Get your fill of sci-fi, science, and mockery of stupid people
* FAQ    * Search   * Register   * Login 
Want to support this site? Click

Quote of the Week: "A great civilization is not conquered from without until it has destroyed itself from within." - Will Durant, American historian (1885-1981)


All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 10 posts ] 

What is your preferred option?
Poll ended at 2009-10-30 10:09am
1. Shorten the timeframe 44%  44%  [ 4 ]
2. Modify the game in other ways to create faster gameplay 11%  11%  [ 1 ]
3. Do nothing - the game is fine as it is. 44%  44%  [ 4 ]
4. Lengthen the timeframe - the game goes to fast. 0%  0%  [ 0 ]
Total votes : 9
Author Message
 Post subject: Star Wars: A galaxy divided timeframe discussion PostPosted: 2009-09-30 10:09am
Offline
Magister
Magister
User avatar

Joined: 2004-06-26 07:49pm
Posts: 25528
As you know, tomorrow we start the second gameyear of Star Wars: A galaxy divided. It has come to the attention of the mods that some players might wish for a faster/slower progression of the timeframe.

So I created this thread to show you some ideas that are being kicked around:


1. Shorten the timeframe
Basically, we would change the 3 months realtime=1 year gametime to 2 months realtime=1 year gametime.

2. Other choices to make the game faster
These would be decided by the mods and most likely will have things like shorten construction times of larger shipyards, create more expansion or a more aggressive stance of NPC factions.
Note that changing the rules might have some effect on game balance - it would most likely favor larger nations over smaller ones.

3. Do nothing
What it means. For those who like the status quo.

4. Lengthen the timeframe
For people who want a slower progession.
**************************



My personal opinion:

I think the game is fine as it is. The long time period allows all of us to coordinate with each other and allows us all to take short breaks from the game when RL does not permit us to reply immediately. Furthermore, should one player decide to go inactive for a bit, it allows them to be reintegrated without missing too much. In my view, the game is a nice fun thing to relax me after work, so I kinda like it going a bit slow.

The only thing I think that might be necessary is to allow for a faster construction of big shipyards, but that can be done without changing the timeframe too much, as none of us has yet created such large shipyards.



Whoever says "education does not matter" can try ignorance
------------------
A decision must be made in the life of every nation at the very moment when the grasp of the enemy is at its throat. Then, it seems that the only way to survive is to use the means of the enemy, to rest survival upon what is expedient, to look the other way. Well, the answer to that is 'survival as what'? A country isn't a rock. It's not an extension of one's self. It's what it stands for. It's what it stands for when standing for something is the most difficult! - Chief Judge Haywood

Top
 Profile  
 Post subject: Re: Star Wars: A galaxy divided timeframe discussion PostPosted: 2009-10-03 12:08am
Offline
Sith Marauder
User avatar

Joined: 2008-10-15 01:37am
Posts: 4135
Location: Victoria, Canada
Any option would be ok, but as someone who has an unfortunate habit of taking a while to post sometimes, a slower progression wouldn't hurt me.;)

That said, I can see how some of us might want things to move faster. I'll wait and see what others have to say before voting.

Edit: I do still feel that the rules are needlessly complex, so if option two involved streamlining the rules in some way, I might vote for that.

Top
 Profile  
 Post subject: Re: Star Wars: A galaxy divided timeframe discussion PostPosted: 2009-10-03 05:35am
Offline
Magister
Magister
User avatar

Joined: 2004-06-26 07:49pm
Posts: 25528
The Romulan Republic wrote:
Edit: I do still feel that the rules are needlessly complex, so if option two involved streamlining the rules in some way, I might vote for that.


Whoah. In the last four months, I have answered about 200+ PMs about this game and without the rules, the mods would have been totally lost. I think they are as lean as we can get.



Whoever says "education does not matter" can try ignorance
------------------
A decision must be made in the life of every nation at the very moment when the grasp of the enemy is at its throat. Then, it seems that the only way to survive is to use the means of the enemy, to rest survival upon what is expedient, to look the other way. Well, the answer to that is 'survival as what'? A country isn't a rock. It's not an extension of one's self. It's what it stands for. It's what it stands for when standing for something is the most difficult! - Chief Judge Haywood

Top
 Profile  
 Post subject: Re: Star Wars: A galaxy divided timeframe discussion PostPosted: 2009-10-03 12:49pm
Offline
_______
User avatar

Joined: 2003-01-05 02:36am
Posts: 12431
Location: Tampa Bay, Florida, USA
Thanas wrote:
The Romulan Republic wrote:
Edit: I do still feel that the rules are needlessly complex, so if option two involved streamlining the rules in some way, I might vote for that.


