Decide the GOTM

[Black]

Throw ideas in here for a gotm. The most popular idea will get the blessing of the community and the creator can make the game thread.

My idea: I have a seed that I have played multiple times before that lends itself to a very quick game. If people are interested in a race, it could turn out to be exciting. The victory condition would be to beat the scenario in the smallest amount of time, as measured by the first autosave it makes after you win.

At the end of feb 1st, let's get the game up after deciding which would be the most fun.

[RCIX]

I know of no one using an MLRS ship (i bet few people even know the game has one), i think setting that up could lead to some interesting balance changes.

Provide 2x Lvl1 AIs but you can only spend your starting knowledge, fastest to destroying either homeworld wins.

[Kjara]

Ah, missed this topic when posting in the other:

Heres an idea I had(can be this month or a later month):




Heres a game with a slight twist, how many capturables can you take(and hold) before killing the ai?  To make it a bit more interesting I've chosen two diff 7 entrenched homeworld ai's, so there will be plenty of things to capture.  Note that human colony rebelions are on(more things to capture), and that waves are schizophrenic, so they will involve mixed troops.

Scoring:
This game will be self scored.  If you want to compete for score, you will need to provide two saves: one at the 5 hour mark, one at the end of the game.
To make it easy for the rest of us, a quick summary of your score at the end of your report would also be helpful.  Best score runs next months event.

Scoring Calculation is as follows:

20 points for winning(killing both ai home command stations).
2 points for each capturable you hold at the 5 hour mark
2 points for every capturable you hold at game's end(either your loss or the ai's)
1 point for each data center destroyed

-2 points per 100 ai progress at the end of the game.
-1 for every full hour played

Note that capturable in this case includes anything that transfers when you build a command station, that a player can't build for themself(it's too hard to keep track of the mkI research stations, starship constructors and missile silos).

Scoring example:
Victory : +20
3 ARS held at 5 hour mark : +6
5 ARS held at end of game : +10
2 Advanced Factories held at end of game : +4
2 Fabs held at 5 hour mark : +4
3 Fabs held at endof game : +6
4 Captive human settlement held at end of game : +8
3 Ion cannons held at end of game: +6
10 Data centers killed: +10

Ai Progress: 458: -8
Game ended at 12:32: -12

Total : 74-20 = 54

[Buttons840]

I'd like to see a simple random map vs random AI's (so you don't know what your up against).  Using the MRLS'es sounds good enough, I'm ok with that idea.

Again, there should be no save scrumming.  Please mention that in the game you decide to post.

I don't care for the elaborate victory conditions being proposed.  I believe the objective should always be to destroy the AI homeworlds.  Anyone who completes the campaign by destroying the AI homeworld should automatically be ranked higher than anyone who failed to destroy the AI homeworlds.  If multiple people defeat the ai (or multiple people fail), then we should define a secondary measurement system to rank these.  I propose using time as a secondary measure.  Amongst all the winners, the player who won quickest will be ranked highest.

When I suggested the GOTM my purpose was to have people play the same game and share experiences, not to bring about complex scoring systems which detract from the game itself.  Remember, it's not required that we rank the games.  If the community does enjoy the elaborate systems I would still try to participate, but I'd ignore the "ranking" and make my primary objective to destroy the AI homeworlds, as is always the case.

Especially for this first game I would like a very standard game.  60 to 80 maps, against AI's around difficulty 7, with most (or all) minor factions enabled, an auto AIP rate around 10 to 20 per hour.  If we want to rank, the quickest victory (measured by time) will be ranked highest; and a win is always greater than any loss.


(Your map sounds fine Black, assuming it has a large enough number of planets to keep things interesting?  Furthermore, you're most likely to win having "played [it] multiple times before."  And you would miss out on the true, make it up as we go, no save scrumming, experience that should come with the GOTM.)

[Black]

Right, I wouldn't participate in this month's 'event'. I just suggest this map because I have played it enough to know that it is interesting. Every gotm should have a host who has played the map to assure its quality. I think that's the best way to come up with a candidate. Look back at the maps you played the previous month for ones that stand out.

