On seeing "doctorzuber's" plans for time limits within a game, I thought perhaps you could do more with this, I like the sound of a star expanding or black hole travelling through a galaxy, but I can't help thinking of the possibilities for this. Having a large system with many players creates a lot of potential, for instance, starting all players in an initial ring towards the center of a system. Next the sun slowly begins to expand (end of the suns life) at a certain time, this continues steadily and all players must relocate their positions continually in order to survive. This is also similar to the Starcraft II: Wings of Liberty campaign mission "Supernova." It's just a possibility, but it's something I think could add lots of tension and pacing to any multiplayer game. Let me know what you think. Rogue
I think it could (read: should) have been posted in that other thread you're talking about. On the surface, it could be interesting, but my issue with it is this - what if two players flee the sun in opposite directions? After a while, it would be impractical for them to ever be able to fight each other again, since they would have to travel AROUND the giant death zone in the middle of the map. -Stretch
Perhaps you're right about the other thread, but this is really the first I've posted, so I'm still getting used to the forums (you can probably tell) and since that thread was to do with time limiting for battles rather than the specific gamemode, I thought it was individual enough to warrant a new thread. I see your point, but you could create a more linear map, again as in the Starcraft mission, where there is only one direction to run. Or even more inventively, having two teams, or simply a free for all with two groups of people running from opposite locations (a sun and black hole, or other such threats) towards each other, fighting to wipe each other out as they go, or struggling to be prepared for a full on team battle. This would leave only the strongest in a free for all, and again give tension about alliances or strategic timing decisions. Rogue
Not sure about it, it might work and it might actualy be interesting but I think it that there should be some way of forcing players into not turtling on the opposite side of the galaxy. - Me
Well, honestly I think turtling is and should always be a viable strategy. There can be game modes where this is removed (e.g. what I've mention previously) but as long as the action is sustained, turtling is fine. More importantly, in order to have a turtle strategy, there must always be some method of defeating a turtle, for instance in this game that would be the destruction of a planet, where if no prevention occurs from the other player, you can wipe out a base, no matter the strength. Rogue
I am also a fan of turtling, too many players and RTS disregard the tactic, but the 1 fear i have is the potential to turtle an entire planet, if a planet is covered in defenses anti-orbital anti-meteor they could prevent the enemy from ever getting to them, not exactly a good prospect, and with the resources of an entire planet fairly viable. there needs to be a system that will always allow a enemy player to land on a planet, in essence there needs to be a side of the planet that cannot be built over with anti-orbital defenses and defenses in general (anti-meteor defenses should wrap the whole planet), a place where an enemy can land to attack that turtle. also the thing players often miss is that turtling is not necessarily an endgame strategy once a good defense is built the player can then be freed to focus on attack. with the Scale of PA i think players should be able to mix up 2 tactics at a time (given control of at least a planet) a player could for instance build a turtle and at the same time build some gorillas that save money by keeping its losses low, a turtle builds a steamroll behind his heavily fortified walls, possibly augment defenses with a steadily building air patrol that can be turned into an attack force. a Player makes a landing on an enemy planet builds a base to rush or guerrilla his enemy while on another planet he is building a steamroll army, that he will bring to the softened up defenses. anyways that is mostly off topic. certainly there will be different modes for the scale, there could also be modes that deny say planet-killer asteroids from being launched at planets, there should also be the ability to have assassination and non-assassination modes (real annoying if your commander gets sniped and you lose a galactic battle because of it) I did enjoy some modes from Earth 2150 and 2160, Uncle Sam was a made that gave all the players a set rate of income disabling harvesting, Cease Fire Start would start the game in cease fire which was nice for slower builders. personally i think that for galactic warfare instead of the cliche warp speed/hyperspace each system could have a wormhole gate that allows you to gate to a nearby system. while inter-system transport would not need gateing.
