Aurora 4x
VB6 Aurora => Aurora Chat => Topic started by: Alfapiomega on October 29, 2013, 10:32:49 AM
-
Hello everyone,
with the publishing of 6.3 beta a thought returns to me - we should have a multi-player game. But how to go around it? I think that if we want to have one it will take some time to set it up, create rules and figure out a way in which we could do this..
I know that Aurora is not entirely MP friendly but this was done before by some, correct? It would take a lot of dedication from us, the players and I believe that we would need a central person who would do most of the "playing". A theme should also be discussed and agreed on before we can move any further.
Now take my post as a "fishing for interest" in-between you. Whoever things he would like to try something like this, feel free to say so. If you have any ideas or suggestions, feel free to say so.
I am looking forward to your replies! :)
-
One form of "multiplayer" that I've seen ran successfully in Aurora is community games where one plays and others just select a character to roleplay/flesh out lore and story. Sometimes they are also minor involvement like suggestions or even decision councils.
One guy on the Paradox forums tried a multiplayer start with 8 players + 4 NPEs and it spiraled out of control and complexity really quick in just a few "turns" of 1years - 6months each.
So I think it will be very hard to do MP with more then 3-4 players maximum for the sanity of the gamemaster.
Once I get my head around multi faction starts and how I myself can control the big bad aliens I might host something like this and play as "gamemaster" while describing what happens and letting other people that don't actually have to know how to play Aurora decide what to do.
It's probably wiser to have many players sharing the same few factions (different responsible of Industry/Research/Fleet and so on) rather then having too many factions to keep tabs on as a host.
I'm thinking perhaps 2-4 major earth power factions + game mastered Aliens could work well.
-
It would be fun to find a time frame or two where each team can be represented by a forum member that can make strategic decisions and participate in battle tactics. Scheduling sessions would be even better.
-
I know of at least 6 members on this board who have run either multiplayer or community games.
Panopticon was the first that I know of, with "Community Game" (http://aurora2.pentarch.org/index.php/board,148.0.html), later managed by ardem.
I, Sublight, was next with Children of Sol (http://aurora2.pentarch.org/index.php/topic,4595.0.html) and the sequel Return to Sol (http://aurora2.pentarch.org/index.php/topic,5674.0.html).
7 Dictators (http://aurora2.pentarch.org/index.php/topic,5996.0.html) by Maharava started next, and was soon succeeded by 6-Stars (http://aurora2.pentarch.org/index.php/topic,6101.0.html) run by Nightstar.
The community game "The Galaxy Awaits" (http://aurora2.pentarch.org/index.php/topic,6355.0.html) by Bryan Swartz is the most recent, and the only one I know of still running on these boards.
Let me know if I missed someone.
Nightstar and I ran our games as if they were multiplayer hot-seat. The database was swapped around by drop-box so the players could upload orders and designs directly, with time then advanced by the designated SM.
I believe that Galaxy Awaits is a classic community game, 7-Dictators was run in a chat room, and "Community Game" run through private messages, but since I haven't participated in those I could be wrong.
For what its worth, my second game was 4 player factions + 1 minor non-player power, and that was pushing my limits.
-
Bryan probably has the best setup for a multiplayer Aurora game; one person running and doling out reports to the players concerning their demesnes.
-
Thank you all for your replies!
The thing I had in mind was a combination of what you proposed. It would revolve around a general story where 3-4 players would get "slots" to set up general strategy either directly or through a GM. Preferably though directly. When all set their goals, the game would advance by 3, 6 or 12 months. After that another "turn would work".
In case of any critical situation an intervention from the player, through written orders or through game play directly. But each player should role-play and have certain directives for his captains and civilians to obey if they are done or come across a thing. I imagine a word page submitted with each turn that would give everyone an idea about alternative goals or future technologies, targets of colonization etc.
BTW I would be happy to be the GM of such game. I think it would be doable. At least turn or two every week should be fine.
-
Once I get my head around multi faction starts and how I myself can control the big bad aliens I might host something like this and play as "gamemaster" while describing what happens and letting other people that don't actually have to know how to play Aurora decide what to do.
It's probably wiser to have many players sharing the same few factions (different responsible of Industry/Research/Fleet and so on) rather then having too many factions to keep tabs on as a host.
I'm thinking perhaps 2-4 major earth power factions + game mastered Aliens could work well.
Tested a bit last night and apparently I have been afraid for no reason, multi faction starts seem fairly simple to manage in Aurora now when I have a decent grasp of the rest of the game! :)
I'll host a Multiplayer game with 12 - 6 or 3 month turns once 6.30 stable is released, but not on these forums since it's more fun to try to introduce the game to new players.
Good work on the Let's plays Alfapiomega, thanks to you I am now also hooked on that airline sim browser game :P
-
Tested a bit last night and apparently I have been afraid for no reason, multi faction starts seem fairly simple to manage in Aurora now when I have a decent grasp of the rest of the game! :)
I'll host a Multiplayer game with 12 - 6 or 3 month turns once 6.30 stable is released, but not on these forums since it's more fun to try to introduce the game to new players.
Good work on the Let's plays Alfapiomega, thanks to you I am now also hooked on that airline sim browser game :P
You are welcome! And I am happy to earn another subscriber :D
Regarding the hosting - if you do it, please drop me a message. I would be quite interested in joining and maybe even recording such endeavor. But I wanted to organize it here primarily as new players should first play alone before going against other players in my opinion. Plus players here are most dedicated, anywhere else it's a shot into the dark and you may end up with several people dropping out in the matter of days (on that take my word...).
-
But I wanted to organize it here primarily as new players should first play alone before going against other players in my opinion. Plus players here are most dedicated, anywhere else it's a shot into the dark and you may end up with several people dropping out in the matter of days (on that take my word...).
The Idea is not to play a Versus game, but a dynamic game where diplomacy and cooperation is at least if not more important compared to knowledge of Aurora. In a 4 empire start it will help little you are more knowledgeable if the other 3 gang up on you :)
Since the turns will be several months aurora time anyway and the complexity won't allow detailed control the host / GM will need to interpret orders anyways.
In my eyes it doesn't matter if the order is "Focus on building Industry for 1 year" or a more specific "build 76 Industrial Complexes since that is what I calculated we can build in one year". With a setup with several players per empire every one will also respond if they are interested in taking over, and the first job of an empire leader player is to decide a second in command to take over in his absence. Hopefully such a setup can lead to swift hand-overs (temporary or permanent) if someone drops out. And it can also be interesting from a pure story perspective with empires changing direction according to leaders changing.
I also have some vague ideas regarding how certain aliens may "encourage" cooperation and an interesting story rather then a FFA death-match or versus game :)
Edit:
My way of "multiplayer" is closer to community game and also does not include any sharing of database so there would not be anything to record for players other then the roleplaying, communications and the forum thread...
-
The Idea is not to play a Versus game, but a dynamic game where diplomacy and cooperation is at least if not more important compared to knowledge of Aurora. In a 4 empire start it will help little you are more knowledgeable if the other 3 gang up on you :)
Since the turns will be several months aurora time anyway and the complexity won't allow detailed control the host / GM will need to interpret orders anyways.
