Rules of The MetaGame

[masterjskye]

While we're on the subject, I was thinking that maybe the whole "no diplomacy" thing could be relaxed a little. The rule was mainly to stop teaming up in games larger than 2v2, and to discourage teams from secretly messaging each other and planning out the next round. However, I feel that this has led to a loss of some of the usual "banter" than may be expected with these types of things.

I particularly enjoyed TH-Child's comment about nuking Cards & Chilly back to the stoneage, and think that kind of friendly, open verbal to and fro is a good thing for a game like this. Maybe if the rule was changed to just be this - no secret collusion between teams is allowed. However, you could try and influence a teams play or maybe even make an agreement with a neighbour - so long as it was made out in the thread.

Obviously any "agreements" should be taken with a pinch of salt as I actually believe verbal treachery and backstabbing should be a part of the game if you are going to allow some form of mutually beneficial agreements. Every ying needs it's yang. Good 'n' Evil and all that...

The whole thing relies on teams not breaking the holiest of holy rules though, no secret diplomacy.

 

[BadElmer]

While we're on the subject, I was thinking that maybe the whole "no diplomacy" thing could be relaxed a little. The rule was mainly to stop teaming up in games larger than 2v2, and to discourage teams from secretly messaging each other and planning out the next round. However, I feel that this has led to a loss of some of the usual "banter" than may be expected with these types of things.

I particularly enjoyed TH-Child's comment about nuking Cards & Chilly back to the stoneage, and think that kind of friendly, open verbal to and fro is a good thing for a game like this. Maybe if the rule was changed to just be this - no secret collusion between teams is allowed. However, you could try and influence a teams play or maybe even make an agreement with a neighbour - so long as it was made out in the thread.

Obviously any "agreements" should be taken with a pinch of salt as I actually believe verbal treachery and backstabbing should be a part of the game if you are going to allow some form of mutually beneficial agreements. Every ying needs it's yang. Good 'n' Evil and all that...

The whole thing relies on teams not breaking the holiest of holy rules though, no secret diplomacy.

well, in that case....everyone attack master/name next round! heh

 

[masterjskye]

Hey.. I said I was thinking about it! Right, that's a strike for you!

I'm joking, of course, but I would like to hear what the rest of you think of a more open attitude to fighting talk. I'm ambivalent about it really, I can see good and bad in both ways.

 

[namelochil]

well, in that case....everyone attack master/name next round! heh

I'm fine with that. It means more move orders for us when we kick your asses.

 

[masterjskye]

I just thought of another possible little change (for the next round not now):

When defending your last territory, you pick the map and settings outright

Obviously it still has to be one that your competitors have selected in their map selection.

I think that would be pretty cool.

EDIT: thinking about it maybe that would just get confusing if multiple territories were attacked on the same round, then essentially they are all last territories, or should it just be the absolute last one to be attacked that counts for the last territory?

 

[Cardinalsrule]

I like some of Chilly's ideas, some I kinda feel would prolong the game quite a bit. In the current format, the game will last at least 6 months, I'm thinking, possibly more. With the changes, defenses, etc, it looks like a game of the current magnitude would probably last more than a year. That's OK with me, I'm planning on being around, but it is a consideration for people in deciding to join or not. The defense moves in particular would prolong the game a lot. There might be rounds with very little going on, and there goes a month.....

I think that some changes may be in order for the next game, though, and certainly Chilly presents some good ideas. I like the idea of being able to blitz-counterattack a blitzed territory. Slowing down the rate of move orders earned is also a good idea. Chilly and I got lucky with the way it played out, we only had to play one game to take a command and wipe out LeCBass and co. That gave us a substantial bank, larger even than jskye's team got by jumping on a lot of neuts in Asia. The next round looks like more of the same to me, we, even if we lose the 2 games we're playing, will get 11 move orders. If we win, we could have as many as 17. That makes it pretty difficult for the other teams to compete, with the exception of the boys in black over there in Asia, who'll have a similarly large bank. (Warm up the launch pads, boys, lol. I see some missiles flying between South America and Asia in the future.)

Anyway, I'm in favor of finishing this game with the current rules (although adding the counter-blitz rule would be OK with me), and then maybe we can have a forum of sorts to flesh out all the rules before the next game starts. And I think that maybe changing the diplomacy rule should wait also.

 

[Chilly]

I do think move order numbers have escalated quickly for both of our teams, but it was partly because of choices in our play that caused that. in our case grabbing up so many neutrals in the early rounds and in yours taking south America and lecbass's moves. I think if we were to start this whole thing over with the new move order system we would get very different results. Now that it is much fairer, everyone would get an equal chance at grabbing neutrals, etc at the start. i think then teams would have a much more balanced start.

