|
|
|
|
|
August 30th, 2007, 02:03 AM
|
|
Colonel
|
|
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Dallas, Tx
Posts: 1,712
Thanks: 0
Thanked 3 Times in 2 Posts
|
|
Re: Placeholder for new Megagame - Evermore
The next change from the last game is that there will be an set end point (if not reached earlier).
I'm thinking the game will end at 125. People can keep playing if they'd like, but the score would be over.
Points would be an average of total provinces held over either the last 25 or 15 turns. In the unlikely event of a tie we will average in the previous turn before official scoring... and keep doing so until a winner is clear.
This would mean there would be a definitive end date for the game.
Say the game begins Oct 1st. Assuming we switch to 48 hour turns on turn 25 and 72 hour turns on turn 65 the game will go on for no longer than 285 days (approximately 9 months). More than likely this will end sometime before that (7-8 months?) due to quick hosts, or an outright win by the surrendering of the other players.
Discussion on the victory conditions, game length is welcome.
|
August 30th, 2007, 02:42 AM
|
|
Major General
|
|
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Columbus, OH
Posts: 2,204
Thanks: 67
Thanked 49 Times in 31 Posts
|
|
Re: Placeholder for new Megagame - Evermore
I would prefer to just let the players playing decide if they want to continue. I don't see the advantage of a arbitrary victory condition.
Jazzepi
|
August 30th, 2007, 07:33 AM
|
Corporal
|
|
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 50
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
|
|
Re: Placeholder for new Megagame - Evermore
It's good to know as a player what turn you should head for, so to speak. It makes it easier to plan ahead, and give some merit to holding out the last few turns if you are dying
|
August 30th, 2007, 09:29 AM
|
|
Colonel
|
|
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Dallas, Tx
Posts: 1,712
Thanks: 0
Thanked 3 Times in 2 Posts
|
|
Re: Placeholder for new Megagame - Evermore *DELETED*
Post deleted by Velusion
|
August 30th, 2007, 09:39 AM
|
National Security Advisor
|
|
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Oxford, UK
Posts: 5,921
Thanks: 194
Thanked 855 Times in 291 Posts
|
|
Re: Placeholder for new Megagame - Evermore
Wrong thread Velusion? Seems a bit premature.
|
August 30th, 2007, 09:49 AM
|
|
Colonel
|
|
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Dallas, Tx
Posts: 1,712
Thanks: 0
Thanked 3 Times in 2 Posts
|
|
Re: Placeholder for new Megagame - Evermore
Quote:
llamabeast said:
Wrong thread Velusion? Seems a bit premature.
|
Heh - yep wrong thread.
|
August 30th, 2007, 11:58 AM
|
Sergeant
|
|
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Poznań, Poland
Posts: 340
Thanks: 1
Thanked 5 Times in 4 Posts
|
|
Re: Placeholder for new Megagame - Evermore
I'm working on a map generator, one that takes any existing image file and tries to make Dom3 map out of it. Wraparound can be enabled separately for both x nad y axis.
Would you be interested in a map made from Blue Marble NASA pictures? I'll attach a half size image so you can see what i mean.
|
August 30th, 2007, 12:04 PM
|
Lieutenant General
|
|
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: New Orleans
Posts: 2,741
Thanks: 21
Thanked 28 Times in 17 Posts
|
|
Re: Placeholder for new Megagame - Evermore
I am not a fan of the wrap around. Sure it is an advantage to start in a corner-or is it? In my area of the map NW Corner the race in the corner(MA Caelum) was one of the 1st killed because other races wanted to be in the corner.
Typically races not in a corner will fight towards the corner or edge.
I think the race selection process is much more determinative of one's fate than a corner.
MA Ulm or EA Lanka-you decide.
__________________
"War is an art and as such is not susceptible of explanation by fixed formula."
- General George Patton Jr.
|
August 30th, 2007, 12:22 PM
|
Lieutenant General
|
|
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: New Orleans
Posts: 2,741
Thanks: 21
Thanked 28 Times in 17 Posts
|
|
Re: Placeholder for new Megagame - Evermore
No arbitrary winning conditions. People that start out with more challenged races need more time to amass provinces than races like LA Ermor/EA Lanka/LA Ryleh etc.
To give the more balanced races a fighting chance to win, there cannot be a race to reach a certain number of provinces by a certain turn.
If players get bored after 9 months, they can resign or go ai.
__________________
"War is an art and as such is not susceptible of explanation by fixed formula."
- General George Patton Jr.
|
August 30th, 2007, 01:05 PM
|
|
Shrapnel Fanatic
|
|
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Vacaville, CA, USA
Posts: 13,736
Thanks: 341
Thanked 479 Times in 326 Posts
|
|
Re: Placeholder for new Megagame - Evermore
Personally Ive always liked multiple winning conditions for a game like this. The way that some other games allow. Something like
A) xxx number of Provinces
B) xx of Forts
C) xxxxx Income
D) xxxxx Gem Income
E) xxxxxx Research
F) xxxx Dominion
G) xxxxx Army Size
H) xx Victory Points
I) xx ownership of uniques
J) casting a particularly difficult to reach/hold global
Also maybe something like "no winner for the first 100 turns" and "must fill 4 of the above conditions".
I like that a game setting like that can open the door for many strategies including turtling, or rush-research. And making an unexpected grouping of lesser conditions to slip by others expectations.
Gandalf Parker
__________________
-- DISCLAIMER:
This game is NOT suitable for students, interns, apprentices, or anyone else who is expected to pass tests on a regular basis. Do not think about strategies while operating heavy machinery. Before beginning this game make arrangements for someone to check on you daily. If you find that your game has continued for more than 36 hours straight then you should consult a physician immediately (Do NOT show him the game!)
|
Thread Tools |
|
Display Modes |
Linear Mode
|
Posting Rules
|
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
HTML code is On
|
|
|
|
|