HOME     LOGIN     CREATE ACCOUNT     SSW HELP CENTER  

Lower the win condition control percentage?

Secret Society Wars  »  SSW Discussion

  • Posted By: munk  homeworld | blog | gallery | player profile

    Lower the win condition control percentage?
    So, while pondering the state of things, and it occurs to me that with 4 relatively strong teams, each struggling to hold onto at most 33% of the board, that it might be worth considering lowering the bar for winning the war to something a bit more attainable in the conditions we find ourselves in. After all, this is a pretty radically changed board, fewer large chunks of defensible clusters, planets re-arranged to break up defenses, and trade/mining drastically increased. There are many more drones in play this cycle and everyone's hunkered down pretty solid.

    I'm thinking it would be pretty hard to even hold onto 50% of the board for 7 days against well-armed opponents. So say we all?
  • Posted By: xKiv  homeworld | blog | gallery | player profile

    It could be a dynamically updated value? Maybe start at the usual 80%, keep that for 1-2 months, then start decreasing by 1 percent point every week (day?)? It could even decrease past 50% (at which point it's possible for two or more societies to be past the requirement, but only one would have The Most (tm) (r)).

    On the other hand, how can a society win if the other societies are not crushed?
  • Posted By: Rakkasan  homeworld | blog | gallery | player profile

    It's worth consideration, though I also am perhaps inclined to agree with the idea of a time-based dynamically updated value, to prevent some tricky-tricky one time "stunt" wins here and there.

    Also, I think it should be 51%, not 50%. Absolute majority and all.
  • Posted By: xKiv  homeworld | blog | gallery | player profile

      Quote "Rakkasan":  

    It's worth consideration, though I also am perhaps inclined to agree with the idea of a time-based dynamically updated value, to prevent some tricky-tricky one time "stunt" wins here and there.

    Also, I think it should be 51%, not 50%. Absolute majority and all.



    IIUIC, two can't have 50% because planet-sectors can't be controlled.
    Also, if one has >=50% and more than anyone else at the same time, then nobody else can have 50% so it's still guaranteed to be a strict majority.
  • Posted By: Rakkasan  homeworld | blog | gallery | player profile

      Quote "xKiv":  


    IIUIC, two can't have 50% because planet-sectors can't be controlled.
    Also, if one has >=50% and more than anyone else at the same time, then nobody else can have 50% so it's still guaranteed to be a strict majority.


    Truth. I did not account for planetary sectors.
  • Posted By: BabylonHoruv  homeworld | blog | gallery | player profile

    We were able to win without the maze, This seems like a rather attritiony war but I am not sure that I would be in favor of reducing the win percent.
  • Posted By: Rickton  homeworld | blog | gallery | player profile

    I dunno. I think that that's a "bandaid (or spendaid) on a bullet hole" type situation. If it's too hard to hold 80%/take entrenched positions/for one team to win when there's 4 strong teams, then it might be better to figure out why that's the case and fix it than just reducing the necessary percentage.
  • Posted By: grimdel  homeworld | blog | gallery | player profile

    50% seems a little low, but I think it would be very hard to get/keep 81%. How about something like 60% or 70%?

    Alternatively - how about winnowing down the weaker societies over time - till eventually there are two (or two + ammys)? Fewer societies, the better chances of getting greater % of space over time?

    Or... introduce a 6th AI society - with so much turmoil, an alien race (Borg/Dominion/Sith) attacks the galaxy, then it'll just be the players vs the AI and force a win/loss confrontation?
  • Posted By: BabylonHoruv  homeworld | blog | gallery | player profile

    Weaker societies do get naturally winnowed down, you will notice there are not really any triads this round.
  • Posted By: crashnburn11  homeworld | blog | gallery | player profile

    I don't like it. Introduce more ways to strategically cripple and eliminate your opponents from contention rather than just lowering the percentage.
    Ex: fast deterioration of enemy facilities when captured or the ability to attack them with something when captured (maybe an anti-facility manned by your own doppels?), more benefit to higher DP experience (EG: more costly to dimit if your facilities are captured), ways to cripple mining abilities or trading abilities (eg: asteroid depletion), maybe black holes occasionally suck drones in their sector down the pipe and they appear somewhere else, etc.
  • Posted By: grimdel  homeworld | blog | gallery | player profile

      Quote "BabylonHoruv":  

    Weaker societies do get naturally winnowed down, you will notice there are not really any triads this round.



