I did mention that later in my post
Lock it up! Set it to like 1 tho, I dunno. I guess we’re technically not here to measure luck, rather, skill… but I feel like luck is an integral part of NP and how the game has always been played. Having a single, unknown variable in a game where everything is now contrived doesn’t bother me any.
I think there’s plenty of potential for luck without having exp involved, so for me lock it out.
I’m in favor of keeping experimentation in the game for 1 on 1s. Although EXP rewards based on chance, going for it requires a strategic decision. I think part of the fun with the game is that you never know whether you’re going to hit on something useful or…banking.
Take for example my current game with @SuperDave. It wasn’t a coincidence that I went for EXP early on. I figured that if someone gets to the quarterfinals of a 1 on 1 game, they must have skills and thus the game could drag for a while…which it has. Therefore I made the decision to go for EXP. This did put me at a slight disadvantage early on, but now it’s paying off and I’m guessing Dave is thinking about whether he should finally research it or not. This is fantastic, and part of the chess game beyond simply using arithmetic and analyzing the five possible strategic attack points each turn. It’s another element of the strategy.
Also, @HULK, what is this “too little, too late” comment all about? It ain’t over 'till the Jackelope’s last ship is vaporized!
Good point @Grunter … and yes, I like to leave various options for players to try … so that’s why I’m a bit reluctant to disable Exp as it reduces one of the “levers” you can pull on. Plus if we disable it, then I won’t be able to go “wah-wah-wah” about Dr. Bruce Banner!
Seriously, it seems that most feel that disabling is a good route … but maybe I lock it at level1 so at least there is the 72 random points you get each cycle. Right now, Jay doesn’t have a way to set it to zero.
I’m real curious @Grunter how your Exp strategy works against @SuperDave - you are behind in stars, but seems to be coming back. I’ll also report on how my Exp4 (!) strategy (didn’t mean to do it) works against @Karmadrome - I got a Banking hit last cycle - where the Manu love?!?
Before a final conclusion is made, I suggest we let a few players take the game to 15-18+ cycles. I say this because @Karmadrome and I went almost 20 cycles and I will admit I was reaching the point where I was tired of the game. I got lucky (from Karma making some mistakes), but I would have taken anything at that point. Once you pile up the ships between two strong players then something needs to give someone an edge. Perhaps it’s the luck of exp and researching it that does it?!? We don’t want stalemates in games.
I say this because Grunter and I are piling up the ships on our borders now after endless attacking each other. We both have 1 extra empty planet to capture. To win the game I then need 17 of his planets or he needs 31 of mine. It will be tough either way.
Also, his early exp research has paid off for him. I will admit that. As such, perhaps we don’t want to shut that avenue down. I’d like it gone myself. However, I’m saying that from the standpoint that I think it makes it harder to beat me then
I am liking the locked level1 right now. Gives you a direction to go in. I also like having a little random as it trains you on how to leverage the tech. I also liked @Grunter 's point that early investing into exp is a risk reward type of play. Reminds me of heavy investing in econ if you think you can hold the defensive line for it to pay off. I am fine leaving exp just expensive as well. I am just happy to not have the exp hit locked techs!
I think expensive experimentation is a valid strategy to use in a 1v1 game as @Grunter mentioned above. It is high risk, high reward, but still a legitimate strategy. It is also the sole element of chance/luck in NP and certainly adds to its charm. Jay added it to the game for this very reason - the element of chance within a strategy game. Without it, some of those exciting moments…or dreadful moments of disgust…are lost, even in a 1v1 scenario.
I had not seen this thread prior and am admittedly a bit salty it was implemented mid-tournament.
I purposefully invested in experimentation in my first 1v1 against @Affordable_Desk and it paid off with an eventual win. When the second round started against @HULK, it had already been locked to level 1 and was a bit unexpected. @HULK smashed me fair and square, but I did feel robbed of a legitimate strategy within NP, and I voiced my displeasure in-game at the time too.
For being the Tournament Director and self-proclaimed “Rule-meister” @HULK, I am inclined to call out that it was inappropriate, from my perspective as a contestant, to change the format mid-tournament. Rules were posted, people joined, games ensued… format should have remained the same until the next tournament if that was indeed the choice of the players.
Now that it seems to have permanently changed for all future tournaments, I would lobby to re-enable it given my points listed above.
No hard feelings @HULK.
The game has rolled off, so I can’t check for sure, but I don’t see any discussion about locking Experimentation mid-tournament. There was a comment on July 2nd about a spun-off mini-tournament to test locked Experimentation.
As I said in the first thread: “Being a rule-miester isn’t a whole lotta fun …”
It would be awesome if some other people setup some tournaments!
I have plenty of those moments without experimentation. The difference is I am annoyed with myself for making the decisions, rather than annoyed at the game for screwing me.
When I make a bad play or an opponent does something unexpected I can learn from my mistakes. When experimentation gives your opponent repeatedly good results while giving you nothing there is not much you can do.
If we want to have random stuff I would much rather have non-mirrored starting layouts. With star layout you know what advantage the opponent has in advance and can fight against it. To even out the effect of random layouts you can use the fair cake-cutting method to choose positions and/or have a best-of-3 format.
If the good experiments caused you to win the game, then bad experiments may have caused you to lose. It seems unfair on both players that the winning or losing of a game can be decided based on chance. If it wasn’t a close enough game that experimentation wouldn’t have made a difference then it’s better without experimentation.
