PBW Hate everyone game - join now

[Ruatha]

With "Tesco Rules" I'll join.
I like the "Hate everyone" rule best of all those rules stated in that post.

[Slynky]

Though I could be wrong, I think one of the attractions to KOTH (single) is speed. It holds a fairly high level of anticipation and games go fairly quickly. With 10 players, the game could go for quite a while (and you can forget having 10 players be on at the same time on a Saturday or Sunday).

Also, game winners are already influenced by varitions in luck. System location, breathables, etc. Having 10 players would, IMO, result in even more of a luck factor for a winner (and less skill).

Just my take on it without thinking really deeply.

[Ruatha]

One could create a "dull map" with every system the same with all systems having two warppoints.
Setting stating points as equally apart as possible (10 players, 10 systems?)

The more I think of it the more I like it, 1 system per player.
What to do, build only warships or colonize aswell?
We can make systems with many colonizable planets, all same atmosphere and say that so that all players choose same atmosphere.

[ August 04, 2003, 21:22: Message edited by: Ruatha ]

[Geckomlis]

I agree that trying to limit alliances is futile – multiplayer game theory and all that.

Seems to me we need to define two aspects of KOTH-Multiplayer (KOTH-M):

Game Setup and Rules:
Allow Gifts/Tributes = False
Allow Technology Gifts/Tributes = False
Allow Surrender = False
Can only send a General Message from the Communicate screen.

KOTH-M Structure and Rules:
Not sure about this. For example, say we start a game with 10 players at the Bottom of the Hill and the game concludes: Last man standing. Who moves up to the Middle of the Hill and who stays at the Bottom of the Hill? We need more than one player at the Middle of the Hill level to generate a game. I doubt we will have 10 Bottom of the Hill games to contribute their victors to the Middle of the Hill game – even Geo’s 2003 PBW tourney had only seven games of five players each (FYI: active KOTH players hovers around 30 +/- 2).

If we want 10+ player games, realistically we may get two going initially. They each contribute their top 5? players to the next level. So we get a two level hill…

[Geckomlis]

Originally posted by geoschmo:
I think David was more or less talking about a single game rather then a league, but I am sure we could come up with some alternative method of standings that could be used with multiplayer, no ally games.

Geoschmo

Yea, this seems like a good idea for a one-off PBW game, but not so good for a KOTH league. Geo, didn't you propose an alternative method of standings before? Something about using an external game service to track standings?

Gecko

[geoschmo]

Originally posted by Ruatha:
The more I think of it the more I like it, 1 system per player.
What to do, build only warships or colonize as well?
We can make systems with many colonizable planets, all same atmosphere and say that so that all players choose same atmosphere.

2024 game was pretty much one system per player. I think there were 3 or 4 extra systems total and 20 players. I was thinking this morning actually about a game with the same number of systems as players, and each system would have a warp point to all the other systems. There would be no way to defend all the warp points would there?

Originally posted by geckomlis:
Geo, didn't you propose an alternative method of standings before? Something about using an external game service to track standings?

Gecko

Yeah. Case's ladder. You could also do something simple in house like a simple reverse point system based on place order at the end of the game. Top of the hill would be teh player with the most points. And you could "age" the points so if you stop playing games you drift to the bottom.

Geoschmo

[Gozra]

Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:
There is not really much you can do to detect (or prevent) "unofficial alliances". You might not ever attack a particular empire because it is never advantageous to do so, and they might not attack you for the same reason. I know I would hate to be accused of having some sort of "unofficial alliance" just because I have not attacked a neighbor.

Also, if two players do form such an alliance, they can stage mock wars and battles just to keep up appearances of not having an alliance.

You got me to thinking every player puts 30$ in the pot and at the end of the game the Last man standing gets half the pot and PBW gets the other half. That may go a long way toward ending alliances and if it does not then PBW will win and we all win.

[ August 04, 2003, 22:01: Message edited by: Gozra ]

[Geckomlis]

2024 game was pretty much one system per player. I think there were 3 or 4 extra systems total and 20 players. I was thinking this morning actually about a game with the same number of systems as players, and each system would have a warp point to all the other systems. There would be no way to defend all the warp points would there?

Actually, I was kicking around an idea for a "civil war" PBW game. Any size/type map and everyone starts in the same system. Defend or expand? How about with a 3 or 10 planet start?

Gecko

[tesco samoa]

that would be nasty geo... 10 warp points to 10 other players... ( 10 planet start and no other planets )

[geoschmo]

Ok, you all tell me what you think of this.

Until someone comes up with a better name let's call it The L.M.S. League.

1. All player must join the league to join a game.
2. Players can be in as many games as they can handle.
3. As a player is knocked out, they report a loss to each player still remaining in the game.
4. Settings for games optional with a few exceptions: No treaties, No gifts/trades, No surrender, Small maps
   

The map thing could be handeled a couple ways. We could use premade maps, or designed quadrants that are planet heavy, or go totally random. In fact we can do all of the above and players will just join games setup the way they like.

The reporting a loss thing let's us use the automated ladder league that I mentioned a while back.

Do we think this would get enough players to make it worth doing?

Geoschmo

[ August 05, 2003, 01:16: Message edited by: geoschmo ]