XDemonX - Political Warfare

XDemonX
Newbie Spam Artist
Posts: 657
Joined: Sat Nov 16, 2002 4:28 am
Location: Highland
Contact:

XDemonX - Political Warfare

Postby XDemonX » Thu Apr 25, 2013 5:52 am

Okay figured i'd throw a map submission into the mix since Jouldax is the only one doing it and of course isn't liking the heat that comes with it. This is all a rough idea. I want a few months of discussion and work to tweak each idea.


Coding Changes
*Your alignment doesn't matter for determining president. Meaning you can have -300 alignment and be president of your council. YES why can't there be a "evil" president?

*Bonding % increases as level of planet increases (not decrease)
This is to promote bonding. Your bonder and lander can be one in the game! Why? Getting #'s for opping is difficult and making people stay in traders because you need money makes you lose oppers. At a certain point, it will be worth it more to bond than to keep people trading. This will be riskier, but reward more. No one bonds anymore. The most fun times in the game i can remember in the game involves taking a bonder and trying to hold it until the bond comes up so you can steal another alliance's hard earned money.

*24h cooldown period on leaving/joining alliances
You cannot join a alliance for 24h after leaving a alliance. This is to prevent joint ops. Alliance cap sizes are there for a reason.

*PPL now requires alignment to be between 100 and -100
HHG, Nuke require a certain alignment. PPL is probably the most used level 5. Your alignment goes with your weapons and alliance's location.

*Ports now yield alignment change on busts regardless of who fires
Level 1 port = +/- 5
Level 2 port = +/- 8
Level 3 port = +/- 12
Level 4 port = +/- 14
Level 5 port = +/- 15
Level 6 port = +/- 18
Level 7 port = +/- 20
Level 8 port = +/- 25
Level 9 port = +/- 30
(These can be toyed with)


Racial Gal:

*One racial galaxy (size undetermined)
This is to make the game more active for traders and hunters.

*HQ's are located in same sector.
Fed = 9 sectors square (to prevent people mining up fed easily when traders leave fed)
Keep everything clean and will promote more activity as people will be condensed to one area

*Ports = Random race / Random level
Reason why it is called political warefare. Peace will be a big deal for alliances.

*Only level 3 or less weapons in racial.
Playing from fed will not be promoted.

*No CA
Playing from fed will not be promoted

*Few banks

Neutral (this is where it gets fun)

*No ports in neutral (Wait what?!)
90%+ ports are useless in neutral. This goes back to the whole idea that peace will be a must. People will work to get president of council to control peace.

*Size (undetermined but a decent size)

*4 CA's
3 located closely to each planet galaxy, and one will be in the middle as a neutral CA.

*Uno located a little farther away from CA.
This is so clearing a alliance isn't impossible and opping is difficult.

*No level 5 weapons in here

*Rest of weapons scattered randomally throughout the gal

*ONE Bank (Wait what?!)
located in center of gal by the neutral CA ( few unos located close by too). Banking isn't easy for alliances. Especially for miners/planet builders. Planets have that cool feature on them that you can deposit money, withdraw money.. Use it. When you op, plan accordingly how much money you will need on you to complete the op. If you don't plan accordingly, then be prepared to use some turns.


Planet Gals

*3 planet gals
Keep it simple. No need to waste space with empty gals.

*4 planets in each gal (size of planet undetermined)

*Randomized locations of planets and layout of sector mazing. No more of this symmetrical stuff. Alliances should fight to take and keep over the spot they want.

*One port
It will be pre-designed with the goods planets need on the bottom (except for comps). Alliances will have to upgrade their own port, bust it, do what they want with it. There is enough neutral jump ships that alliances can make big jump routes to their port (Of course it will most likely only be one big sell instead of two so routes won't get insane).

*No bank

*Each galaxy will have a level 5 weapon in it - HHG one, Nuke one, PPL the last. (Which will be the name of each planet galaxy)
Your alliance can rock it's own weapon. Maybe your entire alliance will all go "evil" because you have Nuke in your gal. Maybe your alliance will have a op to go in and buy a few HHG's from your enemy.


******Actual map graphic pending*******


Okay so now let me begin opening the discussion with my thinking of this map design. Essentially this is to promote activity. Racials will be packed with people making it dangerous. Alliances will be rewarded for having a planet galaxy. The rewards being having a route and the capability of bonding. There is really no reason for a alliance to play from fed because arming will be costly for turns. Some arguments for this is that I am making it too difficult for alliances to op from fed. Well no sh**. You know how many turns are used building/defending/funding a planet gal? A lot. I am not going to make it easy for a alliance to make the decision to "Hey lets play from fed and wait for someone else to build up a gal then we will take it".

