PBEM Tournament announcements and discussion

[EternalSpark]

Well, lets just say that in every other game tournement for any other game, they tend NOT to use the highest/2nd highest diff for it.

I say, keep it where it is. Like I told Tau C... if you raise it any more, its gonna be no fun for people like me, and you won't get people joining. Hell, it gets raised, I told him to drop me from the tourny, simply because I want to play to have fun, not to be frustrated with a ridiculously high difficulty.

[korn469]

ok after putting some thought into it i have a suggestion...

there should be four maps

1. current map with some balance modifications...still on librarian difficulty

2. another three player map about the same size as the current map, except it is just one huge continant with player starting on opposite ends kinda like a triangle...this will be normal start (two colony pods, one scout, normal tech)

3. a four player map on thinker

4. a five player map on transcend

a player could play three games of both of the 3 player maps at one time and 2 of the four player and 2 of the five player...making the total games in the tournament 10 games 3 of type one 3 of type two 2 of type three and 2 of type four

how does that sound?

korn469

[Tau Ceti]

Ah, so many good suggestions it is getting hard to choose... so why not have them all?

Personally, I do not care so much about the scoring. Even if I thought I could get it, the title 'Apolyton PBEM Champion' or whatever would not make my life better. So I play for fun, like most others. And as this thread has shown, there are many different opinions on what is fun. So in order to have something for every taste, I propose that we will have:

• 3-player games on the new modified tournament map (which needs to be created first) with accelerated start
• 4-player games on the map of Planet with normal start
• 4-player games on random maps with normal start
• Each player lists his highest preferred difficulty level
• The scoring system is as outlined above, but because of the varying maps, victory year and AC score must go out as tiebreakers

This should let everyone find a game type they like. Games will be at the lowest preferred difficulty level among the players, but for the first few games, transcendi will be set up with transcendi, thinkers with thinkers and librarians with librarians. Everyone will also need to specify how many games they want on each map type. The scoring system is general enough that it should work for all types of games, so even the ones played until now should be valid. As for number of players, I am skeptical to setting it above 4, mainly because of the rate at which players have had to pull out of the tournament already and also because it would slow things down.

Well, how about it?

Btw, I would like some reasoning behind the various more or less strict game limits some of you have proposed... TigToad/korn469?

[Misotu]

Sounds like a fine plan to me, Tau Ceti. Totally in agreement with what you've proposed.

[korn469]

ok here are my thoughts

i play mainly for fun and for pride...i wanna have fun and when i play i don't wanna be embarrassed about my performance

i like the tournament setting where we are actually competing for something, that makes the games more intense and people will play better

i also want people to play a variety of games and there to be a variety of maps to play on i think this increases enjoyment.

i would like for people to play a number of different types of games and have an enjoyable experiance

i think that we should have seasons like that maybe last three months long just to keep interest up

and i also want to play fair games, i like as much balance as possible in a game...we all do, everyone might say they don't really care but they do. that is exactly why this thread really became active because of percieved unbalance...the tournament has to be as balanced as possible to give it a long life, that is why i do not think we should play with random maps...every map we play with should be as balanced as possible...if i lose a game because of a mistake i made, so be it...but if i lose a game because i started in the great dunes and my opponent started in the monsoon jungle then i would be very upset and wanna drop out of the tournament

you could say if that happens we'd restart the game or ignore it because that is a rare exception, but if u do that then the outcome of nearly every game will be invalid because you can't have exceptions, either all random maps are perfectly balanced or none of them are, it is a tournament...if the maps aren't balanced i don't wanna play...i wanna beat my opponents i don't wanna luck out on them though in a game of luck i am going to press every luck break i get...there is only one problem with having a map that everybody knows, and that is everybody knows the map and already have predetermined strategies, so what everybody plays lost temple in starcraft ladder and more people play laddder now than ever

i would like to have it where some games would be very challenging and others to me less challenging but still fun, also i would like for the most part to have people try to play in the same skill braket, but have some games where everybody plays together

there is one more thing that i think we should do and that is have multiplayer scenarios where there are specific, balanced and challenging objectives that determine who the winners are instead of just simple nerve gas extravaganzas

scenario objectives in multiplayer scenarios could be very fun and challenging

the reason i want all of these things are i am bored with SMAC in single player and i wanna produce a multiplayer eperiance that is fun and hinges on my skill alone and not on random factors...and i want an experiance that doesn't get repetitive but stays fresh...SMAC has became a repetitive experiance for me...if i start a normal single player game of SMAC i know i am going to be bored becuase of the AI i want something new, but something that is fair that's my thoughts...maybe i'm all alone over here but thats what i think

also i would also likefor people as they are playing a game to kinda construct a little strategy guide for what they did in each game...just a general thing, like what your goals were, how you tried to reahc those, any unexpected bonuses and any unexpected set backs and just a little summary of the game, because i would love to compare notes to find out what works and what doesn't in a MP setting

korn469

[EternalSpark]

Well, I ain't played in the torny yet, but here are some suggestions..

