Editing SuperHardcorePlanetwars

Jump to navigation Jump to search

Warning: You are not logged in. Your IP address will be publicly visible if you make any edits. If you log in or create an account, your edits will be attributed to your username, along with other benefits.

The edit can be undone. Please check the comparison below to verify that this is what you want to do, and then save the changes below to finish undoing the edit.

Latest revision Your text
Line 1: Line 1:
 
This page details the design of Super Hardcore Planetwars. Note that this design is for super hardcore players and should probably not be implemented as-is. In particular this means that it ignores:
 
This page details the design of Super Hardcore Planetwars. Note that this design is for super hardcore players and should probably not be implemented as-is. In particular this means that it ignores:
* Counterproductive behaviour caused by player confusion (shooting yourself in the foot). All super hardcore players are committed enough to know what to do or be ordered around by someone who knows what to do.  
+
* Counterproductive behaviour caused by player confusion (shooting yourself in the foot). All super hardcore players are committed enough to know what to do or be ordered around by someone who knows what to do.  
* Evilness. Super hardcore players relish in games that are best won by playing 24/7.
+
* Evilness. Super hardcore players relish in games that are best won by playing 24/7.
 
   
 
   
 
Planetwars design tends to be simplest when they are allowed to be super hardcore. Therefore I'll design this way and try to scale the evilness and confusion back to acceptable levels.
 
Planetwars design tends to be simplest when they are allowed to be super hardcore. Therefore I'll design this way and try to scale the evilness and confusion back to acceptable levels.
Line 10: Line 10:
 
=== Pending Battles ===
 
=== Pending Battles ===
 
Every player can see a list of pending battles for their faction. It acts a bit like a sign-up sheet as each item on the list is a pending battle. A pending battle has:
 
Every player can see a list of pending battles for their faction. It acts a bit like a sign-up sheet as each item on the list is a pending battle. A pending battle has:
* A required number of players.
+
* A required number of players.
* A current number of players.
+
* A current number of players.
* A list of which players have signed up (maybe).
+
* A list of which players have signed up (maybe).
* A planet.
+
* A planet.
* Depending on the type, a timer.
+
* Depending on the type, a timer.
* A name, goal, type, whatever else etc...
+
* A name, goal, type, whatever else etc...
  
 
In general, the list contains two types of battles:
 
In general, the list contains two types of battles:
* Potential invasion targets for the faction. Call this an Attack pending battle.
+
* Potential invasion targets for the faction. Call this an Attack pending battle.
* Invasions against the faction that require defenders. Call this a Defend pending battle.
+
* Invasions against the faction that require defenders. Call this a Defend pending battle.
 
Invasions against the faction have timers.
 
Invasions against the faction have timers.
 
   
 
   
Line 45: Line 45:
  
 
Here are some alliances that make sense within the proposed battle structure. All the alliances may as well be implemented as single-directional for diplomacy !Fun!. We'd expect reasonable people to make symmetrical alliances most of the time. The explanations have an alliance between Factions A and B with Faction A as the party which is mechanically affected.
 
Here are some alliances that make sense within the proposed battle structure. All the alliances may as well be implemented as single-directional for diplomacy !Fun!. We'd expect reasonable people to make symmetrical alliances most of the time. The explanations have an alliance between Factions A and B with Faction A as the party which is mechanically affected.
* Ceasefire. Really simple, Faction A cannot invade planets of Faction B.
+
* Ceasefire. Really simple, Faction A cannot invade planets of Faction B.
* Defensive Pact. Players from Faction A can help Faction B make up the numbers for defense. In effect, the Defend pending battles of Faction B are added to the pending battle list of Faction A.
+
* Defensive Pact. Players from Faction A can help Faction B make up the numbers for defense. In effect, the Defend pending battles of Faction B are added to the pending battle list of Faction A.
* Agressive Pact. Players from Faction A can invade all planets invadable by Faction B. In effect, the Attack pending battles of Faction B are added to the pending battle list of Faction A. These pending battles are marked as belonging to Faction B and any benefit/cost of the battle goes to Faction B. The Faction A players are simply mercenaries. If both Faction A and Faction B can invade the same planet then players of Faction A will have a duplicate entry in their pending battle list.
+
* Aggressive Pact. Players from Faction A can invade all planets invadable by Faction B. In effect, the Attack pending battles of Faction B are added to the pending battle list of Faction A. These pending battles are marked as belonging to Faction B and any benefit/cost of the battle goes to Faction B. The Faction A players are simply mercenaries. If both Faction A and Faction B can invade the same planet then players of Faction A will have a duplicate entry in their pending battle list.
  
 
All of these pacts can be broken at any time (also breaking the deal they are part of?) and they can be abused. Faction A could throw battles which are important to Faction B. This is fine because every involved is super hardcore and, as I understand it, this type of diplomatic shenaniganing is all part of the !Fun!. On that note, we could offer ceasefires alongside both the aggressive and defensive pacts in the way that makes sense. Technically this is not required because players of Faction A would only end up on both sides of a battle only if they are less than super hardcore.
 
All of these pacts can be broken at any time (also breaking the deal they are part of?) and they can be abused. Faction A could throw battles which are important to Faction B. This is fine because every involved is super hardcore and, as I understand it, this type of diplomatic shenaniganing is all part of the !Fun!. On that note, we could offer ceasefires alongside both the aggressive and defensive pacts in the way that makes sense. Technically this is not required because players of Faction A would only end up on both sides of a battle only if they are less than super hardcore.

Please note that all contributions to Zero-K are considered to be released under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike (see Zero-K:Copyrights for details). If you do not want your writing to be edited mercilessly and redistributed at will, then do not submit it here.
You are also promising us that you wrote this yourself, or copied it from a public domain or similar free resource. Do not submit copyrighted work without permission!

Cancel Editing help (opens in new window)