New game modes? How about a mode with a time limit.

from Sins Forums

I propse a game where the host can set a time limit.  Once the time limit has been reached then each player has his point totalled and winners are declaired.

Point come from the currently existing system which ranks fleets, research, income, etc. There are 9 categories (perhaps more in diplomacy?)

You'll notice that a system is already in place which colors the number in a gradient between green and red (with yellow in between).  Completely red numbers get no points, and completely green numbers get the maximum number of points.  Each color in between is awarded points according to their position in the gradient.

You'll notice that in a 1 vs 1 the values are either green or red, there is no inbetween.  Thus a 1v1 is simply determined by whoever wins the most categories.  9 catagories means no ties, how convienient.

In larger games you'll notice a rank of 2 isn't always green.  If your a close second you'll have a green 2, and if a distant second you'll have a yellow 2 (or even red).  Thus if I have a credit income of 100, and you have a credit income of 20, and are in second place, you don't get many points simply for being in second.  To get many points you would need to be closer to my 100 creds per second.

These evaluation algorythems are already in place as shown by the current scoring system.  With a little work I think the game could evaluate a specific score for each player and when time's up and assign winners accordingly.

 

If the devs aren't willing to support this idea I might be willing to write a script which could parse replays or end game statistics and calculate the same.

5,666 views 9 replies
Reply #2 from Sins Forums Top

There are a few problems with the current system.  The first is that several categories are either meaningless or unimportant compared to others.  The big ratings are the economy ratings, colonization, capital ships, and fleet.  Defense and culture mean little, and research means practically nothing.

The research rating is the most deceiving because it counts only the number of researches made.  Hence if I spent 5000 credits on a few high level techs and you spend 3000 on many low-level techs, you'll be rated #1 for technology.

 

Personally, the game mode I want is "there can only be X".  Victory is declared once there are only X players left standing.  So if you set it to "there can only be 3" then the game continues until all but three players have been knocked out.  Perfect for unlocked teams.  Sure, you could make a team of 4, but everyone knows a backstab would have to occur eventually...

Object Desktop - Get all of our enhancement utilities in one suite
Reply #3 from Sins Forums Top

Quoting Darvin3, reply 2
Personally, the game mode I want is "there can only be X".  Victory is declared once there are only X players left standing.  So if you set it to "there can only be 3" then the game continues until all but three players have been knocked out.  Perfect for unlocked teams.  Sure, you could make a team of 4, but everyone knows a backstab would have to occur eventually...

Agreed.

I've proposed this many times, and am the author of the treads your likely thinking of.  I know you've posted in my threads and I've quoted you.  Limiting the number of possible winners in unlocked games is more important than anything IMO.

I just wanted to throw this other idea out there.  There are many ideas which would take major refactors of the code to implement (by my estimation); I try to keep a few easy suggestions on the table.

Reply #4 from Sins Forums Top

Limiting the number of possible winners in unlocked games is more important than anything IMO.

Agreed; without this it's impossible to play unlocked teams with anyone who understands the meta-game.  There only needs to be one loser, which is silly.

Reply #5 from Sins Forums Top

There should also be an 'armistice' option - not an 'endgame' option, but a 'startgame' one - in which factions are not allowed to wage war at the first X minutes of game. Only neutrals would be targetable. 

 

Reply #6 from Sins Forums Top

King of the hill:

Who can hold the star (or other significant area) the longest?

 

Juggernaut (no, halo did not invent this gametype):

Whoever has the best overall ranking is the enemy while everyone else is on the same team.

 

Pirate's bounty:

Whoever has the best economy will always be the target of pirates no matter what. Until someone else has the best economy...

Reply #7 from Sins Forums Top

in which factions are not allowed to wage war at the first X minutes of game. Only neutrals would be targetable.

The problem with this is that the strategy becomes to rush your colony cap towards the nearest opponent and take as many planets near their homeworld as possible in order to gimp them, and there's nothing you can do about it if the enemy colony cap touches those planets first.

Poorly designed "no-rush" systems don't solve the rushing problem at all.  Instead, players just rush in a passive-aggressive fashion and use the "no-rush" rule to prevent you from defending against their rush.

Reply #8 from Sins Forums Top

Hmmm, I havent thought about it darvin3 - but wouldn't the same strategy be useable against everyone, thus potentially negating it? Entangled empires can actually encourage diplomacy - unless the game is on the 'highlander' winning rule (there can be only 1). Players (or the AI, if its coded smart enough) can detect the 'entagledness' of mixed gravwells of 2 factions and see it as a potential disadvantage, as there is a stronger possibility of having them fight each other, which in turn would render them weaker early on. Thus making them an easier target - unless they decide to get along.

renegade's 'Pirate's bounty' idea is a great option which should be added for the pirates IMO. Instead of growing stronger by having bounty paid to them to attack this or that, the pirates get stronger by themselves - like making money for each ship/structure/planet destroyed/razed.

I liked the other ideas for game modes too.

 

Reply #9 from Sins Forums Top

but wouldn't the same strategy be useable against everyone, thus potentially negating it?

Not necessarily.  It all depends on how the map randoms.  But in any case, even presuming all else is equal, I think we can agree that this doesn't fix the problem of rushing at all, it just substitutes direct hostilities with passive-aggressive bull (which is arguably worse) for the first few minutes.

I'm not opposed to no-rush settings, but they have to be done right or they lead to these sort of problems.