In my eyes it doesn't matter if the order is "Focus on building Industry for 1 year" or a more specific "build 76 Industrial Complexes since that is what I calculated we can build in one year". With a setup with several players per empire every one will also respond if they are interested in taking over, and the first job of an empire leader player is to decide a second in command to take over in his absence. Hopefully such a setup can lead to swift hand-overs (temporary or permanent) if someone drops out. And it can also be interesting from a pure story perspective with empires changing direction according to leaders changing.
I also have some vague ideas regarding how certain aliens may "encourage" cooperation and an interesting story rather then a FFA death-match or versus game :)
As nice as that may sound I still stand by: "They will get lost in the complexity" as we all had that problem + the activity problem stands too.
-
Put the less knowledgable players in the higher responsibility positions. I.E. Director of BuShips decides how many ships of type X to order knowing he can build 3 at a time for a cost of Y minerals. Something along those lines. Let the more knowledgable players design the components and ships.
Or form a Senate. Let the Senate vote on appropriations for military ships, etc.
-
Put the less knowledgable players in the higher responsibility positions. I.E. Director of BuShips decides how many ships of type X to order knowing he can build 3 at a time for a cost of Y minerals. Something along those lines. Let the more knowledgable players design the components and ships.
Yes that is the plan. The only position that actually will require Aurora knowledge is ship design, but that is optional and they are free to leave it to the host (me) instead if they want (or can't find someone interested) and just order rough outlines:
"We order two 10000 ton armored cruisers with rail-guns as main weapons - make it happen" (This that order will have impact on everything from shipyard expansion, component research and so on).
The focus is to use Aurora on what it is best at, generate and support awesome stories.
-
I've dreamed of playing a 2-player server where each player would play 2 "sides", one of the sides would be a side on earth and the other an alien. Expanding this model, you very quickly get a game where earth is divided and beset by really cool enemies, which is exactly what I'm trying to create in my "United Nations of Earth" campaign...which ran for 2 years, then bugged out and collapsed, and I'm only recently starting up. Technically it's a 4 player game, with my girlfriend playing 2 factions sporadically and honestly quite badly("The China Sphere" and "Brazil") and me playing 2 factions almost every night("NATO-Russo" (which exercise nominal control over corsair fleets) and "The United Nations") but technically almost everything is controlled by the United Nations, with the other three sides just periodically taking some ships rogue and "messing with" the UN or each other. Sometimes my girlfriend will start a small fight with me for funnies. We both have the SM password and I'd say I do 98% of the playing, but the random component actually makes for some fun.
I don't think it's possible to do a multiplayer game of aurora without a lot of real dedication to RPing, but I think we all have that. I would like to participate in one at some point if people are interested, but it'd be weird juggling multiple games...and I like my current game a lot...maybe one where I got to play the villainous alien menace as opposed to the intrepid humans.
Yes that's it, if anyone would like to fight an unknown alien threat, please write me.
-
So I have checked the suggested and past multi-player games (thank you sublight for providing the information) and the best choice in my opinion is the community game version that was ran by Panopticon.
So if I went ahead and tried to organize something as that, would there be any people interested in such game?
Short review of my proposal:
- multiplayer game ran by a neutral GM (possibly me but I will be more than happy to delegate this to somebody else)
- the format would be running through order sheets and reports that are submitted by GM to the players and by players to GM
- number of factions and their statistics to be decided
- backstory to be decided (I love hard games so it would be most likely something that would require players to stay on their legs the whole time = in another words a challenge)
-
I am intending to run a multination Earth campaign set from 2030 onwards once the dust has cleared from v6.3's release.
I've considered a variety of formats, and having followed several of the community games that have been run have settled on a slightly less involved system, to avoid the problems that crop up with turn timing, etc. as the game goes on and conflicts and the like become more common. Essentially, the players will run their faction from a very high level (ie. 30000ft view style), with the majority of decisions being more about policy and planning than the specifics of implementation - those things will be left to your staff, which is represented by myself based on the characters (and their traits and history) assigned to various functions in the game itself.
In the normal course of things, the player would get yearly reports based on various aspects of their faction - military, economy, politics & espionage (run through a separate system in lieu of Aurora's built in espionage system, which will be reserved for use against NPR's only), and the like. A lot of this is just information, with significant events or decisions asking for input (for example, there might be two competing design proposals for a new ship design, which the military wants the leaderships opinion on), and these decisions will shape the future overall policy of the faction. A player could choose to receive more detail about specific aspects (ie. representing increased scrutiny/interest in specific functions) but this would come with the tradeoff of less awareness and a more passive approach to other aspects (essentially to discourage wanting extra detail on everything, which is of course likely to lead to slowdowns).
Key events like declarations of war, reports about first contact (not first contact itself - that would be handled by the commander on scene alongside the fleet commander if there is a comms link) and the like would result in 'midturn' interrupts and notifications. For both regular turns and these interrupts, there would be a certain period allowed for responses, after which decisions would be taken by your highest ranking character (typically the Administrator for Earth). If someone does miss the period and sends in something late, then of course I will try to correct the back towards those decisions wherever possible. Note that in this system all communications including diplomacy and trade negotiations would go through me, to allow for things like interception of messages by espionage teams, etc.
I intend to run a scaled down version of this system to test how well it works in a 3-4 faction setup, after which I will be looking to start getting players togeather for my intended larger campaign. That will feature 10 initial factions, with the potential for 2 more to emerge during the course of the game. The target would most likely be 6-8 players, as there are 7 major or intermediate factions.
-
It looks like many of us are aiming for fairly similar things.
One problem however with the setup is that I need a good way to allow an efficient way to communicate and post orders/updates that would only be visible to a select amount of people (those in an alliance or those in control of various positions in the same nation).
This probably means everyone registering on a forum with several restricted sub-forums that provide means of communication for players within alliances/nations as well as a good place to post updates and orders.
Since I'm not very good at setting up my own forum perhaps someone here knows of a forum this would be possible?
You would have to be allowed to get your own sub-forum including enough moderation rights to also set up restricted sub-subforums and control access to them.
-
It looks like many of us are aiming for fairly similar things.
One problem however with the setup is that I need a good way to allow an efficient way to communicate and post orders/updates that would only be visible to a select amount of people (those in an alliance or those in control of various positions in the same nation).
This probably means everyone registering on a forum with several restricted sub-forums that provide means of communication for players within alliances/nations as well as a good place to post updates and orders.
Since I'm not very good at setting up my own forum perhaps someone here knows of a forum this would be possible?
You would have to be allowed to get your own sub-forum including enough moderation rights to also set up restricted sub-subforums and control access to them.
I could be talked into setting such a thing up here... The only caveat would be that global moderators would still see the forums. At the moment, I think there 1 besides myself and Steve still active.
-
It sounds like quite a few of us have been contemplating running a new multiplayer/comunity game. 8)
My own idea was to organize a series of 2 or 3 player scenarios run in parallel by several System Masters each acting as players in other games. This would keep each game small enough to run quickly while providing a pointed objective to ensure interesting completion occurs before the game ends.
I've considered a variety of formats, and having followed several of the community games that have been run have settled on a slightly less involved system, to avoid the problems that crop up with turn timing, etc. as the game goes on and conflicts and the like become more common. Essentially, the players will run their faction from a very high level (ie. 30000ft view style), with the majority of decisions being more about policy and planning than the specifics of implementation - those things will be left to your staff, which is represented by myself based on the characters (and their traits and history) assigned to various functions in the game itself.
