Game code changes - proposal

Based on previous experience with Far Horizons, I would propose the following (simple) changes to the game engine code:

1) Make sure no planet in the home system has LSN lower than 15. Try to achieve that by adjusting the atmospheric requirements (instead of Temperature/ Pressure), so that your planets may remain highly attractive to other species - adds another motivation for interspecies interaction.

REASONING: Having a habitable planet in a home system gives the player an unfair advantage.

2) Increase jump difficulty over longer distances. My proposals include:
- change mishap formula to use distance^3 instead of distance^2
- limit FS (Fail-Safe Jump Unit) usage to one per jump

You may consider offsetting these changes by increasing the number of wormholes in galaxy and/or lowering the minimal wormhole distance requirement.

REASONING: In the midgame, with GV >> 20, whole galaxy becomes reachable without issues, making surprise all-out attack the most effective (but boring) conflict solution. The above changes will not rule that strategy out, but will require more planning and increase logistics difficulty.

We had discussed a few more advanced changes, but in this thread I decided to focus on those which are easily implementable.

Comments / questions are appreciated.

[quote='prozenfeld' pid='882' dateline='1302615310']
Based on previous experience with Far Horizons, I would propose the following (simple) changes to the game engine code:
[/quote]

I would think that both changes make a great deal of sense. My experience is that game designers (especially the first time out) tend to make their games too easy. Negative feedback (what makes it easy to turn the steering wheel of a car a few degrees, but hard to make it turn 60 degrees) must be present, or players will reach god-status and then, like Alexander the Great, weep because they have no more worlds to conquer. . . . actually, they don't weep, they find another game so they have challenges again.

I have no idea what the code looks like but I do know that sometimes the "simple" changes are the most difficult to implement and have the most unintended consequences.

[quote='prozenfeld' pid='882' dateline='1302615310']REASONING: Having a habitable planet in a home system gives the player an unfair advantage.[/quote]

I am inclined to believe that the stars are full of uncertainty. Do the stars guarantee equality to all those that reside amongst them?

I could have a dozen habitable planets in my home system, but that doesn't mean that I know how to colonize them. I have found many planets, thus far, but have colonized none.

Didn't the Romulans have two homeworlds?

[quote='prozenfeld' pid='882' dateline='1302615310']2) Increase jump difficulty over longer distances. My proposals include:
- change mishap formula to use distance^3 instead of distance^2
- limit FS (Fail-Safe Jump Unit) usage to one per jump

You may consider offsetting these changes by increasing the number of wormholes in galaxy and/or lowering the minimal wormhole distance requirement.

REASONING: In the midgame, with GV >> 20, whole galaxy becomes reachable without issues, making surprise all-out attack the most effective (but boring) conflict solution. The above changes will not rule that strategy out, but will require more planning and increase logistics difficulty.[/quote]

I would think that a greater issue would be addressing the entry level appeal issues. In its present form, I think that player dropouts will be common, particularly in the early phases of the game - thus rendering the mid-game fairly moot, for them.

I encountered another race/species, this turn. It proved to be a very stale experience.

What are the advantages of a non-surprise attack over a surprise attack? Why would a player want to fore go launching a surprise attack?

It seems to me that it would be desirable to increase the likelihood of surprise attacks occurring. Perhaps it might be helpful if the war/battle cannot be concluded quickly and easily, once a surprise attack is committed to.

If it is possible for a player to start with a position that guarantees him a leg up when playing (assuming he knows how to exploit it), once that fact becomes known, players will drop as soon as they see that they did not get that kind of a position. The only ones left would be the ones that got the better positions and the noobs, who would be dead men walking.

I like the idea of making long jumps more difficult. In my old Ultima Online days, I remember many of the seasoned players yearned for the days when almost nobody could teleport. Regions took on special character, journeys were treacherous (and rewarding) adventures unto themselves, and geography took its toll on all players old and new. But as soon as teleporting became ubiquitous, all that geographic richness disappeared. People blinked in and out as they pleased, and the only travelers on the king's highways were my fellow noobs, out to hunt for rabbit pelts and the like.

In FH, I would agree to the suggested rule change, or I would add a second level of danger to long-jumping. Perhaps a higher chance of ship destruction, or perhaps a telepathic blast that would inform all players of the jumping fleet's specs at that instant.

[quote='JonO' pid='893' dateline='1302633732']
If it is possible for a player to start with a position that guarantees him a leg up when playing (assuming he knows how to exploit it), once that fact becomes known, players will drop as soon as they see that they did not get that kind of a position. The only ones left would be the ones that got the better positions and the noobs, who would be dead men walking.[/quote]

I don't agree, at all. If players all had to have the same assets, when starting, Hyborian War would have died, long ago.

I would guess that you are equating position equality with all positions being clones of each other. That is certainly not what I meant, I don't think it is what I wrote, nor is it what I believe anyone else has been talking about.

