PBEM Tournament announcements and discussion

[Tau Ceti]

As the old thread has become rather large and possibly a bit intimidating to new arrivals, I thought it was time to start a new PBEM Tournament Announcements and Discussion thread.

New players are welcome to join the tournament at any time. If you want to join, please check out the signup thread.

Information about the tournament's organization and rules can be found in the first post of the tournament administration thread. (A bit outdated right now due to recent changes. I will have it updated soon, and if you want to know the latest changes, just read the rest of this thread.) If you have any questions not answered there or here, email me ( larsheg@sensewave.com ) or post in this thread (not in the other one - that is supposed to be read-only).

[This message has been edited by Tau Ceti (edited April 05, 2000).]

[Tau Ceti]

It has been a month since I took over this tournament, and I have some thoughts and concerns about its future that I would like to share with you. Opinions would be very welcome.

On the scoring system:
The score-stealing system suggested by Zsozso has many strong points; the greatest one probably being that it is sophisticated enough to take into account your opponents' skill level. However, there are some problems with it.

1. Using victory year as the primary factor in calculating the scores tends to encourage and reward aggressive and even back-stabbing behaviour to achieve victory as quickly as possible. This reduces the role of diplomacy in the game and helps to turn the games into bloodfests quickly. This is further aggravated by the small map and accelerated start, of course.

2. Related to 1; A player's score may come to depend heavily on whether his opponents just give up and surrender when things go bad or fight to the death. It is usually fairly evident when you have no chance of winning, but it can still take quite some time to force you into defeat. This can have a large effect on players' scores while saying nothing about their relative skill levels.

In an attempt to avoid these problems, I have come up with the following suggestion for an alternative scoring system, in cooperation with my assistant TigToad (though this suggestion is quite modified from what we originally discussed). (NOTE: this is not a finished draft; the intention is to discuss the relative merits of the systems and avoid any pitfalls.)

• All players start out on level 0.
• A victory is worth 2 points + the sum of the levels of the defeated players, and increases the winner's level by one.
• A loss is worth -1 point regardless, and does not affect the player's level.
• All scores are recomputed after every game to account for new player levels. (As per Zsozso's system)
• Player level is the primary tiebreaker if two players have the same score. Sum of victory years is the secondary tiebreaker.

This system is simpler than Zsozso's, but still makes it worthwhile to play strong players (if you can beat them!), while not primarily emphasizing speed of victory. It also (nearly) eliminates the problem of player surrenders.

The primary weak point of this system is that it tends to reward players who play many games, though only if they win, of course. But I think this is also a problem with Zsozso's and other systems. To limit this a bit, we could introduce a maximum limit on the number of games a player can play at a time, for example 6, the greatest number of games anyone is currently in.

So, what do you think? Opinions are very welcome; I am trying to make this a better tournament for all...

On play balance:
My own experience and comments in the turn administration threads indicate that the scenario as it is is, sadly, heavily unbalanced in favour of the University. They start with the ability to run Free Market from day one (provided they choose Industrial Economics as their bonus tech); Librarian difficulty level means that their drone problems are less of an issue; and because of their free Network Nodes, they are among the factions that benefit the most from having extra Colony Pods early. Usually, MMI will be within reach before 2140, looong before anyone else has a chance to get near it. And with the short distance between the islands, they can use it to full effect almost immediately. So it looks like something needs to be done before the tournament degenerates into a competition to get the most University games.

Personally, I believe at least one more map will be required reagrdless in order to keep interest up among the players. I would welcome ideas as to how the map should look like. I think it should be somewhat larger, to reduce the practicality of immediate air attacks. It should also conatin fewer Unity Pods and not have that large neutral territories. Possibly a bunch of smaller islands would do the trick.

Would it be better if all factions started with their regular starting techs instead of all level one techs? The games would be longer, but it might reduce the University's advantage. Also, perhaps players should start with not quite as many extra Colony Pods. Opinions, please...

How about short term solutions? Should we ban the University until further notice?

[korn469]

Tau Ceti,

Play Balance

yes i agree that the UoP is unbalanced...in our game if you or Pagan[CyC] had of been the belivers instead of the Spartans or the Gaians then it would have been even worse. The believers have no chance, while the UoP has a great advantage. I think that instead of all level one techs we should give the factions all of the technology that each faction in the game starts with. So in our game of Gaians, UoP, and Spartans we would have started with Centauri Ecology, Information Networks, and Doctrine: Mobility.

Also for starting units i think that each faction should also have one maybe two unity transport foils so that there is the possability of invasion but it
would be a very small chance because unity foils are so slow 0-1-2 with transport and slow special ability. they should b on opposite sides of your landmass so it would be hard to rush just one faction. This might make it easier to double rush one player off the map, but not terrably slow, and most important of all it would actually give the believers a chance. also it would keep factions "honest" so they couldn't just ICS across their main landmass and not build defenses at all.

As for the map i think that each main landmass needs to be more than 8 squares apart to prevent chop and drop techniques. But i like the general shape of Zsozso's map...so if we could keep the general shape for the main landmasses and just make them farther apart that would help alot.

