Thanks for the speedy response, DTee! You cleared up everything for me, except for one point: How is the Jita tower included in the game? Is there one copy that's just set aside to be put into the Jita region when/if someone plays it? If this is the case, you could really just make one new card that did all of this.
Regardless of how this is set up, I can see it really favoring the Amarr once it gets rolling. They're always the first to act, gaining the initial advantage and first access to the region, and their defensive capabilities don't rely on ambush as much as the other races. In fact, with patrol unaffected by the region, and with the proven effectiveness of Tormentors and Punishers, an Amarr deck could move in quickly and just turtle for the win. In light of this, I'd suggest that the region be rewritten to reduce the effectiveness of all command abilities by 1.
Again, I like the idea, just trying to wrap my brain around it. Zack Walters EVE: The Second Genesis Organized Play Coordinator White Wolf | CCP North America
The administrator has disabled public write access.
Thanks for the speedy response, DTee! You cleared up everything for me, except for one point: How is the Jita tower included in the game?
In addition to their side deck, each player gets two spare towers and three spare regions. This counts as one of those two spare towers.
So when we introduce more of these, a player will have to start choosing between having multiple and being able to change their starting tower.
you could really just make one new card that did all of this.
I could. But this way leaves more options open for how other versions will work and I think that's worth the extra little bit of complexity.
Regardless of how this is set up, I can see it really favoring the Amarr once it gets rolling.
It's supposed to look like that. The way Amarr are designed to work isn't very well suited to multip-player, so they need the extra help.
an Amarr deck could move in quickly and just turtle for the win.
Try it but you've three guys looking to take you out so you'll find it's far harder to pull off than in two player. Even if you get your rediculous logistics ship out, it's unlikely to stay on the table long with Gallantee and Minmatar decks in the same game.
The alphabetical order may look a bit random, but I put a lot of thought into it.
DTee
Post edited by: DTee, at: 2006/12/14 10:34
The administrator has disabled public write access.
Jita - Outer Region - Starbase Income - 1 Shield - 16 Locations - 0 Your home region > starbase cannot be destroyed. When a player destroys Jita, he or she wins the game. During your turn, you may attack Jita as though it were an enemy starbase, except that you do not have to withdraw in the result step.
Since multiplayer is more of a casual format, I don't think the inclusion of a side deck is very appealing. Also, since Jita only costed 1 and anyone could play it, it might as well just start in play to simplify things.
AgentZero wrote: you could really just make one new card that did all of this. DTee wrote: ...this way leaves more options open for how other versions will work and I think that's worth the extra little bit of complexity. True enough, but couldn't you just play "Multiplayer Bandit - Jita" or "Multiplayer Bandit - Sobaseki" or "Multiplayer Bandit - Amamake"?
Post edited by: Tallest, at: 2006/12/14 13:28Tallest Content Manager and Super Administrator (SUPER Administrator!!!) EVE: The Second Genesis
The administrator has disabled public write access.
DTee
User Cruiser
Posts: 222
Re:Massively Multiplayer Offline Games - 2006/12/14 15:35Tallest wrote: I think the Jita part of the format is needlessly complex, so I suggest this instead.
Jita starts in play.
Jita - Outer Region - Starbase
I was trying to avoid using outer regions as the design team might be saving those for future sets but I guess you know more about that than me...
If it's going to be an outer region I suggest we rename it (Jita is in secure space). I'd go with:
Fountain - Outer Region - Starbase Cost 1 Income 1 Locations 0 Shields 16
Your home region starbase cannot be destroyed. Ships are ambush -1 here.
When a player destroys Fountain, they win the game. Any player may attack Fountain as if it was an enemy starbase which does not force players to withdraw.
Also, since Jita only costed 1 and anyone could play it, it might as well just start in play to simplify things.
I'd much rather give a tactical choice of which tower gets played to the players than increase the number of formats and give that choice to the TO.
If we want to combine the cards I'd suggest adding a rule that says only one can be played (rather than adding even more text to them).
With some locations giving stat bonuses in outer regions, it would be amusing to have:
Curse - Outer Region - Starbase Cost 2 Income 2 Locations 2 Shields 15
Your home region starbase cannot be destroyed. Whenever a location is played here, destroy all other locations here.
When a player destroys Curse, they win the game. Any player may attack Curse as if it was an enemy starbase which does not force players to withdraw.
