There was an interesting discussion over on Discord about the pros and cons of handing your stars to an ally to help them claim victory towards the end of the game. I have been thinking about features for NP4 that I am working on now (weekends only). One possibility is a shared victory system.
The objective of the system is to give a small team of players a way to share a victory when within striking distance of the victory criteria. (50% of stars), and discourage players giving stars to allies to so they can steal victory.
It recognises that changing alliances and backstabbing can be fun mid game, but towards the end of large games, players just want to help their allies bring the game to a close, even if it means they wont get a podium place.
Also, this is a fairly dramatic change it would only be turned on for test games until proven.
Shared Victory System
- There is a new concept called a Team. (Federation, Alliance)
- Teams are created and dissolved by players during a game. (max 1 per player at a time)
- Teams are public and appear at the top of the leaderboard.
- Players may request to join a team and be approved by any team member.
- Players may kick team members at any time.
- Teams can claim victory if they have the required combined star count and has and unchanged members for more than 24 hours.
- Max team size of 3, 4, or 5 (configurable), to insure the game is nearing completion.
- Team members automatically in “formal alliance” with shared scanning and fleet movement.
- Remove the existing formal alliance system. (to keep things simple)
- Players can be in more than one team.
- The game will provide stats and infrastructure summaries for the teams.
For later consideration
- Is a win with two team members a better win than a win with 4 team members?
- How do we reward it? Would it ever happen anyhow?
- Consider that there is no such this as a podium you are on the wining team or not.
- Consider a public policy that giving stars away is frowned upon and you could concede instead. (like cheating accusations)
- Consider removing the ability to abandon a star, or make abandoning a star destructive.
- The same code will be used to create static team games for those that want them.
- Consider allowing teammates to command your empire while you are sleeping.
2 players on a team have 20% of stars each for a total of 40%
The remaining 4 players have 15% each but are not allied. 60%
The 4 small players create a team up and win a “4 player win”,
But if 1 of the smaller player can be convinced to join the 2 larger players they earn a “3 player win” which should be celebrated more!
2 players form an uneven team. One with 40% of stars, and the other with 10%
The remaining players must take stars from these two players to prevent the game ending.
A player with 40% of stars can choose any other player with more than 10% to share victory with.
There are 3 teams of 2 players fighting it out, each with more than 25% (but no player has much more than 15%) 2 of the teams can just choose to share the victory and take it.
Assuming max team size of 4, any 4 players in the whole map, with more than 12.5% of stars each could attempt claim victory. Neighbors of the 4 players would have to move quickly to reduce the teams star count.
Any players with more than 12.5% of stars, but with less stars than “the winning player” will be heavily incentivized to try and draw the game to a close by forming a team as quickly as possible. The players smaller than 12.5% will be incentivized to pull them back down.
The “winning player” with more than 12.5% may want to form a team from smaller players to end the game while on top and before other 4 smaller players team up.
The winning player may try and keep his team as small as possible so they they can claim the largest kind victory. 3 player or 2 player or even solo?
- Will it ever be possible to earn a win that is less than 4 players? Will 3 players always just invite a 4th to conclude the game?
- Will teams just form and never change in the first few days of every game?
- How much will it suck to get kicked out of your team. Is that too much of a stab?
- should we encourage teams to change and merge as game conditions change?
- should we encourage players to join multiple teams to create drama and relationship complexity?
- how will the culture evolve around being in multiple teams. Will it be acceptable to “hedge your bets”?
Update after some thought.
- The only thing that would prevent the top 3-4 players claiming victory as soon they can, regardless of former alliances or board position would be if there was a strong incentive to try and win with a smaller team, or a team you had been working with for a reasonable amount of time.
- Perhaps teams have to be unchanging for at least 3-4 days or something.