New SDN SEIV game

[brianeyci]

Oh and forget what I said in the news about 110 maintainence instead of 120. 110 in stock is 15% maintainence and 120 is 5% so you can support three times less ships. 120% is absolutely necessary I think, and if you choose merchants instead of bezerker you could save points and set it at 115. Or you could get 125 and lower something else, but those 5 points would be really expensive.

Propulsion experts and 20% more supply (for greater ranged colony ships) are the two traits I'd consider getting that aren't included with the max/minned empire.

Empires due in a little more than 24 hours now. Come on peeps you can do it. Post your shipset here so there's no overlap when you're done please.

Brian

[Nova Andromeda]

So let me see if I understand you. Two versus one is okay, as long as the two admit they've already lost and the one agrees to continue?

I'm sorry, but that sounds like nothing more than a major ego trip. What's the difference between admitting you lose and continuing to play and not admitting you "lose" (debatable) and continuing to play?

-You should refrain from ad hominem attacks. It's not polite.
-There are a few reasons for wanting someone to admit defeat. Players won't be so eager to gang up on another player that doesn't have a serious advantage in the game if they have to admit defeat first. It creates a clear point at which a player knows they can expect to be ganged up on and she can then decide to quit right then instead of wondering if the other players are really teamed up against her (I didn't know you had formed that alliance in Adamant even if I prepared for it). The players can work out a reasonable match up at that point instead of creating a complete mismatch (I guess that is what happened in B5, but I wasn't there).

There hasn't been any leading on in any of the games we've played because "score is visible to all" is turned on and you can check the treaty grid in diplomacy and see whether people are partnering up against you.

-One can't be very certain what is going on from just the treaty grid.

Also consider that in SE:IV if you get x times the score of the second place AI player, every single AI declares war on you and they all team up and you can never make peace with any AI's again no matter how you suck up to them. So it seems the gangbang is an inherent part of SE:IV (it's called mega-evil empire setting, based on score I believe.)

-The AI is always given unreasonable bonuses in computer games to make it competative since AI's can't match a good player without such handicaps. This is totally different from player vs. player. We generally don't give one player 2X the resource production rate for instance.

As for subjugation, that wouldn't stop two or more players from teaming up against you. It'd only keep a player who was conquered alive.

-No, but it would mean players could stay in the game even after defeat. One of the arguments made was that you guys wanted to keep the maximum # of players playing and that gang banging was a good way to do that.

Then an alliance of players could win. But again, what's the point of saying an alliance won or making it formal through a game mechanic. As far as I'm concerned I and Nephtys both subjugated the galaxy in the first ST game and we both won.

-I don't know much about the ST game, but you missed the point here. Eliminating gang bangs doesn't eliminate complex multiplayer war senarios. It was argued that getting rid of gang bangs would prevent multiplayer war senarios.

Ganging up on another player is the lazy man's strategy and doesn't require any thought at all. It only requires a bit of charisma and desire to win.

No. It requires that you not only make yourself vulnerable to another player ... .

-A backstabber isn't likely to get many allies in the future are they? In any event, that risk is taken regardless of whether an alliance is fighting another alliance or a lone player.

... n-squared law ...

-You don't need to actually combine fleets. You just need them to arrive at the same target at the same time. Also see my point on backstabbers.

If you knew the amount of effort that went into a close alliance... I exchanged hundreds of pms with Nephtys in ST, Tuxedo in Adamant and ST... it is not easy at all. Tech trading in particular is a pain in the ass.

E-mails, pms and diplomacy. I suggest you try it, it's fun. But you might not get what you think you'll get out of it. A person doesn't enter into an alliance unless they get something out of it. Usually that means survival (allies of necessity) or synergy (proximity). Not some hit-list to take down people one by one depending on how good you think they are at SE:IV .

-Ah, the irony. You should ask Trogdor about my diplomatic skills and my ability to coordinate alliances before saying such things. Sometimes I don't mind when people completely underestimate me (as you did in the Adamant game), but I don't want to hear any complaints if I make full use of the options you are so keen on keeping.

Empires due in a little more than 24 hours now.