Hyborian War does an excellent job of making sure that a strength in one area is balanced by a weakness in another and that the odds of winning, given any particular set up is equal to the odds of any other given set up - otherwise it would not have lasted this long. I suppose, in theory, it would be possible to balance off having to colonizable worlds in a home sector, but it is such a big advantage - almost as good as getting to play two positions - that the dowside would have to be equally huge.

[quote='JonO' pid='903' dateline='1302662051']
I would guess that you are equating position equality with all positions being clones of each other. That is certainly not what I meant, I don't think it is what I wrote, nor is it what I believe anyone else has been talking about.

Hyborian War does an excellent job of making sure that a strength in one area is balanced by a weakness in another and that the odds of winning, given any particular set up is equal to the odds of any other given set up - otherwise it would not have lasted this long. I suppose, in theory, it would be possible to balance off having to colonizable worlds in a home sector, but it is such a big advantage - almost as good as getting to play two positions - that the dowside would have to be equally huge.[/quote]

You must be talking about a different Hyborian War, that the one that I play. The odds of winning with different kingdoms varies widely, and I certainly would not rate the kingdoms as being balanced. It is the differences in the kingdoms that help to elevate the game's player experience, not balance.

Far Horizons has no victory conditions. The game manual states that the game is played solely for enjoyment.

Sifting through the game manual for Far Horizons has been an exercise in tedium writ large. It is very time consuming, and is a chore to be viewed with dread, from my perspective. Whether the game is balanced or not is the least of my concerns, as a player. I would rather that the game simply be more fun, not balanced.

[quote='ixnay']
I like the idea of making long jumps more difficult. In my old Ultima Online days, I remember many of the seasoned players yearned for the days when almost nobody could teleport. Regions took on special character, journeys were treacherous (and rewarding) adventures unto themselves, and geography took its toll on all players old and new. But as soon as teleporting became ubiquitous, all that geographic richness disappeared. People blinked in and out as they pleased, and the only travelers on the king's highways were my fellow noobs, out to hunt for rabbit pelts and the like.

In FH, I would agree to the suggested rule change, or I would add a second level of danger to long-jumping. Perhaps a higher chance of ship destruction, or perhaps a telepathic blast that would inform all players of the jumping fleet's specs at that instant.
[/quote]

Completely agree with your UO analogy. Space "travel" should present itself as a challenge, rather than be just instantaneous change of location.

[quote='Grimfinger']
I encountered another race/species, this turn. It proved to be a very stale experience.
[/quote]

The encounter itself is bland. The diplomacy / roleplaying that follows should be more interesting :)

[quote='JonO']
If it is possible for a player to start with a position that guarantees him a leg up when playing (assuming he knows how to exploit it), once that fact becomes known, players will drop as soon as they see that they did not get that kind of a position. The only ones left would be the ones that got the better positions and the noobs, who would be dead men walking.
[/quote]

No single race is able to "win" in Far Horizons without allies. The pace of development for a species depend on many factors. Strong home system is a most obvious and easiest to tweak of them.

[quote='JonO']
I would guess that you are equating position equality with all positions being clones of each other. That is certainly not what I meant, I don't think it is what I wrote, nor is it what I believe anyone else has been talking about.
[/quote]

Absolutely agree. The intention of my changes is to keep starting position variance within limits.

[quote='GrimFinger']
I would think that a greater issue would be addressing the entry level appeal issues. In its present form, I think that player dropouts will be common, particularly in the early phases of the game - thus rendering the mid-game fairly moot, for them.
[/quote]

From my experience playing 4 games, the dropout rate is ~10-20% (manageable). It does not affect the game significantly for those still playing.

[quote='GrimFinger']
Sifting through the game manual for Far Horizons has been an exercise in tedium writ large. It is very time consuming, and is a chore to be viewed with dread, from my perspective. Whether the game is balanced or not is the least of my concerns, as a player. I would rather that the game simply be more fun, not balanced.
[/quote]

I understand your point about barrier of entry. But the intent of this thread was to improve the actual gameplay for those who are familiar with the rules.

[quote='GrimFinger' pid='905' dateline='1302663506']
You must be talking about a different Hyborian War, that the one that I play. The odds of winning with different kingdoms varies widely, and I certainly would not rate the kingdoms as being balanced. It is the differences in the kingdoms that help to elevate the game's player experience, not balance.

[/quote]

OK Grim, have it your way. The only reason Hyborian war has lasted this long is that it appeals to the masochistic impulses of a bunch of borderline morons who enjoy playing positions that they know cannot win. :rolleyes:

[quote='JonO' pid='909' dateline='1302691743']OK Grim, have it your way. The only reason Hyborian war has lasted this long is that it appeals to the masochistic impulses of a bunch of borderline morons who enjoy playing positions that they know cannot win. :rolleyes:[/quote]

Some kingdoms in the game are widely regarded as being exceedingly difficult to win with. In some instances, it has been decades - literally - since some kingdoms have registered a win, whereas with some other kingdoms, winning is fairly routine for them.