...
I intend to run a scaled down version of this system to test how well it works in a 3-4 faction setup, after which I will be looking to start getting players togeather for my intended larger campaign. That will feature 10 initial factions, with the potential for 2 more to emerge during the course of the game. The target would most likely be 6-8 players, as there are 7 major or intermediate factions.
I like this idea and suspect it will work well. From the System Master's perspective this would play out as a personal AAR reported multi-faction game, only with faction divergence driven by other people rather than ones own creativity. However, I would caution against 7+ factions for anything other than a Sol-only conventional start. Games with multiple trading Interstellar factions always run slower than we think at first. Partially from increased sensor detection complexity, but also from the rapid increase in event-reporting shipyards/planets/ships all crying for new orders. Still, if you are good at making snap decisions and quick designs you might have a chance with 6-8 players provided you avoid micromanaging and keep the players to a 30000ft view.
One problem however with the setup is that I need a good way to allow an efficient way to communicate and post orders/updates that would only be visible to a select amount of people (those in an alliance or those in control of various positions in the same nation).
Personal messages usually work pretty well and can be sent to multiple individuals.
-
I like this idea and suspect it will work well. From the System Master's perspective this would play out as a personal AAR reported multi-faction game, only with faction divergence driven by other people rather than ones own creativity. However, I would caution against 7+ factions for anything other than a Sol-only conventional start. Games with multiple trading Interstellar factions always run slower than we think at first. Partially from increased sensor detection complexity, but also from the rapid increase in event-reporting shipyards/planets/ships all crying for new orders. Still, if you are good at making snap decisions and quick designs you might have a chance with 6-8 players provided you avoid micromanaging and keep the players to a 30000ft view.
Yes, this is an Earth based conventional start, with Jump Theory requiring specific events to be available for research, so Sol will be important, at least to begin with. I expect a couple of the minor factions will not survive in their current form to the interstellar phase, either getting gobbled up or consolidating into something larger.
One of the players is actually not familiar with Aurora at all, so thats my benchmark for the kind of information I need to provide (obviously I've explained the basic principle to him). I expect more experienced players will want more involvement, and the important thing is finding the balance between allowing interaction and 'ownership' of a faction, and keeping things running.
I look forward to seeing a lot of these ideas running in the future. ;D
-
I could be talked into setting such a thing up here... The only caveat would be that global moderators would still see the forums. At the moment, I think there 1 besides myself and Steve still active.
I'd love that!
However I aim to bring in many new players so I'm not sure this forum is well suited for all of the fiction (seeing how new members are forbidden to post images and links, as well as have problems with dots and spacing in edits and quotes).
If it was aimed only for people already registered on this forum it would work perfectly.
Currently I'm planning, testing and writing background story, as well as waiting for bug fixing patch for 6.30.
So if that is still OK I'll PM you with more details once we get closer to a start.
Personal messages usually work pretty well and can be sent to multiple individuals.
I have tried to use it previously for other forum/community games but found it fairly cumbersome. Especially on the Paradox forums where you are limited to 25 messages (in both in and outbox).
1.) They are hard to edit if you miss something.
2.) Most forums don't support sending PMs to pre setup "groups" or has limited amount of recipients, so for larger mass messages it can be some work.
3.) Normally also limited in some way how many PMs you can save.
4.) A forum format invites to much more discussion then PMs possibly can (replies to PMs are private)
5.) It's also a shame to lock away so much RP and story as well as critical information about the campaign in private in-boxes instead of collecting it in a form that can be opened up and shown to everyone after the game is over.
-
I'd love that!
However I aim to bring in many new players so I'm not sure this forum is well suited for all of the fiction (seeing how new members are forbidden to post images and links, as well as have problems with dots and spacing in edits and quotes).
That only applies to people with less than 10 posts. After that, things act as normal.
-
I was thinking about running a game as sort of a "Game Master" where I would upload the database to a share and send the link to the players so they can observe their faction and then send policy updates to me as I play the game for them.
The game would not have any AI NPRs, each player would play a faction based on Earth all roughly equal from the start of the game. Precursors and Swarm should be active but the GM would take the role of any NPR that appear as a means to steer the story or present an external threat/opportunity.
The players would mainly influence the game in a strategic fashion as well as developing naval organization & engagement doctrines (not absolutes). The player would also have some influence over their ships design, but only superficial. They would mainly be playing the political power and sometimes get pressure from the people. People might request the development of certain planets or systems, demand certain autonomy and so forth, all depends on how the game would develop.
Players should obviously feel that they have enough influence over their faction, but their power would not be absolute. They should be allowed to write relatively detailed plans for military operations and fleet compositions, but they must still be on a strategic scale.
The game should be more about the story than somebody actually winning the game. It would be more about the survival of the human race as well as being the strongest faction with the highest prestige.
Combat would probably be presented to the players with screenshots and a short "After Action Report" as written to the civilian government by the military leaders.
Each player would have its own thread to post their policy changes and guidelines as the game progress. Or it would be conducted by E-mail and I the GM would paste world news in the form of bulletins and headlines compiling all "official" events during the year. This information would obviously be open to everyone, even none players.
Would such an idea work with about five players perhaps?
-
One weird idea that came into my mind.
One awsome thing would be to have a web interface of the game, where players select what they will do and then the amount of time that the game will pass.
Then at the end of X days, the website bot do the ingame changes needed and advance some time (average of what users selected of smallest time).
Of course this is problably a super hard thing to do.
If you want to allow players to play the same team, you could do a even more complex thing, make a thing that allow players from the same team only see some screens or just edit some screens. So you could have a team where one guy fly ships, another one do research and build ships and a third one do the rest (and also do research and build ships)
-
One weird idea that came into my mind.
One awsome thing would be to have a web interface of the game, where players select what they will do and then the amount of time that the game will pass.
Then at the end of X days, the website bot do the ingame changes needed and advance some time (average of what users selected of smallest time).
Of course this is problably a super hard thing to do.
If you want to allow players to play the same team, you could do a even more complex thing, make a thing that allow players from the same team only see some screens or just edit some screens. So you could have a team where one guy fly ships, another one do research and build ships and a third one do the rest (and also do research and build ships)
Thats actually a very interesting idea, even if its only as a method to present reports to players in a game format like mine...
-
Thats actually a very interesting idea, if only as a method to present reports to players in a format like mine. . .
what???
Anyway, on my idea the web thing would just be a interface, the game woudlnt be ported to java, flash o something like that. .
The game would be on the server.
Players use the website interface to control the game. This interface would show everything the game show.
After X amount of days, the game will auto-pass Y amount of time.
This Y value is average amount of time players selected to pass, using the web interface, or the smallest value (this time not counting the guys that didnt passed). Didnt decided what is the best choice between those 2.
Yes this is problably a complex thing to do.
The point of it is. . .
1-The game doenst need to be recoded to include internet multiplayer.
2-You will not need to send saves to other places, like with play by email stuff.
3-Players play at the same time and not based on turns
-
I've twice tried to run a community game where the players don't need to actually play Aurora, just give their orders to me. Some things I learned:
(1) The more players you have, the slower and more cumbersome it gets. Just making the annual reports takes some time if you have to make twelve of them.