-I'm not sure I'll have the time to create a new empire by then. If you have time you could create one for me. I like research bonuses, but if tech. isn't primarily researched in this game drop that to 0. I like to weight my resource production based on the primary resource needed for the empire. I like bonus ship yard rates. Maint. should be minimal. Extra planet facility space is a must have as well as at least one extra propulsion rate. I don't need extra supply. I'll take gas giants again and a random atmosphere (not O2 though). Everything else I leave to you....

[GuppyShark]

[img=left]http://members.optusnet.com.au/bcarlett ... ruiser.jpg[/img]Done.

[Nephtys]

[img=left]http://members.optusnet.com.au/bcarlett ... ruiser.jpg[/img]Done.

Mine's up to. KNEEL BEFORE YOUR GODDESS.

[GuppyShark]

New racial pic? I never thought of Apothis as a goddess.

[Nephtys]

New racial pic? I never thought of Apothis as a goddess.

It's got Hathor as the pic. That good enough?

Also, I made my file for 2K points. Is that right? We'll play 2k?

[GuppyShark]

Hathor will suffice.

No, it's 5k.

[Nephtys]

Okay. I'll set it there. Hrm.

If we start before Friday, I won't be back for another 8 or 9 days. How to take care of that...

[Covenant]

Why 5k? There's no minmaxy strategy to the race creation then! Grr.

I might as well make my Zerg again. I hardly got any use out of them in Adamant.

In my mod, which I abandoned due to a lack of interest and positive feedback (you cynical dorks), I had nearly all the things you could drop for bonus gamey points disabled. Oh well.

[Nephtys]

Oh. Quick warning to people. Don't pick any ofthe special tech racial traits. Stuff like crystal, psychic, etc won't get you anything. Also set both research and intel production to 50 percent.

[brianeyci]

Anyway I'm tired of debating point-by point about something so silly in my view. Besides, the rule pdf is meant to be a template with yes and no, so I see no harm in adding another one. You can even invent the wording Nova, how's that. It has to be more precise than "no gang bangs" though and can't have multiple interpretations so it's enforceable is all I ask.

-You should refrain from ad hominem attacks. It's not polite.

I don't see any ad hominems, or attacks on character. If you mean I've misrepresented your point, then fine, but "it sounds like an ego trip" isn't an ad hominem by any stretch of the imagination assuming that's what you meant.

-There are a few reasons for wanting someone to admit defeat. Players won't be so eager to gang up on another player that doesn't have a serious advantage in the game if they have to admit defeat first. It creates a clear point at which a player knows they can expect to be ganged up on and she can then decide to quit right then instead of wondering if the other players are really teamed up against her (I didn't know you had formed that alliance in Adamant even if I prepared for it). The players can work out a reasonable match up at that point instead of creating a complete mismatch (I guess that is what happened in B5, but I wasn't there).

Wondering is part of the fun in RP games.

Gups didn't complain in B5 because of a mismatch. It was something else but let's not get into it.

As for clear point, I do not see why it's necessary at all. You will see partnerships in the treaty grid (we would've all partnered up in one or two turns) and you can quit.

If necessary you can quit when you see two fleets coming for you. You can quit when two fleets destroy your one fleet. It's possible for anybody to quit any time.

-One can't be very certain what is going on from just the treaty grid.

Why exactly is there a need for certainty?

-The AI is always given unreasonable bonuses in computer games to make it competative since AI's can't match a good player without such handicaps. This is totally different from player vs. player. We generally don't give one player 2X the resource production rate for instance.

I'll give you that, but you kind of missed the point.

The AI has a clear definition when it's okay to gang up. You don't, except that 2 versus 1 is not okay because resource bases are uneven (I assume that's what you meant by the soccer example). That's wrong, as Nephtys' counter point and practical examples show. It's not the number of players, but the resource and technology base, and sometimes skill, that determines whether one group versus another are evenly matched.

-No, but it would mean players could stay in the game even after defeat. One of the arguments made was that you guys wanted to keep the maximum # of players playing and that gang banging was a good way to do that.

Yeah but I doubt players would like being restricted from making alliances of necessity and being taken out one by one with some reassurance that later they're subjugated if they lose.

-I don't know much about the ST game, but you missed the point here. Eliminating gang bangs doesn't eliminate complex multiplayer war senarios. It was argued that getting rid of gang bangs would prevent multiplayer war senarios.