OK. And how many experienced players will actually run those kingdoms?

Well, since every organized game starts with all 36 player positions filled, quite a few, actually.

[quote='GrimFinger' pid='916' dateline='1302733917']
Well, since every organized game starts with all 36 player positions filled, quite a few, actually.
[/quote]

That's not what I asked - let's say, after turn 5, how many experienced players are still running a known loser? If you tell me a lot of them, then you have proved your point. The game stays in business because it attracts masochistic morons. (Along with some sadists, who love to beat up on the masochists.)

[quote='JonO' pid='918' dateline='1302734412']That's not what I asked - let's say, after turn 5, how many experienced players are still running a known loser? If you tell me a lot of them, then you have proved your point. The game stays in business because it attracts masochistic morons. (Along with some sadists, who love to beat up on the masochists.)[/quote]

Actually, I think that it stays in business because the game is simply fun to play. I certainly don't play it because of the ranking system nor because I view the game to be balanced. There are large, medium, and small kingdoms, and consequently, they're not going to be balanced. The asymmetric aspect of the game is appealing. Furthermore, the setting for the game is the Age of Conan, the Hyborian Age, created by Robert E. Howard, and that imbues the game with a strong sword and sorcery flavor.

You may feel the lot of us to be morons, but perhaps even morons know a good game, when they play it.

[quote='JonO' pid='918' dateline='1302734412']That's not what I asked - let's say, after turn 5, how many experienced players are still running a known loser?[/quote]

Typically, in organized games, most players are still playing after turn 5. Players tend to drop games for a wide variety of reasons, reasons which may be unrelated to their opinion of the game or the kingdom that they are playing.

Some day I hope to get a chance to play poker with these players. Nothing I like better than teaching someone the odds against drawing to an inside straight. :D

But, still, I wonder if the guys who run RSI would agree with your assessment.

I'm sure that the people at RSI have their own opinions on things pertaining to the game, including the ranking system and how the kingdoms fare, with regard to being balanced against one another.

Threadjacking like that is not very nice of you...

It's not threadjacking any more than my Romulan comment would constitute threadjacking, or Jon's comment about Alexander the Great, or Ixnay's comment about Ultima Online. These discussions are informal discussions, and people will often make comparisons, or inject other games into the discussions, or some aspect of those games, that they feel are relevant. Others may then expand a discussion in directions not originally envisioned. It's the nature of informal discussions.

[quote='prozenfeld' pid='929' dateline='1302760142']
Threadjacking like that is not very nice of you...
[/quote]

I apologize. 'Tis easy to respond to the previous post, without remembering what the OP was about. :blush:

>>No single race is able to "win" in Far Horizons without allies. The pace of development for a species depend on many factors. Strong home system is a most obvious and easiest to tweak of them.

I've seen examples where a solo player has effectively 'won' (inasmuch as this game can be 'won' by anybody; it depends on your goals, of course). Of course, that player effectively 'played' most of the others against each other, while apparently having a strong starting position.

But I digress...

*As to the changes:
1) I agree completely that each players' home systems should have no other planet with LSN less than 15, as stated for the reasons listed in above posts. [Sorry, I'm running short on time, and don't have time to elaborate. Maybe another day...]

2) Failsafe Limits: Makes perfect sense, and is probably easily implementable. [slaps self on forehead for not having thought of it...]

3) Jump Difficulty Increase: Not sure if this is a good idea or not. While it makes sense, it makes even low level jumps very risky, and may turn more than a few players away from the game. Perhaps there is a way to make it a 'sliding scale'. [will have to think on this one]

Surprise attacks can occur when a ship isn't issued battle orders, i.e., not expecting attack. But the main 'source' of them is sneak attacks by Allies. Not much can be done about them most of the time.
And surprise attacks only give the attacker a single round of attacks against unshielded defenders [hopefully that's correct; going off memory here...]

More to follow as time permits.

Why not put settings like this into a config file, and have the program load them in uniquely for each game? Then you could have games with different parameters -- good for testing and good for experienced players who want to shake things up a little.

[quote='ixnay' pid='951' dateline='1302910531']
Why not put settings like this into a config file, and have the program load them in uniquely for each game? Then you could have games with different parameters -- good for testing and good for experienced players who want to shake things up a little.
[/quote]

[I'm not a programmer, so I could be off here, but...]

The Code for FH is 'rather old'. I'm not sure if such a file can be written for it as it currently stands (but I'm not an expert, of course). It could involve a complete rewrite of the code.
It would make things easier, though.