Author Topic: Forum game II: Forum game harder (Vague rule idea outline discussion thread)  (Read 20507 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Spoon

  • Moderator
  • 212
  • ヾ(´︶`♡)ノ
Re: Forum game II: Forum game harder (Vague rule idea outline discussion thread)

As far as I've understood it the faction leaders set goals in first place, then the players get together to develop their strategy to accomplish said goal - with the Strategic Players having the power to set the framework for the Tactical actions ...

In order to maximize what your faction can do you'll have coordinate on a Strategic level what is the best course to support you Tactical level while on the Tactical level you will have to deal with the feedback you will bring to the next Strategic Turn; as such you are encouraged to communicate with members of your faction in order to optimze the gains in either turn

Although the Strategic Players can set policy and so can push a certain course of action, building a consensus with your faction's Players is encouraged...
Si Si, well said.

Please define "most of information"...
Pretty much everything, but I reserve the right to occasionally do things under the table with PM's  :p
Like wise, this applies to players, if a faction decides that they wanna keep a plan secret from other factions they could decide to shoot each other (and include me of course :p )a few pm's to avoid the prying eyes of the transparant discussions threads.

I do note that the artillery fleet seems to have the edge in the damage department and with sufficient manoeuvring room they have a decent chance of "kiting" opposing fleets (if the enemy uses an intrasystem jump they can't attack). Will orders be secret from other players or will they be open like in game 1?  If they're secret then I can see it being very difficult to stay in range 0 of an artillery fleet.
Kiting is loads of fun! Except for the person being the kite.
Orders are open, so it is indeed very hard with these current mechanics to actually catch up to an arty fleet. But this is mostly assuming a vacuum situation of a 1 on 1 engagement that ignores the map objectives. If an arty fleet tries to kite its way to victory in a defending senario it could find itself just looking at an enemy fleet taking important sectors right under its nose. It also has less supplies than other fleets so its operational time will be pretty short if it operates alone.
But yeah, it has not eluded me, I'll definitely give that a closer look before we start this.

With supply limiting attacks (and more) and being fairly low I can see resupply being quite important. Could you give an indication as to how large the map will be? Are the systems the same as the 1st game? In particular, how far away from supply bases would fleets generally need to operate?
I wish I could give you super detail answers about this buuuut I havent actually made the map yet so I can't   ;)

On defence/movement, does a hostile fleet in a sector inflict retreat damage on fleets leaving that sector? (by movement or intrasystem jump?)
Right now no, maybe an idea for a defense/fortify position order? I still have to give this some thought.

Also, the "Secure Sector" action appears as both a major and minor order?
Yes, so you can use either action to secure the sector.

Lastly, regarding the example system map you showed, could you confirm if the following ranges are correct?
H1 <-> G1: range 3
H4 <-> G7: range 4
H4 <-> G9: range 6
Correct.
Urutorahappī!!

[02:42] <@Axem> spoon somethings wrong
[02:42] <@Axem> critically wrong
[02:42] <@Axem> im happy with these missions now
[02:44] <@Axem> well
[02:44] <@Axem> with 2 of them

 
Re: Forum game II: Forum game harder (Vague rule idea outline discussion thread)
This sounds awesome! I'm so in to fight (and die) again for the Glory of the Delest Dynasty and whoever is actually leading!

Orders are open, so it is indeed very hard with these current mechanics to actually catch up to an arty fleet.
If orders are open people can react and modify their orders depending on what others do. Doesn't this lead to some kind of order changing competition where the person wins who can stay online until a few minutes before the deadline? Especially with an artillery fleet it can make a huge difference if you end up with distance 0 (dead meat) or 1 (shoot and kill) and that depends on your move order and that of the enemy.
Here goes scripting and copy paste coding
Freespace RTS Mod
Checkpoint/Shipsaveload script

 

Offline Enioch

  • 210
  • Alternative History Word Writer
Re: Forum game II: Forum game harder (Vague rule idea outline discussion thread)
This sounds awesome! I'm so in to fight (and die) again for the Glory of the Delest Dynasty and whoever is actually leading!

