Jouldax - The Pit

[jouldax]

Concept map for next FFA round. The racials and primary neutral galaxy will have more walls than shown. Key points:

1. Ports: racials will contain ports between levels 3-7. Mini neutral will have ports level 5-7. Primary neutral will have ports levels 5-9 EXCEPT the only level 9 ports will occur in the dead ends.

2. 12 dead end alleys for those of you with enough balls to park in the open

3. Teams of 2 - no longer every man for himself

4. Mine expiry for a stack of 50 = 3 hours in the racial/mini neutral, 3 days in the primary neutral (better keep those ports clean, minesweepers )

5. Game will end when one team reaches 100 kills or some profit goal TBD. MIght be a token smr credit reward for the winning team. Game also might go on until both kills and profit are met, with 2 winning teams. More discussion required.

6. Turn cap = 800. Speed = 2.5

7. Hunter-class ships ships only, like current FFA round

[XDemonX]

I like this idea.

Except 100 kills is wayyy too many. 50 or 75 at the most will be much more obtainable.

Also a suggestion i would like feedback on. I suggest giving everyone full maps right off the bat. Exploring is annoying and a turn waster for such a small team. FFA game i can honestly say i didn't hunt because I got annoyed of having to spend a few days worth of turns just to "explore". I know this concept strays away from the SMR core gameplay but it is something that would make the game more enjoyable, at least for me.

[Incognito]

I agree, 100 kills is far too many. I think even 75 is pushing it. 50-60 would be more reasonable.

[JettJackson]

50 kills is fine.

[jouldax]

I'm personally averse to giving everyone maps right off the bat - half the challenge is to explore and strategize before everyone else. This map is smaller, and don't forget, you get teams of 2 this time, so exploration should be faster. But if more people agree with XDX, it's something we can consider.

The reason I offered 100 kills is because I wanted the game to possibly go on longer than a normal round so that there's always something fun and exciting to do during the ebbs and flows of other rounds. I thought it might be cool to jump in a game 4 months in and see the top guy with 35 or 40 kills (unless Sergei kills 40 guys in the first month ). If you guys want to make it 50 kills, I guess that's fine. Maybe I was hoping there'd be more activity...

[XDemonX]

I'm personally averse to giving everyone maps right off the bat - half the challenge is to explore and strategize before everyone else. This map is smaller, and don't forget, you get teams of 2 this time, so exploration should be faster. But if more people agree with XDX, it's something we can consider.

The reason I offered 100 kills is because I wanted the game to possibly go on longer than a normal round so that there's always something fun and exciting to do during the ebbs and flows of other rounds. I thought it might be cool to jump in a game 4 months in and see the top guy with 35 or 40 kills (unless Sergei kills 40 guys in the first month ). If you guys want to make it 50 kills, I guess that's fine. Maybe I was hoping there'd be more activity...

The concept is really good of having a long game I agree. The only thing I am afraid of is how most games turn out (such as current FFA game). Towards middle-end the game is dead people just give up logging in all together. As soon as activity goes down a bit people hunting will get bored and give up. Sitting around all day to get a possible 1 kill is not worth it (orca quit playing ).

The other option is we play it by ear. There is no reason we can't adapt as the game goes on. We could stick to 100 kills as the goal as the start and as activity changes and we see the pace of kills we can adjust the kills to make the goal more obtainable to keep activity up. For example we will use your example, if Sergei goes sergei and gets 40 kills in the first month then it is safe to say the goal of 100 kills is possibility but if the first month goes by and the top team together only has ~20 kills or so then it would be safe to lower the goal to 50.

As time goes on the amount of kills will most likely diminish. First month of course will always be most active with most killing then it will exponentially decrease this has been true for just about every game unless there is a heated alliance battle.

[jouldax]

I'm ok with that plan. Let's make it more reachable and compromise at 75 to start with. I still need a profit goal to aim for. Taking any and all suggestions...

[XDemonX]

I'm ok with that plan. Let's make it more reachable and compromise at 75 to start with. I still need a profit goal to aim for. Taking any and all suggestions...

75 is possible. Bouncer messaged me in game so I am going to quote him here because he made a extremely good point I didn't even think about.

From: Bouncer (33) Date: 1/2/2013 6:36:10 PM
I still think 100 kills is unreasonable. Yes, there are teams of 2 now, but that just means only 2 people making cash. No team can afford to take pods every other day. Just because there are small teams fighting doesn't mean there will be more kills all around.

The point i didn't think about is that is a lot of pods that have to be taken. For a team to even come close to 100 they would have to be totally dominating every other team and the other teams would have to be almost rolling over. I don't think we are going to see a constant 2v2 battles where people are getting 20 kills but dying 15 times in the process because that would be a lot of cash sacrificed in the process. I would love to see more feedback from more players on this.

Maybe 75 like Jouldax said would be a "reasonable" number to work with at the start then adjust as the round goes on. But Bouncer is right 100 is untouchable.

[JettJackson]

75 is huge, 50 is a much better number. I mean check previous games, how many people have even hit 75 kills?

[Incognito]

Any chance we can make it 3-person teams?