(2) The sensor sweeps can very quickly bog the game down, though 6.3 is now supposed to help with this. Alternatively, it's wise to decree that turning active sensors on at Earth (or the common starting planet) is an act of war.
(3) If a player doesn't send their orders in time, don't wait for them, it could be weeks. Just rely on what their earlier orders were and act along the same vein, call it their second-in-command.
(4) SM cannot fix all problems, you need designer password for that.
(5) Beware of any additional systems that you add on top - I added diplomacy, to annex neutral countries, and a home-brewn espionage system that was more complicated than the in-game one: both added quite a bit of work for me, for very little gain.
But the players did seem to have fun and the fiction/propaganda/etc that they came up with was both funny and highly entertaining.
-
I found it absolutely necessary to develop my own set of tools to provide the community players of my LP with information. Providing it manually on-demand just took up too much of my time.
So I created my Coldest War Viewer (http://www.bgreman.com/LP/Aurora/ColdestWarViewer/index.html) to assist. It replicates the views of a lot of the in-game stuff. I've thus rewritten a large portion of the Aurora front-end and if I knew every single game mechanic, I could probably rewrite the game itself at this point. I have no real desire to do so, though.
Note: The System Map and Officers viewer are currently broken due to some data format changes I made. They were written by a collaborator who doesn't have time to fix them, so don't be surprised if they look or behave strangely.
-
That's fantastic Bgreman!
But how would it work? You copy the database to your own server and the players have specific links they use or passwords? Or something else? Basically, what would I need to get something like that working for my own game?
-
I think if I ever teach Young Adults again, Aurora might be a good teaching tool. I'll divide the class into two groups and make fleets for both with different advantages and disadvantages, and then say the fleets will fight. The teams will need to decide how configure the fleets and when to order the fighters to launch and stuff. It will be a good exercise in concrete skills like mathematics and more abstract ones like attention and focus and creativity, because the more closely they study their spaceships, the more aware they'll be of their capabilities.
Wouldn't really require knowing super particular details like "this weapon fires 5 times a second and requires 95 power" or whatever. Just "the destroyer has a longer range than the battleship, and is faster, but it has less armor and missile defense." and basic principles like "ships with no missile defense need ships with missile defense, or need to avoid being seen"
-
That's fantastic Bgreman!
But how would it work? You copy the database to your own server and the players have specific links they use or passwords? Or something else? Basically, what would I need to get something like that working for my own game?
The viewer is read-only; it's not meant for use in playing the game. Basically the way it works is that the tool runs through the DB and generates a bunch of json "report" files. I upload those to my website, where the front-end PHP pages that have been created can read the json and present it in a tabular format.
I may go back and clean it up for public consumption. Right now it has a few things hardcoded that are particular to my game.
-
The viewer is read-only; it's not meant for use in playing the game. Basically the way it works is that the tool runs through the DB and generates a bunch of json "report" files. I upload those to my website, where the front-end PHP pages that have been created can read the json and present it in a tabular format.
I may go back and clean it up for public consumption. Right now it has a few things hardcoded that are particular to my game.
I am sure I am not alone when I say: "That would be much appreciated"!
-
The viewer is read-only; it's not meant for use in playing the game. Basically the way it works is that the tool runs through the DB and generates a bunch of json "report" files. I upload those to my website, where the front-end PHP pages that have been created can read the json and present it in a tabular format.
I may go back and clean it up for public consumption. Right now it has a few things hardcoded that are particular to my game.
I've gone ahead and cleaned this up and am releasing it. You can find it here (https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B-LIB8708NQsNExYb3dDZklBZEk/edit?usp=sharing). READ THE README! I take no responsibility for it destroying your save games if it happens to do that, though, since its only reading from the DB and not writing, it shouldn't. Use at your own risk.
Main thread here (http://aurora2.pentarch.org/index.php/topic,6631.0.html).
-
I know this hasn't been posted in for nearly two months, but I've always been interested in a multiplayer session. One of the scenarios I had been thinking about would be a corporation based game where the GM is basically the government and controls all (or most) of the military ships. The players control corporations that focus on mining and researching, although their research options would be limited. For example, it wouldn't make sense to allow them to research Expand Economy. Their relationship with the government would be attempting to secure contracts for ships and other constructions, or they could be hired out to develop new colonies.
I saw a few people talking about using other forums. I always thought it would be cool to setup one major game, but have different teams on different forums. Each forum could add their own input and direct their empire, which would also open up the possibility for espionage and diplomacy and such, although it might be hard to manage all of it.
Just a few ideas.
-
I know this hasn't been posted in for nearly two months, but I've always been interested in a multiplayer session. One of the scenarios I had been thinking about would be a corporation based game where the GM is basically the government and controls all (or most) of the military ships. The players control corporations that focus on mining and researching, although their research options would be limited. For example, it wouldn't make sense to allow them to research Expand Economy. Their relationship with the government would be attempting to secure contracts for ships and other constructions, or they could be hired out to develop new colonies.
I saw a few people talking about using other forums. I always thought it would be cool to setup one major game, but have different teams on different forums. Each forum could add their own input and direct their empire, which would also open up the possibility for espionage and diplomacy and such, although it might be hard to manage all of it.
Just a few ideas.
Are you planning to do this?
-
I saw a few people talking about using other forums. I always thought it would be cool to setup one major game, but have different teams on different forums. Each forum could add their own input and direct their empire, which would also open up the possibility for espionage and diplomacy and such, although it might be hard to manage all of it.
Just a few ideas.
That is an interesting Idea, Would you inform the players their opponents are active players on other forums or try to hide it? :)
It's also a great and logical way to divide a major game, having it all in one thread will be confusing if there are many players involved.
-
Are you planning to do this?
I don't currently have the time, although I would love to if I did.
I feel like a corporation setting would cut down on a lot of micromanagement that comes with ordering fleets around. However, that also takes away a good portion of the fun. On the plus side, the corporations could still design their own personal military ships, they would just be limited in number and production. The government wouldn't want these businesses getting too powerful. I always imagined them focusing on commercial shipyards so that they can construct their own freighters, colony ships, fuel harvesters, asteroid miners, or terraformers. Or maybe one corporation specializes in specific ship construction and another focuses on R&D for component designs to produce better ships. They can then sell them to other corporations.
I've got a lot of ideas for it, I just wish I had the time.
That is an interesting Idea, Would you inform the players their opponents are active players on other forums or try to hide it? :)
It's also a great and logical way to divide a major game, having it all in one thread will be confusing if there are many players involved.
Informing them is what I'm unsure about. Very sensitive information would be openly available to anyone that stumbles upon the other teams forum thread. However, that adds to the fun of it and allows for open diplomacy and espionage.
But I also like the idea you suggested about having a subforum with limited access. I agree that forums are much better than PMs and using that setup would be a huge advantage to any multiplayer game.
-
Limited access forums are certainly doable here. A forum for each faction that is limited to members of said faction, and a public forum with updates so non-players could see.
-
I'd be interested in that.
-
Limited access forums are certainly doable here. A forum for each faction that is limited to members of said faction, and a public forum with updates so non-players could see.
I have been planning a forum RPG MP campaign for a while now based on this setup :)
Once 6.4 hits and we can verify it's stable Id love to try it out.
