|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I think everybody's over in the Prancing Pony getting hammered and listening to Terl sing!    
          
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| I think we will make T-Shirts and call it Codefest II: Son of Statbot |
|
I'll take one 
My leave of absence is still in effect. Rough days at work, and lots of stuff to do outside of work...
My Son, Joshua was diagnosed with cancer on the 30th of January. We've been in and out of the hospital doing chemo and what not. It's pretty tough having to watch a 3yr old go through this, but after the long wait for a heart transplant back in '02, it's not so bad.
He has a rare lymphoma called, burkkits. It's rare, but responds very well to chemo and has a very good successful treatment rate.
I just wanted to drop in and say hi to everyone. In a couple months I'll be back in shape and hopefully this break will re-inspire to get some games in.
idle
    
| |
|
Oh God, idle...I'm so sorry. I hope everything turns out okay. 
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Evil infests the MWC's crops...
    
| |
|
We'll throw you all a party
| |
|
|
|
#117
by Veteran Gerakken - 2/14/2004 5:51:24 AM
| Keep thinking this through. This is about the koolest idea I have heard in recent memory. (It is getting shorter)Questions to answer:1. Under what circumstances could war be declared/initiated?2. Could just anyone fire the first shot?3. Who would the ambassadors be and how would they function?4. Would there be provisions for skirmishes (overlord vs. overlord), battles (groups of overlords) and war (entire empire)5. What role would/could the emperor/senators play? |
|
Yes, a lot of thought would have to be given to both the Meta alliance and the Meta war scenarios. Long rambling post ahead. If I don't make sense somewhere, please ask me to clear it up. My thoughts thus far:
There would be no straight addition of allied strength or enemy damage penalties. So a pair of million point empires do not create a two million point alliance or totally nullify each other in a war. There instead would be a steadily increasing bonus or penalty as the alliance or war wore on. In the case of alliance, the strongest ally (point wise) at the moment would be the anchor of the entire alliance, getting full point value and then there would be a low base number relative to the smaller empires' scores added to that. This bonus from the smaller allies would steadily increase in strength over several days (say, a week or even two to reach full effect). The combined score of the strongest ally and the sliding bonus of the weaker allies equal the group's strength. Just for an example, assume the bonus starts at 5% on day one and slides up to 50% at the end of the week or two. Three empires join an alliance, a million pointer and two 500,000 point empires. On day one, the total strength would be one million plus 5% of the other two empire's combined one million points, or 50,000 more points for a total of 1,050,000 group points. At the peak effect, it would be one million plus 50% of the other two's scores (500,000), equalling a 1,500,000 point alliance.
In war, each empire would damage each of the other warring empires on a sliding scale as well: a low number at first steadily increasing in effect over days, except that the war number is a total damage pool that would be proportionally divided among the enemy empires based upon their strength. The strongest enemy empire takes more damage than the weaker enemies. To get the most effect upon any one empire, it is thus better to war upon only one foe so he takes the whole pool instead of a multi-front war where the damage is split. The upper end of the damage pool inflicted upon the enemies would not equal 100% of the empire's points. It would have to be lower. How much lower, I cannot say. But, this example let's say the damage starts at 5% on day one and ramps up to 50% at the end of the week or two. So a million point empire starts nailing the enemies for a total of 50,000 points on day one and 500,000 at the peak. Of course, no empire should be totally scoreless because of a war, so the system would also have to incorporate a percentage of maximum damage that can be inflicted upon an enemy. Maybe 50% for arguments sake. So a million point empire cannot be whittled below 500,000 points no matter how much war damage is coming in from how many enemies.
To start an alliance or war, an empire needs a majority vote in favor of the resolution, with a three vote minimum. To compensate for inactive players, the whole empire need not vote. Just whoever can show up within a certain time frame (say a week). Wars and alliances will take time this way. At least a week for the insults and skirmishes (explained in a minute) to flare into war or the diplomatic envoys to negotiate alliances. (The one week voting window will obviously be full of lobbying attempts to sway the vote on all sides.)
Obviously, one or two person empires are too tiny in this equation to wage a full war or effectively contribute to an alliance. They can only skirmish, engaging in the usual cross border "misunderstandings" that happen every day in the Meta. (In other words, skirmishes count as ordanary battles to boost empire score, just like now.)
Another feature of this system is that unilateral action is prohibited. War or alliance takes mutual consent for parties on both sides. I know it is a fairly big hole in reality, needing both sides to agree for a war or at least two empires of a large coalition wanting an alliance, but this is a Metaverse fairness thing. Afterall, wars and alliances in this system are supposed to be a cooperative group activity with some role playing rationale and not a senseless point shifter that any old empire acting alone can say "I am your friend, lend me your points" or "I just want to tank your puny score for fun with my awesome might".
Well, I definitely don't have all the details hashed out. Don't know if I could develop a workable system for the Meta as it is now. Feel free to add to or even redo this loose framework.
    
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
