Haa, I always thought zombies eat the dead too, aren't those they ones they use in all those scary walking dead type movies, zombies that chase you down to eat your flesh and turn you into one of them. (Shivers!) [:O]

quote:Originally posted by RexxCrow

Yea' but all that back breaking hardwork and dedication, just for a crummy stalemate!! Thats gotta peeve you though, at least for the by standers; if you did that in boxing ya'll would get gaffled!! [B)][B)][B)] heh


Actually it didn't bother me at all. I played part of one day - no action and left. When I came back there was a new corp that had been playing. I think they worked a lot harder than I did - the alien planet bug helped them a lot (sorry to those that use this method, but to me it is still a bug).

               / Promethius / Enigma / Wolfen /

"A man who has no skills can be taught, a man who has no honor has nothing."

quote:Originally posted by RexxCrow

Xen, I agree that SysOp/GameOps should be 100% able decide how and what to do with the games information as related to their own server. I just wanted to throw that out there to clarify that, if certian types of information is not handled correctly it could jeopardize the integrity of the game. By giving out to much information, certain players will gain an unfair advantage over others, etc. That would then become an abuse of information by those players, but ultimately it should be left up to the individual SysOp/GameOp to make that decision on their own. As it would also be left to the SysOp/GameOp to determine what qualifies players to be in the lead and when to declare a final winner.

Giving out "too much" information would change the dynamics of the game a great deal, but it couldn't be considered an "unfair advantage" or "abuse of information" since that info would be available to all players equally. Of course, the fact a statistics screen was available and where it is would have to be very clear so no player could cry foul about it.

Would knowing exactly how many citadels and what levels they are each player in the game owns change the way you play? Of course! Would it be unfair as long as everyone had access to the same exact information? Nope.

quote:Originally posted by Xentropy

What I don't understand is why players don't know when to just walk away. If you know you won the game, you own every asset and everyone else is #SD#,

Well, if he's talking about the player I think he's talking about, he's still tramatized from the last time we walked away thinking we'd won a game. lol

Xen, the V screen will already tell you how many citadels there are in game, though admittedly it doesn't tell you their levels.

quote:Originally posted by Psion

Xen, the V screen will already tell you how many citadels there are in game, though admittedly it doesn't tell you their levels.

Not by player either, which is the whole point of scoring. The V screen isn't really relevant to this convo because the data available isn't comprehensive enough to serve in this context.

The idea would be to list PER PLAYER and/or PER CORP statistics. Like:

Hmmm. Usually I play till the enemy has no cits left, or I have no cits left. If I own all the cits, then I start blowing all the ports. I start with the MSL ports, then the port pairs (XSB's, then SXB's), then all the XXB's. At the same time I also setup a 5-50k off fig wall around the msl's first, then I try to have a fig in every sector. Figs in every sector but the MSL's means that new players spawn inside fed (if they didn't already). Then I check on it once a week till it rebangs. Eventually, the sysop rebangs.

Psion and I had to go through this process quite recently. We only really had to kill the MSL ports, and ring them with big fig piles. Oh, and we had to put the fig in every sector. I knew the sysop would get around to it. Took a bit longer than usual, but once it was locked down, it didn't require any intervention on our part. It only takes about a day's turns to lock down a game if you got the resources to do it.

If you don't have the resources to keep it locked down, then you haven't won. If it looks like a stalemate, then you gotta talk to the enemy and work something out. If they don't want to be reasonable, then I just walk. I only play with and against reasonable people. Some people get their jollies off playing the endless stalemate game, or the "I'm more stubborn than thou" game. Not me. I hate playing stalemates. I say **** 'em if they don't wanna be reasonable. I wouldn't play a face to face game with an asstard like that, so why the hell would I want to play an internet game with someone like that? Same thing goes with the sysop. If the sysop doesn't respond in a reasonable manner, then I just vote with my feet. Once I've banned a server, then I don't give a flying rat's what happens once I leave. It's not like I leave anything around for new players to take from me.

quote:Originally posted by Xentropy

quote:Originally posted by Psion

Xen, the V screen will already tell you how many citadels there are in game, though admittedly it doesn't tell you their levels.

Not by player either, which is the whole point of scoring. The V screen isn't really relevant to this convo because the data available isn't comprehensive enough to serve in this context.

