| www.ClassicTW.com http://classictw.com/ |
|
| Balancing building vs. hunting http://classictw.com/viewtopic.php?f=43&t=32143 |
Page 4 of 5 |
| Author: | Mongoose [ Mon Aug 29, 2011 7:13 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Balancing building vs. hunting |
I don't think the modern players you're talking about would have any idea what to do in a turn-balanced, time-limited game. We're talking about at least doubling the cost of gridding. If the turns are balanced, your opponents will have citadels long before you grid any significant part of the universe. In fact, gridding could probably be killed already without any substantial changes to the game. Just set the turns so low and the sectors so high that your opponents are getting citadels around the time you finish gridding, and then adjust the colonist and materials requirements on the planets to reflect the lower turns. You may find the planets, but you won't be able to afford invading them. |
|
| Author: | Singularity [ Mon Aug 29, 2011 8:07 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Balancing building vs. hunting |
Mongoose wrote: I don't think the modern players you're talking about would have any idea what to do in a turn-balanced, time-limited game. You need to play more competitive games. Mongoose wrote: We're talking about at least doubling the cost of gridding. If the turns are balanced, your opponents will have citadels long before you grid any significant part of the universe. Nope. Unless you're talking 1 day lv4 cits, and 2 day lv5, it's highly unlikely. Given the importance of strategic area control to limit probing, gridding would be doubly important in a game like this. Mongoose wrote: In fact, gridding could probably be killed already without any substantial changes to the game. Just set the turns so low and the sectors so high that your opponents are getting citadels around the time you finish gridding, and then adjust the colonist and materials requirements on the planets to reflect the lower turns. You may find the planets, but you won't be able to afford invading them. Good luck finding players that want a 200 turn game. |
|
| Author: | John Pritchett [ Tue Aug 30, 2011 1:32 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Balancing building vs. hunting |
That gets back to the original point. If the economy was balanced for high turn games, you'd actually have to be careful what you spend credits on. |
|
| Author: | Micro [ Tue Aug 30, 2011 9:13 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Balancing building vs. hunting |
John Pritchett wrote: That gets back to the original point. If the economy was balanced for high turn games, you'd actually have to be careful what you spend credits on. I agree with you, but players seem to like Mega-Rob and planets with free product. If the real ecomomy was like this we would all be rich, and a hot dog would cost $1,000.00. Hey, there's an idea, inflation. The more money there is in the universe, the more everything costs. |
|
| Author: | John Pritchett [ Tue Aug 30, 2011 10:53 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Balancing building vs. hunting |
I know people like cheap money. I'm just going to add an "unlimited credits" option and let them go to town. Then we can work on balancing the economy for anyone else. Inflation could be interesting ;) Start with a baseline cashing rate, and as that goes up, adjust all costs accordingly. |
|
| Author: | Micro [ Tue Aug 30, 2011 12:26 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Balancing building vs. hunting |
The cool thing about inflation, prices would increase dramatically in an unlimited turns game, and slowly in a turn limited game where players aren't making as much money. |
|
| Author: | Master Blaster [ Tue Aug 30, 2011 1:08 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Balancing building vs. hunting |
LOL. Just like in the real world, inflation like that would allow the rich to get richer and the poor to get poorer. The difference between the twom would become unmanageable |
|
| Author: | Micro [ Tue Aug 30, 2011 1:12 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Balancing building vs. hunting |
We need to adjust the taxes in TradeWars too, so that it only taxes the poor and middle classes. |
|
| Author: | Master Blaster [ Tue Aug 30, 2011 4:17 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Balancing building vs. hunting |
Perfect! You could call it an 'Obamaized Edit' |
|
| Author: | John Pritchett [ Tue Aug 30, 2011 5:00 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Balancing building vs. hunting |
Master Blaster wrote: LOL. Just like in the real world, inflation like that would allow the rich to get richer and the poor to get poorer. The difference between the twom would become unmanageable There really is a very different dynamic in a game where assets are rare. You actually have to think twice about rolling over player A because, if you don't have infinite assets, you might expose yourself to attack by player B. You know, like Risk. TW today is like RTSs where you can hammer the enemy with waves of units because they're constantly replenishing. I prefer realtime tactical games where units are limited and you actually have to think about what you do with them. |
