Alternate rule idea - 2008/08/18 06:47Ok, not many of us left here, but anyway, here's an idea for an alternate game.
One thing that always bugged me with eve, most of the games I did play, unless it was a kamakazi rush, ended up being who could build the biggest blob the quickest, with enough overkill to survive whatever additional threats your opponent might have lurking in their hand. There was no tit for tat, no back and forth except for arbitrary mathamatical calculations of force size. There was no need to attack until the victory blow. I guess regions were meant to give some of this, but never seemed to work, even with the new changes, they're not that important.
Anyway, the ideas.
Slow Recharging starbase shields, but damage carries over and is only regenerated at say 1/2 total shields per turn, so a base 7 shields would recharge 3 points per turn. Damage to starbases would only be dealt once per turn rather than at the end of every round of combat.
Starbase structures to hold regions. Rather than requiring ships to hold a region, you play starbase structures into regions to hold those regions, starbase structures in an outer region act like your starbase in your home region, however there is no dock, you can't build ships there, etc. The mini starbase holding the region would have shields equal to it's +shield value printed on it, if they have +0 (or negative) shileds they can't be played into a region unless there is already a structure there..... When an opponent attacks a region, the attack the starbase in that region just like a home region, however if it's destroyed, the structures are put on the scrapheap. You can only play starbase structures into a region that has friendly ships in it. At the end of your turn you must withdraw ships from regions you don't control (with a starbase structure). Some starbase structures just work as normal, some will need to work a little different, eg things like EMP minefield should work on their current region, not the whole region. Haven't done a complete analysis of what would need adjusting.
Another idea, may or may not work with the above Routes. I recall elsewhere some alternate rules where regions dealt out face down and 'discovered'. Not quite the same, but deal out regions (either face up or down?) but use some pattern or system to determine which regions neighbor which, I haven't worked this out. but ships can then only warp/attack neighboring regions. This method could potentially use more than the 3 regions each, perhaps even all regions, you wouldn't want the paths to be too long, but it stops forces just building up safe in dock then undock/attacking. This may make the game even longer...more of a strategy game.
Also contemplating the idea of Mission based games, each player draws a mission, first to achieve that mission wins, may have nothing to do with the enemy.
eg. I might have the mission (would only work with the routes idea above)
Blockade Runner.
Get one Industrial class ship to "Random" region
Random Region must be within x jumps of your opponent's starbase
Whereas my opponent may have a mission:
Killboard Whore.
Kill at least 10 enemy ships with at least a 3:1 kill:loss ratio.
These are just raw Ideas, I'd planned to play test them before saying anything, but that seems to be an increasingly unlikely eventuality. And also perhaps it will enliven a discussion about eve other than it's death.
Thoughts?
Post edited by: Brootal, at: 2008/08/18 06:48
Post edited by: Brootal, at: 2008/08/18 06:49
The administrator has disabled public write access.
rom
User Frigate
Posts: 24
Re:Alternate rule idea - 2008/08/18 07:33Man I love this outer region routes idea. It really great. I also have some ideas about that. but not now,
The administrator has disabled public write access.
Each player has a deck of six Outer Regions. Each player, in turn, places two regions in front of their starbase, and then one between those, giving a pattern that looks like this:
Code:
S
/ \
1---3
| |
5---6
| |
2---4
\ /
S
First player would place 1, 3, and 5, second places 2, 4, and 6. Players can choose which of the open slots to play in (i.e. I can choose to play my first one to the right or left, but the second must fill the remaining slot).
Outer regions cannot be duplicated, hence the 6-region side deck to guarantee that you can always get at least 3 out.
Ships can only warp one region per turn, and only via the connections shown above. Any emergency warp (such as Acceleration Gate) may only be a single region.
This would make for a dramatically longer game, but it does put a bit of location interest to it. It would also bring certain regions into more use, as they would be more valid as defensive regions. Probably have to have some restrictions on which ones could be used, etc.
The administrator has disabled public write access.
Kempeth
User Battlecruiser
Posts: 367
Re:Alternate rule idea - 2008/08/19 07:46Brootal wrote: One thing that always bugged me with eve, most of the games I did play, unless it was a kamakazi rush, ended up being who could build the biggest blob the quickest, with enough overkill to survive whatever additional threats your opponent might have lurking in their hand. Well. This is EVE after all...