Whoah. In the last four months, I have answered about 200+ PMs about this game and without the rules, the mods would have been totally lost. I think they are as lean as we can get.

Yeah. I like the rules as they are.

And we could have posted a big huge combat mechanics thing. But we didn't. So count your blessings. :D



Image
"How can I wait unknowing?
This is the price of war,
We rise with noble intentions,
And we risk all that is pure..." - Angela & Jeff van Dyck, Forever (Rome: Total War)

"On and on, through the years,
The war continues on..." - Angela & Jeff van Dyck, We Are All One (Medieval 2: Total War)
"Courage is not the absence of fear, but rather the judgment that something else is more important than fear." - Ambrose Redmoon
"You either die a hero, or you live long enough to see yourself become the villain." - Harvey Dent, The Dark Knight

Top
 Profile  
 Post subject: Re: Star Wars: A galaxy divided timeframe discussion PostPosted: 2009-10-03 08:21pm
Offline
Sith Marauder
User avatar

Joined: 2008-10-15 01:37am
Posts: 4135
Location: Victoria, Canada
RogueIce wrote:
Yeah. I like the rules as they are.


Again, any of the above is fine as far as I'm concerned.

Quote:
And we could have posted a big huge combat mechanics thing. But we didn't. So count your blessings. :D


I shudder at the thought.

Just my personal tastes. I like things as simple as possible. I'm more interested in story and diplomacy than budgets and such. :D But yeah, their have to some rules to keep things manageable.

Top
 Profile  
 Post subject: Re: Star Wars: A galaxy divided timeframe discussion PostPosted: 2009-10-03 08:25pm
Offline
Magister
Magister
User avatar

Joined: 2004-06-26 07:49pm
Posts: 25528
The Romulan Republic wrote:
RogueIce wrote:
And we could have posted a big huge combat mechanics thing. But we didn't. So count your blessings. :D


I shudder at the thought.


Heh. The initial proposal - without looking at exceptions, ambushes etc. was 6 word-pages long.



Whoever says "education does not matter" can try ignorance
------------------
A decision must be made in the life of every nation at the very moment when the grasp of the enemy is at its throat. Then, it seems that the only way to survive is to use the means of the enemy, to rest survival upon what is expedient, to look the other way. Well, the answer to that is 'survival as what'? A country isn't a rock. It's not an extension of one's self. It's what it stands for. It's what it stands for when standing for something is the most difficult! - Chief Judge Haywood

Top
 Profile  
 Post subject: Re: Star Wars: A galaxy divided timeframe discussion PostPosted: 2009-10-04 05:51am
Offline
Sith Acolyte
User avatar

Joined: 2009-01-07 06:37pm
Posts: 5223
Location: Germany
Thanas wrote:
The Romulan Republic wrote:
RogueIce wrote:
And we could have posted a big huge combat mechanics thing. But we didn't. So count your blessings. :D


I shudder at the thought.


Heh. The initial proposal - without looking at exceptions, ambushes etc. was 6 word-pages long.


What the....ok, i have to say this: I really like the rules as they are .
We have good rules for resources, building, research - everthing that determines what one player has avaiable.
And we have no rules for the usage of these assets - which is great. because it requires creativity.
And after all, thats what it is all about.

@Topic: The timescale of a year is ok. However, i fear that we won't see any mayor combat happen for quite some time. simply because you need way too long to be able to build dreadnoughts - and you need those to crack planetary shields.
Which means that you can not attack a major planet right now - because no one has dreadnoughts.
There are two possible solutions:
-Make planetary shields more vulnerable. However, this would contradict a lot of canon.
-Make dreadnoughts avaiable faster.

I would prefer the latter solution. My proposal:
Soften up the "five major worlds" limit. Either reduce it to three or four - or introduce a limit of one dreadnought per major world (or two major worlds, if you like).
This would mean that smaller nations could build dreadnoughts, BUT they would be more limited, and therefore more vulnerable.