Orders are open, so it is indeed very hard with these current mechanics to actually catch up to an arty fleet.
If orders are open people can react and modify their orders depending on what others do. Doesn't this lead to some kind of order changing competition where the person wins who can stay online until a few minutes before the deadline? Especially with an artillery fleet it can make a huge difference if you end up with distance 0 (dead meat) or 1 (shoot and kill) and that depends on your move order and that of the enemy.


This. All of this. If you are planning PvP on a tactical level, Spoon, you should really consider hidden orders.

Beyond that, I like this very much indeed. Will probably go for a political position.
'Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent'  -Salvor Hardin, "Foundation"

So don't take a hammer to your computer. ;-)

 

Offline Lorric

  • 212
Re: Forum game II: Forum game harder (Vague rule idea outline discussion thread)
I still like the idea of a private forum within WoD for each faction. If you can't do that Spoon, your friend Axem can. If he wants to. Oh, and I also hope the Hierarchy will play in the same spirit. If all factions move like this, it makes me think of the game Vandal Hearts II for PS1, a turn based strategy game where both you and the computer moved at the same time, and the only game I've ever seen where that happens. Have a look at what I mean if you like:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBnXPe2J0Is&list=PL15D9050E372B75EB

 
Re: Forum game II: Forum game harder (Vague rule idea outline discussion thread)
I still like the idea of a private forum within WoD for each faction. If you can't do that Spoon, your friend Axem can. If he wants to. Oh, and I also hope the Hierarchy will play in the same spirit. If all factions move like this, it makes me think of the game Vandal Hearts II for PS1, a turn based strategy game where both you and the computer moved at the same time, and the only game I've ever seen where that happens. Have a look at what I mean if you like:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBnXPe2J0Is&list=PL15D9050E372B75EB
With attacks coming before moving in the forum game you can be sure that your attack hits the mark, then the gambling starts (if we get hidden orders as I hope we do). :cool:
Doing it like in this game could be interesting as well if your attack order just says 'attack fleet X' that's usually possible at several ranges and if not then the attack is canceled. Though it would make artillery fleets overpowered.
Here goes scripting and copy paste coding
Freespace RTS Mod
Checkpoint/Shipsaveload script

 

Offline Spoon

  • Moderator
  • 212
  • ヾ(´︶`♡)ノ
Re: Forum game II: Forum game harder (Vague rule idea outline discussion thread)
This sounds awesome! I'm so in to fight (and die) again for the Glory of the Delest Dynasty and whoever is actually leading!

Orders are open, so it is indeed very hard with these current mechanics to actually catch up to an arty fleet.
If orders are open people can react and modify their orders depending on what others do. Doesn't this lead to some kind of order changing competition where the person wins who can stay online until a few minutes before the deadline? Especially with an artillery fleet it can make a huge difference if you end up with distance 0 (dead meat) or 1 (shoot and kill) and that depends on your move order and that of the enemy.


This. All of this. If you are planning PvP on a tactical level, Spoon, you should really consider hidden orders.

Beyond that, I like this very much indeed. Will probably go for a political position.
Ah darn, I was hoping you guys wouldn't bring this up  :p

I'll have to ask an admin what the possibilities for this are.

I still like the idea of a private forum within WoD for each faction. If you can't do that Spoon, your friend Axem can. If he wants to. Oh, and I also hope the Hierarchy will play in the same spirit. If all factions move like this, it makes me think of the game Vandal Hearts II for PS1, a turn based strategy game where both you and the computer moved at the same time, and the only game I've ever seen where that happens. Have a look at what I mean if you like:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBnXPe2J0Is&list=PL15D9050E372B75EB
Huh, interesting. Never seen a game with a system like that.
Urutorahappī!!