We pick a random number of maps, using certain options, and customize 'em..... get rid of anything that is like the kiss of death for someone.. like a large arid wasteland... or islands that have 9 spaces of land (this has happened to me a few times, not pretty)... anyhting that really can spell doom for someone..

Maybe we could use the Ultimate Builder Map? It would be quite interesting, I believe...

[Misotu]

Korn, I hear what you say about balance. It's not that I don't care ... but I have to say that the last game I played against the University (when I got utterly *mashed* ) was the best fun I've had yet.

OK, OK I'd have liked to have done better in the game. But it was terrific fun racing against time to beat UoP, even though I failed. The fact that I lost didn't make me want to drop out - although I would have loved the chance to replay it and do it *right* this time

The reason why the balance is such an issue right now is because there is only one map. So if one faction, played well, can pretty much wipe the board on that map unless people go on a conquer-fest dead early, then that's an issue because every game becomes the same.

Maybe we could simply remove the Monsoon Jungle from the map of Planet if that would help? I'm not experienced enough to know whether other features are seriously unbalancing too. Personally, I wouldn't mind playing the standard map of Planet. If one of my opponents is racing into the lead, that just means I'm more likely to get a decent Pact or two

The factor I think would be most unbalancing on random maps for SMAX would be including the alien factions. I've had a couple of multi-player games ruined when I or my human opponent land right next to one of the aliens. Recently, I've been creating games with the aliens excluded, and I've found that works better.

Anyway, I agree with you that the more variety there is, the better. And your idea of proclaiming a champion at regular intervals is a good one too - keeps the interest up, like you say, and gives people a chance to get back in the running if they've had a few poor games in the previous season.

Like you, I'm bored with SP. Since I've been playing this tournament, I haven't played SP at all. MP is just so much more fun, win or lose

[EternalSpark]

I **REALLY** like the idea of playing people of your own difficulty... I really do. That way, if you are good at your own diff, you go up to someone better, and at a new diff... very good plan.

I hope Tau C didn't misinterpret my email and got rid of me in the tourny yet

[Symil]

Whatever happens, sign me up for some more games. Any difficulty, any faction. Don't get too mad if I bite the dust early though.

[Misotu]

So why not just re-set the scores every three months? Whoever wins the most games in a three month period is declared Apolyton PBEM champ, and good luck to them

This doesn't mean games have to start and finish in three months - all that counts is when they are completed.

Sure, this favours people who play more games. So anyone who really wants to be champ will a) have to play a few games and b) play their turns reasonably quickly. Is this such a problem? If you're not bothered about being champ, then you don't need to play very many games. If you are, then you do. Isn't this about having fun? Some people seem to be taking it very seriously

Yes, a certain amount of balance is important. But if there were no penalty for losing, only a gain for winning, then balance becomes a lot less important. So you get a bad break, it won't affect your score ... The Spartans collect a few submissive factions? So what? Isn't that what they are good at, what they're designed to do? Why would this ruin the game?

Anyway, part of the fun of the game is trying to deal with bad breaks as well as good, isn't it? There are plenty of options available for trying to improve your situation ... Total balance means total boredom in the long run, surely?

[Grigger]

I agree with Misotu.

[EternalSpark]

Or, maybe, we could have this a little bit more like a tourny, and do it this way..

Everyone plays a game against 2 other people in Librarian. The person that wins, goes to naother game... this one at a higher diff. Whoever wins that one, they go to another higher...

So, everyone starts @ librarian, and goes up difficulties as their skill proceeds.

I dunno.

[Enigma]

By the way, Korn you suggested that we put a divider strip of fungus between the islands with deep water underneath it, fungus can only exist in water that is less than 1000m deep.

I really could not care less about scoring, I am just playing all of this for fun.

Honestly I have my doubts that this tournament will go all the way through to the end, but I sure hope it will.

On the map/huge mpa of planet.. I personally think that the continents are a little bit unbalanced. The Jungle would not be unbalancing if it were the size of the other landmarks, but instead it is MUCH larger than uranium flats or the garland crater, and it can be more useful. Due to the early game restrictions the Garland crater gives you the same benefits as the jungle with more terraforming.. not really worth it.