As for unity pods, i think that they are the #1 unbalancing agent in the game. there shouldn't be any unity pods on your main landmass in my opinion, and there should be fewer total unity pods also.

and the UoP should probably be banned until some of these issues have been resolved.

Scoring

I also think that a player's Alpha Centauri Score should be in the forumula somewhere. In my opinion a long game with a balance of terror that keeps all factios about the same in terms of power, is way more of a rewarding experiance than a quick rush game. If you are not prepared for it a double rush will always will you. If the UoP and the Believers coperated and attacked the Spartans early on the Spartans would be dead.

So to limit rushing, i think the Alpha Centauri Score should be very important. Opponents skill, time of victory, and Alpha Centauri score should be the three most important elements of victory. So a victory in 2150 over the two best players where you have a huge AC scorewould be much better than a victory in 2149 over weak players where you have a very low score.

We need to improve play balance, improve scoring, and keep everything fun. thats what i think

korn469

[Misotu]

Hi Tau Ceti

Glad you started this thread. My main observation, having played a few turns in different games now, is that I feel the map is too small. As soon as one faction gets MMI, they can nerve gas/drop pod right into the middle of another island from almost any of their main bases. I think the fun and gameplay would be improved if it required at least a little effort and strategy to get an attack force into your opponent's HQ

I'm not suggesting huge maps, but definitely larger.

I think banning the UoP from future games until the scenario is more balanced is the right decision.

The scoring system sounds good and I agree with your analysis. I also agree with Korn's suggestion that AC score should be a factor. Hopefully we might get to the point where players can request games with other players of similar skill levels - right now, it's a bit of a lottery. Being a newbie myself, I don't present much of a challenge to anyone of experience and I'm not that thrilled at the prospect of endless nerve-gassing a few decades into the game

More maps would be excellent. Appreciate it takes time to put these together, but more variety would help. It should also produce a few different styles of game, which would be pleasant.

I don't have a problem with the unity pods, and I think the extra colony pods get the game moving and interesting from the start. I do think that the factions should have their usual starting techs - it's not right that the pirates don't have flex when the UoP still gets a bonus tech! I think factions should also start with their usual units (ie the Spartans should get at least one rover in place of a scout, while the Angels should have a probe team).

I don't think I agree that all factions should start with a couple of transports. This works against the Pirates, and makes Doc Flex pretty much redundant, since you can then build more ships right from day 1.

Anyway, thanks for all the work you've put into this Tau Ceti.

- Mis


[This message has been edited by Misotu (edited March 29, 2000).]

[korn469]

i've been thinking and here is the system i think we should use...

alpha centauri score/number of turns

that would balance out two people having the same time or two people having the same score...

if one person had a score of 750 and did that in 50 years it would not be as good as some body who had a score of 500 and did it in 25 years

i like having only one map for the tournament but however if we do have more than one map i think that people should have to play an equal number of games on the different maps...so if we had two maps then half of the games should be on one map and the other half should be on the other map...but i would like to emphasize that as a balanced tournament of skill that i feel this makes playing on the same map the most important factor of having an apples to apples instead of an apples to oranges comparision

korn469
[This message has been edited by korn469 (edited March 29, 2000).]

[Psharkjf]

Suggestions :
Yes I do agree the University is rather unbalanced in the early game. But you still have to keep the in the game somehow. Otherwise you're only playing with 6 factions. I suggest that you submit an edited univ.txt file that INCREASES the Univ's drone problems say 1 drone per 2 normal people. That way, you'll have to allocate more energy toward Psych and away from their labs and economy seetings : the two things they live on. Most people will agree that Labs energy powers the Univ, but their economy setting also is their lifeline - because that's the only way they can afford to maintain facilities like the Research Hospital or the Rec Commons that cancel out their heavy drone problems.

------------------
Let the Gaians preach their silly religion, but one way or the other, i shall see this compund burnt, seared, and sterilized, until every Mind Worm egg, every last slimy one, has been cooked to a smoking husk. That species shall be exterminated, I tell you. EXTERMINATED!
-Acadmecian Prokhor Zakharov
"Lab Three Aftermath"

[EternalSpark]

I like my brother's idea. (PShark somethin' or other)

[Garth Vader]

I think starting with so many independant units favors builders, ie those with bad support ratings.

The islands are too close, you shouldn't be able to nerve gas an enemies capitol from your own continent.

I agree the University is too strong but a big part of that is the accelerated start with 5 colony pods. If means factions with a per base energy/research bonus, like Uop and Morgan get an increased advantage over the research/energy disadvantaged like Hive, Belivers. I am not saying I would like to play without accelerated start because that would be really slow, but that should be taken into account.

Unity pods can be a big factor, although they can help overcome some disadvantages. I found 9 alien artifacts on my island which helped me overcome the Hives problems, I don't think I would have had a chance at winning without them. Imagine if I had played the UoP, 9 free techs would be incredible.

Despite my complaints I have enjoyed my game and appreciate the work everybody has done.

[Tau Ceti]

Good points, everyone! Now, to the specifics.