The idea would be to list PER PLAYER and/or PER CORP statistics. Like:




If I see that you have only level 4 planets, then I know I can ptorp attack your base without any problem. If I see you have a level 5, I know I will probably get hit by a cannon, and if I survive I can moth it without worrying about the PIG. If I see you have level 6, then I know the PIG may be active and can play accordingly. Also, generally, the higher level the planet the more ore there should be on it - depending on the edits of course.

Uncertainty about what the other player has is part of the game and part of what makes it a fun game to play. During the actual game, I really don't want my adversaries to know what my resources are. If they really want to know, they can come and try to take them

               / Promethius / Enigma / Wolfen /

"A man who has no skills can be taught, a man who has no honor has nothing."

You can tell whether a player's planets are lvl 5 or 6 by whether they're <<< SHIELDED >>> in sector, so that's a pretty moot point. Anyway, once again, it would CHANGE the game, but I don't think it would necessarily be an entirely bad change. Knowing for 100% certain who is ahead could encourage the people further down the list to ally against the top corp and give them a better run for their money. Various other stats could also be tracked, such as known sector %ages, and give people some miscellaneous things to compete over.

Once again, it'd be up to the sysop and if you don't think there's any redeeming quality to having visible stats, you could just avoid those hosts. I'm sure given how adverse to change most TW players are, very few hosts would use such an option.

quote:Originally posted by Xentropy

You can tell whether a player's planets are lvl 5 or 6 by whether they're <<< SHIELDED >>> in sector, so that's a pretty moot point. Anyway, once again, it would CHANGE the game, but I don't think it would necessarily be an entirely bad change. Knowing for 100% certain who is ahead could encourage the people further down the list to ally against the top corp and give them a better run for their money. Various other stats could also be tracked, such as known sector %ages, and give people some miscellaneous things to compete over.


True on the ID of the lvl 5+ cits if you are looking at their base, however knowing their resources would change the way I look at attacking and doing a few other things. You would also possibly get an idea of what planet types the other corp is building by the progression of the cit levels (depending on the edits and how well you knew them). I simply feel that during the game, resources should be known only to that corp. I would not give out information to a competitor on what resources I have during the game.

As for megacorping against the top corp I personally feel that is pretty lame. Corps are set for a specified number of players and megacorping defeats that setting. It could turn into a 3 man corp vs what would be essentially a 6 or even 9 man corp.

You are correct in the option of players avoiding games where sysOps give out strategic information to all players. I have definite game types I avoid -- any with delays in ship movement set (why make pdrops so easy or simulate a laggy server?).

Tradewars is a game of strategy and giving out information on resources would appear to take away from that because it eliminates an unknown. Players usually know when they are getting their butts kicked in a game - either because they are getting podded/SD or because the other corp is gridding at will and protecting that grid. If I look at the "v" screen and see there are a couple of mil figs in the game and I have 100k and there are only two other corps, then I know I am in trouble.

               / Promethius / Enigma / Wolfen /

"A man who has no skills can be taught, a man who has no honor has nothing."

TradeWars is very much a game of increasing returns. Rich get richer, basically. Without "megacorping" (a very disparaging term for an alliance--diplomacy is strategy to me), the corp who pulls out ahead early is pretty much destined to win unless they make a stupid mistake or stop trying hard enough.

In that game where you have only 100k figs, alright. Do you just quit, or do you stick around to try to do some damage to someone to have a little fun and maybe change the outcome of the game? Who do you attack? Whoever pays you better? Or maybe you favor the underdog and look up the stats, ahh one of those two corps has 1.2M figs and the other has only 800k. Let's attack the 1.2M fig guy and at least make a difference to the game even if we're destined to lose!

>shrugs< I just see as many increases to strategy as decreases. Yes, intelligence operations would become less useful (though you still wouldn't have any idea about the locations of anything, just that they're out there somewhere), but diplomacy would be enhanced, players at the bottom could at least compete over some secondary statistic ("HA! I got 15.3% of the universe explored before the corp managed to #SD# me and lockout the game, you only got 13.2%!") instead of just quitting because there's only a very black and white "win or lose" right now instead of having a 2nd, 3rd, etc. place to compete for, and so on.

And of course at the end of the game (especially a stalemate) the stats would help guarantee everyone can agree on a winner and runners up. At least, more so than they do now. [;)]

quote:Originally posted by Xentropy

TradeWars is very much a game of increasing returns. Rich get richer, basically. Without "megacorping" (a very disparaging term for an alliance--diplomacy is strategy to me), the corp who pulls out ahead early is pretty much destined to win unless they make a stupid mistake or stop trying hard enough.

