Re:Massively Multiplayer Offline Games - 2006/11/30 15:24Onyx Verde wrote: schubi wrote: After us getting confused and quick help from AgentZero and OnyxVerde on #eve-ccg ( it was all Zack, honest! I seriously cant take any credit, in fact I reckon my only contribution was to increase the general confusion
Don't be so modest. You lent gravitas to the proceedings. Zack Walters EVE: The Second Genesis Organized Play Coordinator White Wolf | CCP North America
The administrator has disabled public write access.
Post edited by: Onyx Verde, at: 2006/11/30 16:41============================ "There is always Hope...." - Elessar Telcontar ============================
The administrator has disabled public write access.
schubi
User Battlecruiser
Posts: 262
Re:Massively Multiplayer Offline Games - 2006/11/30 21:49well confusing us more or not, the fact remains that you two helped us out at about 1 a.m. and that was really nice of you
The administrator has disabled public write access.
-------------------------------------------------------------- Free For All Rules: 1. Seats are chosen at random and the order of turns is clockwise from the beginning player. 2. The player who begins does not skip his or her first draw phase. 3. When a player is eliminated from the game, the following steps must be taken: I. All of that player's cards are removed from play, except outer regions and locations in outer regions. II. If any other player had ships located in the eliminated player’s home region, he or she must withdraw them. Optional Variations
Range: A range of one means that you may warp only into the regions of the players sitting next to you. A range of two extends your reach to two seats on either side.
Predator & Prey: The player to your left is your prey; you get a reward when your prey is eliminated. The player to your right is your predator. Once you have eliminated your prey, the next player in line becomes your prey. Eliminating your prey: When the prey is eliminated, the predator takes the prey's starbase and adds it to his own as a starbase structure with income +2. Then the predator draws 2 cards.
Alliance Play Alliance Play is a team-based multiplayer format. 1. Each alliance has one turn where all the members of the alliance have to go through the phases and steps together. 2. Priority within the alliance goes from left to right, with each member making as many plays as he wishes before passing priority. Priority is passed around until no player wants to make any more plays. 3. Members of an alliance may speak to each other, gesture, whisper and communicate in any way they want about the game and their strategies. 4. Each alliance has only one home region, where each member has one starbase. 5. Although each player has a starbase, their total shield values are combined during the resolution step of a battle in their region. 6. Players may not share their ISK with alliance members. 7. Players may warp into friendly regions controlled by other players and stay there. This is not considered an attack and control of the region does not change hands. 8. Ships with the trade command may trade in all friendly regions. --------------------------------------------------------------
Do you guys have anything to add before these become the official rules?Tallest Content Manager and Super Administrator (SUPER Administrator!!!) EVE: The Second Genesis
The administrator has disabled public write access.
schubi
User Battlecruiser
Posts: 262
Re:Massively Multiplayer Offline Games - 2006/12/11 10:39This pretty much sums it up. Nice to see that our feedback is taken seriously While you are at it, you might add the mini master rules aswell to that section. If they are of any interest.
The administrator has disabled public write access.
DTee
User Cruiser
Posts: 222
Re:Massively Multiplayer Offline Games - 2006/12/11 12:51This is going to sound negative but is motivated by a desire to make a really interesting multi-player format (honest).
Free for All is last man standing which is heavily biased towards slow decks and (if you play with decks specifically designed for multi-player) can stagnate horribly.
Range Not being able to attack regions which are locking you down (e.g. Stain) is really bad. Not being able to defend your regions by threatening to attack your opponent's starbase is also bad.
Personally I'd like to see:
Rewards for combat whenever you destroy an enemy ship or starbase structure, draw a card. Otherwise players who avoid interacting get too much of an advantage.
An alternate victory condition There should be another way of winning that avoids the game stagnating but is out of the reach of rush decks.
I've previously suggested a neutral tower* which anyone who destroys instantly wins the game. If a player controls the neutral tower's region you shouldn't be able to attack their starbase. This allows a player to defend against fast decks without having to devide their fleet in two.
As a general rule I'd like to see "you may skip your card draw to gain 1 isk". This helps balance out the start player's advantage and creates an interesting strategic choice for later turns.
DTee
* I'm not sure how high the tower's shields need to be but I'd imagine it's between 10 and 20.
The administrator has disabled public write access.
schubi
User Battlecruiser
Posts: 262
Re:Massively Multiplayer Offline Games - 2006/12/11 13:15while we played with range we made the house rule, that no cards from players out of reach effect us. But i'm not sure this is a solid rule. It needs more testing for sure.
And after many FFA i can add that the one, who makes the move to kill someoens starbase gets knocked out one round later by someone who hasnt lost ships, kamikaze is not so good for multiplayer
Post edited by: schubi, at: 2006/12/11 13:17
The administrator has disabled public write access.
stevetheone
User Battlecruiser
Posts: 540
Re:Massively Multiplayer Offline Games - 2006/12/11 17:08I have played in a few 4 player games and we have played that outer regions and locations remain in play and you can target any one. This has worked fine but the games have gone on for a while as each player attempts to gain enough of an advantage that they can take out one player and not get wiped by the next player.
