Planet wars development site is http://planet-wars.eu:8080/trac
Planet wars game site is http://planet-wars.eu/
Comments
this is ongoing project and design is subject to change - please comment here or make tickets and link them here.
- expected benefits: fun, will improve team cooperation, people more likely to play again. We can add minor stacking infinite-term bonuses for people who won rounds (who were generals) - for long term motivation.
- victory-losses should be used for player ranking while victories only for buying things
- map will have default boxes stored on server along with information which box belongs to which faction. Players can only build structures in their box and they will only be used when defending planet.
- help needed: if you know html/webdesign/css or javascript, contact us
- help needed: if you can do C# and want to help coding PW itself, contact us too (quantum/licho)
jK: I would prefer a web interface.
Licho: me too, but you are too limited on web and .net web technologies dont run well on linux servers we have
jK: why use .net at all? just write a textfile with springie and then use php :)
Licho: that would work for passive reading of some text data - but hard to use for such basic things like scrollable galaxy map with nice planets and variable layout.
Licho: we are going web after all
Marmoth: Planet battles could be split into more than one CA game: for example 3 battles: Landing battle / Main battle / Extermination battle. Each of these battle would have different scenarii (Landing: Goal for attacker: create an outpost and stand against growing ennemy troops (variant: gather ressources) Goal for defender: destroy attacker / Main battle: normal CA game / Extermination battle: Goal for attacker: find and kill ennemy troops in a territory, Goal for defender: defend yourself until you have gathered ressource to build a new base). Those are only ideas, the general concept is more important. Another nice idea would be to have more than one battlefield per planet. Best would be to have a set of maps with similar theme (using same L3DT climates, or Bryce materials + same water color/lightning).
Marmoth: Victory points should perhaps be linked to damage dealt/received instead of kills/losses, to avoid making small units unplayable (especially cloggers and such units). Licho: Victory points are linked to map victories not units kills/losses.
CarRepairer: Like Master of Orion, you could have a resource-rich planet in the middle of the galaxy that is populated by powerful chickens. It would make for an interesting change of pace since a faction would have to challenge that planet and not the opposing team. So it would cost them an attack turn, but it would be worth a shot at getting that planet. It might also be useful for times when there are not sufficient players of the other team online. Licho: I like this idea.
Saktoth: A lot of these rewards are rewarding good players to make it easier for them to win in the future. They dont need the help! If we impliment a system such as this, id suggest a global, per-round (the duration of one campaign) set of purchasable abilities drawn from the income pool of conquered planets. Either by each player, or by the general. When the campaign ends, its back to zero (or, 50/50) again so you dont get one side or set of players totally dominating the game.
These abilities could be anything from larger start boxes or different victory conditions to starting with a Bertha, but it might be better if they relate to the galaxy map rather than giving in-game bonuses, which will make some games and maps biased and silly. Abilities that effect the galaxy map might include a system for purchasing fleets, where you must have ships available in an adjacent system to make an attack (or mount a defense), and ships have some ability to kill eachother (coordinated by the general or vote).
CarRepairer: I agree that in-battle bonuses are not desirable, whereas rewards should be bonuses applied to the galaxy strategy. People will feel distraight if they have to start a losing game where the enemy starts with 10x the metal. It would be more fun to apply different choices and strategies in the galaxy map. Ideas... (1) I would like it if a surrounded planet was not immediately lost, but instead could be restricted to not being able to attack adjacent planets. (2) My above suggestion for chicken planet could simply be a strategically placed planet and that would be its appeal, after all it's a planet that needs to be won eventually so the first team to take it over will still be moving toward their goal. I like the fleet ideas too.
You also bring up the point that one team could dominate the other. I hope that we will have the ability to influence a balancing system to maintain that both sides are relatively even in skill, just like balancing in-game.
Google Frog: Giving one side a resource or unit bonus makes the battle uneven and will lead to boring battles. Due to ingame slippery slope the team with the advantage will quickly overtake the other team resulting in a stomp. Taking control of a surrounded planet is ok because that doesn't affect the game. The problem with chicken planets is chicken games are really porcy and boring atm.
Brathering: The defense bonus could be time dependent. The more time a planet isn't attacked the better bonus it gets. This would make it harder to attack enemy homeland, but the all-day battlefield would be balanced. If you attack a planet with homeland bonus, you might loose, but you weakened their defense for your next attack. By how much it should be weakened could be dependent on the battle result somehow.