And to complete the set (for now):
Branch - Outer Region - Starbase Cost 3 Income 3 Locations 0 Shields 14
Your home region starbase cannot be destroyed. You may ignore the text on regions your opponents control.
When a player destroys Branch, they win the game. Any player may attack Branch as if it was an enemy starbase which does not force players to withdraw.
DTee
Post edited by: DTee, at: 2006/12/14 16:00
The administrator has disabled public write access.
Ryuteki
User Battlecruiser
Posts: 679
Re:Massively Multiplayer Offline Games - 2006/12/14 21:34Y'all do realize that if you create a card that is playable by X player during his management phase, that he can attack to win the game, that you've created a win condition stoppable ONLY by news, that can be played and completed in one turn, right?
Might not go over so well.-Ryuteki, Owner of the Rules! We're playing Monday evenings in IL, see www.games-plus.com for the address or email me at ryuteki AT gmail DOT com.
The administrator has disabled public write access.
DTee
User Cruiser
Posts: 222
Re:Massively Multiplayer Offline Games - 2006/12/15 09:31Ryuteki wrote: Y'all do realize that if you create a card that is playable by X player during his management phase, that he can attack to win the game, that you've created a win condition stoppable ONLY by news, that can be played and completed in one turn, right?
Yes, this is all very deliberate but there's a few subtle things in there to stop that kind of Canuck trick.
Anyone can play one of these before anybody else reaches enough attack to destroy it and then try to keep hold of the region so that it's easier for them to destroy than anyone else. Of cause they'll have to pay for the previlege (like with any other region).
It's really important to limit the neutral starbases to one per game, otherwise players will be able to do exactly what you describe.
Destroying a single player's starbase will be easier than taking one of these things out. Designing your deck to be first to get enough attack to take out the neutral starbase may not win as faster deck can try to take you out first.
DTee
The administrator has disabled public write access.
Ryuteki
User Battlecruiser
Posts: 679
Re:Massively Multiplayer Offline Games - 2006/12/15 17:29All the more reason to generic it and start it in play.-Ryuteki, Owner of the Rules! We're playing Monday evenings in IL, see www.games-plus.com for the address or email me at ryuteki AT gmail DOT com.
The administrator has disabled public write access.
stevetheone
User Battlecruiser
Posts: 540
Re:Massively Multiplayer Offline Games - 2006/12/16 13:03I like the idea. It give players something to think about and alternative winning conditions that are realistic to achieve.
It also introduces something very important: Starbases in outer regions. This opens up whole swathe of different possiblities for players and designers alike.
I would wait an expansion or 2 so players can get use to the basic game before adding this into the format (you know there will be a whole host of questions and rulings needed once they are introduced).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.
fracas
User Scout
Posts: 1
Re:Massively Multiplayer Offline Games - 2006/12/22 22:33should outer regions just be played from the house deck? one of each regions and 3 are played per player.
The administrator has disabled public write access.
Malthros
User Cruiser
Posts: 98
Re:Massively Multiplayer Offline Games - 2006/12/25 03:41For the Jita-style situation being mentioned, I suggest having it in play to start. If it is decided that it can be played during a management phase, then it should come with the added text stating that the person playing the card cannot attack it until their next turn, to prevent instatn, news-counter-only wins.
I've found with EVE:TSG, the most popular multiplayer setup ended up being NBSI play, which is a limited free-for-all, you can ally with other players, but you do not pool resources and combine tower strength and fleets like with alliance play rules (the alliance play I came up with back then). The Alliance setup I came up with had teams combine their shields, ships, locations, ISK... everything, just as an alliance at war may do. At one point we had a 3v3, with both sides having over 40 shields, however on my side we had nearly half a dozen battleships alone. When we attacked my brother's team, the only downside was the combat lag. It took so long to figure out what was going on that it felt like I was in an EVE-Online fleet battle.
Free for alls seem to just end up quickly turning into a 1v1, atleast for us. You usually get two strong players wiping out the weaker players, and when they are facing each other they can often have the problem of being two solid and powerful groups unwilling to attack a solid defense.
edit: I think eve-files does a backup of forum threads and posts, if I can remember how to find stuff, and the name of said thread, I'll post it here. It covered FFA, combined team player, and individual team play mainly. Some stuff was different, but some was similar.
Post edited by: Malthros, at: 2006/12/25 03:58
The administrator has disabled public write access.