What I would welcome is something to speed up the game. If games would on average take about 15 minutes (I know, a crazy idea) that would IMO make the game more interesting. A few ways I see to achieve this would be: a) Limit Fleet size. If you can't have 20 ships in play you simply have to attack with less... A way to do this might be that you need to hire officers 1 per isk and and every ship needs 1 officer per 1 isk of printed price. b) Limit wallet size. When you get mining income you get minerals and not isk. You can either spend the minerals to do stuff in this round or exchange it to money (at a low ration like 1:5 or so) and put it in your wallet. This fights the stockpiling of isk. c) bonus to small fleets. Maybe like attacking fleets <= 5 ships (or 10 officers) get +1 shield. <= 4 ships / 8 officers = get +1 target jam (in total). =< 3 ships / 6 officers = +1 firepower. =2 ships / <=4 officers = enemy ships get bounty +1
The administrator has disabled public write access.
Marchev
User Frigate
Posts: 12
Re:Alternate rule idea - 2008/08/19 09:18Hi, the best idea in my opinion is with routes but only for a multiplayer game. It will slow down the game and decks like mill or other alt-victory will have to much time to build up (im sick and construct decks only with alt-victory so it would be a bonus for me but u know )
thx for the idea i will try to test it
The administrator has disabled public write access.
Ryuteki
User Battlecruiser
Posts: 679
Re:Alternate rule idea - 2008/08/19 13:07I'm intrigued by the routes, but I would lean towards opening them up a little, probably by putting X's inside each of the boxes of that diagram. Otherwise you get fleets shifting back and forth blockading each other, and you're doing the cha-cha.
Stain would have to go of course - might replace it with a region known as Bottleneck, which would get played in the middle somewhere, and redirect all nearby routes into it. -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.
Buhallin
User Battlecruiser
Posts: 509
Re:Alternate rule idea - 2008/08/19 18:36Kempeth wrote: What I would welcome is something to speed up the game. <snip>
My concern with limits is that it wouldn't really change anything. It MIGHT change the point where you would be willing to attack, but if the limits are not very carefully designed you could easily end up in a stalemate situation, where attacking simply guarantees a loss.
@Ryuteki: I considered the X-pattern routes, but thought to try it without it first... It may easily turn into blob-blocking-blob zigzags, but it might also encourage splitting of fleets and the like. Another alternative would be to increase the number of jumps allowed per turn, probably to 2.
Before I discuss that, introduced terminology (I think these aren't used yet): - Defensive Regions: The two regions closest to your starbase. So if 1/3 are my defensive regions, 2/4 are yours. - Contested Regions: The middle-ground regions, 5/6.
With two warps per turn, I could move from my starbase to a contested region in a turn. This would give multiple choices on how to defend, or players could even try to rush past each other rather than engaging.
<shrug> Not sure how it will work, this is very rough concept. It would probably require reconsideration of quite a few cards, and decisions on what to do about certain abilities would need to be made. If left as-is, the Raven's warp home ability would become much more powerful with the routes setup.
The administrator has disabled public write access.
Brootal
User Battlecruiser
Posts: 485
Re:Alternate rule idea - 2008/08/19 23:11Yea with the routes, I envisaged a much larger, more natural type flow, there might be a quick route, there might be several longer route, offshoots with dead ends, etc, probably using at least a dozen regions. Idealy with some sort of random determination so that you didn't always end up playing the same way, this time there might be a single route of 2 jumps between you and the enemy and perhaps a 5 jump route. Next game there might be 3 alternate routes each 3 jumps long.
<shrug> Not sure how it will work, this is very rough concept. It would probably require reconsideration of quite a few cards, and decisions on what to do about certain abilities would need to be made. If left as-is, the Raven's warp home ability would become much more powerful with the routes setup.Yep all very rough ideas, there are lots of variables involved, only way to know it to try them and adjust as you go, something that sounds good may infact be terrible.