If we are going to have games with many people in it in ACX we *must* take out the alien factions. Being next to an alien can basically stop your expansion and research. Replace them with toned down versions, or regular SMAC factions, but just do not put them in the game. There are no benefits to conquering them either... they need to be eliminated because they are so hard on whoever starts next to them.

I personally am against the idea of many different maps. I think it would be best if there were many different random maps with THE SAME SETTINGS. Of course a CMN would then edit them for fairness. But this makes the most sense since conquer players may start next to a ripe UoP... or their military buildup may be in vain. By having a randomly generated map that is balanced for fairness the game would be much more interesting as well.

I am no master at balancing things.. but I really like the idea of 4 people 3 idiots on a map. But by adding AI's you are really adding a big variable. We do not want relative newbies to be pounded by drones AND 20 stacked hive units, and we do not want factions that are very easy to put into a submissive pact. The original game factions would work well. All that I am worried about is a Spartan player getting 3 submissives in the early game... this could wreck the rest of the game.

Also we might consider making random maps and then having a CMN edit them for fairness. This would have many benefits.. the element of surprise for conquer players, a lot of land to explore and unknown perils etc.


As for FM versus not FM what I was trying to point out is the wasted cash that goes into building recreation commons if you are a builder... but I do not want to argue about this forever. It suffices to say it is easier getting stable production if you have police units than if you have to build recreation commons in every base.

Lal is an exception.. those talents are better than police. But they are also his only benefit so they are not unbalancing. I use the poor man's punishment sphere too but the point is that police equate with production. There isn't much a university player can do when 15 high morale impact rovers show up on his turf.
[This message has been edited by Enigma (edited April 02, 2000).]

[Tau Ceti]

While the points raised by korn469 are valid, I still think we should go with the maps as outlined in my previous post. While starting positions can make or break a game, they are not an advantage that is tied to a particular faction or player, and will tend to even out over time. And though the Monsoon Jungle is certainly powerful, it by no means guarantees victory, especially when the player who starts there may (and quite possibly will) find that three other human players have signed a pact against him.

The one thing I am worried about is the possibility of human controlled Spartans or Believers landing right next to a more peaceful faction, which would be sure to meet a quick and grisly end. These are my alternatives for dealing with that:

1. Do nothing. If you get unlucky, you get unlucky. Sure, you lose a tournament point, but for most people, that is no disaster. And you will be available for the next game to be set up instead.

2. Leave the 'Do or Die' option off, so that eliminated players are restarted for the first 100 years. Though I think many would hate that option.

3. Leave cooperative victory on, allowing players to surrender to each other. If the faction you surrendered to eventually wins and you are still alive, you gain one tournament point instead of losing one. Probably not likely to happen very often, but still...

Opinions? You will notice that I did not include a 'CMN edits starting positions' option. That is because, on random maps, some starting positions will be better than others, and I do not feel comfortable deciding who is going to start where in such a case.

Basically, if you want very balanced starting positions for most of your games, the tournament map is for you. If you want all the ups and downs of a regular SMAC(X) game, and are prepared to handle them all, go for the random maps and the map of Planet. Now we only risk splintering so much that all game types will lack players. But let us see how it goes. I am going to start a new PBEM Tournament signup thread, and because of the new difficulty level settings and different maps, everyone who wants to play more games now will have to register again. So please, head over there now...

And I think I will implement the three-month seasons. Depending on the game speed, the period may have to be adjusted later. But for now, the closing date of season one is set to May 31st, 24:00 EST. For a game to count in season one, the victory notification must have reached me by that date and time.

[Misotu]

Sounds good to me. I guess there has to be a penalty for not winning

Don't have strong feelings about the options for dealing with the irresistible early enemy scenario. I'm not keen on the re-starting option. I think the option to submit would be just fine.

- Mis

[Viriato]

Hello everyone,

I'm reading this thread for the first time so I may be a little late. But I'll post my opinion anyway.

1) I like the accelerated start. It makes the games faster and diferent from other PBEM games I'm playing. Being a tournament I find that important, so I think we should keep it as it is.

2) Yes the map is very small. I think the island could be a little larger (about 20 % more area) and they should be further apart. That would make attacks more difficult, especially air attacks.

3) Transcend difficult level. Why not? That would mimimize the UoP's advantage because of the drones problem (along with the larger map providing more inneficience).

4) Add another player. 4 players would increase the diplomatic offers and would not make the game much slower. If 2 of the players join themselves to destroy the 3rd one he is in big trouble. With 4 players that would be more difficult to happen.

That's all I have to say. Now i'm going to try to find a way to win the games i'm in. I just realized that the UoP is present in both games. And for the first time I choose different factions .