    True - triads got wittled down - natural selection. But natural selection is currently stalled - the other 4 societies seem pretty stable atm, so thats when forced selection could be put into play -> the 'emperor' steps in and 'benevolently' winnows down another society, and see what the re-distribution of players does to the war... and if things stablize again, then the next weakest gets chopped, etc
  • Posted By: glen  homeworld | blog | gallery | player profile

    Maybe decreasing the drone defensive advantage would be enough.
  • Posted By: Rickton  homeworld | blog | gallery | player profile

      Quote "grimdel":  

    Or... introduce a 6th AI society - with so much turmoil, an alien race (Borg/Dominion/Sith) attacks the galaxy, then it'll just be the players vs the AI and force a win/loss confrontation?


    That could be interesting. I feel like introducing something that makes the end game more dynamic and forces players to act/react would be good.
    I've been pondering some suggestions for more stuff in space for people to fight over...especially some type of useful resource that moves around so players can't just hunker down with huge numbers of drones, but I can't really think of what it would be.

    Although, speaking of huge numbers of drones, I think part of the problem this cycle is psychological. With the trades and ore selling prices so much higher than they used to be, drones are much more plentiful, and I think seeing 100k+ drones on a sector is a deterrent. Losing 150k or more attacking it seems like a huge deal, and while it's not minor, that's not nearly as bad as it used to be. Do you have any stats on the number of drones used in previous wars vs this one for comparison?
  • Posted By: Langers  homeworld | blog | gallery | player profile

    The Borg??

    Is you MAAAAD?!!?

    At least with those others dominating matters, we would still have a resistance that might maybe steer us back to a semblance of independant thought.

    But The Borg!

    Once that Queen 'a theirs got her nanoprobes in us all, then it's Game Over - and there ain't no comming back from that. As for those depending on Unimatrix Zero...

    Grow Up!
    Unimatrix Zero is a fantasy.

    Come on now...

    Say it with me...

    Unimatrix Zero does not exsist.

    If them barstewards show up, then ah'ma gonna jump inna black hole 'afore it's toWE ARE THE BORG. WE WILL ADD YOUR BIOLOGICAL AND TECHNOLOGICAL DISTINCTIVENESS TO OUR OWN. YOUR CULTURE WILL ADAPT TO SERVICE US. RESISTANCE IS FUTILE.
  • Posted By: Salen  homeworld | blog | gallery | player profile

    If you haven't already noticed they are here Langers.......check out the avies hehehehe
  • Posted By: Langers  homeworld | blog | gallery | player profile

    (Langers cannot respond to any enquiries. He is presently resisting Borg implants by mind melding with an Ocampa, while having an unprotected menage-a-trois with a Zombie-infected Species 8472-cum-Vampyre/Triffid and the offspring of a mutant bubonic plague flea and Reaver.)
  • Posted By: zydecopolka  homeworld | blog | gallery | player profile

    RESISTANCE IS FUTILE. YOUR SPECIES WILL BE ASSIMILATED.

    Typical Langers, trying to seduce Kes (mind meld, as if!) whilst sexing up an 8472. No wonder you got bugs, dude.

    I, for one, like the idea of alien interference. As long as it's limited and can't prevent a win condition. Oh, and as long as whomever created said aliens doesn't sue munk's pants off. Unless munk creates them himself. Should be fun!

    Oh, and I also don't think we need to go to 50%. 51% at the absolute lowest! That could make for an interesting round.
  • Posted By: BabylonHoruv  homeworld | blog | gallery | player profile

      Quote "Rickton":  

      Quote "grimdel":  

    Or... introduce a 6th AI society - with so much turmoil, an alien race (Borg/Dominion/Sith) attacks the galaxy, then it'll just be the players vs the AI and force a win/loss confrontation?