[Kjara]

Shrug, the point of my scoring system was to be that if someone didn't actually get victory(note that is worth a good number of points, could be shifted upward), they didn't really have a great chance of winning.   I can see your argument for having the first few be a bit more standard though.  

Anyhow, I feel that any secondary measure shouldn't be the point system, especially if we are going to do arbitrary multipliers whenever we feel like it (cough 5x for not doing f&d)--at least until its a bit more balanced.  Time to victory seems like an ok secondary measure, but honestly we are going to have to go to more complected schemes eventually if we want to keep it from getting stale.

Honestly I don't agree that the objective should always be to defeat the ai homeworlds.  Yes, it should usually be that and it should be hard to win without it, but when we start to limit ourselves like that, it kills the potential for interesting games.

To be honest, playing at diff 7 with no real special rules is a bit boring for me, without something to spice it up I imagine that those of us who are used to playing at a higher diff are going to lose interest rather quickly and if we want to interest new people, we can't really jump the diff up that fast.  You see complex scoring systems as detracting from the experience.  I see it as a way to have the game interest both new people and vets.  Honestly most of the complex scoring systems i can see would involve still killing the ai homeworlds but taking some sort of disadvantage for extra points(thus being able to tweak the difficulty to what becomes challenging to yourself).

Lastly, I'm not sure I'm a huge fan of choosing another somewhat underpowered unit for the GOTM.  Sure, if the point is to get x to look at and fix that unit, then go for it, but honestly if I was competing I would skip building that unit like I did the bulletproofs last game.  I'd suggest starting new people with a unit that we know is reasonable, say laser gatlings, deflector drones or something like that.

[RCIX]

In that vein, what about my second suggestion? Nice and simple, but with an added constraint to make it interesting!

Ok, here's the save game candidate; what do you all think?

A reposting of the rules (again, as a candidate): you may only use the initial 12000 knowledge you get, and you must destroy one of two homeworlds as quickly as possible.

After all, i did win the last one

[Lyrae]

Everyone is going to have a different idea, so perhaps the best way to do this might be like the DLC Nominations.  The last week of every month is nominations week.  The last day of the month is vote day, then we play.

I'm personally in the "just play the game" camp.  We don't need to worry about it getting stale or adding constraints for the first few.  So that would be my vote

[HellishFiend]

Everyone is going to have a different idea, so perhaps the best way to do this might be like the DLC Nominations.  The last week of every month is nominations week.  The last day of the month is vote day, then we play.

I'm personally in the "just play the game" camp.  We don't need to worry about it getting stale or adding constraints for the first few.  So that would be my vote

I may or may not participate in this, but I think I would be far more likely to take part if it were a "just play the game" map, like you say.  I think the whole point should be for everyone to share and compare their stories and paths to victory on a common map, as opposed to a highly restrictive meta-setup where the sole point is to have a "winner". For me, playing the game the way it was meant to be played is the way to go.

[RCIX]

Everyone is going to have a different idea, so perhaps the best way to do this might be like the DLC Nominations.  The last week of every month is nominations week.  The last day of the month is vote day, then we play.

I'm personally in the "just play the game" camp.  We don't need to worry about it getting stale or adding constraints for the first few.  So that would be my vote

That could work, but then how would it go for this month? first week is nominations/votes?

[Buttons840]

I could post the game I just started.  300 core raiders show up after about 8 minutes, even though I did nothing but scout.

[RCIX]

I could post the game I just started.  300 core raiders show up after about 8 minutes, even though I did nothing but scout.

Umm, no thanks. What about another of mine? Electric shuttles on a 25 planet map with a couple of 7 AIs; should be a nice decent fight!

[Excession]

I like the idea of the 21 wormhole map start and just seeing how long you can survive on what difficulty settings...

http://arcengames.com/forums/index.php/topic,3680.0.html

[Buttons840]

Not much discussion happening any more, so I suggest Black go ahead and post his game.

[Black]

Will do.