It's public - Empires: Darkest Dawn

Switch
Do you mean custom maps (ex emp_vmalley) or custom boards for the metagame? Either way I support the notion. I will release the board maker this weekend and stick around to explain how it works.

blizzerd
It's a turn based game, and only one piece moves per turn. That doesn't mean "no" but it may be different than what you were thinking. I could implement a mode where generals are assigned to armies, once an army is selected (would still have to be by the "main general") it would activate that player for the turn. I kind of like that concept actually.

ScardyBob
The part I didn't go in to much detail on is the play times. Depending on the number of participants and available times to play, there could be quite a few times, and each time carries a different vote. To break the play times in to 30 minute blocks, and have four play times back-to-back, you could have four different Generals for each team in a two hour period. Just a thought, but it may be acceptable regarding your first issue.

As for more involvement, each turn involves the spawning of unlimited armies (they spawn on top of your main as well as any constructed strongholds, so it's only potentially unlimited, in practice you'll probably spawn 0-1 with the occasional 2 armies) but the movement of only one. The turns are designed to be fast paced, and the two minute timer is to keep the action moving. Ending the turn volunarially as quickly as possible (after moving) will help rush the enemies moves and quicken the pace even more. To include more players will involve more time per turn for coordination, and will slow it down a bit. Gaining their votes is a good idea, but may also add to the time-per-turn. I'll think about that more.

Oh, and BTW, the default max armies is 5, with no strict maximum (it's a Campaign setting, as is the cost/upkeeps of upgrades, movement costs, los values, and just about everything else, so balancing will not be an issue as exploits are found). Still your point would stand if multiple armies could move during a single turn.

 

""If the boardgame does not affect the game in runtime it's pointless. If the boardgame does it's shitty balance."
So basically I need to just ignore you because you don't believe this can work no matter how I go about it. Thanks for the warning."

I see your points, but I'd like it if you could answer that one. It is the most important of them all.

 

I'm sorry, I don't see a question there... It looks like Chris telling me that no matter what I do, my hard work will equate to shit, and me telling Chris that his opinion is no longer under my consideration.

 

In short, what will the board game addon really add, besides a few resource rate changes, once you actually get ingame.

 

I must have mis-spoken somewhere, because currently I have no plans to adjust resource rates for either team. At present, the addition is the immersion, similar to that which the PUG offered (or so I'm told).

It also adds a reason for many players to get on at the same time for a full server and a mixture of serious and playful games throughout the evening. Since Skirmishes are designed to be serious, and the games in between don't matter, it can be a combination of both experiences over the course of a few hours.

Add to that some bragging rights, and it should be a fun additional layer to the game we already all enjoy.

 

I think the main benefit for Empires is that you will have good games between skilled players. I think this is more likely to draw more vets back into Empires who would be interested in playing the metagame also.

 

You know what? I think this is actually kind of neat. An organized metagame might be what the vets could have some fun with.

Of course, the PUGs sounded neat too. While this automates a lot of what made organized Empires games annoying, it also inherits some of the same problems - at least, as far as I can see.

BSID dictatorship jokes aside, I'm interested in seeing how this turns out.

 

Please elaborate on "same problems". I intend to hunt down and kill all problems, so comm, give me targets.

 

I think one of the biggest problems from the PUG that might carry over to DD is that in the PUG few people were involved in the strategic decision making for each map. Pretty much everything was top-down dictated from the commander. Not everyone wanted to be involved in determining strategy, but I feel too many who did were excluded. This could happen with DD, but I'm more speculating because I haven't seen how the interface works yet.

 

It looks like a really interesting concept, but there are too few people involved in the meta game.

After being involved in three PUGs, I have an idea where this will end up.

 

I sense uber drama.

Count me in.

 

gogo ventrilo rage and massive forum posts

 

Cue people endlessly bitching about how 'you won because you were BE'

 

there should be a "board of leaders" playing this as if they play "wargames" and the leadership should rouloate according, maybe to if they get defeated or not in the 1 general per army" thing i suggested before? i keep getting more and more into that addition to decentralise leadership (the master general would oversee the armies and "activate" armies (so the general that owns it can decide where to move) and stuff but overall all generals are together working out strategy making a group of leaders that mixes up from time to time as losses are taken


also is it possible to make teams move for example 2 armies per turn? this would give the problem of "2 armies are fighting at the same time" but i think it would enhance strategy and playspeed

possibly you could add you can only move X fields per turn that can be divided over all the armies you have, and attack once per turn, (supply lines count as half the field value or w/e you chose for that, so it would still work the same like that)

 

I'm pointing out that whatever you do with the board game won't work and the implied solution is to do something entirely different, i.e not a metagame.

Why is it that nobody ever thinks of that solution?

You say the metagame would give people a reason to play the actual game, I say people should be playing the actual game because it's, I don't know, fun. Rather than having to rationalise it with some entirely arbitrary metagame.

You are removing things which make the actual game fun, things which try to fix existing problems and things which add in more capacity for silly stuff which is currently the heart and soul of empires, and therefore what you're doing is a step backwards, not forwards. The only way this path can be sustained is by adding in even more stupid justifications to play the game, in essence you're taking the first step on the road to abandoning empires as a recreation activity and turning it into a chore you have to perform in order to play some other, more interesting game, and eventually it will make more sense to remove empires entirely and just go play risk seeing as that's what everyone is doing anyway most of the time.

You should not need a justification to play a good game, the game should be its own justification because it should be fun.

 

Because then we'd never do anything cool.
We wouldn't have made empires in the first place, because this game clearly won't work but we're all here fucking anyway, aren't we?

 

@ScardyBob/Recon
Although one person is doing the actual clicking, everyone logged in to the metagame can see their teams map and give input. Can your General ignore you? Sure, but you can vote someone else in his place if he does that. A runaway player can't hold the whole team hostage by taking the Generals seat. When it all boils down, the only way to give more players control is to either break up the turns, cycle generals (either by random or something like blizzerd has suggested) or add an outrageous amount of armies and let everyone lead one. Every player on your team should have a say in what the team does, but only one player (at a time) can physically make moves. Everyone is an advisor, but only one person calls in the order... otherwise you just have everyone screaming over each other.

@empty
"You won b/c you were BE" is a moot argument because a team can pay to play as BE. The counterargument would be "should have bid more". Yes the wealthier army could bid more than you have (making it impossible for you to choose your faction), but since they have no idea how much money you have and it costs them either way, bidding thousands to play as BE when the other team bids 0 to play as NF means all you really did was piss away your money.

@blizzerd
board of leaders concept is pretty much exactly what I have currently, except you are essentially being re-elected to the role every turn. I am going over the "general for each army, one main general who activates them" concept, and I like it. I will continue to ponder and begin implementation assuming I don't run in to a significant problem.

@Chris
Your logic is so twisted it hurts to read. I won't even get in to it with you, you are a lost cause.

 

I hate board games, won't see me on this server

 

So now the question is.... Who is the 2 most loud mouthed persons who will dictate the sides?

i wonder