Regards
Fina



SoS:NBA GALE Force
"Destiny and fate are for those too weak to forge their own futures. Where we are 'supposed' to be is irrelevent." - Sir Nitram
"The world owes you nothing but painful lessons" - CaptainChewbacca
"The mark of the immature man is that he wants to die nobly for a cause, while the mark of a mature man is that he wants to live humbly for one." - Wilhelm Stekel
"In 1969 it was easier to send a man to the Moon than to have the public accept a homosexual" - Broomstick

Top
 Profile  
 Post subject: Re: Star Wars: A galaxy divided timeframe discussion PostPosted: 2009-10-04 06:28am
Offline
Magister
Magister
User avatar

Joined: 2004-06-26 07:49pm
Posts: 25528
Serafina wrote:
Soften up the "five major worlds" limit. Either reduce it to three or four - or introduce a limit of one dreadnought per major world (or two major worlds, if you like).
This would mean that smaller nations could build dreadnoughts, BUT they would be more limited, and therefore more vulnerable.


Hmm. This is an interesting idea. However, with the current shipyard building times, almost everyone will already have enough major worlds to start dreadnought production by then.

Unlesss they set up their nation as you did, but the rest of the players are hardly to be blamed for that when you were explicitly warned against doing so. :wink:



Whoever says "education does not matter" can try ignorance
------------------
A decision must be made in the life of every nation at the very moment when the grasp of the enemy is at its throat. Then, it seems that the only way to survive is to use the means of the enemy, to rest survival upon what is expedient, to look the other way. Well, the answer to that is 'survival as what'? A country isn't a rock. It's not an extension of one's self. It's what it stands for. It's what it stands for when standing for something is the most difficult! - Chief Judge Haywood

Top
 Profile  
 Post subject: Re: Star Wars: A galaxy divided timeframe discussion PostPosted: 2009-10-04 11:24am
Offline
_______
User avatar

Joined: 2003-01-05 02:36am
Posts: 12431
Location: Tampa Bay, Florida, USA
Thanas wrote:
Serafina wrote:
Soften up the "five major worlds" limit. Either reduce it to three or four - or introduce a limit of one dreadnought per major world (or two major worlds, if you like).
This would mean that smaller nations could build dreadnoughts, BUT they would be more limited, and therefore more vulnerable.


Hmm. This is an interesting idea. However, with the current shipyard building times, almost everyone will already have enough major worlds to start dreadnought production by then.

Yes, depending on how you do your upgrading of systems. We might change a bit if people aren't upgrading average worlds to major a lot, but we'll see. As it is, we have at least four years before the first 8000m yards come online, and I don't think anyone is building a 19km yard any time soon. So we can wait and see, I think.

By the by:
Serafina wrote:
@Topic: The timescale of a year is ok. However, i fear that we won't see any mayor combat happen for quite some time. simply because you need way too long to be able to build dreadnoughts - and you need those to crack planetary shields.
Which means that you can not attack a major planet right now - because no one has dreadnoughts.

Actually, you probably can with the right planning. But you'll need a shit ton of troops to do it.



Image
"How can I wait unknowing?
This is the price of war,
We rise with noble intentions,
And we risk all that is pure..." - Angela & Jeff van Dyck, Forever (Rome: Total War)

"On and on, through the years,
The war continues on..." - Angela & Jeff van Dyck, We Are All One (Medieval 2: Total War)
"Courage is not the absence of fear, but rather the judgment that something else is more important than fear." - Ambrose Redmoon
"You either die a hero, or you live long enough to see yourself become the villain." - Harvey Dent, The Dark Knight

Top
 Profile  
 Post subject: Re: Star Wars: A galaxy divided timeframe discussion PostPosted: 2009-10-04 06:02pm
Offline
Jedi Master
User avatar

Joined: 2008-08-16 09:01pm
Posts: 1116
I voted to increase timescale to two months equal a year, because of the ease in using a quartering system to keep track of time.
Perhaps giving everyone a one Dreadnought with no restrictions is the best and simplest solution.



the engines cannae take any more cap'n
warp 9 to shroomland ~Dalton

Top
 Profile  
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 10 posts ] 

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Yahoo [Bot] and 6 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group