The administrator has disabled public write access.
nox
User Frigate
Posts: 39
Re:Alternate rule idea - 2008/08/20 03:25i think a lot of these ideas would be great, (especially the routes idea and the starbase structure to hold a region). they would make for some very interesting games and changes in decks. i'll definately try these out. i dont know if somebodys thought of this but how about the regions being randomly selected and placed face down, (need to be warped into and "explored")?
The administrator has disabled public write access.
Brootal
User Battlecruiser
Posts: 485
Re:Alternate rule idea - 2008/08/20 04:05nox wrote: i think a lot of these ideas would be great, (especially the routes idea and the starbase structure to hold a region). they would make for some very interesting games and changes in decks. i'll definately try these out. i dont know if somebodys thought of this but how about the regions being randomly selected and placed face down, (need to be warped into and "explored")?
From my original post:
I recall elsewhere some alternate rules where regions dealt out face down and 'discovered'.
Yea, someone brought it up elsewhere probably over a year ago now.
The administrator has disabled public write access.
Buhallin
User Battlecruiser
Posts: 509
Re:Alternate rule idea - 2008/08/20 04:15Personally, I dislike the random region idea for two reasons.
First, it takes away part of the strategy of deckbuilding. I suppose you could randomize your selection of regions, but any actual gameplay/benefit from that would seem to be minimal.
Second, a lucky/unlucky draw on the regions could easily decide a game very quickly.
There may be some options for implementing randomness that avoids this, but I can't come up with any off the top of my head
The administrator has disabled public write access.
Ryuteki
User Battlecruiser
Posts: 679
Re:Alternate rule idea - 2008/08/22 06:40Buhallin wrote: Another alternative would be to increase the number of jumps allowed per turn, probably to 2.
Or allow the larger ships to warp farther: Industrials, Cruisers and Frigates can jump one, Scouts and Destroyers can jump 2, Battleships and Logistics can jump 3? Or maybe determine jump based on assembly, though that makes the 4-assembly anti-frigate ships far more powerful. Just some thoughts.-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.
Buhallin
User Battlecruiser
Posts: 509
Re:Alternate rule idea - 2008/08/22 14:33Ryuteki wrote: Or allow the larger ships to warp farther: Industrials, Cruisers and Frigates can jump one, Scouts and Destroyers can jump 2, Battleships and Logistics can jump 3? Or maybe determine jump based on assembly, though that makes the 4-assembly anti-frigate ships far more powerful. Just some thoughts. In a "normal" environment, I'd consider this exactly backwards. The traditional setup you see in most games - even EVE Online - is that smaller ships are lighter and faster than the big boys.
Unfortunately, implementing such a mechanic here, in an environment which is already stupidly biased in favor of small ships, would be a disaster.
You could probably justify smaller ships warping less based on cap size, and still be in a reasonable EVE realm. I'm just not sure what it would do... I do think 3 may be too many, though. That gets a battleship from your defensive region to my home region in one turn, or from a contested region to my home region with a side switch. Since many battleships can finish a starbase off all by themselves, that's a game-ender.
Hrm... What if it were based on fleet size? Most military movement is limited far more by coordination than capability, and EVE is no exception. Since movement is fleet-based anyway, it might work... Of course, it would allow a distributed defense to quickly combine for a killer blow.
Bleargh.
The administrator has disabled public write access.
Marchev
User Frigate
Posts: 12
Re:Alternate rule idea - 2008/08/22 20:47when i think about it i want to use all regions that are in the game ... then make a setup routs, and give player option to put his/her starbase in one of this regions (4 to pick?) it will give special ability to starbase but will limit with locations that can be put in starbase region
secondly how many jumps ... maybe something like this ships with assembly 0-2 can make 1 jump per turn assembly 3-4 can make 2 jumps per turn if u have pilot on any ship it can make one more jump per turn ? and u can't warp through already taken regions ...
The administrator has disabled public write access.
Brootal
User Battlecruiser
Posts: 485
Re:Alternate rule idea - 2008/08/23 11:47Hmmm, How about bigger ships can jump 2, but the intermediate jump must be held by friendly ships....ie you can jump through an area you hold, but you go slower through an empty region (scouting for pirates whatnot) and obviously can't jump through enemy held regions.
The administrator has disabled public write access.
It really great. I also have some ideas about that. 
but u know 