Ryuteki
User Battlecruiser
Posts: 679
Re:Massively Multiplayer Offline Games - 2007/01/25 18:30We played some 2v2 last week. We played mostly with standard rules, player A1, then B1, then A2, then B2, but we allowed ships from either A player to share space in the same regions for defense, and they were not considered "opponents" for card effects. One odd question we came up with (since I'm addicted to Arkanor) is, if you play alliance, who all gets to mine any particular location? If A1 plays 2 mineable locations, should A1 be able to mine both on his turn, then have A2 *also* mine them with his own miners on A2s turn? This gets ugly when the location is Arkanor with it's card manipulation ability.
We decided for our game that one of the allies was the designated "controller" of a shared region. Only the controller could mine locations in that region (though Hauling was still shareable and powerful) and the controller could only "cede control" on his own turn before income phase, or by leaving the region.
Does anyone have a better suggestion? Alternately, does anyone think that all allies should be able to mine the same location?-Ryuteki, Owner of the Rules! We're playing Monday evenings in IL, see www.games-plus.com for the address or email me at ryuteki AT gmail DOT com.
The administrator has disabled public write access.
njrobin
User Cruiser
Posts: 93
Re:Massively Multiplayer Offline Games - 2007/01/26 10:14ok time to weigh in lol, i like a lot of the ideas in this thread and im hoping some of these cards will see the light in the upcoming "yarr" expansion.
My preferance would be for the neutral towers(regions) to be outer regions, be a part of your deck i.e count as 1 of the 3 playable regions(and have to be played not start in play). Include text on the card that states you may not attack this region the turn it is played.
The last statement prevents cheesy unpreventable wins in the managment phase of a players turn, maintaining the current game balance and giving the opponent at least 1 turn to stop them.
The above should make them undesirable for a 1v1 deck (why kill neutral base with more shields) but still viable for multiplayer.
The mining issue, i say regardless of game format if you have an active mining command at a location during your income phase you may mine, this keeps the game simple, obviously this makes allaince mining operations quite powerful but arent they...?? in the online game.
For DTee, i like fountain (jita) and Branch but i dont get or peharps i am missing something with curse, coukd you explain. Especially as it has a 2 location limit but as you play the 2nd into it the 1st gets nerfed???.
Im not sure about the additional tower requirement of these alt win outer region, id keep them as tallest suggested on 1 card.
I STRONGLY dislike the imposed turn order based on race you suggested Dtee, turn order should be determined by seating at table or randomly at start of game.
I REALLY like the idea of inner regions, based of online empire space room for more ideas and game development for future expansions.
In the multiplayer Bandit rules, i feel the extra card reward for destroying just one ship and more importantly EVERY time tou do so would be seriously unbalanced. I suggest as a reward for actively engaging incombat a clause like " during the end step of active players turn, if that player had a combat phase the player may draw a card or gain 2 isk".
The predator/prey issue. I like the renaming to contractor(mercenary) and bounty (target). Also the reward for ousting your prey should be to add their starbase to yours as a +2isk and you "may draw 2 cards" the may is very important you need to give the predator the choice not to deck themselves. I dont like the idea of rewarding another player for ousting my prey, as has been proven in VTES this just becomes another FFA.
I like the fact you add the ousted players starbase to yours because it gives you at a glance the status of the game you can look at a multiplayer game and see which player has been killing more prey, it gives a physichal reminder of extra income and when you win and kill all your opponents starbase you can stand up and loudly declare...
All your base a belonga too us!! LOL
The administrator has disabled public write access.
N2O
User Frigate
Posts: 17
Re:Massively Multiplayer Offline Games - 2007/01/26 10:31I also recently played a 2v2. We did it using the alliance rules,so that alliance members shared a turn, therefore making it impossible for them both to mine the same location unless the location could be mined by two ships at the same time. But I think that only the controller of a region should be able to mine any locations in that region. The only exception should be home regions, since you only have one home region we said locations could be mined by anyone.
A question that did arise is about starbase structures. Do they affect both players of the alliance? We said no to begin with as it made advanced shipyards very powerful as both players are producing ships for 1 less ISK, but it could get confusing when you use surveillance post or similar structures which affect ships in the home region. I think it should be any structures that say 'you' or 'your' should affect only the person who plaed the card, whereas all others affect both memers of the alliance. Any other suggestions?
Another rule we made was that each member of an alliance can play 1 limited card per turn. so that both members of an alliance can play a limited card in their shared turn.
I really enjoyed the game, and am hoping to get another one started soon. If you can, you should definately give alliance play a go.
The administrator has disabled public write access.