This, I think is a fair point.

By implementing your change it would extend the length of the metagame a LOT.

Given the change to 2v2 only, I think we could legitimately move the timetable up to 2 weeks.

Were these numbers running alongside our "defender gets 1 move if they win" rule? Seems to discourage attacking, I'm curious why you think this is necessary on top of an income change.

My numbers all kind of were in conjunction with each other. I'm not necessarily in love with them, but part of my thought process was how quickly a large bank of turns becomes very powerful. I was looking for a way to defend, and slow down several chained blitzes.

While I think maybe you're right that it should be possible to re-attack a blitzed territory, I don't think it should be easy. I also do like having that certainty in my mind that if I make this move there is no way they can re attack that place. Maybe that should be it's own, more expensive type of special attack - a blitz that cannot be undone. While a normal blitz can only be undone by a re-blitz by someone else? Or you think you should be able to regular attack a blitzed territory?

How about each time a territory has been blitzed, it costs one extra move order on any attack. i.e. re-blitzing would cost 3+1 or attacking would costs 1+1 (in our current format).

I like this. I've been thinking the re-buy is pretty hefty and not very attractive really, but I didn't want to change it now since other people have already been eliminated and chose not to buy in at that price. If people don't mind we could slip that in mid-game though, it'll make it a much better lifeline.

I wouldn't mind changing it mid-game because I can't think of a legitimate situation where it would currently be worth re-buying. I'd say it should be unanimous at this point to change though.

Maybe, but it's less fun. Also, it takes a hell of a lot of work on my end to get everything done, I don't think I could go through it all just for a practice run. The live game will just have to evolve, or stay the same.

That's fine. You are putting in a huge amount of work. Even when I grumble about this or that, your time is appreciated.

While I am in favor of diplomacy, I think it would also prolong the game. This should probably stay the same for this iteration unless it were unanimous to change it. Honestly, we were trying to think of a way to keep the border between S. America and Antarctica status quo, but since we couldn't come up with a decent one, Cards and I just decided to hang with the penguins. Which by the way is where my nick comes from.

 

[Cardinalsrule]

I particularly enjoyed TH-Child's comment about nuking Cards & Chilly back to the stoneage, and think that kind of friendly, open verbal to and fro is a good thing for a game like this. Maybe if the rule was changed to just be this - no secret collusion between teams is allowed. However, you could try and influence a teams play or maybe even make an agreement with a neighbour - so long as it was made out in the thread.

I have no problem with diplomacy being out in the open, and posted for all to see. But I'm finding myself in favor of not having passels of changes in the rules every round. I think all these changes should wait for the next game.

While I am in favor of diplomacy, I think it would also prolong the game. This should probably stay the same for this iteration unless it were unanimous to change it. Honestly, we were trying to think of a way to keep the border between S. America and Antarctica status quo, but since we couldn't come up with a decent one, Cards and I just decided to hang with the penguins. Which by the way is where my nick comes from.

And, I have to think that th-child and Dorcee REALLY want to nuke us now.......

 

[Chilly]

I have no problem with diplomacy being out in the open, and posted for all to see. But I'm finding myself in favor of not having passels of changes in the rules every round. I think all these changes should wait for the next game.

Fair enough. Just trying to think through what might improve the game.

And, I have to think that th-child and Dorcee REALLY want to nuke us now.......

Nah. I'm pretty sure they are relieved to get out of that bitter cold.

 

[namelochil]

Hey.. I said I was thinking about it! Right, that's a strike for you!

I'm joking, of course, but I would like to hear what the rest of you think of a more open attitude to fighting talk. I'm ambivalent about it really, I can see good and bad in both ways.

Honestly, I'm not in favor of loosening the diplomacy rules for the metagame. It would be fun only if people were willing to take an 'honor holiday.' People on this site get really tweaked out about 'honor' (see legionbuck). In my opinion, diplomacy in the metagame would only be cool if people were willing to expect and engage in treachery.

 

[hat7rick]

Honestly, I'm not in favor of loosening the diplomacy rules for the metagame. It would be fun only if people were willing to take an 'honor holiday.' People on this site get really tweaked out about 'honor' (see legionbuck). In my opinion, diplomacy in the metagame would only be cool if people were willing to expect and engage in treachery.

it would def add to the fun factor but It's not a good longterm strategy as people will not trust you anymore and will probably target you more frequently in their games =) I like the diplo in the open idea. saying things out loud . nothing hidden/private.