[02:42] <@Axem> spoon somethings wrong
[02:42] <@Axem> critically wrong
[02:42] <@Axem> im happy with these missions now
[02:44] <@Axem> well
[02:44] <@Axem> with 2 of them

 

Offline 0rph3u5

  • 211
  • Someone should label the Future: Assembly Required
    • Steam
    • Twitter
Re: Forum game II: Forum game harder (Vague rule idea outline discussion thread)
Please define "most of information"...
Pretty much everything, but I reserve the right to occasionally do things under the table with PM's  :p
Like wise, this applies to players, if a faction decides that they wanna keep a plan secret from other factions they could decide to shoot each other (and include me of course :p )a few pm's to avoid the prying eyes of the transparant discussions threads.

Hmmm... I currently pondering the implications this will have on the possibility and execution of deception in the Strategic Turn; which has a quite a bit of impact on how much risk-adverse behavior and/or rigid strategizing is encouraged...

Maybe if I knew more about when what information is revealed (e.g. in a turn summary for each Strategic and Tactical turn), my questions might just be answered
« Last Edit: May 12, 2014, 08:56:51 am by 0rph3u5 »
"When you work with water, you have to know and respect it. When you labour to subdue it, you have to understand that one day it may rise up and turn all your labours into nothing. For what is water, which seeks to make all things level, which has no taste or colour of its own, but a liquid form of Nothing?" - Graham Swift, Waterland

"As you sought to steal a kingdom for yourself, so must you do again, a thousand times over. For a theft, a true theft, must be practiced to be earned." - The terms of Nyrissa's curse, Pathfinder: Kingmaker

"...because they are not Dragons."

 
Re: Forum game II: Forum game harder (Vague rule idea outline discussion thread)
It's very easy to set up a private IRC channel, though you may also want something with more persistence.
The good Christian should beware of mathematicians, and all those who make empty prophecies. The danger already exists that the mathematicians have made a covenant with the devil to darken the spirit and to confine man in the bonds of Hell.

 

Offline Lepanto

  • 210
  • Believes in Truth
    • Skype
Re: Forum game II: Forum game harder (Vague rule idea outline discussion thread)
How about all the factions just use Skype chats (those who don't want to use IRC or PMs)? It's free and easy to use.
"We have now reached the point where every goon with a grievance, every bitter bigot, merely has to place the prefix, 'I know this is not politically correct, but...' in front of the usual string of insults in order to be not just safe from criticism, but actually a card, a lad, even a hero. Conversely, to talk about poverty and inequality, to draw attention to the reality that discrimination and injustice are still facts of life, is to commit the sin of political correctness. Anti-PC has become the latest cover for creeps. It is a godsend for every curmudgeon and crank, from fascists to the merely smug."
Finian O'Toole, The Irish Times, 5 May 1994

Blue Planet: The Battle Captains: Missions starring the Admirals of BP: WiH
Frontlines 2334+2335: T-V War campaign
GVB Ammit: Vasudan strike bomber
Player-Controlled Capship Modding Tutorial

 

Offline Lorric

  • 212
Re: Forum game II: Forum game harder (Vague rule idea outline discussion thread)
I think the private forums would be the most convenient. All these instant communication ideas require everyone to be online at the same time, and we're all in different timezones with our own lives. Also, they don't preserve the strategising to look back on. Just think about how things went in the last forum game, and how we needed days and pages worth of material to get on the same wavelength, and this game looks to be much more complex than the last one.

Another bonus for the private forums would be at the end of the game, their contents could be revealed to everyone. That would be interesting. :)

 

Offline The E

  • He's Ebeneezer Goode
  • Global Moderator
  • 213
  • Nothing personal, just tech support.
    • Steam
    • Twitter
Re: Forum game II: Forum game harder (Vague rule idea outline discussion thread)
Just jumping in here: Skype has all the functions you'd want a forum to have. You can message groups of people, it has deferred message delivery (meaning that, no, not everyone in your group has to be online at the same time for everyone to see your messages), and it has a message history going back quite a long way.
Let there be light
Let there be moon
Let there be stars and let there be you
Let there be monsters and let there be pain
Let us begin to feel again
--Devin Townsend, Genesis

 

Offline Spoon

  • Moderator
  • 212
  • ヾ(´︶`♡)ノ
Re: Forum game II: Forum game harder (Vague rule idea outline discussion thread)
On the flipside, I've had plenty of occasions with skype where a message was delivered a full week after it was send... Also digging for orders through several chat logs worth hardly seems ideal and I don't want to force people to install and use software they would normally not use or want.
Urutorahappī!!