Scoring:
While I agree with korn that a long balnce of power-type game is more interesting and should be encouraged (this was one of the reasons why I wanted victory year to not be the decisive factor), I am not sure that basing the tournament score on AC score is the way to go. I primarily want a sytem that does not depend heavily on what you could call 'player sabotage', ie. the other players' attitude towards you should not be a factor. Using AC score as a measure means that the most rational thing to do for a player who thinks he is losing is to immediately destroy all his own bases, especially those that contain SPs, to prevent them from falling into the hands of the winner and increasing his AC score. It would also make it unthinkable that any game would end in anything other than a conquest victory (because that gives the lowest score). I do not think other players should be allowed to dictate your score to this extent.

In addition, it would most likely be easier to get a large AC score by playing against weaker players, which is exactly the opposite of the effect I want. Winning games against stronger players should be more valuable.

So I do not think AC score should be the deciding factor. We could include it as a tiebreaker, though.

Other matters:
Psharkjf: The idea was not to permanently an the University, only to make a temporary ban so that new games can still be started using the old system while the scenario and the maps are modified. While your drone suggestion is workable, I doubt it would make too much of a difference in these games as you could still have pop 3 bases with one police unit (not under Free Market though). Also, I just think we should rather strive to make a scenario that is balnced for all factions than hack the faction abilities to suit the scenario... anything else is really an admission of defeat and would also serve to confuse players when the factions do not behave like they are used to.

There seems to be a general consensus that the islands are too close, and I wholeheartedly agree. What do you think about the polar continents? They are a bit too large for my taste when they are unoccupied in the SMAC games...

Unity Pods can be unbalancing, but in my experience, most players (including me) quite like them. But on Zsozso's map, the pod density is about 4 times greater than normal, which seems a bit excessive. I think there should still be Unity Pods, but fewer in total, and probably only 3-4 on each player island.

I quite like the idea of giving all players a Unity foil. Misotu, this does not mean that you would be able to build any more ships. You cannot build Unity foils, and having one does not give you Flexibility. The low speed and transport capacity mean that they will not be a serious threat, but they will allow players to explore a bit and possibly do some pod popping if they are willing to risk their foil.

Extra Colony Pods are necessary to keep the games above a snail's pace, but the number could be discussed... the primary beneficiaries of having many Pods is, as Garth Vader said, the University and Morgan. The University's advantage would be reduced if everyone started with, say, only 3 extra Colony Pods.

Are there any more opinions on the starting tech issue? Should we have normal starting techs, all level 1 techs, korn's suggestion, or something else entirely? And would a reduction of starting techs, increase in island distance and fewer Colony Pods be enough to balance the University?

[korn469]

The main problem of this game is the map. It is impossible to mount a creadable land offensive unless you have the WP, amphibious assualts are ok but are nothing great, and unil you get doctrine:inititive they are not really a threat at all. However, by the time you get doctrine inititive, the other player could have doctrine:airpower if it is a normal faction, and could have MMI if they are the univsersity.

On this map if you are the first to get doctrine:airpower you have a major advanatge. Then once you get MMI first you pretty much have the game unless your opponents are close behind you. This is because of the close proximity of the main land masses, and the presence of the land barriers between them. The land barriers pretty much make an amphibious assualt impossible, yet they do nothing about the problem of airpower.

Also, the Univsersity should always be the tech leader in every game. The Univsersity only has two problems, probe teams and drones. Well probe teams can easily be overcome with defensive probe infantry, but unfortunantly drones are not a concern on librarian. If you wanna slow the UoP down you would have to increase the game level to either thinker or transcend. However because of the maintenance bug you might not wanna do that.

One other problem is i do not see how anyone has proposed to help boost the Believers in the game. Unity foils would help the believers alot, they would be helped by this more than any other faction. One problem is that the UoP can select industrial economics as their free tech, then switch to Free Market on like the second turn. Then after that they can bolt for Secrets of the human brain, and because they ar running free market they will discover this first, then after that they should choose planetary networks as their next free tech and then research wealth. All of this can happen by 2115, which would be before the believers discover their first tech. So you have a FM/wealth UoP, with SotHB, PlanNets, IE, and IA...against the believers who may just have discovered doc:flex...the UoP player should then beeline for Doc:Air and MMI, after that going for fusion. I am not sure what the believers could do against that.

Suggestions:

• keep the starting number of colony pods the same
• decrease the number of starting formers to either three or one...that will hurt low support economic factions
• change the number of starting units to 4 scout patrols and one scout rover...with the spartans give them two scout rovers and three scout patrols
• give each faction two unity foils, one on each side of their main landmass
• decrease starting energy reserves to 100 energy...for morgan decrease his starting energy reserves to 200...Morgan should gethis normal +100 energy bonus not +200 energy
• increase the size of the map...the most important change should be that their is nine space between each of the starting land masses...the land barrier strip should be in the middle of this, and should keep it's present features
• decrease the total number of unity pods on the map, and seriously decrease the number of unity pods on each of the players main landmasses
• do something about the polar regions, they are too large and too resource rich
• change starting techs so that each faction has the normal starting techs of the factions in that particular game...for example hive, belivers, spartans would mean that each faction in that game would have doc:mobility social psych and doc:loyalty...this would stop the UoP doom research order, and would still keep the pace of the game up...even if you changed the starting techs to every normal starting tech, it would do nothing to address the UoP research order listed above...however i do think that the UoP should keep its free tech
• if nothing else seems to work to balance the game, increase the difficulty to thinker, this will hurt FM factions and it will hurt factions running democratic, and it will hurt the UoP more than the other factions...as game difficulty increases, the UoP goes down, while the PKs, the hive, and the Spartans go up
• all factions should get their normal bounuses

korn469

[Misotu]

Sorry - missed the key point that we were talking Unity transport, rather than ordinary transport.