 

[namelochil]

That's precisely why I suggested an 'honor holiday.' Whatever happens in the metagame stays in the metagame.....

 

[hat7rick]

That's precisely why I suggested an 'honor holiday.' Whatever happens in the metagame stays in the metagame.....

cool, I support your idea then although I m not sure it's in your team's best interest =) lol

 

[trailblazer]

Here's my response to Chilly's thoughts for changing the game. These were all interesting points to consider, so thanks to Chilly for raising them.

Towards the start of Chilly's post he says: "Most of the thoughts here stem from how powerful an early well of move orders appears, and how difficult it is to defend, especially against multiple blitzes."

First thing to say is, I like the game as it is now. I like the dynamic way Chilly's team could blast through Antartica, by firing off a post with 2 blitz attacks in it, just one minute before move requests for the Metagame were closed off for this round. Indeed that was the whole point of having Blitz Attack moves in the game ... to quote from the Rules, Blitz Attacks mean "You can travel a good distance per turn, if you are willing to pay for it."

With reference to Chilly's point 5, I wouldn't want to change the three unique aspects of a Blitz Attack: that you are guaranteed to gain the territory; that it cannot be re-attacked in the same round; and that it can be used as a launch for further attacks that round. I would like to keep this as it is. Do remember that you can always cancel out a Blitz Attack in the current Rule Book by using a Nuke and re-setting that territory to neutral. This is one of the key advantages of a nuke, which hasn't been used or tried out yet. I would like to see in the coming rounds how that gets played out.

I would be open to two of the other ways Chilly proposes to make it a bit more difficult for a strong team to use Multiple Blitzes right round the board. One is to increase the cost of a Blitz Attack from 3 moves to 4 moves. I think this would better reflect the power of the three unique aspects of the Blitz Attack I had listed above.

The other idea I would be open to that Chilly has proposed is being able to use move orders to defend territories (Chilly's point 4). Here's my alternative proposal on how you could do this.

Firstly, I don't agree with the idea that defence has the effect of "downgrading attacks". I would propose it having the opposite effect of making attacks more costly, just as in any regular MajCom game. So if I decide to use 2 of my move stock as a defence on one of my territories for one round, then that will make any of the attacks cost 2 more moves for that round. So a regular attack on that particular territory on that round would cost 3 moves instead of 1 move. Surprise Attacks, Blitz Attacks and Stormtrooper Attacks would also all cost 2 more moves for that territory.

Or if I was defending it with 1 move, then the cost of attacking that territory would be an extra 1 move. If I was defending it with 3 moves, it would cost an extra 3 moves to attack, and so on. The one exception would be a Nuke Attack that resets the territory to neutral. This will still cost 6 moves, irrespective of how much defence you put on it. This would put a natural limit on how many moves a team would be willing to defend a particular territory with. They are unlikely to use more than 6 moves to defend a territory, as they know for 6 moves they could always nuke it back to being neutral, if need be.

There would be no need for defending moves to be done in secret, as in Chilly's proposal. Instead, once masterjskye has set the countdown clock for the BEGINNING of filing move orders, which will be at least 24 hours before the move order phase starts, you would then just post any moves you are using to defend your own terrritories that round. So that when the move order phase begins, all teams will know how much it will cost them to do any particular type of attack on any particular territory.

I would also say that once those moves have been used in defence in a particular round they are removed at the end of the round, irrespective of whether anyone attacked them in that territory or not. So using moves as a defence would be just a tactic to either deter or slow down an attacking team's progress in a particular round. You would then be weighing up using your stock of moves for defence and attack in each round, knowing that by either defending or attacking, those moves are then gone at the end of the round. This would hopefully help to increase the attractiveness of attacking instead of the overuse of cautious defending, as it is the dynamism of the attacks each round that I think make the Metagame so interesting.

This innovation, of allowing you to openly defend territories, but only on a round by round basis, would also help to stem any concern there is about too many moves being given to teams each round. As both attack and defence would now be soaking up your moves each round. This means I would leave the way move orders are earned each round exactly the same as now, ie. 1 move per territory (refer to Chilly's point 2).

Also with the exception of increasing the cost of a Blitz Attack on an undefended territory from 3 moves to 4 moves, I would leave the cost of the other types of attack the same as now (Chilly's point 3).

Finally, I agree with Chilly about having a Metagame subforum (point 1) and about recouping half your move bank if your team are eliminated and then choose to use the doggy card to buy back in to the Metagame (point 6).

