LzPrst
Warlord
I wouldn't mind a sunday game. Anyone up for it?
[Immersioneers] 'To Boldly Go': The first Immersioneers test-game(s)
- Thread starter stiiknafuulia
- Start date
-
- Tags
- uote
MaximusPlatypus
O.O
I've noticed the Immersioneers group on Steam but i'm not sure if I have to be invited to it.
MaximusPlatypus
O.O
ManojTheKing
Chieftain
- Joined
- Oct 24, 2016
- Messages
- 11
Im good for next weekend (both Saturday & Sunday).. So for Game 2, I prefer the game speed to be 'Online', 'Quick' will not allow us to complete the game in one sitting. And 'Ancient' start era will be good for me. Please make sure to add me in the roster for Game2.
stiiknafuulia
King
- Joined
- Apr 9, 2016
- Messages
- 603
I will make a new thread for the second 'official' Immersioneers game tomorrow, as I get everything sorted out a little bit.
For now I'll note that I can play on either Saturday or Sunday (12th or 13th).
As for new things for the new game, I've been thinking about a pretty major one...
Most victory conditions take a long time, and the late game is always the most boring and tedious part of any Civ game (imo). How about we start devising a custom 'points system' to decide who 'won' the game? We'll agree to play for a set of amount of time (x hours), or to end the game when a majority feels like it. At that time we'll tally up the points and declare a winner. I'd prefer this approach to managing 20 trade routes and reassigning spies every 3 turns (as is said to happen in the very late game; I've never played that far yet, thankfully).
Ofc we may also opt to use a mod that adjusts the game speed and removes some of the tedium; but the game is still young and there's no good balance yet in any mod.
Patches will also throw everything upside down at least a few times before any kind of semi-final stabilization. Most importantly, a points system such as this could be a lot of fun to design and implement, and make the games feel more like our own creation, rather than just a pre-made sandbox that we awkwardly try to fit each game in.
Without further ado (and even if the idea will have no wider support), I'll throw out a few different ways of scoring that I could think of:
Similarly, gold or faith seem hard to account for. It could be argued that you should spend your gold to progress in the other categories (buy Settlers or military units, etc),
and that Faith is almost irrelevant even with the default rules, as a religious victory is practically impossible in a multiplayer game (you can simply go to war and kill the missionaries).
As production is the main engine driving settlement and conquest, it seems a bit unfair to reward it as a separate metric. Otoh, in order to 'buff' science and culture with regards to the score system, we could award points for the city and/or Civ with the highest science or culture output. Thus, even if you're not the current leader in the number of discovered civics or techs, you could gather some points for having recently taken the lead. I'd support rewarding the cities with the highest science and culture output, as it seems interesting to hunt for a good city site for specifically this purpose. Perhaps even to take it from your neighbor, if it so happens that they snatched it from under your nose. As to the amount of points, maybe 3 points would be alright? That way it won't be overwhelming, but not insignificant either.
If we do adopt this system, we could continue to play on Quick speed, as the actual victory conditions would cease to matter (in case one were achieved, the one who did it could still be declared the victor, regardless of points, simply because it would be a phenomenal feat to do it in ~7 hours). I hate online speed, so naturally I'm in favor of this choice.
One thing to keep in mind is that while the system may seem like too complex, too much of a burden, etc, in practice you'd simply keep playing exactly as you've done so far (as number of cities, population, techs, etc are important for the regular victory conditions as well), and the only 'hassle' would come at the very end of the game, when we'd stop and count the points. Think of it as using a 'Mastery Victory', in addition to the regular victory conditions (I believe that someone made a mod for Civ V that worked a bit similarly). While we could adjust the numbers and improve the balance of the different ways of point calculation, in the end this is simply a way to 'end' the game whenever it's convenient. While we could still do it, there would no longer be a need to save the game and continue it later, or to play on a speed that will leave your head spinning and your units obsolete faster than you can say 'Xerxes'.
So, what say you? Any potential issues that I haven't foreseen; tweaks/suggestions; or is this an outright terrible idea? Now's the time to brainstorm, so we'll be ready in time for the weekend!
EDIT: The conquest rules would probably have to be revised to allow for more aggressive points accumulation...
Also, permanent alliances may have to be reined in somewhat (they were far too powerful in the first game). I'll see what I can do about these issues in the next few days (assuming the idea will get any support at all, ofc).
For now I'll note that I can play on either Saturday or Sunday (12th or 13th).