    That could be interesting. I feel like introducing something that makes the end game more dynamic and forces players to act/react would be good.
    I've been pondering some suggestions for more stuff in space for people to fight over...especially some type of useful resource that moves around so players can't just hunker down with huge numbers of drones, but I can't really think of what it would be.

    Although, speaking of huge numbers of drones, I think part of the problem this cycle is psychological. With the trades and ore selling prices so much higher than they used to be, drones are much more plentiful, and I think seeing 100k+ drones on a sector is a deterrent. Losing 150k or more attacking it seems like a huge deal, and while it's not minor, that's not nearly as bad as it used to be. Do you have any stats on the number of drones used in previous wars vs this one for comparison?



    Ports switch their prices and alignment, which has been most of what I have been drone fighting for.
  • Posted By: grimdel  homeworld | blog | gallery | player profile

    Just a thought - at some point the drones follow some game-of-life rules? Adjacent sectors with enemy drones randomly/spontaniously attack each other, and the winner splits drone counts to fill the adjacent sector?

    And once drones go rogue, they aren't 'owned' anymore - cant pick them up by the original owners, and can't be recalled by changing societies or ascending
  • Posted By: Arikel  homeworld | blog | gallery | player profile

    I think, I generally agree with Crash. Essentially we should be looking at better ways to win via strategy than because the game itself bends or lowers the win conditions.

    As to that whole 'winnowing' thing - it's not as if everyone in a given society is actually actively participating in the war effort with the colour they are in [and I daresay some not at all with anyone]. If people were to get squeezed out of a given society because it got closed off that doesn't necessarily mean that those persons would automatically start participating in their 'new' society - and consider that some people do legitimately swing in and out of colours to spy and whatnot - I know so weird someone who doesn't actually stay the same colour always.

    I don't like that drone thing either - I like my drones to stay my drones thank you very much. :)

    As to the possible psychological aspects of this cycle and the huge number of drones out in space as Rickton was suggesting - I wonder too, and I chatted a bit with Rakka :) - That as many of the current Illuminati and current Oddfellows were on the same team last cycle - would they be less inclined to fight much now against each other? There is little issue with either taking shots at the ES in this cycle but I don't see as much contention between those two teams. [or maybe that's just because I don't have a full map anymore - omg can we have something cool that prolongs the frickin map] But look at what happened with the Oddfellows last cycle - they had the manpower and the drones yet failed to win. Are there more psychological issues in play than just the sheer number of drones seeming intimidating?
  • Posted By: grimdel  homeworld | blog | gallery | player profile

    Um - you probably don't have a visual on the day-to-day changes in the map. If you did, you'd probably notice that blue & green are pretty much taking sectors from each other on a daily basis...

    As for last cycle, the winner won because they covered space first. Big advantange to taking empty sectors vs having to fight & backfill.

    This cycle - I blame ThatKat & Munk -> they forced everyone into space before they were ready...
  • Posted By: Salen  homeworld | blog | gallery | player profile

      Quote "grimdel":  

    Um - you probably don't have a visual on the day-to-day changes in the map. If you did, you'd probably notice that blue & green are pretty much taking sectors from each other on a daily basis...

    As for last cycle, the winner won because they covered space first. Big advantange to taking empty sectors vs having to fight & backfill.

    This cycle - I blame ThatKat & Munk -> they forced everyone into space before they were ready...



    now see I don't think they forced anyone too fast, if we all wait till were ready then you get insane numbers like we have now. Id rather jump up there and fight it out with low numbers and struggle then look at sectors with 100k each LOL
  • Posted By: grimdel  homeworld | blog | gallery | player profile

    I dunno - by all of us grabbing territory early, we've pretty much had our own territory, forcing ore donations and dramatically curtailing drone productions.

    So it becomes little itty bitty border skirmishes instead of all out, hell-or-bust-knuckle-drone fests that we've had in the past.

