FG: The Future of Galactic Overlord - Discussion

[Jamski]

Originally posted by Spaced Cowboy
Good changes, but I can't be buggered to send in that many frakein OoBs...one for D, one for O.

I'm leaning with joncha on the M and D, but I'm willing to give it a shot with the spy negating a D. M is okay and adds some risk/variety to the standard.

Captured bases should be 3 instead of 5 to get the home. 5 is a bit to steep (theory is that you should alway have a home base).

I still like the one shot no base option. No attrition for one turn and that is all you get to get a base back, else bye-bye.

Ok, so with the changes in principle, but you want to adjust variables, cool. Three captured bases --> 1 home base is a 6 BP for 5 BP swop, so pretty reasonable, I could buy that. I'll buy the one shot no base option too, but I'd like some kinda consensus.

I won't make a poll or anything, but I think I'm right in that the general feeling is that we want GO 1 Gold Edition rather than GO2 for the next game, right?

-Jam

[Kassiopeia]

Yes, let's do GO1 Gold. To be honest, I don't think the hardcore GO players are ready for the sort of changes we'd have with GO2.0

Three captured -> One home base
No attrition for one turn, then death

[Ljube]

What Kassi said.

[Jamski]

Ok, I see a consensus forming.

[Jaguar]

Remove D. Period.

Everyone loves seeing battles. Everyone hates random baseswapping and people running away like sissy girls.

[Jaguar]

Oh, and I love both GO2 and GO1, but right now, believe it or not, GO2 seems more balanced.

[Tassadar500]

Golden GO

[Skanky Burns]

I could support either, but I feel GO2 has the edge.

[Kassiopeia]

I am still of the opinion that the bases would remain pretty underdeveloped in GO2. I am surprised people are upgrading their bases as much as they are right now, though.

[Skanky Burns]

Upgraded bases allow you to spend 2bp for 5bp worth of attacking and give more bps each turn.

[Kassiopeia]

Yes, but there's no reason to add, say, weaponry to the base, save for the good cost/firepower ratio of base improvements. But if someone attacks you and they make it a fight, either:
1) You are out, so the base is screwed anyway and the weapons are next to useless
2) It's an allied attack, and 1) applies even though your fleet is at home.

[snoopy369]

I don't think you all understand the penalty you bring by removing opponent based OOBs, and D (and you essentially eliminate D by removing opponent based OOBs).

Jonny or Joncha could easily, assuming no shields, wipe the floor with everyone here, if it weren't for those two things. I'm certainly not going to put LD in my orders if it's my only defensive order; yet Joncha showing up would end my day.

Why would you make a rule change that allows a player, once sufficiently built up in fleet, to dominate like that? D allows a player to run away from a larger fleet, preventing a superfleet from just bullying around others. Sure, eventually attrition would kill me off - but it would be more of a chance than i'd have without D.

Reduce strategic options (joncha)? Huh? It increases the strategic choices involved in OOBs, and only slightly decreases, if at all, the strategic choices made in fleet building. Nonspecific OOBs means you have basically one choice for fleet makeup - balanced. It significantly discourages unbalanced fleets, as that makes you an easy target for someone who sees that your OOB will clearly be LL_ whatever, or at best LML (barring trickery, but if you can't specify against whom, trickery is generally a poor choice). And of course, at least for those of us who DO have specific OOBs, that's a huge element of strategy right there - just as Kassi says, except trying to argue against, you choose an OOB that is optimal against an opponent, BUT isn't too obvious (remember LN's OOB ) ... and the same for the offense.

And what defensive advantage are we talking about here? The one that has led to attackers winning what, 80% or more of attacks undergone in this GO? Bah! Why exactly is Jamski bending over backwards to give defenders a chance - be it GO 2.0 (bases), or GO Gold (allied defense), if defenders have an advantage? Defenders NEVER have an advantage in GO, even 1v1, unless it is artificially created (via the base in 2.0). Offensive choice is all the advantage offense needs.

[snoopy369]

A second point, that deserves its own post, so you actually read it.

Offenses already have unique OOBs - taking away defensive OOB choice is unreasonable.

When I choose what to send, I also choose an OOB specific to that enemy. Realistically there is little chance I will end up facing anyone else - I think we have had one or at most 2 spillover "attack all comers" attacks this game; only 1 so far in GO 2 through 9 rounds. Thus, the offense already HAS the choice of unique OOBs for each opponent (by choosing which opponent to attack).

So why are you taking it away from the defense, giving the offense a clear advantage? The equivalent for the offense, would be saying "You can attack with whatever OOB you want, but random chance will select *whom* you attack." That's precisely what you're saying when you suggest only a single defensive OOB.

Imagine if MORON attacked like that this past turn? He'd randomly be attacking anyone from Kassi's tiny fleet, to LN's 400bps (if they were at home), to Jonny's 1k fleet, and all sorts of different fleet compositions.

I realize it sounds absurd - but it's an apt comparison, if you really think about it.

[snoopy369]

Originally posted by Kassiopeia
Yes, but there's no reason to add, say, weaponry to the base, save for the good cost/firepower ratio of base improvements. But if someone attacks you and they make it a fight, either:
1) You are out, so the base is screwed anyway and the weapons are next to useless
2) It's an allied attack, and 1) applies even though your fleet is at home.

All I can say, Kassi, is that bases have made the difference in more than one battle in GO 2.0, and have nearly made the difference in several others ...

[joncha]

Opponent-based OoBs are a joke. Instead of being forced to make a tough choice on which OoB to use, you end up making several easy choices based on each opponents build. That is a huge loss of strategy element from the game. Worried about who might attack you? Relax! Just plug in an OoB for each!

The ONLY thing D does is allow weaker players to linger in the game a little longer. It doesn't even give them a realistic shot at winning. It's cheap, and it should be tossed.

M is also cheap. LML, close in gives way too much of multiplier. Maybe it would be workable (and D too, for that matter) if it's only allowed in the back half of the OoB. Maybe.