As for new things for the new game, I've been thinking about a pretty major one...
Most victory conditions take a long time, and the late game is always the most boring and tedious part of any Civ game (imo). How about we start devising a custom 'points system' to decide who 'won' the game? We'll agree to play for a set of amount of time (x hours), or to end the game when a majority feels like it. At that time we'll tally up the points and declare a winner. I'd prefer this approach to managing 20 trade routes and reassigning spies every 3 turns (as is said to happen in the very late game; I've never played that far yet, thankfully).
Ofc we may also opt to use a mod that adjusts the game speed and removes some of the tedium; but the game is still young and there's no good balance yet in any mod.
Patches will also throw everything upside down at least a few times before any kind of semi-final stabilization. Most importantly, a points system such as this could be a lot of fun to design and implement, and make the games feel more like our own creation, rather than just a pre-made sandbox that we awkwardly try to fit each game in.
Without further ado (and even if the idea will have no wider support), I'll throw out a few different ways of scoring that I could think of:
- You're awarded 1 point for each city that you've founded and hold at the end of the game
- You're awarded 1 point for each 10 population in a city (so a size 10 city will count as 2 points, under rules #1 and #2; size 20 is 3 points, etc)
- You're awarded 2 points for each conquered city (re-conquests do not count) (so a conquered size 10-19 city is 3 points, just to make it clear how the rules work together)
- You're awarded 1 point for each Wonder that you've built (captured wonders do not count)
- You're awarded 1 point for every 4 techs or civics that you're discovered (everything added together and the final number rounded down) (this makes science a bit more significant than civics, but it's easier to just count the total number. I discovered about 80 techs + civics in our first game, so for that amount, I'd have received ~20 points, which seems like a balanced amount compared to the points from other sources)
- The player with the most points at the end of the game will be declared 'winner'. (In the event of a tie, both players are declared winner )
Similarly, gold or faith seem hard to account for. It could be argued that you should spend your gold to progress in the other categories (buy Settlers or military units, etc),
and that Faith is almost irrelevant even with the default rules, as a religious victory is practically impossible in a multiplayer game (you can simply go to war and kill the missionaries).
As production is the main engine driving settlement and conquest, it seems a bit unfair to reward it as a separate metric. Otoh, in order to 'buff' science and culture with regards to the score system, we could award points for the city and/or Civ with the highest science or culture output. Thus, even if you're not the current leader in the number of discovered civics or techs, you could gather some points for having recently taken the lead. I'd support rewarding the cities with the highest science and culture output, as it seems interesting to hunt for a good city site for specifically this purpose. Perhaps even to take it from your neighbor, if it so happens that they snatched it from under your nose.
As to the amount of points, maybe 3 points would be alright? That way it won't be overwhelming, but not insignificant either.If we do adopt this system, we could continue to play on Quick speed, as the actual victory conditions would cease to matter (in case one were achieved, the one who did it could still be declared the victor, regardless of points, simply because it would be a phenomenal feat to do it in ~7 hours). I hate online speed, so naturally I'm in favor of this choice.
One thing to keep in mind is that while the system may seem like too complex, too much of a burden, etc, in practice you'd simply keep playing exactly as you've done so far (as number of cities, population, techs, etc are important for the regular victory conditions as well), and the only 'hassle' would come at the very end of the game, when we'd stop and count the points. Think of it as using a 'Mastery Victory', in addition to the regular victory conditions (I believe that someone made a mod for Civ V that worked a bit similarly). While we could adjust the numbers and improve the balance of the different ways of point calculation, in the end this is simply a way to 'end' the game whenever it's convenient. While we could still do it, there would no longer be a need to save the game and continue it later, or to play on a speed that will leave your head spinning and your units obsolete faster than you can say 'Xerxes'.
So, what say you? Any potential issues that I haven't foreseen; tweaks/suggestions; or is this an outright terrible idea? Now's the time to brainstorm, so we'll be ready in time for the weekend!
EDIT: The conquest rules would probably have to be revised to allow for more aggressive points accumulation...
Also, permanent alliances may have to be reined in somewhat (they were far too powerful in the first game). I'll see what I can do about these issues in the next few days (assuming the idea will get any support at all, ofc).
Last edited:
stiiknafuulia
King
- Joined
- Apr 9, 2016
- Messages
- 603
As I've made the new thread now, we can discuss this over there; this thread is hereby 'closed' for all practical purposes (a mod may close it if they're so inclined).
Similar threads
