hi everyone,

one of the things noel and i have been discussing on and off for a while is how to keep players engaged in the game, feeling like there's a purpose to playing. in talking about how to accomplish this there are two competing goals:
1. if you gain a lead early, it should mean something, and should not be easy for someone with a weak start to jump ahead of you.
2. if you're off to a bad start, you should feel like you have a chance to climb up the ranks. not necessarily from last to first, but maybe from #7 to #2. otherwise, if you're off to a very weak start, there's not a lot of motivation to keep laying.

i recently heard that DOTA 2 made a big change relatively recently, by strongly boosting the reward for a losing team killing a winning team's hero, which makes it much easier for them to get back into the game with one strong (if desperate) play.

could this be applied to subterfuge somehow? allowing players who aren't doing well to jump up the ranks without making an early lead seem meaningless? or maybe an early lead _should_ be meaningless?

since we're thinking about this, we thought we'd see what the community thinks, maybe some ideas come out of this.

ron

It may not be a bad idea to automate the funding mechanic rather than it being manual. This would have minimal penalty on the stronger players while allowing the weaker players to operate ahead of their apparent factory and power count.

Another option would be to provide a mini-Engineer effect to players who were far behind.

Also, it is worth considering that some specialists are better than others in a position where you are behind the pace, so perhaps making the specialists only semi-random could allow you to help out players with specialists that could be more applicable to their situation.

One thing I was thinking was that it would be interesting if, when a mine is captured, the new owner stole some of the previous owner's neptunium in addition the previous owner losing 20%. Whether the conqueror gains the 20% or something less like 10% or 5% would have to be playtested, but it would provide the rubberbanding you're looking for.

I generally oppose Jayde's first two options since it feels too much like automated cheating to artificially keep games closer. What benefit would players have to take risks early to get ahead when they know the other players will catch up some by doing nothing? (This is starting to sound like social economic policy, break off break off!) Also, funding decisions are an important part of diplomacy and subterfuge (lowercase) because of their semi-anonymous nature. We shouldn't lose that.

Tweaking specialists somehow could work; what about, for instance, giving players who are a certain amount of Np (40-60?) behind the leader a fourth specialist option to choose from?

we ruled out "stealing" neptunium for two reasons:
1. it makes it easier for one player to king-make another
2. most players won't see a mine take-over coming, which means the game is much more likely to suddenly end when they aren't expecting it, possibly ruining elaborate plans that were put in motion days in advance.

In general, I wouldn't be in favor of a similar function to the one in DOTA.

There is already an in game function for this, it's the randomization of specialists. it's not a reliable way to gain the lead, but with some luck, and a larger play in diplomacy, you can come back and even win from nearly any position.

That said, I also have concerns that improperly analyzed game positions may lead to player drop off.

If there has to be a feature like this to keep players engaged, then maybe it can be done through nudging available specialists, away from those that may extend a lead to the leader, or toward those that may more quickly level the field for those far behind.

The big problem with that enhancing those falling behind of course is that specialists are forever, and arming the rebels may just produce new and unbeatable enemies as people game the system to stay behind for longer.

Maybe try lowering the chances of getting aggressive specialists (and increase the chance for defensive specialists) to the leader or leaders, but only if the margin is measurably disheartening?

I'd have to look at the data to make a more specific recommendation... however...

Just spit balling on this one, but this could even potentially be automatic and dynamic.

Identify the most common specialists owned by those in 1st, 2nd 3rd place at throughout all the recent games (these specialists and strategies will evolve over time with more players due to increased experience and the rock/paper/scissors nature of the specialists abilities). Auto down-rank the likeliness of these specific and ever changing specialists in the randomization for those players far outpacing the other players. The percentage scale could even be graduated according to some measure of the distance of the lead. Further out in the lead, even less likely to get them...

This will be a difficult balance though because if you lower the chances that the leaders can get the "game winning specialists" not only might that punish early leaders, but it would taint the ranking of the transitionally more potent specialists. For those reasons, it may have to not be a significantly lowered chance, but *just* enough to be effective without also crippling those who skillfully developed an early lead.

we came up with an idea today that might help with rubber banding. curious to hear your guys' thoughts on it before we seriously consider implementing it:

you would be able to promote the queen to something like "divine empress", whose ability would be to steal some amount of neptunium per day from each players that has more neptunium than you. AND, if you lose even a single outpost while you have a divine empress, you are eliminated from the game.

the idea is that the further you are behind, the more likely you are to make this high risk move, which gives you a chance to climb up the ranks in a meaningful way, but with a very high risk of being eliminated. the hope is that either way, players that are far behind should have a more exciting game than they would now.

thoughts?

Interesting concept.

It's worth trying out, though it's going to take a lot of games to judge its effectiveness and utility.

Personally, I can't think of a strategic position I have been in that I would sign up for that.

It seems that most times someone who is ahead on NP they are also ahead militarily and players choosing this option may be just easier to eliminate.

How much Neptunium is stolen? Set rate or percentage? Is there the potential for the guy in last place to suicide himself to claw back the guy with the early Neptunium lead?

---
and is the 'divine empress' a reversible promotion?

If reversible then what stops people just reversing it when attacked?

If not reversible, is it ever a viable option to win knowing that once you're in the lead (and no longer stealing Neptunium) you'd have to have your own mine to finish the job at an incredibly slow pace (because if you own a lot of outposts you're a dead man walking because you can't defend them all).

ron wrote:we came up with an idea today that might help with rubber banding. curious to hear your guys' thoughts on it before we seriously consider implementing it:

you would be able to promote the queen to something like "divine empress", whose ability would be to steal some amount of neptunium per day from each players that has more neptunium than you. AND, if you lose even a single outpost while you have a divine empress, you are eliminated from the game.

the idea is that the further you are behind, the more likely you are to make this high risk move, which gives you a chance to climb up the ranks in a meaningful way, but with a very high risk of being eliminated. the hope is that either way, players that are far behind should have a more exciting game than they would now.

thoughts?

This doesn't sound like something I would choose. I understand the need to balance the positive aspect with the negative, but game over if you lose one outpost is too much of a risk. Even if I'm completely outmatched and being overrun, I could still send my queen on a long journey or hope that a friend would let me crash on their couch/outpost and stay in the game.

This sounds more like an alternative method of playing spoiler and slowing down the game artificially than a viable winning move if you're down. I presume you'd be taking Np from others at the same rate, no matter what it is or how it's calculated, so it would just take everyone else longer to win than before.

Now, if this were a TARGETED effect, like a sort of anti-funding, then this could be more interesting and fit in with the diplomatic side of the game more. Others would have a vested interest in becoming or staying friends with you so you wouldn't steal their Np. Those not in the lead would even be interested in protecting you and your outposts, keeping you alive, so that you could target the leader(s) and give them a chance of winning.

Also, I understand why you've discounted the "steal Np by taking mines" idea, but that at least seems to fit with the theme and gameplay we already have. How do the proposed rules fit in? Why do you lose if you lose an outpost? Because the fallibility of the divine has been proven? Sounds like Douglas Adams territory to me.

I think it can also not be overstated that there is no lead that cannot be overcome through the tactics of diplomacy and collective strategy.

There is a difference between it being too late to act (which is the fault of those who did not act soon enough) and being unable to overtake a lead.

Personally, my only concern around this as an issue is how/if it effects the the sustainability of the player base.