Why is that a problem? 2 versus one is unfair? Why is it unfair? If your point is about uneven resource base, that is wrong as evidenced by the fact that sometimes two weaker players do not have as much resources or technology as a stronger player, for example you in Adamant were more powerful and technologically advanced than all of us and would have won most likely barring major catastrophe.

The bloodiest wars in history were not fought by equal numbers of opponents.

-A backstabber isn't likely to get many allies in the future are they? In any event, that risk is taken regardless of whether an alliance is fighting another alliance or a lone player.

No. If you make allies with someone, they can bypass your wormhole defenses. First shot is crucial in most modifications, and can usually hold off a 2 to one disadvantage or greater in stock at least and in most mods. First shot is so important that if there's a stupid ally who shares the same sector as you and won't move and there's an enemy fleet bearing down on you with 3x or 4x the numbers it's necessary to declare war. As for allies in the future, yes people have long memories, but that's again the reason for the "attacking the turn right after" rules for all the treaties to explicitly spell out backstabbing conditions. If the rule isn't active well... you take the risk with an alliance.

-You don't need to actually combine fleets. You just need them to arrive at the same target at the same time. Also see my point on backstabbers.

Sorry, that's wrong. Ask Dalton. His ships all arrived in small groups and were annihilated by Dilgar. Combat happens every five days (30 days in a turn) and depending on ship movement your entire fleet can be destroyed before your new one comes in (also depending on the modification). Also in ST Mod if I didn't have Nephtys fusion cubes to soak damage I would've lost more than half my fleet.

Usually, after thirty turns of combat, it's over. Covenant was thinking of changing that with his mod and making ultra durable ships but even in Adamant unless something strange happens like crystalline technology, one combat and it's over.

-Ah, the irony. You should ask Trogdor about my diplomatic skills and my ability to coordinate alliances before saying such things. Sometimes I don't mind when people completely underestimate me (as you did in the Adamant game), but I don't want to hear any complaints if I make full use of the options you are so keen on keeping.

You are worried that I'll complain? Or that other people will?

You do not need to. I do not care. I don't speak for other people though. The only thing I ask is you make alliances based on in-game considerations instead of who's your friend in RL.

-I'm not sure I'll have the time to create a new empire by then. If you have time you could create one for me. I like research bonuses, but if tech. isn't primarily researched in this game drop that to 0. I like to weight my resource production based on the primary resource needed for the empire. I like bonus ship yard rates. Maint. should be minimal. Extra planet facility space is a must have as well as at least one extra propulsion rate. I don't need extra supply. I'll take gas giants again and a random atmosphere (not O2 though). Everything else I leave to you....

You need to upload an empire as a placeholder so I can replace it then when I make the turn. I can't upload for you.

Sometimes I don't mind when people completely underestimate me (as you did in the Adamant game)

Incorrect. I knew declaring war on you was suicide (ask Trogdor) and I knew from the very beginning when I saw your research skyrocket and my own stagnate at 17k that I had lost . It was earlier than turn 30. May have been turn 10 or 15, when I decided to build research outpost. Research outpost is a losing strategy and I knew it and I knew I could never keep up but I kept playing since it was well, damn fun.

Why did I do it then? I got sick of seeing your planets in my space and I also didn't know that graviton hellbore fighters could outrange weapons platform PD. But that's not the point, I already knew any fleet of yours could destroy mine so even if my planets hadn't gotten glassed it would have been inevitable. I was hoping five or four on one might beat it, but to be honest 250k research is a nearly impossible barrier.

Brian

[brianeyci]

Why 5k? There's no minmaxy strategy to the race creation then! Grr.

Only because I wanted the most powerful race possible and because people were so unbalanced in the Adamant game with race creation I wanted everybody to start on even ground for a change.

Also because I wasn't thinking because I had 2 hours of downtime before a 10 hour shift.

If we start before Friday, I won't be back for another 8 or 9 days. How to take care of that...

I don't know but starting Monday until Saturday I'm working overtime with a 80 hour work week so I wouldn't mind a two week or one week day. But I don't know, it's close to the deadline and people need their fixes including me. Your laptop fixed? .

Oh. Quick warning to people. Don't pick any ofthe special tech racial traits. Stuff like crystal, psychic, etc won't get you anything. Also set both research and intel production to 50 percent.