[02:42] <@Axem> spoon somethings wrong
[02:42] <@Axem> critically wrong
[02:42] <@Axem> im happy with these missions now
[02:44] <@Axem> well
[02:44] <@Axem> with 2 of them

 

Offline Enioch

  • 210
  • Alternative History Word Writer
Re: Forum game II: Forum game harder (Vague rule idea outline discussion thread)
This. If the forums support 'private' threads and it is not a Herculean task to set such threads up, it is my belief that they would be the best option. It would put everything on HLP and allow Spoon to moderate the 'private' forums as well, with a minimum of fuss (you never know when a GM's ruling might be necessary). Plus, we're all already registered users of HLP...

Re Lorric's suggestion about the private threads being unlocked post-game: I STRONGLY recommend against this. I have repeatedly participated in play-by-mail RPs and it is generally thought that revealing private communications in PvP games is the worst possible idea. It is easy for players to write things in their private faction mails that could be interpreted as highly offensive post-reveal by the other players - and that really were not originally thought to be so, either by the writer or the GM. Essentially, you might get a two-month insult conga dumped on you with little to no warning.

EDIT: I might also point out that the 'quarterback' problem appears to be still present in this version of the game (although greatly reduced). Fleets have specific strengths and weaknesses and the optimal solution to any given situation should, in theory, be determined by mathematical formulas. That is, an admiral five systems away might still give me advice on how to run my fleet and be right, in a way that is mathematically provable.

I.e. I might think that moving to sector B and firing my guns at Fleet IV is the best solution, but Player X tells me that moving to Sector C and firing at Fleet III is a better option. He pulls up my (modified but still highly useful) Enioch Mk.2 spreadsheet, inputs the relevant data and ta-da! demonstrates that his approach is better for our cause. At which point, I have absolutely no reason not to do what they suggested.

Am I wrong in this?


« Last Edit: May 12, 2014, 10:42:20 am by Enioch »
'Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent'  -Salvor Hardin, "Foundation"

So don't take a hammer to your computer. ;-)

 
Re: Forum game II: Forum game harder (Vague rule idea outline discussion thread)
I would prefer a forum/thread as it is easy to read (also for stuff that happened like 3 months ago), persistant and reliable :)

This. If the forums support 'private' threads and it is not a Herculean task to set such threads up, it is my belief that they would be the best option. It would put everything on HLP and allow Spoon to moderate the 'private' forums as well, with a minimum of fuss (you never know when a GM's ruling might be necessary). Plus, we're all already registered users of HLP...

Re Lorric's suggestion about the private threads being unlocked post-game: I STRONGLY recommend against this. I have repeatedly participated in play-by-mail RPs and it is generally thought that revealing private communications in PvP games is the worst possible idea. It is easy for players to write things in their private faction mails that could be interpreted as highly offensive post-reveal by the other players - and that really were not originally thought to be so, either by the writer or the GM. Essentially, you might get a two-month insult conga dumped on you with little to no warning.
As long as Spoon moderates it and I think he'll read it to know what everyone is planning - he is the god of the game anyway - there shouldn't be any grave insults in there and it could be made public. This forum has rules, admins and mods and even a private thread is not exactly privat communication like e-mails or skype. Also I don't expect this to get a huge spam fest that's impossible to moderate without spending too much time doing that.
Here goes scripting and copy paste coding
Freespace RTS Mod
Checkpoint/Shipsaveload script

 

Offline Enioch

  • 210
  • Alternative History Word Writer
Re: Forum game II: Forum game harder (Vague rule idea outline discussion thread)
As long as Spoon moderates it and I think he'll read it to know what everyone is planning - he is the god of the game anyway - there shouldn't be any grave insults in there and it could be made public. This forum has rules, admins and mods and even a private thread is not exactly privat communication like e-mails or skype. Also I don't expect this to get a huge spam fest that's impossible to moderate without spending too much time doing that.