I’m all in favour of keeping tournament formats rules consistent.
We did not. Exp was available for round 1. Our round 2 game started later than the other one and exp was then locked. You and @SuperDave haven’t played for the title yet, due to the 2v2. First thread post states that exp and manu would be expensive. I realize our game has expired so no way to check now, but I remember vividly because of my strat the first game.
It was locked in that 2v2 with @nick.muzzio. No issue there (only personal disappointment) since it was agreed on at the start by all players.
Happy to do so as I’ve mentioned my enthusiasm for running a RT tournament. However I don’t have special Hulk powers available to generate mirrored maps (obviously granted by Jay). Perhaps this can be remedied??
You should always read the game custom settings in the join game page.
I did. I was aware of it and called it out in-game. The format change was across games within a tournament, and there was pressure to start my second round game quickly since the other second round game was already complete by the time my first round game wrapped up. I was pretty much obliged to join the match as-is to prevent any further delay.
The issue is that it did not match the advertised tournament format and was changed purposefully due to the earlier chatter and decisions in this thread.
Nothing can be done about it now, but I felt it was worth noting in this thread. @HULK is a fair tournament host and excellent player. This particular issue though, rubbed me the wrong way at the time is all.
Tr0n…one thing you have to remember is that all of this was experimental in trying to decide what format worked the best. The first game I played against HULK was just mirror galaxies and nothing else. I did all industry and no science & won easily----it resulted in more starting cash. The next game he and I did resulted in locked weapons. We then moved from 32 planets each player to 64. Then came fixing exp so it didn’t give you weapons (a fixed science) and waste your bounce on it was the next idea. Locking exp the next idea. It’s all been trying different ideas and seeing what works and what doesn’t. Part of that changed things during tournaments if need be.
Another example is you saying after our last 2vs2 game that you don’t like turn-based that much anymore. There is nothing wrong with that. It just means that a different branch needs to be formed for players who like real-time. I opened the thread on 2vs2 to try and bring in some players who wanted more diplomacy than a 1vs1. We’ve already tweaked it in the second game with $1000 starting each and 6 hour moves vs $2K and 8 hour moves. I’d be happy to see 3vs3 games forming, but they may need tweaking immediately too as you never know how something plays out until you try.
Let’s be realistic here-----the participation rate in N.P. is fading compared to where it used to be. The idea of these tournaments or challenges is to try and bring more players back or give the best ones stronger battles. It’s just about trying new ideas over and over till something seems to work and be enjoyed.
@SuperDave I’m not against trying new rules and formats etc and never said as much.
It is, however, disconcerting to me that for a given tournament, with posted rules, they changed mid-way through the tournament. Wait for the next tournament before making changes is all I’m saying.
The 2v2s and 3v3s are single games. Make as many changes as you want from game to game if the players agree to terms. Refine the format as needed.
@nick.muzzio already hosted a 3v3 a month or two ago and it was a lot of fun. Hope to see more of them without being a burden on someone else creating the mirrored maps and game options etc. Same goes for wanting to run an RT style.
Regarding the specific “no exp” change though, my opinion, which clearly stands in the minority, is still that it should be part of the game. I’ll avoid a lengthy diatribe here expanding on my reasoning and basis, as it would simply be retorted and disregarded anyway. People’s minds are already made up on the matter.
@Tr0n - I honestly don’t remember changing Exp to locked halfway through the same tournament and I’m really surprised I didn’t note this in the forum theads … as I noted pretty much everything else for all to see.
I know there was some discussion on the earlier tournament about changing some parameters, but @AnnanFay was against it, so we left it as-is. I’m doubly confused because if you read through the various tournament threads, you’ll see I bend over backwards to give people options - i.e. which game would you prefer, etc.
We HAVE changed the parameters, but only when mutually agreeable … just like @Karmadrome and I did by moving from 8 to 6-tick jumps … which works quite well if both players submit on a timely basis.
Regardless, my apologies if you feel wrong’ed about this - SMASH me in a future NP game!
In terms of creating Mirrored Maps, I was the one who encouraged Jay to add them … and now that they are implemented, you (or anyone else) would need to ask him if you can create these. Quite frankly, it’s a bit of a drag to do all the work for the tournaments … plus have people ask me to create games for them on the side.
Be awesome if others took the lead and setup tournament with THEIR parameters!
I don’t want to wade into the discussion/disagreement, but what I do want to say is a big thanks to @HULK for setting these games and tourneys up. We need to encourage more players to do this as it creates one hell of a buzz. I think one thing we can all agree on is that this is a fantastic game. A lot of us have been playing this game for many years and there are very few games I can say that about.
For me @HULK has always been up front and very clear what the game parameters are plus has put changes up for discussion.
I unfortunately lack the patience/ability/imagination/time [delete as applicable] to set these things up myself, so I will continue to support those that do by participating and kicking ass!
I asked jay and he said he would set them up but not give me the power. I don’t want to be asking him every time and the settings are hard to get right etc. Would love to set them up for tourney.
I havn’t made the mirror maps option available for everybody because there are a few weird things that can go wrong when you select it. For example, it forces the player starts to be circular ect.
If any of you want the ability to create them, please just email me and I can now simply flick a switch and turn it on for you!
You’ll me able to make Proteus Games as well, and I think make Tournament games, which are games that don’t have a spot reserved for the creator.