First off, major congratulations to jSkye for the change this round of the metagame and the implementation of it.

It was hugely complicated, I thought I understood the loops, but in hindsight I didn't really. Hopefully I get it now. The graphics that you uploaded showing how you processed the rounds did make it much clearer. While Cards and I benefited greatly from getting our moves in super early in the first couple rounds, I think the new system is MUCH more fair.

So I was looking for a good place to put my thoughts on how this is going so far as well as offer some thoughts for discussion.

Most of the thoughts here stem from how powerful an early well of move orders appears, and how difficult it is to defend, especially against multiple blitzes.

1. Let's get all the Metagame threads into their own subforum.
   I'm sure that folks who aren't participating, probably don't want to see the flurry of activity that this generates from time to time.
   
2. I would propose a slight change in how move orders are earned:
   • Everyone gets default 2 move orders
   • +1 move order for every two territories over the first one
   • Continent bonuses as they currently are
   • It's my opinion that the number of move orders earned escalated too quickly (especially for me and Cards)
3. Cost of move orders should be changed slightly:
   • Basic attack = 2
   • Surprise attack = 3
   • Blitz attack = 4
   • Stormtrooper attack = 4
   • Nuke attack = 6
4. Defense is possible for your territories. I acknowledge this adds another whole layer of complexity but I think it would be worth it. I like the idea of the attacking moves being made out in the open and being resolved with the looping system. IMO, the defense should be submitted to an impartial and uninvolved 3rd party during the move sequence and done in secret until JSkye resolves all of the moves.
   
   Basically, one would list any territories they wish to defend, and how many move orders they would like to use. These would be used in order to defend against any incoming attacks. Once an attack has been repulsed or downgraded, the defense orders are used up.
   • 2 defense order: downgrades a blitz to a surprise, a surprise to a basic attack, basic attacks repulsed
   • 3 defense order: downgrades a blitz to a basic attack, surprise and basic attacks are repulsed
   • 4 defense order: blitz, surprise, basic attacks are all repulsed
   • 5 defense order: stormtrooper attacks are repulsed
   • 7 defense order: nuke attacks are repulsed
5. Lastly, I think territories that have been successfully blitzed should still be available that turn for further attack or to be re-blitzed from another direction. Given the looping system, I think this is reasonable and possible.
6. If you are eliminated with move orders in the bank and choose to buy back in, you should get half the orders in the bank and the ones who attacked your last country get half. Extra order to the attackers if any.

So, please respond with any thoughts here. Another beta test of sorts could be done by trying these out and then resolving all battles just by flipping a coin. In fact for beta testing, that might have been better/faster than our current format.

1. Do you think any of the changes have merit as they are?
2. Do they have merit with slightly different numbers for earning orders, using attack/defense orders?
3. No thanks period. ;-)

 

[masterjskye]

Trailblazer you and I are definitely on the same page. Everything you have said I would happily implement, whereas the meat of Chilly's original suggestions I have to be honest I am not too sure I want to. I think it would get too slow with not very much activity at all per round if we put in all the income and cost changes. I'm not going to change anything so drastic as the income ratio for this game, I'm pretty happy with the system as it is on the whole really.

About my own thing about changing diplomacy, I've decided against it. I quite like not knowing what will happen, or who may be my next aggressor. And like Namelochil says, it could stir up some emotions that are better left unstirred.

I agree that the blitz is cool as it is just now function wise, and also agree that it is a very powerful tool, and worth 4 move orders.

Firstly, I don't agree with the idea that defence has the effect of "downgrading attacks". I would propose it having the opposite effect of making attacks more costly, just as in any regular MajCom game. So if I decide to use 2 of my move stock as a defence on one of my territories for one round, then that will make any of the attacks cost 2 more moves for that round. So a regular attack on that particular territory on that round would cost 3 moves instead of 1 move. Surprise Attacks, Blitz Attacks and Stormtrooper Attacks would also all cost 2 more moves for that territory.

Or if I was defending it with 1 move, then the cost of attacking that territory would be an extra 1 move. If I was defending it with 3 moves, it would cost an extra 3 moves to attack, and so on. The one exception would be a Nuke Attack that resets the territory to neutral. This will still cost 6 moves, irrespective of how much defence you put on it. This would put a natural limit on how many moves a team would be willing to defend a particular territory with. They are unlikely to use more than 6 moves to defend a territory, as they know for 6 moves they could always nuke it back to being neutral, if need be.