[Enigma]

As far as leaving do or die off is concerned I like the idea of having cooperative victory on but with limits... worth less points etc. Also with restart you essentially lose game if you lose all bases in 1st 50 years.

[Tau Ceti]

Viriato:

1) The games on the tournament map will still have accelerated start, although with slightly reduced starting techs as suggested by korn469. If accelerated start and equal starting locations are your preferences, then the tournament map is for you. I am trying to cater for all tastes here. Time will tell if that is overstretching.

2) Greater separation - will be done. Greater land mass - possibly. I will have to see how it looks.

3) Mostly because some people are not used to it and do not want to play that high. That is why I introduced the difficulty preference thing. I will try to set up people with others who requested the same difficulty - but so far only 4 people have given me the new necessary info. I will need it before new games can be made, folks!

4) Could be done, since the map is not made yet... What do the people say? 3 or 4 players on the tournament map?

Enigma:
Certainly. The restart is only viable if you are wiped out in the first 10-15 turns. After that it becomes more of an annoyance. As I said, I did not expect it to be a popular option.

[EternalSpark]

Hey TC, sign me up as Librarian.

Anything above or below would be uncivilized!

[Garth Vader]

If you can fit 4 players in a reasonable sized map that would be good.

I would be against larger home continents. If anything the home continents should be smaller. That would force players to expand to the polar continents which would help offset the disadvantages the conquest factions have with an island setup.

[Paul]

The four factions idea definately sounds good to me. And having continents out of jet range from each other would be a good idea. Having continents out of drop range is nice, but you could still use X-jets or X-choppers to just obliterate your opponents bases when you get Air Power.

[Viriato]

OK Tau Ceti. You can put me in the transcend group.

What exactly is going to be the diference in the starting techs?

Garth Vader: you have a point there; I guess I can live with the small islands setup.

[Tau Ceti]

Paul: putting continents out of jet range would make the map very big, with a lot of quite useless ocean. And then the issue becomes putting them outside chopper range, which is quite a bit longer again. Such distances would also kill all hopes of an amphibious invasion, at least until Doctrine: Initiative. So I think out of drop range will have to do for the tournament map.

(If you know your opponent is out of drop range anyway then you do not really need garrisons in your cities, so you could leave them empty to prevent gassing.)

Viriato: Noted. Let me know if and when you want more games than the two you already have.

The new starting tech system is that everyone starts with the starting techs of all the factions in that particular game, so for example if the factions are Gaians, Morgan and Hive, they all start with Centauri Ecology, Industrial Base and Doctrine: Loyalty.

[Paul]

You are probably right that the map would be too big. But I think it should definately have 4 players and coop victory.

[EternalSpark]

Is there any way to eliminate the use of Gas Pods? Cuz like, many people have posted here saying something about how its simple to end the game by gassin'.

[Tau Ceti]

Sure, that is a simple alpha(x).txt edit, and can be done if enough people think it is a good idea. It would certainly change the game, but I am not sure it would necessarily be for the better...

A few other tidbits:
I am considering changing the communications setting so that human players can only contact each other once they have obtained each other's commlink frequencies by normal means on the random and Planet maps. Are there any opinions on/objections to this?

Is anyone interested in the leader reports? The data I have is quite incomplete, but if there is any demand, I can post what I have...

[Enigma]

On a 4 player map gas pods would be much less of an issue, and with 3 AI's around it would be even more difficult for a player to dedicate 100% of their resources to making gas bombers/choppers. It does not make a huge difference to me either way.

[Tau Ceti]

I will be away until next Tuesday (the 25th), but if anyone wants to reach me, send an email to tauc@hotmail.com . I will not be checking as often as I use to, but probably at least once a day. The tournament map will be delayed for at least that long. Sorry for the inconvenience.
[This message has been edited by Tau Ceti (edited April 20, 2000).]

[Viriato]

I totally agree with restricting comms until contact has been made.

About the use of gas pods I'm against eliminating it. Gas pods are part of the game and come with a price in commerce. With 4 players the pennalties hurt more. Besides there are ways of minimizing gas attacks like using minds worms as defenders. Or even researching better armor. An AAA silksteel garrison in a base with PD and AC is not easy to destroy.

I'm not sure if the map has place for 3 AI factions but if it can be made I'm not against it.

When I proposed 4 players I was not thinking in cooperative victory. In my opinion that should only be considered in games with the 7 factions to make it harder to achieve.

[Misotu]

I quite like the idea of co-op victory, especially in a tournament. It adds an extra strategic dimension to the game, in terms of pacting. And when the maps etc are random, it means that you always have one more option to avoid complete defeat if your starting position and the breaks really go against you ...

Why not? Keeps things interesting ...