, Jay, would favor expanding empires even more than the game does already. While I understand the game is fundamentally about conquering the most stars, I really wish there was a way to utilize a turtle tactic - i.e., a way to grow in power without growing in size.
How Exp & Banking (& Terra) work now hints at the possibility of that tactic - but as discussed, the very quickly diminishing returns of B & E don’t actually allow it.
In my ideal game, B & E would not be tied to infastructure as Manu & Terra are, but rather would be a independently scaling income/science bonus. Even just a vastly stronger Banking would be enough, really.
PS: Yes, it is possible to win by turtling as the game exist. However, it requires weak or stupid neighbors.
I like that too.
We been approaching the changes to technologies with the mindset that which ever new technology will replace the existing technologies.
How about instead of replacing, we just add additional technologies? Thus, we will have more options and more things to trade.
Here’s the list of technologies I would like:
Economics :
For each star, earn $Y*(9+X) every 24 ticks where X is your economics tech level and Y is the amount of economy at a star.
Banking :
On production, earn an additional $2XY where X is your banking tech level and Y is your total amount of your economy.
Manufacturing :
A star produces Y*(5+X) ships every 24 ticks where X is your manufacturing tech level and Y is the amount of industry at a star.
Fabrication :
On production, a star produces an additional 2XY ships where X is your fabrication tech level and Y is your total amount of your industry.
Analysis :
A star produces Y*(23+X) points of research every 24 ticks where X is your analysis tech level and Y is the amount of science at a star.
Experimentation :
On production, your scientists will conduct experiments that will unlock 2XY points of research in a random technology where X is your experimentation tech level and Y is your total amount of your science.
Terraforming :
All your stars natural resources are improved by X*10% where X is your terraforming level tech.
Shields :
Ships prevent X-1 damage each round of combat where X is your shields tech level.
Weapons :
Ships deal X damage each round of combat where X is your weapons tech level.
Lasers :
Ships deal an additional X damage when defending, each round of combat where X is your lasers tech level.
Missiles :
Ships deal an additional X-1 damage when attacking, each round of combat where X is your missiles tech level.
Hyperspace :
Carriers may make hyperspace jumps up to 3+X light years where X is your hyperspace tech level.
Scanning :
Stars may scan the infrastructure and strength of enemy fleets and stars up to 2+X light years where X is your scanning tech level.
With the above double technologies for economy/industry/science, players can chose a progressive payout each tick; or a one-time payout at production but with double the effect; or a combination of both.
I have always felt that Terraforming should not make all worlds good, hence the reason for changing the +5 to +10% per level.
The additional combat technologies will reduce the focus on only weapons. Note that Weapons and Shields should negate each other, then it will become Lasers versus Missiles. Also, a lot of new users do not fully realize that the defender gets an advantage, thus I hope this more clearly highlight the benefit of defending (without needing an extra rule of defender get +1 to weapons).
1 Like
Thanks for these suggestions @SilentNSly.
I’m not 100% sure how I feel about adding more technologies. First impression is cool! But actually I’m not sure thats the direction I want the game to go.
From a pure game design point of view, the main reason for the technologies is to encourage player to talk to each other and interact. I think 6-7 technologies is probably enough for that.
I don’t want players struggling to analyze what tech they should be researching.
hrm. Think I need to think about this one some more.
You could always have only 6-7 of those technologies enabled as the default settings, and make the other technologies as custom settings.
As long as technologies are bonuses, they can be optional.
I think it would be great for variety.
Also, players would be able to feedback on which version they like best to be enabled by default.
Another option would be to have each game have 6 core technologies, and one randomly chosen extra tech. Sort of like Dominion where every game has slightly different parameters. This tends to give bigger advantages to experienced players though.
How long until this is implemented?