As a postscript, the other reason why I'd personally like a few more maps is that it would really help me to keep the games separate in my head. Right now, with the same map over and over, I'm finding that the games are starting to merge a little!

[Steve Draper]

I guess maybe I'm just a purist, but I personally HATE accelerated start - there is so much subtle strategy in the early game that just gets omitted by accelerated start that I would personally prefer to spend the extra 25 or so very short turns (and associated ellapsed time) than lose the subtlty. Is there any possibility of multiple game types being run (I guess for rating comparison it would have to be multiple tournaments)?

[Enigma]

One thing that I think you are not taking into account in all of the calculations of UoP doom techs is diplomacy. The two other players other than the UoP realize the danger of this white tech behemoth and almost always will form a pact in defense against the UoP. By swapping techs, coordinating 2 way assaults, etc cetera they can usually crush the UoP. Anyone who is foolish enough to pact with the UoP AGAINST the 3rd person will usually be rewarded with the inevitable nerve gas killing sprees. In all of the games I am in people realize this, and the UoP doesn't have a pact in any of the games I am in while I have a pact witht he 3rd person and in virtually all those games we are plotting to stop the UoP. Almost seems unfair to me.

As far as the unity pods are concerned they are definatly unbalancing especially since they have such a huge affect on the early SPs. If someone pod pops and finds 2 artifacts then they get a secret project for essentially free, while their opponents might throw all of their starting cash into a SP that they desperatley need. But in the ocean and the N and S landmasses unity pods make a lot of sense... they are there to reward exploration. Not being able to pod pop in the ocean is a good way of penalizing FM players, and a great way of rewarding players who run green. Without the ocean pods players with an "explore" style like Deidre stand much less of a chance. Also the unity pods are so dense that the can create imbalances based on what bonus you get, in one of my games I have 4 rocky/mineral bonus squares that will yeild 7 minerals each, which is a huge bonus, in other games I have seen people with only 2. 14 extra minerals is nothing to scoff at.

I personally think that the land barrier is far far too tough on factions that need to conquer early on and way too easy on factions that rush for air power. Being able to fly a jet over a land barrier in 2 turns is no barrier whatsoever, but it can make it really difficult for a conquer faction to do anything. Furthermore the fact that your neighbor's continent is just 2 terraforms away places a BIG emphasis on getting the WP, far too great in my opinion. The WP is a builder's tech and having to get it as a conquer player to build that bridge is a big penalty.

I think that the independent units are a sword that swings both ways. What I mean is although they really help low support factions, they help conquer factions too because it means they have 10 more units that they can support for the fighting.

The UoP's probe penalty does affect them more than you think. Since they can't run fundy their probe morale will be really low. IPT's are not perfect solutions, just rush a few regular probe teams at a specific base and since the UoP has such a significant probe penalty the probe teams can download several techs.

Also no one seems bothered that the Morganite starting cash is lowered so much, lets look at a regular game. A regular faction starts with 10, Morgan starts with 100. I view this as a multiplication of 10 rather than an addition of 90 . Lets reach a compromise like 250 or 300 credits. In regular games the starting cash for Morgan is INCREDIBLY significant for me, being able to hurry in recycling tanks in the second turn in my second and third base really speeds up expansion due to the extra food, and the minerals and energy are absolutely necessary if you are going to possess any kind of defensive force at all.

I think that the N and S continents make complete sense. Neither are they too resource rich. It takes a significant investment to make the sea transports to carry pods across, and then to DEFEND a small outpost. I think that the incredible richness of the N and S continents should stay as an incentive for people to expand. Otherwise once they reach the point in the game where they can expand new bases on arid land are practically useless since games on a map this size last such short period of time. PLUS you have to figure in the inefficiency drones, as a FM player especially having to rush buy a recreation commons for a size 1 city really sucks. A faction that can use police can expand much more easily, thereby increasing their minerals production much higher than a FM player could. And if they are vigilant in
their probing they can put those minerals to much better use.

Dem doesn't need to be penalized more. Going Dem takes away many of the benefits of FM- being able to rush buy a facility of formers into a new base on the first turn. Going Dem really slows down expansion. And here is where I would like to do a comparison, between a faction running FM/Dem and Yang running Pol Sta/planned.

