Actual irl money
2 Likes
This is what the winners of my upcoming Danganronpa EiMM will win whenever it comes out.
5 Likes
yeah i decided itād be funny to spartan it and didnt think beyond āall of this grows super fast but spartans can also take stuff from othersā
im ngl i didnt consider that people could like 95x their villagers in a turn forever
3 Likes
me and hippo basically played our own game and ngl i totally won so #suckit
4 Likes
we both got second place so we tried our best!
2 Likes
pbem civ 4 game
baby army
2 Likes
all i see is 2 of us in the top 2 
2 Likes
Iād be willing to take part in a second one of these. Any tips you can give me Tutuu?
1 Like
Well for this one it was probably optimal to build no early barracks and do a lot of math on how much farms versus markets to build. So probably quite complex. Ash did find the optimal scaling using a program, it was too much to solve by hand
Part 2 is hopefully better designed and it isnt solvable by math, and it would viable to go for both late game scaling and early game aggression builds
Hippo does have a point that the more choices there are, the harder it is to math out the optimal one. That, plus RNG is usually how video games avoid making themselves solvable
So i cant say from now on what tips would be good for the next one. I can just hope its better and it would be intuitive on what to do :P
2 Likes
Bet.
2 Likes
from a game designer POV, the two biggest reasons why the game was too broken:
- Villagers and Merchants are giving out direct benefits, while warriors only gives out indirect (and blockable) benefits.
- Itās too easy to change villagers into Merchants. So getting gold was way too easy. (in conclusion the 2 extra buildings you can get from looting worth almost nothing.)
- There was no cap on multipliers or unit count. (The latter one is a delicate creature to manage, but every civilisation management game has this for a reason. Itās not striking everywhere for the first glance, or it is an outplayable system, but itās there.)
- The whole round (overall) protection, where the possible warriors could be only 10% of a players total civilisation (and the people started the game the exact same time) was too strong. (I get the idea you was trying to copy the protection from online multiplayer civ games, but that protection time is mostly for new players to have time to catch up.)
- Once a building was there, it couldnāt be removed by the other players.
My advices for a more managable (and maybe a bit more balanced) game.
-Donāt let the units produce more units without an input. (use the farms instead to give out flat number of villagers, this way you would prevent the same snowball situation. Although without a careful balance it would turn into an other snowball just with an extra step.)
-Instead of purchasing buildings, use villager requirements/assign villagers to build buildings. (and extra gold cost, if you want to keep the Merchant system.)
-Let each civ build the big buildings (aquaduct/bazaar/pantheon), but give an extra bonus for the civ who specialise in that aspect.
-Drop the whole infinite āfreeā +10% bonus. (either make it harder to accomplish or make the sequentual buildings give out less bonuses.) This was just too unhinged at one point.
-To prevent the no early barrack play, make the looting bonus a multiplier instead a flat increase, which can be achievable only through looting. Or give warriors extra strength based how old they are. (this might also would discourage people for defending with only ābabyā warriors) [definetly not both, that would make the warrior heavy build too unhinged.]
-let the players attack(loot based on the building or destroy)/defend specific buildings. (this one would make spies/anti-spies a bit more needed, and without enough defenders people would need to be more careful what they want to protect.)
4 Likes