-
I'd also be interested in either playing or running a game based on this, I actually have free time these days.
-
I think the most interesting[1] would be having say a military leader (sends warships out), civilian (responsible for surveys/ gov't freighters/colonists), and a research directorate, per side. They can make plans and agree on paths to take, or just go at it.
[1] interesting in the Chinese[2] definition.
[2] NOT Steve's Chinese.
-
I'd very, very much like to take part in such a game, though not (as I had thought a few months back) as GM, as I do not have enough time for that.
There had been a proposal for such a game on the B12 forums (http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=133635.0), with an interesting premise of limited influence, limited communications, and much more. This is something that sounds reasonable, and something I'd very much like, though I'd probably be part of nearly any mp game.
-
I pretty well like the limitations on that game, though I think if we do get a game going we should talk about these things. I don't know if I have time to run the game but I would help with at least setting up the rules and such.
-
There had been a proposal for such a game on the B12 forums (http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=133635.0), with an interesting premise of limited influence, limited communications, and much more. This is something that sounds reasonable, and something I'd very much like, though I'd probably be part of nearly any mp game.
Cool. That's almost exactly what I have in mind, although with a bit more freedom for Head of States to define supporting roles them self and recruit suiting members to fill them. :)
-
Cool. That's almost exactly what I have in mind, although with a bit more freedom for Head of States to define supporting roles them self and recruit suiting members to fill them. :)
Picture me drooling. Also, reserving a slot ;-)
If you - or anyone else - is sure he or she'd be starting such a game, I'd propose we might open up a thread collectively designing such rules.
There have been a few other discussions and a poll regarding such games, too. Here (http://aurora2.pentarch.org/index.php/topic,6174.0.html) is a discussion after Nightstar's game ended, including experiences from him about the game. Important results (quoting Nightstar):
- The time does in fact go up with the square of involved players. Isolationists help, but more than four real races is a horrible idea.
- Never ever EVER agree to control something manually that could be done another way. This includes any more than one fleet reorder unless they're making a full scale attack.
- Remember that a game will last months, not weeks.
- Civilians are evil. EVIL.
Additionally, in the course of looking for said replacement game, there had been a poll about different options here. (http://aurora2.pentarch.org/index.php/topic,6068.0.html)
-
Let me renew my interest as a player (or SM). 8)
So far, counting only 2014 interest, I see seven potential players so far, 6 when realizing someone will be SM. (alex_brunius, Panopticon, 3_1415, Sematary, Alfapiomega, Cripes Amighty, Sublight).
I'll second Erik's plan of division. Having 2-3 factions each controlled by 3-4 players with specific roles sounds like it would provide the best balance between playability, RP story telling, and personal involvement. I suspect delegating ships/responsibilities in abstract out over a larger player group would result in detached experience more akin to being in the peanut gallery of a Lets Play.
Also, am I the only one excited by the possibility of mixing 6.4 truce countdowns in with multiple player factions? An alternative corporation setting might have 2-3 international corporate factions each with a couple hundred million 'employees,' with the governing superpowers represented by 2-3 significantly larger NPRs on a truce countdown.
-
If 6.4 is released by April and we still don't have someone who can be the SM, I could probably do it. I am not the best choice but I probably have the time.
-
I also agree with Erik's suggestion. 2-3 empires consisting of 3-4 players would be best, although I think that the number of people per empire could vary. The only problem that might cause is loyalties and figuring out who has access to which subforum (if that's the format we go with).
6.4 is going to open up a lot of possibilities with these scenarios (at least it feels like it).
Should we start discussing scenarios already? Would 2-3 Earth empires make sense? Or maybe separate them throughout the Sol system like in Steve's current campaign? Or separate systems?
Personally, I don't like the separate systems as it limits contact at the very beginning. What do you guys think?
-
I support different planets, but within the same system
-
Different planets, same system usually works out ok.
Earth starts make civilian trade fast and profitable, make potential planetary combat extremely first-strike/MAD sensitive, and guarantee technological osmosis. While that might enhance some scenarios, this can be problematic for others.
Separate systems are ok for high tech starts, but low tech starts pretty much require same-system setups to avoid isolation issues.
It looks like half of us are willing to try the SM side.
Do we want to try to get 2 or 3 multi-player games running simultaneously?
-
Different planets, same system usually works out ok.
Earth starts make civilian trade fast and profitable, make potential planetary combat extremely first-strike/MAD sensitive, and guarantee technological osmosis. While that might enhance some scenarios, this can be problematic for others.
Separate systems are ok for high tech starts, but low tech starts pretty much require same-system setups to avoid isolation issues.
It looks like half of us are willing to try the SM side.
Do we want to try to get 2 or 3 multi-player games running simultaneously?
Lets get one going first and then possibly more depending on how it goes. I am in favor of a start similar to Steve's current campaign for our first go.
-
The more I think about it, the more I like same system, different planets. As does everyone else it looks like :D.
I guess some other things I've been wondering about that could easily be decided are:
- Would every empire be human? This probably depends more on the backstory, but sometimes too much background can mess with roleplaying.
- Conventional start or trans-newtonian? If trans-newtonian, what limit on RP should each empire have? Should they be restricted from researching Jump Point Theory?
- Are fleets already constructed? Limit on build points?
- Generally accepted laws of the universe? Jump gates or jump capable ships on jump points for FTL communications is really the only one I can think of.
- Number of starting facilities? Shipyards?
Personally, I don't see a problem with having different races, although I would imagine if we were using Sol, it would make sense to use humans. Not sure if anyone else was thinking of something different.
I'm all for an accelerated start though, meaning I think trans-newtonian and constructed fleets would be more fun. Conventional starts just seem too slow, even in single-player. I also think it would be cool to have RP and building point limits, but that they could be exchangeable.
Ex. Starting RP 100,000 and Starting BP 10,000. Empires could exchange RP for BP at a rate of 1 BP = 10 RP, meaning that the players could come up with slightly different empires. One could be more technologically advanced at the start, but have a smaller fleet by converting their BP into RP. Or just the opposite.
I think something similar could be applied to the installation setup. Rather than give everyone the exact same facilities from the start, let them choose.
Ex. Assigning 700 "Conventional Industry" that can immediately be exchanged 1 to 1 for any facility costing 120 regularly. This way, if an empire isn't pursuing a fighter strategy, they wouldn't be bogged down with a generic "50 fighter factories" or something similar. Shipyards could be the same way. Assign a standard Naval and Commercial shipyard amount that can be divided as required by each empire. Research facilities should probably be distributed evenly, unless some exchange was used like 20 conventional industry = 1 research facility. However, it could be horribly unbalanced...
These are just some thoughts, although I've probably gotten ahead of myself. Just had some spare time that wasn't being consumed and I threw myself into this.
-
Or possibly give each player a set amount of wealth and they can choose their starting facilities based on that.
-
Starting in the same system has some disadvantages, for example the sensor complexity due to all happening in one single system. Civilians would be difficult, I imagine. This is something which, in my opinion, would stand for a connected-system-approach, for example with three to four player systems around a destroyed earth. With sol devoid of its best colony, there is less of a need for conflict there (though, if you up the mineral levels some, there'd still be some).
I'd prefer a trans-newtonian start; otherwise we have the problem of very boring turns in the beginning.
