Screeps World War 2?
-
This started out as a reply to Atavus' excellent post covering the events of the first large scale war. In the interest of not getting sidetracked, I've moved it here.
There is a lot to be said about the first large-scale conflict involving multiple alliances in Screeps. It started out fun, but it didn't exactly finish that way. I've learned some lessons both programming and personal from the whole thing, so I count it as a good experience. Starting over has also been really constructive, it is amazing what ideas you start to have when you aren't tied down to your previous way of doing something.
I'd like to see another large-scale conflict. A salty war is bad for the community, but so are long stretches of peace. I personally think this community has what it takes to have a full-scale war that is brutal and horrific in the screeps world and friendly, constructive, and (dare I say it) even pleasant in the real world.
What do other people think?
-
Just my 2 cents, I think the best way to keep it fun is to let it be opt-in and to let people exit (with some reasonable concessions).
The "opt-in" part is an interesting challenge, it would seem to be very limiting. It rules out the possibility of surprise attacks. Some players/alliances may not even resent unprovoked attacks, the trouble is knowing who that is.
On some level, it would be nice if everyone recognized that by simply participating in an RTS, they should expect to be attacked and to not take it personally by default. Unfortunately, it rarely plays out that way, I'll submit my inbox as Exhibit A.
Perhaps if there were a way to indicate that you enjoy PvP, that would help. I'm a Civilization addict so that immediately comes to mind, you have to declare war in order to start a conflict with someone. If you could see a history of war declarations, that would be an excellent way to judge.
I also really like the idea of a fully automated war. Almost all of us use some manually set parameters for setting up raids, it is just a lot easier to get things started that way. But this means we have to be present to participate. It also gives you some degree of personal detachment when you are just letting your AI handle everything. If your rooms can rebuild themselves and retaliate on their own, it gives you a lot of freedom just to not worry about it. This is how I plan to do any future conflicts.
-
Dear Bonzai,
One of the important revelations of this conflict was that there is a diverse and incompatible set of philosophies driving the motivations of players within the Screeps universe. The primary trends I've identified are:
- Programming game - main proponent The Culture
- MMO - main proponent the SUN
- RTS - main proponent ThunderKittens
The first philosophy approaches the game as an opportunity to experiment with different programming techniques. Rooms, resources and geography are relevant mostly because they provide different scenarios and challenges to handle.
The second philosophy focuses on the collective experience. Rooms, resources and geography determine the strength of the group. The desire is to maximize their availability and ensure their optimum distribution across members of the alliance.
The third philosophy looks at the game as a dynamic experience of shifting priorities, goals and relations. All bound together by the desire to increase individual power and freedom.
Neither approach is wrong and they are all a part of Screeps. A testament to the quality and complexity of this game. However, interactions between these philosophies will always be explosive. The game can only be "fun" when we are all playing the same game.
This world war was a mmo experience and I find it difficult to foresee a future where wars between alliances will not follow the general trend of mmo warfare. Considering that neither of the established alliances has suffered a philosophy shift as a result of this war, SUN has decided to pursue a policy of avoidance with regards to any group which does not ascribe to the same game ideology.
Lastly, a few mentions with regards to the desire for an RTS experience. I've been an avid fan of the Civilization series since I first discovered it 20 years ago. I've played Civ 5 competitively as part of the NQ group for over 1000 hours and relished the experience. I understand where your coming from, however I don't see this philosophy as compatible with a global conflict in Screeps.
What you could do, is create an organization (not an alliance) whose members abide by a set of rules conducive to RTS gameplay. Find others whose philosophy matches your own and engage in warfare and diplomacy internally. Insulate yourself as much from the outside world and generally avoid conflict with the other groups in the game.
Regarding, the importance of automation in the RTS experience. Be aware that the level of automation you suggest is realistic only for a very very small number of players currently. The closest player to what you suggest is TooAngel, but that level of extreme automation has come with sever sacrifices in terms of efficiency. In other words, you cannot hope to rely on automation as a support for a more dynamic Screeps experience.
Kind regards,
Your ever loving fan,
Atavus
-
I mostly agree with what atavus is saying, but with a few caveats. I think many members of The Culture, myself included, do view this as an MMO of a sort, just not from the same perspective as SUN apparently does.
Look at EVE Online for example. People hold territory, extract resources, and meta game quite a bit. They get upset when territory is lost or their fancy ships destroyed. Motives are often vary different from one group to another- for instance, not everyone cares about maximizing territory, and may focus on different aspects such as being mercenaries or traders. That doesn't mean they aren't playing an MMO.
For The Culture we do have the goal of maximizing resources, but we take a different route that involves an emphasis on coalitions with neighbors for mutual economic advantage. Our goals are to, in game, maintain enough territory so we can experiment and grow our code.
So for this reason I don't really think we're going to go looking for another world war. That being said, with the way this game works and the fact that territory is limited, I wouldn't be surprised if another world war did break out at some point in the future.
Separately, I think the automated warfare topic should be it's own discussion. I am 100% behind that goal- I've always been pro automation, and currently the only thing I do is select which rooms to expand to or to attack. I would really like to make even that part automated. I think it would be great if at some point someone set up a world that did not allow for any player input at all other than maybe the starting room, so we could then just upload our code and see how it plays out (if the admins are listening I would be willing to pay a separate subscription for something like that).
-
As always, enjoyed your thoughts. Maybe deciding to go to war for just for the fun of it isn't the best way to go, might be better to let it happen naturally. I can't help but get the impression you are basically saying "feel free to have your wars, just don't do it in my yard".
TK does have a diverse set of motivations for playing. We all drift in and out of involvement in screeps, but things keep humming along either way. I think as an alliance we sour on the idea of conflict for personal reasons, so we will always avoid that. I've been a lot less likely to send attacks myself except for with players that I know are open to PvP.
Sounds like our motivations overlap more than expected. I enjoy gaining territory as much as the next player, but there are higher priorities. Since I've respawned I've been well under the room and cpu limit. There are rooms nearby that I could take but I'd rather focus on writing the code for it to happen automatically.
Maybe those of us who are focusing on automation can join up on a private server. I'd be surprised if there wasn't one already started with that intention.