I want to see how the current upcoming game works out with planet size and playercap. With this setup, a couple deaths to planets can really make it difficult to op, but not impossible. Everyone is under the assumption that galaxies should be able to be swooped up in one op. NO. If a alliance mines their gal well and builds it should take a little while to op. Maybe you will need to concentrate on clearing them for a few days before you try to take any planets.

A lot of strategy will have to be played in this game. I believe the location of the level 5's will make it interesting. Nuke is the least used weapon in the game, but the benefit of trading illegal goods might sway you to use it and your alliance might decide to hold down the Nuke galaxy. Maybe you will decide not to even buy a level 5 because you chose a different path.. but now your ship will be weaker in combat.

The alignment change in ports will have more people port raiding to play with their alignment. Will promote more action.

ANY discussion is appreciated.
This is a beat, you just can't touch.....
Image

Dilbert
Quiet One
Posts: 159
Joined: Mon Jan 12, 2004 10:49 pm
Location: England

Re: XDemonX - Political Warfare

Postby Dilbert » Thu Apr 25, 2013 8:18 am

XDX let me start with saying I think you're a great player but this map idea sucks it will be a mad rush to own the ppl and only good ppl should be elected president its already easy enough for illegal traders without them being able to control politics, I mean seriously who ever heard of a corrupt politician... :lol:

Ok can't keep it up anymore I like the map and the idea, especially the alignment for each weapon. I will say Im nervous of the central racial but if we have proper sized feds then it should work well.
In order to stab someone in the back, you first must be 100% behind them!

Ric020023
Posts: 3
Joined: Wed Apr 17, 2013 4:11 pm

Re: XDemonX - Political Warfare

Postby Ric020023 » Thu Apr 25, 2013 9:18 pm

This seems like a fly concept!

Here's what I dig:

- Significant rewards for alliance strategy
- Finally some weight behind politics - This could be a cool aspect of the game that is typically ignored
- No reason for new players to be discouraged - if there are 2 or 3 decent alliances, the game will shift to the pgals/neutrals quickly and allow new players to still figure it out.
- Provides a real reason for alliances to have an early strategy again.
- Route building is meaningful

Here are some thoughts/challenges:

- President should still only be good. It'll add to the decision and the weight of politics. I can't have my cake and eat it too. If I want illegals/nuke, I have to sacrifice my political clout.
- It should be a long way from the racial to the neutral/pgal area. Once the game gets going, it should be a pain in the ass for a bored hunter/wb to wander into fed to bother new players. This could be accomplished by making arming harder, but as long as its not necessarily death to trade when a great hunter is on for a new player, I'm happy.
- The Bonding idea....I'm torn on. Hard to get on board with a high level planet nobody can take pumping out cash for an already killer alliance. Seems like a scale tipper. We definitely need to tweak bonding, I'm just not sure how....

Would love to see a diagram, and am all for the concept.

jouldax
Newbie Spam Artist
Posts: 582
Joined: Mon Nov 16, 2009 3:38 pm

Re: XDemonX - Political Warfare

Postby jouldax » Fri Apr 26, 2013 3:26 pm

Some quick thoughts on an interesting concept (not in any particular order):

1. Bonding increasing w/ planet level. I've been trying to figure out how to get bonding back in the game, but I don't think this is the solution. I also don't like the statement that keeping people in traders prevents people from opping, and that trading should be replaced with bonding. Trading is an integral part of the game, and I don't like de-emphasizing it at all, even if it's not something I prefer to do. Also, with the lack of busts of high level rocks and the ease of re-bonding/moving funds or retaking rocks once busted, there's not a lot of risk imo.

2. Been a fan of any alignment president for a while now. Should be EXP based or even possibly put up for a vote within each race. There do need to be some improvements to what benefits good players get, I think, but that's another topic of discussion for a later date.

3. I'm already implementing a 24 hour alliance cooldown for the upcoming game, so obviously I think that's a decent idea.

4. Very strongly dislike the PPL idea. Neutral weapons are meant to be attainable by anyone, and there are few enough shield weapons in the game. The whole weapon system needs an overhaul, which I and others are working on, but limiting PPL access would really hurt gameplay. I'm also not a fan of alliances monopolizing one particular level 5 weapon, particularly given the shield argument, making the HHG somewhat overpowered. While the PPL may be the most used, the most damage it can do in any one round is 150, arguably limiting its power. You want more end-game action, you give everyone access to all the L5 weapons instead of forcing them to put together piecemeal combinations based on alignment and peace.

5. Not sure how feasible the code change is for alignment impact on all firing ships.

6. Your racial gal would have to be humongous, otherwise there won't be enough routes. Also, putting a port in the pgals would give them insane multipliers without any PRing necessary once upgraded, taking away a key strategic element of the game and giving the most active alliance a distinct advantage and likely huge money advantage if they upgrade first. Also, you clearly haven't used the uni gen, so you don't have any idea how annoying it is to get a port that has a specific set of goods in place.