In that game where you have only 100k figs, alright. Do you just quit, or do you stick around to try to do some damage to someone to have a little fun and maybe change the outcome of the game? Who do you attack? Whoever pays you better? Or maybe you favor the underdog and look up the stats, ahh one of those two corps has 1.2M figs and the other has only 800k. Let's attack the 1.2M fig guy and at least make a difference to the game even if we're destined to lose!

>shrugs< I just see as many increases to strategy as decreases. Yes, intelligence operations would become less useful (though you still wouldn't have any idea about the locations of anything, just that they're out there somewhere), but diplomacy would be enhanced, players at the bottom could at least compete over some secondary statistic ("HA! I got 15.3% of the universe explored before the corp managed to #SD# me and lockout the game, you only got 13.2%!") instead of just quitting because there's only a very black and white "win or lose" right now instead of having a 2nd, 3rd, etc. place to compete for, and so on.

And of course at the end of the game (especially a stalemate) the stats would help guarantee everyone can agree on a winner and runners up. At least, more so than they do now. [;)]


When you are outgunned, about the only thing you can do is become a thorn in someone's side. I would probably try and build my resources some and then see who I could take out or who takes me out with a fight.

I have no problem with an asset report at the end of a game to determine the winners of close games. Ahab evidently had one based on a post in a rebang thread in the last couple of days. I just do not want my capabilities advertised during the game.

Megacorping is meant to be disparaging since it means two or more corps creating an alliance to take out another corp. To me, megacorping is on par with duping and possibly worse. The megacorp can moth more than a normal corp due to the number of players. The megacorps assets would eventually wear down the corp they are against, provided the skill levels are roughly equal.

               / Promethius / Enigma / Wolfen /

"A man who has no skills can be taught, a man who has no honor has nothing."

How do you propose a corporation with half the assets of another corporation compete? Just fight a losing battle or quit the game? I'd rather find allies and actually have a fair fight.

The difference in my mind between a megacorp and an alliance is a megacorp specifically decides when the game rebangs that they're going to be allied no matter what. That's just imbalancing because it dodges the # of players per corp rule unfairly. However, an alliance forms days AFTER the game has been running based on who needs to join up to give the leaders a run for their money. Alliances are more fluid, and less assured. What happens if the alliance succeeds and you take out the top player? Oops, now you and your ally are the top players in the game, and it's only a matter of time before you turn on each other...

quote:Originally posted by Xentropy

How do you propose a corporation with half the assets of another corporation compete? Just fight a losing battle or quit the game? I'd rather find allies and actually have a fair fight.

The difference in my mind between a megacorp and an alliance is a megacorp specifically decides when the game rebangs that they're going to be allied no matter what. That's just imbalancing because it dodges the # of players per corp rule unfairly. However, an alliance forms days AFTER the game has been running based on who needs to join up to give the leaders a run for their money. Alliances are more fluid, and less assured. What happens if the alliance succeeds and you take out the top player? Oops, now you and your ally are the top players in the game, and it's only a matter of time before you turn on each other...


A corp with half the assets of another corp can still compete. I have been in a number of games where we had probably less than half the assets of another corp. We were able to SD them in ship-to-ship and it wasn't long after that, that their assets were ours.

I will agree that alliances are not too solid sometimes unless they are players that you have corped with or played against in the past. I have a hard time, however in accepting two corps against one that would double the capabilities against the single corp. Each corp has the same options available to them in the game to allow them to win. A possibility exists that the corp that is playing against the multiple corps that are against them would simply recruit another corp to come in.

               / Promethius / Enigma / Wolfen /

"A man who has no skills can be taught, a man who has no honor has nothing."

True, and that's part of what makes the playing field even. The top corp could recruit allies just as much as the corps further down the list. Everybody loves an underdog, but they also like to be on the winning side, so diplomacy can get thorny sometimes.

I just find the "every corp for themselves" mentality to be limiting. If alliances are absolutely forbidden, it's almost impossible to make up for a disadvantage against a decent opponent. I'm surprised you pulled off #SD#ing an entire enemy corp with that much of a head start on you. I suppose it happens, but it sounds like they just weren't as careful as they should have been; maybe their resources made them too arrogant and they didn't think anything could happen to them. [:)] Or maybe they were just good at cashing/building but not at combat?

At any rate, I can see both sides of the coin. I'd just enjoy trying out a few games with publically listed assets to see how they turn out. Listing exact citadel counts may not be worthwhile, but perhaps a net worth and a few other very basic stats wouldn't be too far out of line.