In truely large multi-players (6+) I would suggest playing by the same rules used in Warlord Battle Royal. You can only attack players immediately to your left and right. Global effects remain global and you can target any player with instants (News) as well. Outer Regions should remain unique (and therefore very hot property) and only can be targeted by players to the left and right. If there are over 10 players you have 2 players active at the same time (ie with 11 players player 1 and player 6 would both play cards before passing to player 2 and player 7 respectively).We shall seed the stars with our scions and reap that harvest.
No expect the Spam, spam, spam, spam...
The administrator has disabled public write access.
Post edited by: Onyx Verde, at: 2006/12/12 14:32============================ "There is always Hope...." - Elessar Telcontar ============================
The administrator has disabled public write access.
Tallest
Admin Admin
Posts: 113
Re:Massively Multiplayer Offline Games - 2006/12/12 14:25DTee wrote: Rewards for combat An alternate victory condition you may skip your card draw to gain 1 isk
Sounds like we got ourselves a new format. Any suggestions as to what the rewards and alternate victory should be? We also need a name...
stevetheone wrote: In truely large multi-players (6+) I would suggest playing by the same rules used in Warlord Battle Royal. You can only attack players immediately to your left and right. Global effects remain global and you can target any player with instants (News) as well. Outer Regions should remain unique (and therefore very hot property) and only can be targeted by players to the left and right.
That sounds like an excellent format for the larger multiplayer games, where restrictions are needed to prevent utter chaos.
I think we should keep the basic free for all as simple as possible. That way, we have some sort of basic multiplayer rules that we can use as a point of reference for other formats and multiplayer variants.
If you have an idea for a new format, let's discuss it on the forums, and as soon as the rules for the format are complete, I'll post the format in the multiplayer rules section.Tallest Content Manager and Super Administrator (SUPER Administrator!!!) EVE: The Second Genesis
The administrator has disabled public write access.
atomweaver
User Scout
Posts: 2
Re:Massively Multiplayer Offline Games - 2006/12/12 20:10Ryuteki wrote: Here's my suggestion: "When the prey is eliminated, the predator takes the preys starbase and adds it to his own as a starbase structure with income +2. Then the predator draws 2 cards."
Hunh... interesting, that.
Question, do folks think there should be any added value in multi-predator-prey to taking out a non-prey? I like giving the predator bonus income rather than bonus ISK, that has a nice feel to it... but should the actual attacker gain some sort of salvage bonus for being the active attacker, or is the possibility of withdrawing to a previously occupied region bonus enough?
Disclaimer: I haven't actually played Multiplayer Eve of any sort yet, so I'm just speculating on the impact based on 2player eve and other multiplayer ccgs.
Hi all, first post here. I'm a long time VTES player and EVE newbie, so I'll only comment on what effect that has within VTES. I've played a bunch of VTES where we tweaked the rules such that the person attacking/ousting the defeated player gained an in-game benefit, and found that it basically altered the game back into a free-for-all type format. Pred/Prey works best by offering limited, but not entirely restricted, player interaction. This leads to some negotiative elements to the game; temporary alliances with the prey's prey (grand-prey) and the predator's predator (grand-pred) being common, until someone is ousted from the table. But ultimately, negotiation is not so heavy, that the game degenerates into pure negotiation (ala Diplomacy). Pred/prey works well thematically for representing Machiavellian politics. Alliances and relationships come and go, changing with the game state and prevalence/power of the players. Seems like a good fit for the corporate power plays of EVE, at a first look.
Since multiplayer is the main way VTES is played competitively, there are some extra provisions that you have to put into tournament rules, to make sure people play towards the objectives of the game (Play to Win) and not towards out of game considerations. I'm sure Oscar (VTES OrgPlay) and Zack have talked about that some. That might be worth talking about a bit, wrt EVE multiplayer rules.
$0.02
Regards DaveZ Atom Weaver
The administrator has disabled public write access.
To attack a player you must declare war on them, To declare war you must pay 1 isk per turn, hostilities may not commence until after the end of your turn. If you don't pay the fee at the start of your turn for an existing war, the war is canceled, hostilities can continue until the start of your next turn.
Alliances: Players may form alliances. To form an alliance each player must pay 1 isk per turn. All wars must now be paid by each memeber of an alliance. Players in an alliance cannot be individually targeted for a war all wars are now against the alliance.
Players in an alliance now share the same 'turn' alternating phases within that turn, however, all players in an alliance share a battle phase. Players ships may occupy the same regions (and don't have to withdraw at the end of a turn) The controlling player of a region is the last player to have been the sole occupant of that region.
I have not tested this at all, but it was an idea for a more free-for-all/political game.
Alliances probably should be limited to containing no more than 1/2 the number of players playing to try to keep some sort of fairness
The administrator has disabled public write access.
DTee
User Cruiser
Posts: 222
Re:Massively Multiplayer Offline Games - 2006/12/13 10:13Tallest wrote: DTee wrote: Rewards for combat An alternate victory condition you may skip your card draw to gain 1 isk
Sounds like we got ourselves a new format. Any suggestions as to what the rewards and alternate victory should be? We also need a name...
Ok, here's a full rules set.