7. What's the point of your neutral galaxy? It's just a giant weapon shop that leads to the pgals. You're basically creating a useless buffer zone in order to ensure alliances don't play from fed. Dying during an op will become prohibitive as a result given the long time and turns used to re-arm.

8. No bank in the pgals and only one bank in the neutral will make opping, defending, building, fighting and arming a lot less easy. Consider at least adding more banks near pgals.

9. I like the idea of mixed ports/levels in the racial, which is exactly what I've already done in the upcoming game in the main neutral to foster more strategy with politics and add a new way to improve routes without PRing. I think more games should follow this idea.

I may have more thoughts later, but that should get the conversation started.

XDemonX
Newbie Spam Artist
Posts: 657
Joined: Sat Nov 16, 2002 4:28 am
Location: Highland
Contact:

Re: XDemonX - Political Warfare

Postby XDemonX » Fri Apr 26, 2013 5:25 pm

Awesome feedback guys!

You guys bring up a lot of great points. Which is why I want a while to keep tweaking this map idea so it will be ready in future upcoming games or it will spark even better ideas from other people.

Bonding is a big part of the game I feel is left out mainly because bonding on a level 28 is just isn't worth the risk. Only way alliances will bond is if they can do it on a high level planet so they can defend their bond. What bonding does is not only give alliances another source of income, but it also gives more motivation for other alliances to OP. If they suspect a alliance is opping, they could go after them in hopes of not only getting a few kills but a good chunk of money. Some of the most fun moments i've personally had in SMR is defending/attacking a bonder. I hope we can find a way to tweak everything to find a sweetspot where bonding can again be possible without it being over powered in a sense that it can overtake trading completely. You're right jouldax trading should be #1 source of income but a lot of the time a few players are stuck trading money all game in order just for their alliance to survive. They don't get the opportunity to mine, clear, hunt, ect. I am thinking it more as a point as the concept of a retirement fund. If a alliance has played well most the game and has been extremely good with money, if they're willing to RISK a big chunk of their money to get more people in warbirds by bonding then they should be rewarded for that.

The reason I suggested the PPL idea is because it "fits" better in this whole concept of alliances controlling level 5 weapons. Essentially there will be 2-3 alliances. PPL is widely the most popular level 5 in the game. It fits most setups effectively. Personally, I almost ALWAYS use PPL. Without the alignment restriction it will be a mad rush to control PPL. With alignment requirement being 100 to -100 that area is the hardest to maintain and achieve. I want to reward people for using strategy. What really sparked this idea for me is we had 2 "newbies" play last game. Without any help, they were extremely interested in picking out a weapon setup. Granted they knew barely anything about it and showed up to the op in some crazy setup lol but they had fun planning it out. Right now, you're right the whole weapon system needs to be revamped. It is too static with everyone using similar setups. With this change, it doesn't revamp everything but it requires people to think outside the box. Perhaps if someone doesn't have the alignment to get their alliance's level 5 weapon then they will be required to pickup another level 3 or something. Playing without a level 5 doesn't absolutely cripple people in a op. Many games we've had ops where people die and rearm and we simply tell them to "don't bother wasting the 40+ turns to get the level 5"

The whole bank thing just requires more strategy. On planets, it has a feature where you can deposit, hold and withdraw money. This feature is rarely ever used because banks are always located super close. This will also give other alliance's a little reward for busting planets. Maybe they will find 50-100m on the planet they just busted.

The neutral seems pointless but the only thing I took out of it is ports. I centralized the bank, a CA and some Unos. This could be a main battle area. If someone is on and has some turns perhaps they will hunt around that bank or maybe a few alliance mates will go there too. It is the ONLY bank in neutral. It is almost guarenteed to get action eventually.

The port thing is a rough idea but yeah I suppose that multipliers could get insane on them. (This is why i needed the discussion :)). Perhaps maybe in that centralized area in neutral put 4-5 ports close by each other. This could make for a real action zone. Routes will be nice but there is risk for trading it since everything is in one area.

The whole idea of this concept is I want people to use STRATEGY. SMR is a strategy turned based game. You're supposed to think about your moves before you do them. Plan your actions. I think the game has started to stray away from that a bit. Yes this concept rewards players who are more active, but isn't that the point? If a player is willing to put MORE TIME into a game, they should be rewarded more than a player who logs on for 10 minutes a day and trades, then logs off. We want people to invest more time in SMR.
This is a beat, you just can't touch.....
Image


Return to “Regular round style maps”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

cron