It doesn't need to be actual insults. It only needs to be a perceived insult. Something along the lines of 'Yes, if we do that, I'm sure that we can get that sucker, Admiral MS to take the brunt of the Hierarchy assault!' This (or something like this) might not ring any particular warning bells for the Mods, but how would you feel if such communications became public three months from now and you realized that four players actively worked to fool you, because (hypothetical example, obviously), you were considered the most 'gullible' of the Faction X admirals? While you, personally, might not have a problem with that, other players might. It might cause bad feelings along the lines of 'everybody was picking on me' and 'everybody thinks I'm stupid', do they? Or even worse 'User X thinks I'm an idiot for not seeing through his ploy and he has made a laughingstock out of me!'.

The fact is that there's going to be a lot of behind-the-scenes maneuvering and there's going to be a lot of Diplomacy-like politicking as well. There's a reason Diplomacy has been considered to be a friendship-ending game. It's best, I think, if the behind-the-scenes bit of the game remains behind the scenes.
'Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent'  -Salvor Hardin, "Foundation"

So don't take a hammer to your computer. ;-)

 

Offline Lorric

  • 212
Re: Forum game II: Forum game harder (Vague rule idea outline discussion thread)
We all worked so well together in the first game and produced something very special. It would be a shame if this new game was to cause rifts between us. Can't we just go invade Hierarchy Space? :)

 

Offline Enioch

  • 210
  • Alternative History Word Writer
Re: Forum game II: Forum game harder (Vague rule idea outline discussion thread)
That is not for me to say. I only wanted to put the warning out there, as a society game and play-by-email RP veteran.

Note that such PvGM+PvP games can be loads of fun, if the OOC / IC wall is kept up at all times. However, some players are either unwilling or unable to do so, through no fault of their own. Why give them reason to extend an in-game vendetta (which can be very fun to pursue indeed) to a RL grudge (which, usually, is not)?

EDIT: Spoon, just making sure that you've noticed, but I've added a concern in y earlier post (see three posts up, bright yellow). Could you address that when you have the time, please?

EDIT 2: Also, I expect you have a decent counterweight for planning to give the DD only 2 pieces on the board - first impressions of the game mechanics seem to show that fleets are the most important variables around. More fleets = more options to earn PI, new real estate, resources etc. It definitely looks like the DD can't even trade to gain power: their PI is abysmal in regards to the other factions and they'd come out the losers in every deal.

Now, of course, since I'm a DD player, me noticing perceived 'imbalances' regarding my faction first is expected (and evil and impolite and a nuisance to the other players and yourself, Spoon). Please do not consider the above a complaint, just an expression of curiosity regarding your planned approach to balancing out the factions.
« Last Edit: May 12, 2014, 11:18:24 am by Enioch »
'Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent'  -Salvor Hardin, "Foundation"

So don't take a hammer to your computer. ;-)

 

Offline 0rph3u5

  • 211
  • Someone should label the Future: Assembly Required
    • Steam
    • Twitter
Re: Forum game II: Forum game harder (Vague rule idea outline discussion thread)
On the subject of quaterbacking:
Having a NPC faction leader who possibly could "kick over the anthill" a quaterbacking player is building might rememdy that if the GM is aware of the situation; suddenly chaning the course the faction has to follow, -if we are unafraid of such micro-management- by issueing special hidden orders to single players (kinda messy because somehow you'd have to reward players by pulling rabbits out of a hat) or by using the PI-System to penalize a faction in which a single player becomes dominant (without breaking cooperation in a faction this might be hard stunt to pull of)

EDIT: another way would be (again) to limit the information publicly avalible ... the type of a fleet could remain hidden from everyone the player commanding said fleet and any player attacking it - as to make it not supidly unpredictable for an attacking player, recon missions/probes/what-have-you could be added as action to every fleet ... but that would have to more well thought out...