Multiplayer Bandit* rules:
3 or 4 player: Each player must play a different faction. The turn order is races in alphabetical order followed by pirate clans in alphabetical order: Amarr, Caldari, Gallantee, Minmatar, Clan A, Clan B...
Bandit Pairs: Players of the same race form a team, sit opposite each other and do not count as opponents. Teams take their turns simultaniously but may not attack the same region.
Combat Reward: Whenever you destroy an enemy ship or starbase structure (without help from another player) you may draw a card or earn 2 isk.
Extra cards: Proxies for Inner Region and Neutral starbases are legal until one week after they get released.
Jita - Inner Region: Cost 1 Income 1 Locations 0 When Jita comes into play, any player may place the Jita Tower here. Your starbase may not be destroyed**. Ships are ambush -1 here.
Jita Tower: Neutral Starbase*** Shields 16 May not be placed if there is another neutral starbase in play. Any player may destroy the Jita Tower to win the game.
I'm currently planning to do two or three more sets of regions and towers but I'd like some feedback on how these work first.
DTee
* Which is in no way a reference to or plug for Fruit Bandits, published by JKLM games. ** Thematically this is because nobody can get to your home region without flying through Jita... *** Counts as one of your three towers
Post edited by: DTee, at: 2006/12/13 10:22
The administrator has disabled public write access.
AgentZero
Admin Admin
Posts: 410
Re:Massively Multiplayer Offline Games - 2006/12/13 15:54DTee wrote: Jita - Inner Region: Cost 1 Income 1 Locations 0 When Jita comes into play, any player may place the Jita Tower here. Your starbase may not be destroyed**. Ships are ambush -1 here.
Jita Tower: Neutral Starbase*** Shields 16 May not be placed if there is another neutral starbase in play. Any player may destroy the Jita Tower to win the game.
I'm currently planning to do two or three more sets of regions and towers but I'd like some feedback on how these work first.
** Thematically this is because nobody can get to your home region without flying through Jita... *** Counts as one of your three towers
I have a few questions about the way the Jita region and the way the Jita tower interacts with it.
1: You have Jita marked as an "Inner Region." Can any player still warp to it, or is it considered a Home Region once the tower is placed? How does it behave differently from an Outer Region?
2: What is the priority for placing the Jita tower once the region is played? I'm assuming the acting player gets dibs, but does it simply pass down the play order after that? Does the acting player's partner get priority after him/her?
3: What happens to the home region of the player who places the Jita tower? I know it can't be attacked, but is it still usable by its owner?
4: Where is the Jita tower kept before it is played? Is it simply an upgraded station that moves after being upgraded, or is it a different kind of card?
5: Any player can blow up the Jita tower to win the game. Does this include it's owner and their partner?
I really like this idea, I'm just a little confused about how it's supposed to work.
Post edited by: AgentZero, at: 2006/12/13 15:58Zack Walters EVE: The Second Genesis Organized Play Coordinator White Wolf | CCP North America
The administrator has disabled public write access.
DTee
User Cruiser
Posts: 222
Re:Massively Multiplayer Offline Games - 2006/12/13 16:21AgentZero wrote: I have a few questions about the way the Jita region and the way the Jita tower interacts with it.
1: You have Jita marked as an "Inner Region." Can any player still warp to it, or is it considered a Home Region once the tower is placed? How does it behave differently from an Outer Region?
Inner region is there so that you can't play certain locations there or trade/haul (higher cost ones may allow generic locations). Other than that it works exactly the same as an outer region.
2: What is the priority for placing the Jita tower once the region is played? I'm assuming the acting player gets dibs, but does it simply pass down the play order after that? Does the acting player's partner get priority after him/her?
Yes, but it doesn't matter as there is only one version of the tower and it makes no difference who places it (as long as someone does).
3: What happens to the home region of the player who places the Jita tower? I know it can't be attacked, but is it still usable by its owner?
Nobody controls the new tower (only the region - which is what protects your old tower) so your starting tower continues to work as normal and that's where you play cards.
4: Where is the Jita tower kept before it is played? Is it simply an upgraded station that moves after being upgraded, or is it a different kind of card?
It counts as one of your three towers and is kept with your unused regions/towers. So you'd only have two affiliated ones to choose from each game (I'm cruel like that).
5: Any player can blow up the Jita tower to win the game. Does this include it's owner and their partner?
The tower doesn't have a owner, it's neutral.
If you control the region then your fleet is protecting the tower from other players and you'd be able to fly additional ships in to destroy it.
This should give a big enough advantage for players to want to control the region. I've put the ambush -1 on there to make it harder to take this (cheap) one early and keep it for the whole game.
I really like this idea, I'm just a little confused about how it's supposed to work.
I always wondered how companies come up with really long FAQ sections. I guess they just show stuff to the organised play people
DTee
ps Feel free to make suggestions on making the cards more intuitive.
Post edited by: DTee, at: 2006/12/13 16:35
Post edited by: DTee, at: 2006/12/13 16:45
The administrator has disabled public write access.
it was all Zack, honest! I seriously cant take any credit, in fact I reckon my only contribution was to increase the general confusion 