That's a good point. The main thing (in stock at least) is to get Advanced Storage Techniques so your planets have 120% capacity though, and to choose bezerker for the 10% combat bonus and get 120-125 attack and defense so you get 135% on direct fire weapons. Hardy Industrialists, Propulsion Experts, +20% supply are the only ones worth it. Build rate may not be so important and you could get rid of Hardy Industrialists and the other one, but building colony ships in 1 turn on emergency build instead of two may or may not be the deciding factor in this game because colonization is everything. Or you may build orbital shipyards and have a lot of colony ships come at once, but then the ones the other guy has will be further ahead of yours and may grab all important hull planets.

Brian

[Covenant]

That 120percent capacity--that include facilities?

And that list of gamey tactics is stupid. Half of those aren't gamey. Surrendering to the person attacking you. That's gamey? You NEED to fight to the last man? Since when?

[brianeyci]

That 120percent capacity--that include facilities?

Yes, which is why it's so important. A game breaker actually. So is hardy industrialists. Max-Min Guide here.

And that list of gamey tactics is stupid. Half of those aren't gamey. Surrendering to the person attacking you. That's gamey? You NEED to fight to the last man? Since when?

That's not what it means.

When you surrender in the diplomacy window they get your shit.

It's more annoying in games like Homeworld where it takes a very long time to build up and all the fun's in the killing. I guess some people see it that way in SE:IV.

The best thing to do by far is just leave in PBW if you can't play anymore and let an AI take over or some random guy or someone you know, rather than surrendering or gifting your planets.

Brian

[brianeyci]

Forget my max/minned empire. It's fucked.

Also I didn't notice the outpost colonizes all planet types. So I've got to redesign my empire.

So far the winner traits look like
Ancient Race
Hardy Industrialists
Advanced Storage Techniques
Propulsion Experts

With 5000 points you can get all 4 of them.

Ancient Race is new since it lets you see everybody's planets, where they are, and if you do a little hunting you can find everybody's starting location!

Empires due whenever. I'm not starting until everybody uploads, but please try and get it in tomorrow or the day after.

Brian

[GuppyShark]

Dangit, I was just using your empire with a different shipset.

[Arthur_Tuxedo]

It throws an error when I try to create an empire or add one. "List index out of bounds (0)" I'm trying to use the NASY Rebellion shipset.

[brianeyci]

It throws an error when I try to create an empire or add one. "List index out of bounds (0)" I'm trying to use the NASY Rebellion shipset.

Delete all the AI .txt files in the shipset, they aren't necessary (except for the ship design names and the AI type. I think there's blank "none" AI's somewhere you can download).

Brian

[GuppyShark]

You don't even need AI files at all. You can just use the defaults at Empire creation (aggressive, defensive, neutral).

[Nova Andromeda]

-Version 1.94 or the new 1.95 (of the SEIV patch)?

[Nova Andromeda]

Besides, the rule pdf is meant to be a template with yes and no, so I see no harm in adding another one. You can even invent the wording Nova, how's that. It has to be more precise than "no gang bangs" though and can't have multiple interpretations so it's enforceable is all I ask.

-Exactly, with all the other stuff on there what is the harm in adding one more. BTW, we need the complete rules before game start.
-Allow gang bangs? A gang bang is when a number of players (allied or not) are attacking a smaller (.74x or smaller) number of allied players at the same time. Players w/ military(?) or partnership treaties are considered allied.

"it sounds like an ego trip" isn't an ad hominem

-Where I come from it is the same as saying "Your having a massive ego trip." Guess I'll just assume it was a misunderstanding.

If necessary you can quit when you see two fleets coming for you. You can quit when two fleets destroy your one fleet. It's possible for anybody to quit any time.

-After a mismatch has done its job it's too late. I guess we could simply roll back games to play different matchups though. That might be quite interesting.

-One can't be very certain what is going on from just the treaty grid.

Why exactly is there a need for certainty?

-It sucks to play 10 turns and then find out you are the target of a gang bang if you didn't want to play that way.

-The AI is always given unreasonable bonuses in computer games to make it competative since AI's can't match a good player without such handicaps. This is totally different from player vs. player. We generally don't give one player 2X the resource production rate for instance.