There would be no need for defending moves to be done in secret, as in Chilly's proposal. Instead, once masterjskye has set the countdown clock for the BEGINNING of filing move orders, which will be at least 24 hours before the move order phase starts, you would then just post any moves you are using to defend your own terrritories that round. So that when the move order phase begins, all teams will know how much it will cost them to do any particular type of attack on any particular territory.

I would also say that once those moves have been used in defence in a particular round they are removed at the end of the round, irrespective of whether anyone attacked them in that territory or not. So using moves as a defence would be just a tactic to either deter or slow down an attacking team's progress in a particular round. You would then be weighing up using your stock of moves for defence and attack in each round, knowing that by either defending or attacking, those moves are then gone at the end of the round. This would hopefully help to increase the attractiveness of attacking instead of the overuse of cautious defending, as it is the dynamism of the attacks each round that I think make the Metagame so interesting.

This innovation, of allowing you to openly defend territories, but only on a round by round basis, would also help to stem any concern there is about too many moves being given to teams each round. As both attack and defence would now be soaking up your moves each round. This means I would leave the way move orders are earned each round exactly the same as now, ie. 1 move per territory (refer to Chilly's point 2).

This could be good. I could easily represent a territory's defensive force on the meta map by drawing in the number on the container, just like in our normal games. I prefer that over the downgrade system. It would add another strategical consideration to the game.

Finally, I agree with Chilly about having a Metagame subforum (point 1) and about recouping half your move bank if your team are eliminated and then choose to use the doggy card to buy back in to the Metagame (point 6).

I said before but yeah I want this too. Y'all should suggest stuff more often =)

 

[trailblazer]

I just thought of another possible little change (for the next round not now):

When defending your last territory, you pick the map and settings outright

Obviously it still has to be one that your competitors have selected in their map selection.

I think that would be pretty cool.

EDIT: thinking about it maybe that would just get confusing if multiple territories were attacked on the same round, then essentially they are all last territories, or should it just be the absolute last one to be attacked that counts for the last territory?

Talking about us being on the same page, I like this proposal of yours too. I would keep it simple, so, yes, "the absolute last one to be attacked ... counts for the last territory."

 

[Chilly]

Well, I'm glad I stirred the pot.

 

[trailblazer]

Finally, I agree with Chilly ... about recouping half your move bank if your team are eliminated and then choose to use the doggy card to buy back in to the Metagame (point 6).

Having said this, I would still keep the following aspects of the doggy card the same as in the current rules: "If you are eliminated, you will be given the option to buy back in, for 25 points per player, and get one game on a territory of your choosing. The only places you may not choose to attack are ones that have already been attacked. If you win the game, you're back in the game. If you lose you are out completely.. and you only ever get one doggy card."

This process would only allow you to make 1 normal attack (or alternatively 1 surprise attack, if you have a stockpile of move orders to spend from) in the first round after you buy back in, ie. until you gain a territory from which you can then do other attacks from. Just like now, if your 1 attack (or 1 surprise attack) in that buy back round is unsuccessful, then you are out of the game entirely and any unused moves would then go to the previously unfortunate team whose territory you had chosen to try and take control from.

Otherwise, if you allowed a team to linger on in the metagame territory-less for more than one round, like some Wraifs from the Lord of the Rings, they could use their remaining move order stockpile to attempt to gain territories at different spots all over the board, which I think would be unfair to those other players who are restricted to the normal rules for attacks.

I would also say that they get their choice of which country they want to attack in their buyback round, after all the other teams have made their moves. So once masterjskye has worked out and posted the moves from the loops of the regular teams that have territories at the end of the regular move order phase, then like the runt of the litter, the territory-less team can come to the table to pick a morsel from among the currently unattacked territories. If it is an extravagant runt, it could choose to spend it's move stockpile on launching its attack or surprise attack on a well-defended country - see previous posting about adding defence to countries on a round by round basis.

I would also stipulate that the doggy-card team can't attack another team's last remaining unattacked country in their buy-back round, as I think it would be unfair if they can be capable of helping to eliminate a regular team, when they themselves are not operating under the normal rules for attacks in their territory-less state. It would be unfair too if eliminating a regular team had then allowed the doggy runts to recoup a portion of this unfortunate team's move stockpile.

 

[namelochil]

Damn, trailblazer, you are one thorough dude!

 

[ne4osu1970]

Can I get some clarification because I am alittle confused by thegeneral and I being attacked in Outback by Marc/ndrm. I thought if a country was under siege they could not attack. Since thegeneral and myself got that move order in first would that not pretty much void any of their moves since they are under siege and was their last territory. I try to keep up with all the forums and if I missed where this was discussed before I apologize