A lot of good thoughts there. I've had an interesting thought about the issue of turtling with anti-meteor defenses and balancing etc - has anyone considered a "Greed Corp" style of planetary resources? In that, as you slowly mine away your planet, it essentially gets chipped away, as you are using it's metals and such for your construction, which doesn't come from nowhere. The essence of it is that mining resources will eventually whittle your planet down to nothing, solving any turtle issues instantly while still allowing for defense. Of course, there could well be issues with constructions on the planet as it grows smaller, and I'm unsure of how that could work. Also I like the idea of "gating" as you say, although I take it this is just for aesthetic rather than actual mechanics? Rogue
Yes. Filled up a huge number of pages with the same argument back and forth. I think about page 2 or 3 useful information stopped being contributed. I'll sum it up for you: 1) We should TOTALLY have resources that run out - it stops the exponential economy scale and prevents turtling 2) The games this is a spiritual successor to had unlimited resources from their mexes, and that's the way it should be. Oh, and the economy isnt exponential. Pretty sure those two statements were the meat of pages 3-18 -Stretch
Protip: Finite resources doesn't stop exponential economy. The economy keeps growing exponentially until it just stops dead.
It's funny how NO GAME has ever worked like that. Most times an economy slows down as resources become distant or uneven mining causes some spots to go empty. The first resources typically run out first, followed by expansions as they run dry. If the old infrastructure can be sold it often is, turned into new holdings at new important locations. PA has multiple planets. Even the most brutal of economies would carry on as old planets die out and war shifts to fresh new worlds. Any level of reclaiming or metal making would ensure that money may speed up or slow down, but it never runs out once a war gets going. Finite economies still grow, but they have nowhere near exponential potential. The money used for infrastructure ends up limited as players have to budget their limited resources. The rate of expansion is limited by how thinly an empire can be stretched, and old bases are dying all the while. The maximum economy is thus going to be measured by how quickly new land can be conquered and secured, rather than current holdings or money spent on income. That's not exponential. Rather, any type of finite resources act as a stalemate breaker. Players who play with poor efficiency will fall behind. Players who turtle and fail to grab new land will fall behind. It's just a different way to get a bad player snowballing so the game can end.
Interesting idea, i think that would be the way to go with mining asteroids though they may have special extractors, but full size planets or moons, Idk, Pretty sure we have done as much to the earth and we don't appear to have an issue with a receding earth, just a receding sea. so logically not 100%. I have a different idea, though i probably should explain it more thoroughly in a thread all its own. basically we would be restricted in how much of the planet we can build over, it would be a specific area, that buildings can only operate if they are in it, otherwise they shut off. an enemy would be able to enter another area with his transports (though Anti-meter defenses should cover the planet). add on top i think Interplanetary transports could be made exceedingly expensive so your income would be completely used in making them. the Only galactic scale RTS i have ever played is Star Wars: Empire at War, in which your resource pool was global, and a planets worth of resources could buy you an AT-ST. certainly the same will not apply here but once you have a planet and wish to leave it the costs can go up. planets you have sole ownership of (or with your team) would also be some of your bigger army builders, capture the planet build a ton of factories and transports, fill the transports with a massive army bring them with you to take a new planet. sure you can make a fortress on a planet but it can cost you that army, on the other hand can help you make sure you won't get wiped out of the galaxy. gating between systems i think is mostly just an aesthetic of explaining how you go between the systems, without generation ships taking generations to reach another system. be a grandpa before you can assault a new system, no thanks. Bob i have a example of a exponential economy system with ok not exactly finite resources but slowly regrowing: Knightshift a fantasy RTS that had a milk economy, Cows eat grass and store it, the cow returns to the cowshed to get milked, the cow gained experience with each milking which would increase how much it could store. in a sense exponential, that being said the grass would regrow, but when the grass became depleted it would put the ouch on the economy. I must also Point out that in galactic or even solar scale conflict it is likely planets will be fought over multiple times, and can change hands several times.
Contrary to what Greenpeace would have you believe this planet still has sh*t loads of heavy metals, coal, oil left... Less oil than heavy metals and coal but still. I read somewhere that there is enough gold spread throughout the Earth's mantle to cover the continents of Earth a few feet deep so imagine the sort of "Common" metals down there... It could be bull but still. At our current tech level it would probably take another few thousand years to "Mine out" Earth and if we are still stuck on one planet in a few thousand years I think we'd have more things to worry about than lack of iron ore.