|
| Author: | Mongoose [ Tue Aug 30, 2011 5:59 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Balancing building vs. hunting |
Micro wrote: We need to adjust the taxes in TradeWars too, so that it only taxes the poor and middle classes. Haha. |
|
| Author: | Mongoose [ Tue Aug 30, 2011 6:05 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Balancing building vs. hunting |
John Pritchett wrote: You actually have to think twice about rolling over player A because, if you don't have infinite assets, you might expose yourself to attack by player B. I like that aspect of it. There's an old MMO called Dark Age of Camelot in which there are three factions, instead of just two like in WoW. And DAoC is designed around open-field PvP. So you might be in the middle of a fierce battle between Albs and Mids, when Hibs come out of nowhere and roll over everyone. It makes for very interesting gameplay. Ever thought about allowing multiple playable factions in TW? Two (or more) Stardocks, Terras, etc. And configurable ship types for each faction, so one race might have the best trading ships, another might have the best warships, etc. |
|
| Author: | John Pritchett [ Tue Aug 30, 2011 6:09 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Balancing building vs. hunting |
Well, rather than modify the game myself, I really want to open it up to more customization so others can explore those kinds of ideas. Make TW more of a game system than just a particular game. |
|
| Author: | Smash [ Sat Sep 03, 2011 2:28 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Balancing building vs. hunting |
As far as adding options for sysops and game editors to explore there are a lot of good ideas in particular: 1. Figthers expire after X hours in in sector with a planet 2. Inflation of asset costs I would also add as ideas: 1. Option to make it so citadels cannot store cash 2. Option to disable density and holo scanning 3. Option for all players to have full universe explored at start 4. Option to limit players to 1 ship only (if you buy new one at stardock or xport into a captured one old ship is gone) 5. Built in truce configurable in days or hours that prevents attacking another player or new player for a period of time 6. Option to tweak factor for ore use for qcannon 7. Class 7 planets that can fire a photon at an enemy in sector when attacked that then has to recharge for X configurable minutes to hours before firing again. 8. Option in underground to pay alien race to attack a specific sector 9. Sysop options for win conditions that end game? AND the best for last: 10. Greater options to re theme game, i.e. change names of everything and their descriptions that are built in so it might not even have a space theme but mechanics all the same still, such as fedspace, stardocks, even say the use of the word "Port" in the menus so the game could be completely rethemed. Fedspace could be "The Keep" and "ports" could be called "guilds" instead, "stardock" could be the the "Guild Headquarters", I know lame names but you get the idea to theme the whole enchilada. Planets = castles, level 1 is moat not a citadel etc...Stealing could be "thieving" or whatever. Everything themeable. |
|
| Author: | topper4125 [ Sat Sep 03, 2011 2:46 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Balancing building vs. hunting |
Smash wrote: As far as adding options for sysops and game editors to explore there are a lot of good ideas in particular: 10. Greater options to re theme game, i.e. change names of everything and their descriptions that are built in so it might not even have a space theme but mechanics all the same still, such as fedspace, stardocks, even say the use of the word "Port" in the menus so the game could be completely rethemed. Fedspace could be "The Keep" and "ports" could be called "guilds" instead, "stardock" could be the the "Guild Headquarters", I know lame names but you get the idea to theme the whole enchilada. Planets = castles, level 1 is moat not a citadel etc...Stealing could be "thieving" or whatever. Everything themeable. This could possibly be done if all the text that is *in* the game was in a language file like old RemoteAccess BBS's used to be. It would allow the game to be translated in to anything really... English, Spanish, French, Pirate, New York... etc... (I used to have the Pirate and New York Language files for RA... that's what reminded me of that.) Originally the .RAL files were plain vanilla text files so anyone could edit them with a plain editor... later versions needed to be done through a language editor in the Config Program. |
|
| Page 4 of 5 | All times are UTC - 5 hours |
| Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group http://www.phpbb.com/ |
|