I'll give you that, but you kind of missed the point.

The AI has a clear definition when it's okay to gang up. You don't, except that 2 versus 1 is not okay because resource bases are uneven (I assume that's what you meant by the soccer example). That's wrong, as Nephtys' counter point and practical examples show. It's not the number of players, but the resource and technology base, and sometimes skill, that determines whether one group versus another are evenly matched.

-I didn't want over complicate things by adding resource counts, etc.
-Nephyts point missed the mark. Everyone starts the game on an even playing field. Naturally, some players gain advantage as the game goes on. You want the option to either eliminate that advantage or add to it by allowing players to gang up on each other. That is exactly like tilting the playing field in the middle of the game against the current winning team or worse, against the losing team.

Yeah but I doubt players would like being restricted from making alliances of necessity and being taken out one by one with some reassurance that later they're subjugated if they lose.

-Someone has to lose. It is simply a matter of who and how.

that's again the reason for the "attacking the turn right after" rules for all the treaties to explicitly spell out backstabbing conditions. If the rule isn't active well... you take the risk with an alliance.

-I don't know how this rule works.

You are worried that I'll complain? Or that other people will?

You do not need to. I do not care. I don't speak for other people though. The only thing I ask is you make alliances based on in-game considerations instead of who's your friend in RL..

-I don't know anyone here in RL so that won't be a problem.

[Nephtys]

Time for meta-thinking here regarding gangbangs and uneven matchups. Machivelli may apply, so here goes my line of thinking. Let's give everyone arbitary numbers for combined military and economic power to simplify things.

Let's assume Player A is powerful. He has 10 strength.
Planet B has 4 strength.
Player C has 4 strength.

You have 5 strength.

B and C are allied against A. They want you to join them to fight him. If this was the case, and you join B and C, Nova's point about penalizing people who do well is true. Upstarts must be crushed. But then, afterwards, you may be fighting B and C possibly. That won't do. They may combine to destroy you as well, as you are stronger.

The correct solution here is to goad B and C to fight A, while keeping yourself clean. They will occupy each other with near equal strength and wear down, so that you may clean up at a suitable opportunity, OR fight a different foe who is of more interest to you. Things remain balanced in any case depending on what maneuvers the other players attempt diplomatically.

[Nova Andromeda]

-My copy of Neph's mod seems to be missing component images. Specifically in the range of ~300-1900.
-I managed to put together an empire that doesn't need modification.
-Using Neph's senario I wouldn't sit by and let B and C fight A alone because there is a huge chance that whoever wins that fight will gain a massive additional advantage. Instead I'd pick the side that gave me the best chance to come out ahead. This probably means siding w/ A while agreeing to divide up B & C evenly or siding w/ B & C if there is reason to believe their alliance can be split later on.

[Nephtys]

-My copy of Neph's mod seems to be missing component images. Specifically in the range of ~300-1900.
-I managed to put together an empire that doesn't need modification.
-Using Neph's senario I wouldn't sit by and let B and C fight A alone because there is a huge chance that whoever wins that fight will gain a massive additional advantage. Instead I'd pick the side that gave me the best chance to come out ahead. This probably means siding w/ A while agreeing to divide up B & C evenly or siding w/ B & C if there is reason to believe their alliance can be split later on.

300-1900 requires the Imagemod. You gotta install that first.

Oh, I found a bug in the mod. Some of the min - range seekers didn't work, and I needed to add troop weapon mount. Those'll be fixed momentarilly.

[Nova Andromeda]

-My copy of Neph's mod seems to be missing component images. Specifically in the range of ~300-1900.
-I managed to put together an empire that doesn't need modification.
-Using Neph's senario I wouldn't sit by and let B and C fight A alone because there is a huge chance that whoever wins that fight will gain a massive additional advantage. Instead I'd pick the side that gave me the best chance to come out ahead. This probably means siding w/ A while agreeing to divide up B & C evenly or siding w/ B & C if there is reason to believe their alliance can be split later on.

300-1900 requires the Imagemod. You gotta install that first.

Oh, I found a bug in the mod. Some of the min - range seekers didn't work, and I needed to add troop weapon mount. Those'll be fixed momentarilly.

-Okay, where will your new mod be located?