The FM Dem player would have a hell of a time defending their expansion because they could not shuttle units across the sea without huge drone problems. Having no bonus minerals at new bases would make it take much much longer for those new bases to make MORE bases on the continent they are on. Meanwhile low support means that they would have a hard time terraforming the continent. And the planet rating would mean that they would frequently lose production and units to native life forms, especially IoD's. And not being able to police the new bases would hurt production even more.

Meanwhile Yang would have a breeze expanding. Not a single drone gets excited when he transports his military across the ocean. His bases grow at an exponential rate with +3 growth and +2 industry. Yang has several defense/police units at each base, and not losing any minerals to support.
Although IoD's are still an annoyance at they can still give him cash. His new bases immediatley start building something new since their first person is a worker, not a drone, due to police.

As I think I have shown Dem/FM already penalizes your expansion enough. In the above scenario Yang can expand like crazy while the pacifist player is fiddling around building rec commons and losing minerals to support.

As far as needing to penalize FM because of the low drones on lower difficulties think inefficiency. In a recent game as Morgan my growth was slowed quite a bit because of inefficiency drones. I spent more than 200 credits on rec commons alone, meanwhile a faction that WASN'T running FM can make tons of little crappy bases which will outproduce the few ueber bases of the builder. This is quite obvious in ACT008 where zsozso as the spartans crammed in lots of small bases to boost production while the UoP has only 9 bases. You simply can't expand like that in FM.


I agree that the UoP in FM needs to be penalized more, but not other factions such as the PK or Morganites.

Anyway I am enjoying the tournament regardless, and am looking forward to my next turns!

[EternalSpark]

I know this idea is prolly gonna be shut down, but since its in the alpha.txt file, I felt compelled to bring it up..

Maybe we could tweak alpha.txt to give the players the Alien Artifact Weapon.... all it takes is you have to give it a tech that lets you create it.. as it stands, its a very very expensive "weapon", but I think that if we gave some of the factions a few of these off the bat as independants, it would help their research a little... and to discourage someone from mass producing Fusion Rover Artifacts, we could up the price of it... its 36 as we speak, it would be more of a deterrant to building them if they were like 100-300 minerals for the weapon itself...

Just an idea. Prolly won't be accepted, but I think its a way to balance out tech.

[TigToad]

A few points I feel are important.

1. We need to make as few changes as possible or we invalidate every game going or played up until this point.

2. If players do not play equal numbers of games it invalidates the results anyway

3. If there is no time limit placed on the tournament (such as January 1st 2001). This tournament will never end and no winner can ever be found.

4. The islands are too close together, I think we simply added 2-6 squares of water between and stretched the poles out accordingly that would be my recommendation.

5. I like the new victory point system much better than the old one (heh, its built partially on a recommendation I made originally anyway. Grin).

6. This is the long one. The factions aren't balanced for this game. I've played 5 different factions in 5 different games. I've all but lost as Morgan, I won as the Gaians.. and I'm still playing as the University, Believers and the Drones.

I see some problems, none of them are with the starting techs tho. The Believers and Drones have a really hard time doing what they do best because everyone starts with decent defensive techs and the momentum factions do not start out with an ability to attack. Therefore, every game I've seen has been a race to air power. Making the maps bigger doesn't really solve the problem because then its air power and sea bases are the key. The main problem with the map is everyone knows where everyone elses cities are going to be because the map was made to be 'equal'. Its impossible to share a land mass, I realize the random factors (unity pods, starting positions, etc) unbalance the game to the lucky..but without the random factors its not a game of smac. I don't see the University as the problem I see the map as the problem, since they get to Air power first, they're the best faction. You take them out I think Morgan or CC is the best faction..you take them out it becomes the Gaians, etc. Thats just the way it goes. There is no way to 'fix' that under the current game conditions and changing those game conditions invalidates this tournament and turns it into a new tournament.

Tig

[korn469]

Enigma and everybody else

i agree with your point that a 2 against one will almost always end up with the coallition beating the loner. however if the game is unbalanced in favored of the UoP and everybody knows it then it won't be fun or challenging to play. If it comes down to where in every game that a person plays the UoP they will get double teamed just because they are the UoP destroys the fun of the tournament. Diplomacy should be based more on actual game need than on "hey that guy is the UoP lets rush him off the board!"

so that means we need to change some things to try and make as balanced as a map as possible. Game settings and map design have a significant impact on overall game balance.

Enigma, i also think that you are overrating fundy and underestimating Free Market. Remember that probe morale increases with techs like presentient algorithm, and all of those early techs are all on the way to fusion, none of them are on the way to tree farms. So UoP probe morale will get a boost from that...and one probe infantry team can stop one probe foil, which are expensive...and ferrying probe teams by transport foils is problematic. You will have to be in a dominant position to exploit probe teams, and the UoP is most likely to be in that position. Nobody running fundy is going to beat the UoP, unless their partner is Morgan and Morgan is feeding them a steady diet of technology...but that comes back to the fact that a 2v1 is going to beat the UoP anyways.