    Every once in a while, someone gains an extra 5-10% but then everyone starts nibbling on the new big guy.... and the cycle drags on...

    Needs a big switch up when things stablize like this...
  • Posted By: BabylonHoruv  homeworld | blog | gallery | player profile

    hehe, ThatKat and Munk?
  • Posted By: munk  homeworld | blog | gallery | player profile

      Quote "BabylonHoruv":  

    hehe, ThatKat and Munk?



    heh, I think it has much to do with the new trades limit, higher profits, more drones, etc.

    Well, 50% seems unpopular. would this idea get any traction if the percentage was say 70%?
  • Posted By: Rakkasan  homeworld | blog | gallery | player profile

      Quote "munk":  

    Well, 50% seems unpopular. would this idea get any traction if the percentage was say 70%?



    I'd be much more willing to entertain a 70% adjustment.
  • Posted By: Salen  homeworld | blog | gallery | player profile

      Quote "munk":  

      Quote "BabylonHoruv":  

    hehe, ThatKat and Munk?



    heh, I think it has much to do with the new trades limit, higher profits, more drones, etc.

    Well, 50% seems unpopular. would this idea get any traction if the percentage was say 70%?



    sounds good to me, I would entertain anything that makes people blow shit up
  • Posted By: grimdel  homeworld | blog | gallery | player profile

      Quote "munk":  

      Quote "BabylonHoruv":  

    hehe, ThatKat and Munk?




    Sherman - set the wayback machine....

    If you remember the initial expansions - Munk was doing his 'experiments' and painted a big section green, and keeping it around. Not exactly sure how much this limited Lummie overall drone output - whether he was making the ore donation every day or the others had to spend resources.

    On the other spectrum, Thatkat was jumping around to different societies every month or so and painting space. The end result was that societies had to make ore donations to buy drones and slowing overall drone accumulation.

    Another side effect is that people would see the sudden color blooms, think it was a grab for space, and started counter attacking. This caused 'blooming' side to start reinforcing sectors or get boxed in. And the reinforcing allowed Thatkat to change societies, but leave 'color' behind, and work her magic on the next sucker... err society.

    There was also a third aggitator - someone was plopping drones on just trade posts, suddenly making it a land grab or lose access to good trades (not sure who that was - maybe crash?)
  • Posted By: munk  homeworld | blog | gallery | player profile

      Quote "grimdel":  

    If you remember the initial expansions - Munk was doing his 'experiments' and painted a big section green, and keeping it around.



    I don't think I ever held more than 3 or 4 sectors. Usually just my one or two asteroid sectors plus the immediate way in. any other green expansion was all them. (:
  • Posted By: crashnburn11  homeworld | blog | gallery | player profile

    I still think there are better mechanisms, but 70% is at least more reasonable than 50%.
  • Posted By: BabylonHoruv  homeworld | blog | gallery | player profile

      Quote "grimdel":  

      Quote "munk":  

      Quote "BabylonHoruv":  

    hehe, ThatKat and Munk?




    Sherman - set the wayback machine....

    If you remember the initial expansions - Munk was doing his 'experiments' and painted a big section green, and keeping it around. Not exactly sure how much this limited Lummie overall drone output - whether he was making the ore donation every day or the others had to spend resources.

    On the other spectrum, Thatkat was jumping around to different societies every month or so and painting space. The end result was that societies had to make ore donations to buy drones and slowing overall drone accumulation.

    Another side effect is that people would see the sudden color blooms, think it was a grab for space, and started counter attacking. This caused 'blooming' side to start reinforcing sectors or get boxed in. And the reinforcing allowed Thatkat to change societies, but leave 'color' behind, and work her magic on the next sucker... err society.

    There was also a third aggitator - someone was plopping drones on just trade posts, suddenly making it a land grab or lose access to good trades (not sure who that was - maybe crash?)




    I was snickering because I painted space blue in tandem with ThatKat, and Munk ended up with the credit. About the perfect result when one is being underhanded.