On the subject of communication:
I'd encourage for all factions, once established, to self-organize on the subject, to use the plattform of their choice and not to determine a plattform right now; this all is a problem of execution of concept not of the concept itself, which we are discussing right now

« Last Edit: May 12, 2014, 11:32:54 am by 0rph3u5 »
"When you work with water, you have to know and respect it. When you labour to subdue it, you have to understand that one day it may rise up and turn all your labours into nothing. For what is water, which seeks to make all things level, which has no taste or colour of its own, but a liquid form of Nothing?" - Graham Swift, Waterland

"As you sought to steal a kingdom for yourself, so must you do again, a thousand times over. For a theft, a true theft, must be practiced to be earned." - The terms of Nyrissa's curse, Pathfinder: Kingmaker

"...because they are not Dragons."

 

Offline AndrewofDoom

  • In A.D. 2366 war was beginning
  • 29
  • Permanent yuri goggles.
    • Skype
    • Steam
    • Twitter
Re: Forum game II: Forum game harder (Vague rule idea outline discussion thread)
EDIT 2: Also, I expect you have a decent counterweight for planning to give the DD only 2 pieces on the board - first impressions of the game mechanics seem to show that fleets are the most important variables around. More fleets = more options to earn PI, new real estate, resources etc. It definitely looks like the DD can't even trade to gain power: their PI is abysmal in regards to the other factions and they'd come out the losers in every deal.

Now, of course, since I'm a DD player, me noticing perceived 'imbalances' regarding my faction first is expected (and evil and impolite and a nuisance to the other players and yourself, Spoon). Please do not consider the above a complaint, just an expression of curiosity regarding your planned approach to balancing out the factions.

UGCR is the one with 2 fleets. I'm more than certain of that. DD has 3. They also have better tech than everyone else. Which was totally counter to what they were in the first game.

UGCR just has lots and lots of bling bling. :P
My Efforts:
SF Knight

20:08:19   AndrewofDoom: Though I find it mildly disturbing that a loli is giggling to mass destruction.
20:10:01   Spoon: I find it mildly arrousing
20:10:07   AndrewofDoom: Woah
20:10:15   Spoon: sound like my kind of loli
20:10:21   Spoon: and im not even a lolicon

 
Re: Forum game II: Forum game harder (Vague rule idea outline discussion thread)
As long as Spoon moderates it and I think he'll read it to know what everyone is planning - he is the god of the game anyway - there shouldn't be any grave insults in there and it could be made public. This forum has rules, admins and mods and even a private thread is not exactly privat communication like e-mails or skype. Also I don't expect this to get a huge spam fest that's impossible to moderate without spending too much time doing that.

It doesn't need to be actual insults. It only needs to be a perceived insult. Something along the lines of 'Yes, if we do that, I'm sure that we can get that sucker, Admiral MS to take the brunt of the Hierarchy assault!' This (or something like this) might not ring any particular warning bells for the Mods, but how would you feel if such communications became public three months from now and you realized that four players actively worked to fool you, because (hypothetical example, obviously), you were considered the most 'gullible' of the Faction X admirals? While you, personally, might not have a problem with that, other players might. It might cause bad feelings along the lines of 'everybody was picking on me' and 'everybody thinks I'm stupid', do they? Or even worse 'User X thinks I'm an idiot for not seeing through his ploy and he has made a laughingstock out of me!'.
I can see the problem and although I wouldn't feel insulted by this at all (don't get me started about certain card and board games) other people might. I wouldn't post something like this outside of a clear RP style comment.


About quarterbacking:
Spoon can give general orders to a faction or open for the faction to a specific player that have vague formulations where everyone can interpret them different. I mean the leaders are politicians ;) A way to fulfill them may be outside of any mathematical solution. Foreshadowing certain *semi-random* events could also make a perfect mathematical solution crumble by not knowing when/where something happens and what exactly.
...

Now, of course, since I'm a DD player

...
:yes:
Also the bigger the challenge the better.
DD forever!! ;7
Here goes scripting and copy paste coding
Freespace RTS Mod
Checkpoint/Shipsaveload script