I agree that there should be unity pods in the ocean and on the North and south continants, but i still think that the north and south continants needs improvement, the person who starts right under the monsoon jungle has a huge advantage over the player who starts under any of the other land forms...

i also completely disagree with your following statement

quote: And here is where I would like to do a comparison, between a faction running FM/Dem and Yang running Pol Sta/planned. The FM Dem player would have a hell of a time defending their expansion because they could not shuttle units across the sea without huge drone problems. Having no bonus minerals at new bases would make it take much much longer for those new bases to make MORE bases on the continent they are on. Meanwhile low support means that they would have a hard time terraforming the continent. And the planet rating would mean that they would frequently lose production and units to native life forms, especially IoD's. And not being able to police the new bases would hurt production even more. Meanwhile Yang would have a breeze expanding. Not a single drone gets excited when he transports his military across the ocean. His bases grow at an exponential rate with +3 growth and +2 industry. Yang has several defense/police units at each base, and not losing any minerals to support. Although IoD's are still an annoyance at they can still give him cash. His new bases immediatley start building something new since their first person is a worker, not a drone, due to police. As I think I have shown Dem/FM already penalizes your expansion enough. In the above scenario Yang can expand like crazy while the pacifist player is fiddling around building rec commons and losing minerals to support.

ok if i'm Lal and your Yang in this tournament i do not think Yang's police state/planned will be overwhelming...

a FM player doesn't have to have huge drone problems when they ferry units across the sea...a little bit of drone management can make it no problem at all, it is only a turn or so between your landmass and the north or the south, and if you build a sea colony as a way point then your troops would still be inside of your territory when you move them by sea, but still airpower and MMI dominated, your drop troops can strike by around 2130 in this tournament...also there is such a thing as a poor man's punishment sphere...take any size one base have a crawler convoy minerals back to it, turn the person into a specialist, and then base your offensive force from that base, you could easily base five offensive units out of that base and have no drone problems with your army

second point about expansion is that you can fit like 12-15 bases on your main continant and if you manage them properly they will give you a good economic base to work from...bonus minerals hurt but you won't swith to democratic until after 2115 and by that time you will have already gotten a fairly good number of expansions up and running

Yang can grow at an exponential rate, but everybody besides Yang and Morgan can pop boom with ease...Yang cannot pop boom in SMAC 4.0 without eudimonic and in SMACX 2.0 he needs a golden age to pop boom...democratic players already have +2 growth and if they go planned instead of Free Market for short population/industry bursts then they can really out do Yang...also on librarian drones are that big of a deal, especially if you are the UoP and build the VW...unless you really have lots of bases you won't get drones caused by inefficency and with either the HGP, VW or PT you will never have bases that start with drones, at least not in this tournament

in the above scenario, instead of setting around twiddling my fingers i am researching air power and i'm gearing up to bomb the hive off the face of the map...and you can expand like crazy in Free Market you just need the right tools to do it with, and if worse comes to worse try using 20% psych

In this tournament i feel that we should try to keep it as official as possible and should not change any of the alpha text...no Morgan get 10 times the amount of energy the other players have or anything else to that effect we should keep the alpha and the faction texts exactly as they are and balance the map accordingly

airpower is the name of the tournament so far and the 2v1 is king, so i feel that the map needs an overhaul, one that would give increase the bite of an early conquest but wouldn't turn the game into rushfest2000, one that would decrease the signifigance of air power slightly and would not make MMI the game ending tech...also unity pods needs to be reigned in some especially on a players main landmass

korn469

[Tau Ceti]

Well, it is time to build some consensus here...

Since the new scoring system seems to have met with approval, except by korn469, I think I will implement it as outlined above, but making the AC score of your victories the primary tiebreaker.

As for the scenario, these seem to be definites:

1. Increase the distance between islands, probably so there are at least 10 squares between the tips. This will mean that sea bases are required as staging points for a drop invasion, which comes at an extra cost. Sea bases are also more vulnerable than other bases, and since you cannot drop units into seabases (even your own), they will have to be transported there. This will slow down the drop strategy.

2. Only a few Unity Pods on the player islands, and somewhat fewer elsewhere.

Some suggestions, which will probably be implemented unless there are protests:

3. Keep the polar continents the same size, but reduce the size of the jungle, the only really unbalancing landmark. Currently it is far too large.

4. I like korn469's starting tech suggestion. But I want to stop the University from running Free Market from day one, which would still be possible if their opponents were Morgan or the Drones. To stop this, we could simply add the additional rule that the University is not allowed to choose Industrial Economics as its bonus tech.

More discussion needed on these things:

5. Should we give Unity Foils to the players?

6. The separator islands - should they stay as they are? Be shortened a bit because of the greater separation between the islands? Be removed entirely, making amphibious assaults a more realistic option?

7. Should we reduce the number of extra starting units? If so, by how much?

Thanks for your input so far, and keep the suggestions coming, folks!

[korn469]

Tau Ceti

scoring system sounds fine i was just offering a suggestion

but as to the points you brought up

1. i agree, but i would also suggest that you also increase the distance between the starting landmasses and the poles

2. i agree completely!

3. i agree completely!

4. i agree with everything except for limiting the tech that the UoP can pick...Morgan can keep up with the UoP in technology and if there ever was a faction that could go toe to toe with the UoP it's the drones, dem/planned/wealth is just scary...pop booms and super industry!