Now, an accelerated start sounds interesting. There was a game in which a buying system was done, but only for RPs. We might consider starting either with a certain number of CFs which we could, at a one:one ratio in construction points, exchange for others. This would then result in, for example, 1 Research Lab = 1 GFTF = 20CF = 20FF = 20Fuel Refineries = 20Ordnance factories = 20 mines = 20 automines = 8 DSTS.
Alternatively, we might assign a certain number of everything to every empire, and allow them to assign the construction of the last 5-10 years to whatever they want.
Also, things I'd very much like:
- Standing orders only - you cannot directly influence a battlegroup (unless, possibly, you are in command of that. That would require more players, though)
- Limited FTL - only colonies, orbital hapitats and possibly PDCs mount FTL com.
- Everyone is in contact with everyone from the beginning
- Limited communications, for example at maximum EMSensorStrength x 1000 x 10,000km range. Both must be in range for dual-com, and all communication (except if on the same position) is omni-directional and can be intercepted.
- Building and design cycles
- Solar system destroyed and outlying colonies are player-controlled; if so, all sol connections have jump gates.
- No NPRs, Spoilers etc. - everything is player- or SM-controlled
- Ideally, three or four factions, as this makes diplomacy more fun.
There is, lastly, another idea I had: Use the sol-destroyed start, and set the maximum number of systems so something small, for example 30-50 systems. This should make the end more... explosive, shall we say?
-
Count me in as a player (possible GM). :)
I prefer same system with different planets start. System could be sol or a random one with one or more suns. It makes far more interesting game. Start should be trans-newtonian else most of the start will be dull. Players should have RP to choose techs (i think 20k-30k points would suffice) and some BP to have pre start ships and defenses. A wealth based or conversion rate of conventional factory’s based system for industry buildings will give some difference in starting industries.
Different systems will need far more advanced tech than a single system.
-
The sensor check disadvantage for a single system is smaller than you would think. Remember, in multiplayer civilians are EVIL. As soon as they start trading the sensor checks come roaring back in full force to split-system starts.
- Pure conventional starts are too slow. Accelerated conventional starts can work.
- Any communication restrictions should be simple and easy for the SM to implement.
- Granting everyone diplomatic communication from the start would be a good thing.
- I'd suggest separate RP pools and BP pools, and allow the BP pool to be used for both PDC and additional Infrastructure.
- Eliminate or create custom rules for espionage teams.
Now, are people thinking pure-sandbox or having a driving theme?
- Ticking Time Bomb: Start with NPRs on Truce countdown.
- Cooling Sun. Better find a new home before the greenhouse gas cap hits.
- Invading Aliens under SM (or other player) control. Defend, build, then counterattack.
- Limited universe, limited real-estate. A race to find and claim the juiciest locations.
- Something else?
While a small system cap makes conflict outside of Sol easier, it will still likely be months in real life before jump point loops are established.
-
The sensor checks thing can be somewhat mitigated with enough DSTs for each faction that the entire system is covered, so nothing leaves sensor range, as for civilians i would probably say for the sake of simplicity that the SM either delete the lines when they pop up, or ruthlessly cull the amount of ships they have.
-
I think it's probably easiest to design a simple, abstract system for inter-empire trade. If two empires have trade agreements and no hostile powers have ships on the route between the two, then every quarter the SM can just give the two some money. Intra-empire trade can be done away with completely. Or you could forget trade completely and still have fun.
It's a small sacrifice, I think, to make everyone's headaches a little easier. The loss of civilian colony ships and fuel harvesters is something that can be worked around.
-
Starting in the same system has some disadvantages, for example the sensor complexity due to all happening in one single system. Civilians would be difficult, I imagine. This is something which, in my opinion, would stand for a connected-system-approach, for example with three to four player systems around a destroyed earth. With sol devoid of its best colony, there is less of a need for conflict there (though, if you up the mineral levels some, there'd still be some).
A destroyed Earth sounds interesting.
I'd prefer a trans-newtonian start; otherwise we have the problem of very boring turns in the beginning.
Agreed.
Now, an accelerated start sounds interesting. There was a game in which a buying system was done, but only for RPs. We might consider starting either with a certain number of CFs which we could, at a one:one ratio in construction points, exchange for others. This would then result in, for example, 1 Research Lab = 1 GFTF = 20CF = 20FF = 20Fuel Refineries = 20Ordnance factories = 20 mines = 20 automines = 8 DSTS.
Alternatively, we might assign a certain number of everything to every empire, and allow them to assign the construction of the last 5-10 years to whatever they want.
I like this idea, a lot actually.
Also, things I'd very much like:
- Standing orders only - you cannot directly influence a battlegroup (unless, possibly, you are in command of that. That would require more players, though)
I like a SOP idea with the ability to give some ships a mission and have that mission have specific orders that might go against SOP. To phrase it slightly differently, ships can have missions with set operating procedures but if they don't have those for a mission there is a default set. And how well a commanding officer follows those depends, at least partially, on his personality traits.
- Limited FTL - only colonies, orbital hapitats and possibly PDCs mount FTL com.
- Everyone is in contact with everyone from the beginning
- Limited communications, for example at maximum EMSensorStrength x 1000 x 10,000km range. Both must be in range for dual-com, and all communication (except if on the same position) is omni-directional and can be intercepted.
I like the first two points here. I do not like the third. Targeted messages that can be encoded have been something that is capable since the invention of fire I don't like the idea that it suddenly disappears. I would suggest that we have different ranges, so omnidirectional unencoded is the farthest, then targeted unencoded, omnidirectional encoded, targeted encoded. So omnidirectional unencoded has the EM sensor strength x 1,000 x 10,000km while targeted encoded has a range of say EM sensor strength x 200 x 10,000 km. So with EM sensors of 10 you get a range of 100,000,000 km for omnidirectional unencoded and 20,000,000 km for targeted encoded.
- Building and design cycles
- Solar system destroyed and outlying colonies are player-controlled; if so, all sol connections have jump gates.
I like this. Both would have to be fleshed out a bit of course but other than that it sounds great.
- No NPRs, Spoilers etc. - everything is player- or SM-controlled
- Ideally, three or four factions, as this makes diplomacy more fun.
I would like NPRs and at least precursors if only to add excitement and the unknown. Other reasons would be to give the players a reason to not just have a free for all blood bath in the Sol System, and a reason to ally. It also makes reckless expansion down your line of systems less advisable.
There is, lastly, another idea I had: Use the sol-destroyed start, and set the maximum number of systems so something small, for example 30-50 systems. This should make the end more... explosive, shall we say?
I don't like this. But to be fair I am all for this being a long game.
-
I don't like the idea of separate systems. That takes away a lot of the empire interaction (which should be the point of a multiplayer game in the first place). As Panopticon said, the sensor problem could be cut down with enough DSTs. And civilians could probably be managed effectively enough so that they aren't a problem.
I just think that there should be something holding the empires together, or at least allow for more points of contact (or conflict) to make the game interesting. Connected systems provide too much incentive to expand down your own jump lane and guard the single jump point into Sol without any interaction. Even if there is a large mineral deposit in Sol, it can be too risky when everyone else is gunning for it. At that point it just feels like another single player game.
I also don't think NPRs should be taken out. As Sematary said, this can provide a rallying point for the empires to join together if the NPRs prove to be a true menace. Or, they might provide more opportunities in the form of technology, colonies, etc. This also reduces the amount of work an SM would have to do.
