Forged Alliance Forever

Re: Credits and Persistant player assets

2013-02-07T23:21:46+02:00

I think credits (or points, whatever) could be used in a deployment phase of each battle, where players may place units only (in the case of the attacker) or units and structures (in the case of the defender). This would take place while the game is paused at the start, with some sort of countdown timer before action begins. Units or structures could be placed within the "no rush" radius around the players opening spot. The amount of points needed to place any particular unit would scale with the mass cost of the unit or structure. So lets say 1 point per 1 mass worth of unit.

Was the idea to make credits a player specific asset, or a faction wide asset? Would certain players be able to amass more points than others due to their actions? If so, what about the ability to transfer points to other members of your faction?

Statistics: Posted by Pathogenic — 07 Feb 2013, 23:21

Re: Credits and Persistant player assets

2013-02-03T20:32:22+02:00

The bases are more or less what you've described, maybe simplier to begin with.

Statistics: Posted by Ze_PilOt — 03 Feb 2013, 20:32

Re: Credits and Persistant player assets

2013-02-03T20:20:20+02:00

Ze_PilOt wrote:
I don't now what will be left from the original ideas.

I start from scratch and build it step by step, we will see where it goes.

Yeah, let's just get a working version out first... we can always add fancy stuff later. GW should be a complete meta-game, though.

Statistics: Posted by FunkOff — 03 Feb 2013, 20:20

Re: Credits and Persistant player assets

2013-02-03T20:04:27+02:00

These are really nice ideas and I would love to see them implemented, thanks for all the work you and thygrr did.

I'm a bit reluctant to make suggestions when ze_Pilot has so much more important stuff to do but I would like to see quantum gates being able to transport you off planet, as per dotswarlock . That way if you are losing the battle but are still able to escape you receive less of a penalty compared to when you are KIA. For instance, losing the attack but being able to escape results in losing 3 credits instead of 5.

Anyway, keep up the good work!

Statistics: Posted by drdeath — 03 Feb 2013, 20:04

Re: Credits and Persistant player assets

2013-02-03T19:29:20+02:00

Ah I understand better now. Your point system is really interesting because it forces the players of a team to conduct concerted actions, which is for me one of the main GW's feature.

However, they really have to listen each other because the amount of points is common to the whole faction. Having huge attack or defense forces is a choice opposed to the building the faction's game ender.

Anyway, keep up the good work, it's a good thing save some Zep's time !

Statistics: Posted by bouznak — 03 Feb 2013, 19:29

Re: Credits and Persistant player assets

2013-02-03T19:24:50+02:00

I don't now what will be left from the original ideas.

I start from scratch and build it step by step, we will see where it goes.

Statistics: Posted by Ze_PilOt — 03 Feb 2013, 19:24

Re: Credits and Persistant player assets

2013-02-03T19:09:41+02:00

bouznak wrote:
All of this sounds very good FunkOff. I don't know you were working with Ze_PilOt on the GW project.

The idea of the attack/defense levels are nice but I think it can badly unbalance the game if a team succeed in getting level 20+...

Maybe I'm wrong, you seem to have think about that stuff !

These were ideas and implementations Thygrr and I worked on. Zep originally pushed the project on us because zep was busy with other parts.

Regarding high level bases or strike forces, re-read the last paragraph: Diminishing returns + mandatory level decreases. It will cost, hypothetically, 7 credits to get a strike force from level 1 to level 4 (2 + 2 + 3), but 16 credits to get a base from from level 20 to level 23 (5 + 5 + 6), and if a level 4 strike force attacks a level 23 base, there is a mandatory drop of 4 levels from the base, (to level 19) even if the defending player wins. Therefore, attacking even in cases where you will lose the battle can be advantageous, and high-level strike forces/bases won't last long if there is a concerted effort by several enemy players to kill them.

Statistics: Posted by FunkOff — 03 Feb 2013, 19:09

Re: Credits and Persistant player assets

2013-02-03T19:01:08+02:00

All of this sounds very good FunkOff. I don't know you were working with Ze_PilOt on the GW project.

The idea of the attack/defense levels are nice but I think it can badly unbalance the game if a team succeed in getting level 20+...

Maybe I'm wrong, you seem to have think about that stuff !

Statistics: Posted by bouznak — 03 Feb 2013, 19:01

Credits and Persistant player assets

2013-02-03T18:43:22+02:00

Two ideas that were central to Galactic War's previous design were credits and player assets:
Credits would be obtained from player actions and from territory control. ie, 5 credits for attempting to defend against an enemy attack, 5 credits for defeating an enemy, 2 credits per planet under you control, per day. Credits would be used to perform other Galactic War actions, such as attacking (5 credit cost), or using special abilities, like firing the black sun to make UEF the victor of the Galactic War (1000 credits or some such).

Also, credits would be utilized for persistent player assets. What are those? Essentially, they are mobile forces that can deploy with a commander to attack a world, and/or a base that the commander can use to defend a world. Persistent player assets would work like this: For a small cost (say, 2 credits), a player would build a small outpost (1 land factory) on a planet they own. They would have the option to upgrade this for additional credits (3 credits to add 2 mex, 2 pgens, and a T1 radar) with diminishing returns (benefit per additional credit). This base would remain on the planet it was built on until the base is attacked. Any player on the faction of the player that built it could use the base in a defensive action. IE, another faction attacks that planet, the defender starts the game with that small base.

Attacking forces would work similarly, but have two separate costs: Construction and gating. For example, 1 credit would build a small raiding force strike group (2 scouts, 3 tanks) on a planet controlled by the player's faction. Like bases, strike groups can be upgraded, with diminishing returns. For 1 additional credit, the player could gate these forces in, along-side the commander in an attack. In this way, asymmetric battles can be created, potentially with low-skill players (who strategize in GW) defeating high skill players (with a weaker GW strategy).

Also, to prevent the snow-ball effect of invincible bases or strike forces eclipsing everything else in value, actions with or against persistent assets will always damage them. For example, if a level 1 attack is a lone ACU, and a level 7 attack is an ACU with a tech 2 strike force, a defender with a level 14 base will always take 7 levels of damage, even if the attack fails. Thus, a level 14 base would be reduced to level 7. If a level 7 base were attacked 7 times by lone commanders, and was victorious each time, it would still be destroyed unless rebuilt in-between battles.

Also, it should be noted that many months ago, Thygrr and I nearly perfected the code to put this in game, essentially allowing custom units to be spawned in, as determined by the GW server. This would allow players to customize the units/structures they want (tanks or artillery, pgens or mex) rather than forcing strict upgrade paths.

Statistics: Posted by FunkOff — 03 Feb 2013, 18:43