5. i think the player should get two unity foils...one on each side of their land mass

6. what if you replaced the seperator strip of land with a fungus zone which would slow amphibious assults but not make them imossible, and it would give the players a good spot to hide ships in, if there are ten spaces between main landmasses maybe the fungus strips could be three spaces wide

7. i would say reduce the number of starting units by one or two formers, leave all the other units alone

korn469

[Pagan[CyC]]

There is one problem I have noticed that has not yet been mentioned: A faction that has the capability to view an opponent's city via F4 can also determine exactly where it is on the map. All one needs to do is match the 21 squares of the city with the corresponding squares on the map. This is trivial for cities on the main islands, and only requires a look at the scenario file to find the matching geography in the polar regions.

Each colony pod at start gives the UoP a 1 tech/turn advantage as soon as the city is founded. Would the significance of this be increased by reducing the number of techs at the start since each tech would cost fewer research points?

The Spartan and Believer advantages are lost on an island map. The protection provided by an island and the knowledge of opponent start location reduces the need for normal defenses early on, tilting the advantage towards builders.

I agree with Steve Draper's comments regarding accelerated start. I also prefer random maps. Are there others who would like the option to play unaccelerated random map games within the tournament?

[korn469]

Pagan[CyC]

i'm not positive and somebody will have to check this out but i think that starting techs do not count against your tech cost...so if you started with 60 techs it would cost the same to research the 61st tech as what it would cost to research the first tech if you started the game with zero techs...like i said i'm not positive but i'm pretty sure that is how it works

korn469

[Paul]

Korn, I agree with you #6. Besides, it would also make it more difficult to use drop troops because you can no longer build a land base on the strip to serve as a staging area for drop troops.

[EternalSpark]

Question -

How are atrocities handled in the tourny? Like, if I, as the Hive, oblits a morgan base, for the sole purpose of creating some drama and stuff - will this do something to my game?

[Tau Ceti]

There are no extra penalties associated with committing atrocities. You will have sanctions imposed on you of course; the usual rules are in effect. But it does not affect your tournament score in any way.

Other matters:
I also like korn469's ideas 1 and 6... any further opinions? As for no. 4, I am worried that the University will still have MMI before the Drones can get anywhere near Democratic/Planned/Wealth. The 10-year research disadvantage was not designed to take into account an accelerated start/Free Market University competitor. And I do not think Morgan will be able to overtake the University's initial advantage. If they both have to research IndEco first, that makes it more fair, in my opinion.

[Garth Vader]

I don't think atrocities are handled any different than the regular game. If you oblit an enemy base they will not like you and the third player may not like you either.

I know it has been suggested to keep as close to the original as possible, but the easiest solution to a lot of the inequities would be to triple the cost of planes and choppers. When I got air power I was able to very quickly build 10+ X-missle jets and obliterate enough enemy cities to slow their research so they wouldn't get air power, or if they did, not have the industry to match me. If air units were much more expensive they would be more of a luxury and not the core of your military.

I am worried about moving the continents too far apart as that would almost eliminate all momentum factions from having a chance to win.

[TigToad]

Well, if we are changing the conditions of the tournament, I say we go all the way... and I know this idea isn't going to go over well.

First off, scrap the islands all together. Starting on an island is just silly. It benefits the tech factions incredibly.

If we were to do it my way, we'd up the players per game from 3 to 4. We'd play on the normal map of planet (this was the map the game came with as a 'balanced' map). We'd keep the other 3 computer factions in the game. A complaint was made that computer factions are too easy to get to submit, but hey, thats part of the game. Taking out the other factions to me is the same as modifying the alpha.txt file.

Also, limit the ammount of games people can play to two. One Smac and one Smac/X. Smac games are the original 7 factions. SmaX games are the 7 new factions, humans can't play progenitors and this way no one has to play Cha-Dawn. (Probes, drones, cybernetics, and pirates are all popular factions). Everyone starts with what they start with, no one is unfairly limited. Also, upping the number of players to four, while slowing down the tournament, does keep the 2-1 thing from happening quite as bad.

Of course one person is going to gain an edge over another when they start near the Uranium flats or Monsoon jungle or whatever, but with random starts, etc it becomes a game of smac and even if you have air power first you don't necessarily know what direction to build in to kill your arch enemy. I think the tech tree would get expanded in as more techs would be needed to win, the momentum players could launch ground wars to take advantage of their bonuses, and the game maintains a good ammount of diplomacy. Also, the games would be much much easier to start up.

Finally, how to decide who gets what faction or who plays whom? Thats easy, too.. you set a time limit for sign ups, maybe April 15th or 20th... you start all games the same day... you know everyone who is playing, you can do it nice and random. Tau's done a great job running and I'd trust him to draw random lots. Draw one player, look at their faction preference list (4 long obviously), they get first choice.. draw second player, etc.

As soon as those 4 are drawn move on to game 2... game 3.. etc.

The current tournament games would become 'for fun' games as they wouldn't mean anything. But we'd have obvious winners... moving through multiple rounds.