I also don't like the whole communication thing, just for sake of simplicity. It sounds good on paper (and it actually makes sense), but I think it's asking too much of the SM. The whole point of setting up one of these games is reducing the number of jobs and the complexity of those jobs that the SM must carry out. Otherwise we run into long periods of inactivity because the game ends up becoming too much work. That's not to say that SM controlled NPRs should be made impossible, just that it might be too much.
Other than that, I pretty much agree with everything else.
-
It looks like half of us are willing to try the SM side.
Do we want to try to get 2 or 3 multi-player games running simultaneously?
I'm pretty determined to give SM ago and set up a game once 6.4 hits.
If someone else want to set up another one I would be interested in following it but probably not take part due to focusing on the SM role (that I suspect will take craploads of time).
I think I'll keep as much of the setup (regarding goals/aliens/special mechanics) as possible secret, more interesting that way to discover it during the game ;D
Can say that I'm currently aiming for 4 faction Earth start (all with additional ministers/roles recruited), and tech somewhere between Conventional and TN start.
-
I'm pretty determined to give SM ago and set up a game one 6.4 hits.
If someone else want to set up another one I would be interested in following it but probably not take part due to focusing on the SM role (that I suspect will take craploads of time).
I think I'll keep as much of the setup (regarding goals/aliens/special mechanics) as possible secret, more interesting that way to discover it during the game ;D
Can say that I'm currently aiming for 4 faction Earth start (all with additional ministers/roles recruited), and tech somewhere between Conventional and TN start.
Special mechanics should not be kept secret. Both because it takes away when we do something that follows Aurora's rules but not the mechanics in this also the faction that figures out the mechanics first is at a (potentially huge) advantage.
-
Special mechanics should not be kept secret. Both because it takes away when we do something that follows Aurora's rules but not the mechanics in this also the faction that figures out the mechanics first is at a (potentially huge) advantage.
I was referring to things like not revealing exactly how profitable different investments will be directly (because that is something a real leader would never know before hand).
And not revealing exactly what formulas / dice rolls espionage (outside normal aurora) will be using.
Ill try to keep it fair and balanced as well as be clear about what is possible and not possible to do.
IMHO a big part of any RPG is trusting the GM/SM, I mean when playing you are 100% in the GM/SMs hands anyways.
-
I think one of the problems SM will face is the slowdown of the game. So I agree with Panopticons suggestions. Trade could be simulated by a trade bonus as Narmio suggest or ignored completely.
NPRs and spoilers could be activated accordingly to scenarios and game level. Having some AI opposition to the players would spice thing a bit.
Now, are people thinking pure-sandbox or having a driving theme?
- Ticking Time Bomb: Start with NPRs on Truce countdown.
I am not sure it would work if we had many NPRs. From Steve’s campaign it seems NPRs started wasting a lot of their resources the moment they could, then it would be a race who can capture most of them.
- Cooling Sun. Better find a new home before the greenhouse gas cap hits.
- Invading Aliens under SM (or other player) control. Defend, build, then counterattack.
- Limited universe, limited real-estate. A race to find and claim the juiciest locations.
- Something else?
Cooling sun and Invading Aliens seem to be the most interesting. Aliens should be balanced to offer struggle but not guarantee annihilation.
Another scenario could be:
Warfare without an end. Three factions, they hate each other with passion, 100% war from start only one will survive. This scenario could lead to more PvP action if we want that.
Can say that I'm currently aiming for 4 faction Earth start (all with additional ministers/roles recruited), and tech somewhere between Conventional and TN start.
I think it would be better to have each faction on its own planet. Same planet will limit player’s actions as warfare will be totally devastating, possibly on every faction on the planet.
-
Count me in for any scenario we decide to play but:
a) As mentioned here we need a proper ruleset and lift as much from SM as possible if we even think of finishing. Someone said this could take months. It could take years actually if we do it right. Therefore I would say something like: - players get unified sheet that they will submit everytime before a session where they explain their strategy, their orders etc. They will all have a mail address the SM can contact and they should check it at least once a dai, preferably more and respond to any situation that arises.
b) I do not like an idea of more people than one leading a faction. It will inevitably lead to conflicts inside of the faction and no way to solve them
c) spoilers and NPR's should be in
d) I vote for conventional start, different systems. Or if you guys wish I would like to take extra solar empire - I want to play something else
e) - on a sidenote, I can make this a bit more public through videos on my channel if we think of a format. Though I have no intend to be an SM as I lack proper experience.
-
b) I do not like an idea of more people than one leading a faction. It will inevitably lead to conflicts inside of the faction and no way to solve them
1) Conflict is sort of the point with multiple people leading a single faction. Since inter-empire diplomacy is limited in Aurora, joint control generates intra-empire diplomacy opportunities as players try to 3-leggedly race their faction to the top. The more dysfunctional the cooperation, the more entertaining the resulting AAR write up will be to spectators.
2) Multiple people per faction is the only way to accommodate everyone expressing interest here into one game without overwhelming the SM. We would need three, maybe four, SMs running scenarios to give everyone a player slot in a one player per faction game.
I don't have quite as much free time as I once did, but if I skipped the fluffy bits of AAR paper work (or had a designated scribe doing that for me) I'd be happy to run a 2nd game, either with one-player per faction or team factions control depending on player demand.
d) I vote for conventional start, different systems.
I did an accelerated conventional start in different systems for my 2nd multiplayer game. Despite each system each being just 1-jump away from Sol it still took the players over 2 real life months and 20 in game years before anyone made player/player contact.
Cooling sun and Invading Aliens seem to be the most interesting. Aliens should be balanced to offer struggle but not guarantee annihilation.
Aliens done right are always interesting. I was thinking an asymmetric setup that gives the aliens a +2 tech level advantage and the Earth defenders a 2x? 3x? population/industry advantage. The idea would be for Earth to use the defender's logistical advantage to hold out long enough to use their industry to catch up technologically.
-
NPRs and spoilers could be activated accordingly to scenarios and game level. Having some AI opposition to the players would spice thing a bit.
I am not sure it would work if we had many NPRs. From Steve’s campaign it seems NPRs started wasting a lot of their resources the moment they could, then it would be a race who can capture most of them.
Cooling sun and Invading Aliens seem to be the most interesting. Aliens should be balanced to offer struggle but not guarantee annihilation.
Aliens done right are always interesting. I was thinking an asymmetric setup that gives the aliens a +2 tech level advantage and the Earth defenders a 2x? 3x? population/industry advantage. The idea would be for Earth to use the defender's logistical advantage to hold out long enough to use their industry to catch up technologically.
This might be a good start - let the aliens begin one or two systems over, under SM control and with both an advanced warfleet and tech advantage. It then becomes a run against the time to evacuate as many things as we can. Contrary to AI-controlled enemies, this would allow the SM to provide additional excitement.
Let's call this the War-Exodus ruleset: A single alien ship had entered the solar system, but was destroyed quickly. Now, the nations of earth - each of which has claimed one extra-solar star system with habitable planet - try evacuating their populations before the enemy returns with their fleet - or fight a desperate defensive war against the constantly increasing size enemy fleet.
Something like the AI war escalation (never played it myself) would be interesting: Sure in their superiority, the enemy increases its fleet sizes the more the war escalates, but won't send all of theirs in just yet.
1) Conflict is sort of the point with multiple people leading a single faction. Since inter-empire diplomacy is limited in Aurora, joint control generates intra-empire diplomacy opportunities as players try to 3-leggedly race their faction to the top. The more dysfunctional the cooperation, the more entertaining the resulting AAR write up will be to spectators.
2) Multiple people per faction is the only way to accommodate everyone expressing interest here into one game without overwhelming the SM. We would need three, maybe four, SMs running scenarios to give everyone a player slot in a one player per faction game.
I don't have quite as much free time as I once did, but if I skipped the fluffy bits of AAR paper work (or had a designated scribe doing that for me) I'd be happy to run a 2nd game, either with one-player per faction or team factions control depending on player demand.
This would mean that each player would 'have to' - or rather, be motivated to, - post some information and AARs concerning their position. Media releases, or something like that would be great, with a more detailed write-up after, for example, five and ten years.
-
It looks like we are discussing at least two games here, one multi system start, and one single system. It is getting confusing to parse out what is what here, might I suggest we move this discussion to a new subforum with two threads for rules discussion?
-
It looks like we are discussing at least two games here, one multi system start, and one single system. It is getting confusing to parse out what is what here, might I suggest we move this discussion to a new subforum with two threads for rules discussion?
Agreed. There seem to be two camps forming.
I did an accelerated conventional start in different systems for my 2nd multiplayer game. Despite each system each being just 1-jump away from Sol it still took the players over 2 real life months and 20 in game years before anyone made player/player contact.
I remember reading this and that it took some time. That's why I'm really against a conventional start and a multi-start system. Empires are just going to ignore each other if we have a multi-system start. The whole point of multiplayer game is to have interaction.
The closest thing to a conventional start would be giving each empire some RP they can distribute as they like, but not allowing any empire to have already researched jump point theory. That should give the story about a year before serious exploration of jump points and new systems starts up.
-
Just to clafiry - by conventional start I meant what you guys refer to as conventional - nothing + BP/RP that the faction invests.
Also I am still strongly against more people in one faction. How do you want to do that? I mean one will do building and one will do ships? I want to play a game, not argue with someone over designs.... But maybe I am seeing this too negatively.
-
Just to clafiry - by conventional start I meant what you guys refer to as conventional - nothing + BP/RP that the faction invests.
Also I am still strongly against more people in one faction. How do you want to do that? I mean one will do building and one will do ships? I want to play a game, not argue with someone over designs.... But maybe I am seeing this too negatively.
If I were to run a game with multiple players per faction, the one in charge of building ships would have complete control over the design of said ships. The CNO could submit requests to the one in charge of research.
I'd have a CNO (in charge of armed ships, not counting defensive only weapons), A Research Head, Chief of Colonization, and Chief of Survey Operations. Probably one additional "C" type to break ties. Chief of Infrastructure. The CNO decides what fleets to allocate to defense and how to run any wars. The research head decides where to allocate his scientists. The colonization head determines where colonies go. The head of survey decides what to survey and when. And the infrastructure chief is responsible for building facilities.
Of course this will probably lead to some friction, but can be hashed out I think. Any additional players could take fleet commander roles or ship captain roles.
-
Also I am still strongly against more people in one faction. How do you want to do that? I mean one will do building and one will do ships? I want to play a game, not argue with someone over designs.... But maybe I am seeing this too negatively.
To clarify what I intend to do is an RPG, a role playing game.
You will take the role of ONE character and write stories about this character to give life to the decisions taken and experiences in the universe. Your characters will collaborate with the other characters in the faction that holds other important key positions like admiral, minister of production, head of state and so on, both to provide different insights into the world/story we are building together, and to try to maneuver the nation to a good position among a competition of other nations and unknown threats.
-
It looks like we are discussing at least two games here, one multi system start, and one single system. It is getting confusing to parse out what is what here, might I suggest we move this discussion to a new subforum with two threads for rules discussion?
Well, it's the starting conditions for whatever game is likely to be played. It seems as if we've got a total of five possibly possible SMs (alex_brunius, Panopticon, sublight, sematary, Ektoras), and the final scenario and ruleset will be their choice. I'd propose one of them opening a thread for specific game discussions that they want to run.
Also I am still strongly against more people in one faction. How do you want to do that? I mean one will do building and one will do ships? I want to play a game, not argue with someone over designs.... But maybe I am seeing this too negatively.
If I were to run a game with multiple players per faction, the one in charge of building ships would have complete control over the design of said ships. The CNO could submit requests to the one in charge of research.
I'd have a CNO (in charge of armed ships, not counting defensive only weapons), A Research Head, Chief of Colonization, and Chief of Survey Operations. Probably one additional "C" type to break ties. Chief of Infrastructure. The CNO decides what fleets to allocate to defense and how to run any wars. The research head decides where to allocate his scientists. The colonization head determines where colonies go. The head of survey decides what to survey and when. And the infrastructure chief is responsible for building facilities.
Of course this will probably lead to some friction, but can be hashed out I think. Any additional players could take fleet commander roles or ship captain roles.
Pretty much this. Each player has a certain rule - CNO, CRD (Chief of Research and Developement) and so on - who each are dictators in their own area. That, of course, requires communication and cooperation between them. For example, assume you are the CNO, and you want a new escort. Then you've got to ask the CRD to research the tech required (unless he already did so) and (if he exists) the Chief of the Naval Design board to design an escort, for example 6ktons, missile-armed, fleetspeed and must be able to intercept at least fifty missiles per minute for four minutes.
This would actually, alphapiomega, per necessity increase player/player-interaction. But this should lead to those interesting inefficiencies and human errors that make such a game more fun.
As of starting position, I'm now in favour of a single-system start, due to more interaction and sublight's slowdown-experiences.
-
Well, it's the starting conditions for whatever game is likely to be played. It seems as if we've got a total of five possibly possible SMs (alex_brunius, Panopticon, sublight, sematary, Ektoras), and the final scenario and ruleset will be their choice. I'd propose one of them opening a thread for specific game discussions that they want to run.
Good Idea. I have written a big part of the starting scenario and ruleset already so there is not so much to discuss except if someone has any suggestions relevant to the game I'm planning other then what have already been voiced here in this thread.
Some of it will not be revealed until I actually start the game and start taking signups but if you have ideas your welcome to send me PMs. Or if Erik or another admin want to create a fiction sub forum for me I could create a thread there listing the basic ideas I have about what I'm planning to do and take feedback there.
-
Or if Erik or another admin want to create a fiction sub forum for me I could create a thread there listing the basic ideas I have about what I'm planning to do and take feedback there.
Look under community games.
-
Look under community games.
Thanks!
Thread for game discussion is up:
http://aurora2.pentarch.org/index.php/topic,6804.msg69832.html#msg69832
-
It looks like we are discussing at least two games here, one multi system start, and one single system. It is getting confusing to parse out what is what here, might I suggest we move this discussion to a new subforum with two threads for rules discussion?
I guess I'll create the 2nd game planning thread then.
http://aurora2.pentarch.org/index.php/topic,6806.msg69849.html#new (http://aurora2.pentarch.org/index.php/topic,6806.msg69849.html#new)