There is luck in any tournament based system I've ever participated in. Sometimes its just the luck of the draw as it would be here.. if I get paired up against Tau and Korn in a game, personally, I'd be excited to play that game instead of pissed that I'm probably going to lose the tournament.

Just my 74 cents.

TigToad

PS_and for goodness sake lets up the difficulty to at least thinker if not transcend..we're trying to find the best player--and all of us play our normal games at transcend anyway.
[This message has been edited by TigToad (edited March 31, 2000).]

[korn469]

tau ceti

if we are going to keep the present system then here are my specific ideas on how to balance out the map...

1. add in four extra sea squares between landmasses, place them right beside the current landmass, these would be vertical areas, this would increase the closest point between landmasses from 4 sea squares to 8, out of drop range and just barely in land of bombers...this would decrease the importance of airpower an MMI

2. add in one horizontal strip of sea squares between each of the poles

3. remove the land strip and instead pur in a three square wide strip of sea fungus, and make this fungal barrier be over top of an ocean trench, like the black deep water you know

4. give each faction two unity foils one would be on the east side of the land mass the other would be on the west side

5. leave the number of land starting units the same except change one of the scout patrols to a scout rover, and for the spartans change two of the scout patrols to scout rovers...for the data angels change one of the scout patrols to a probe team

6. decrease the number of unity pods on the main land from 22 to 7

7. increase difficulty to thinker

8. and here is something that might help out with balancing the drones and the believers...what if you changed the starting year from 2101 to 2106 would that mean that those two factions would then just have a five year no research penalty? if that is still too much of a penalty then we could change it the starting year to 2111 so they wouldn't have the 0 year tech penalty...i think that would work but i'm not sure

or

we could go with tigtoad's suggestion

korn469

[Symil]

I really second Mis's move for more maps. I'm in this for the opponents, and the structure. Kudos to TauCeti for doing well on both accounts. I have a SMAC & a SMACx game running for variety, and I still get them confused. It would be nice if I could begin more on different maps.

As for the tournament, I do not think it will ever end. It is more of a rating on the current abilities of everyone playing.

[EternalSpark]

quote: PS_and for goodness sake lets up the difficulty to at least thinker if not transcend..we're trying to find the best player--and all of us play our normal games at transcend anyway.

GOD NO! Speak for yourself! Upping the difficulty will choke this tourny, cuz I for one don't play Transcend/Thinker... I think the Difficulty is BEST where it is... unless you are WANTING nobody else joining. VERY bad idea. VERY BAD.

-ES-
It prolly will be upped, and my and my bro can't play then... oh well... I thought this tournement was for fun... I guess its not that way
[This message has been edited by EternalSpark (edited March 31, 2000).]

[Misotu]

I like Tig's proposal to use the map of Planet and random starting locations for SMAC games. For SMACX, that might be more difficult because it's a huge disadvantage to start close to an alien faction. On the other hand, maybe that's where the luck factor comes in.

I still think we could use more maps, although I appreciate that this would be a lot more time-consuming. Maybe we could add random maps, no accelerated start, into the mix as was proposed earlier. If some people wanted to play only the tournament map or map of Planet, they could choose to do this.

I would be disappointed if the number of games were limited to two. Several of the games I'm playing are a turn a day or less, and I have a lot of time to kill right now.

If I can only play two games and have to draw lots for factions, I could end up playing just two measly turns a day, both with factions I either haven't played at all, or really don't want to play. I appreciate this would be a test of a real player - but I'd like to have fun too!

I like Tig's idea of expanding from three to four players in some/all games - one of the most interesting things about multiplayer for me so far has been co-operating within a pact. With four players, you stand a good chance of a 2-2 battle, which would add an interesting slant to the game. Course, it would slow the games down which is another reason not to limit the number of games to two.

I think I've seen several people suggesting that we'd need multiple tournaments for different maps or something, but I don't really see this. A game is a game. You still have to beat the other players, whatever the conditions. If AC score/year of victory don't count in the scoring, then I don't really see why playing various maps/starting conditions within the same tournament should be a problem?

I suppose this is theoretically about finding the best player, but in practice I don't really see that happening. To get that result, you really need more of a knock-out tournament, which would limit the fun for those of us who'd be crushed in round one

I must admit, I'm playing for the following reasons (in priority order):
- for the fun of it,
- to learn how to play better
- because it's well-organised and ...
- there's a bit of competition thrown in to spice things up.

Maybe if I were a seriously good player I'd feel more strongly about the scoring and getting the thing really balanced. But you know, once the results start to come through, it'll be easy to see who the best players are. Provided the results are posted in a played-won-lost format, it won't be too hard to spot the people who win a lot more than they lose. Would it be possible to get a permanent link to the results on this forum (like the FAQ link), rather than having to keep updating a thread?

Anyway, I still vote more maps, choice of factions and plenty of games

[Garth Vader]

I also think the map of planet or random maps would be good.

I for one don't care if there is any rankings. I started playing to experience a MP game and to see how well I could stack up against other people and to learn different techniques of playing.

I would have no problem with moving difficulty to thinker, that's what I play my SP games on, I haven't tried a transcend yet.