Serious Discussion About r10..........

[Morden]

Right well as it seems most of the alliances plan to go solo, or at least appear to be following that route, but will this stop blocks? Personally I dont think it will, the only thing that can and would stop blocks is for alliances and people to stop holding the grudges like they do, its a continuos cycle, they beat you one round, so you make sure you win the next and beat them by any means necasary, this is the foundations of block warfare.

Is there an alternative? yes but it would need alliances to be more fluidic in there politics and in the way they fight there wars, as well as when they fight the wars.

• Wars: Not starting wars till your ready would be a start, for example tick 2-300. this would help give both sides a chance of having a fair fight without ending in stagnation as soon as the war ends, simple because it would last longer and hopefully it wouldnt have as many alliances involved in it, at the start at least.
  
• Grudges: these are probably one of the most important factors of PA having a lot of people leaving because they are one of the most important factors in blocking, if people were to take this one round at a time instead of getting caught up in grudges and rivalries, the level of stagnation would rarely reach what has become the "norm" of the current rounds.
  
• Political Fluidity: the biggest problem this round which allowed WEET and then ET, an easy victory was that the alliances wouldnt trust each other which slowed down and/or stopped any chance of an organised counter offensive which would set some level of equilibrium until it was way too late, had people been more fluid in there dealings this round would have been very different as well as not making set peice moves(i.e pre-round agreements) the only things which are possible for alliances.

IF next round is random it would hopefully be a lot more interresting than r8 providing the alliances do actually stay solo for a time at least, this would negate the need to block for a time, and would make sure that a long grueling war would not errupt at tick 120 which doesnt do the game or the players any good as well as dooming every neutral player in the game into a position where there fate hangs in the balance.

Anyone else who has some serious comments or perhaps an insight as to wether your alliance might perhaps try to be a bit more reasonable in the hope of making things better?

[xtothez]

• Cheating:

  <coza> why do u think we were top 20 for about 5 weeks? 
  me ice and morden logged in and did everybodys roid scans for them
  <coza> and yes we sent ppl on attacks
  <coza> :p

*disclaimer - I'm bored

[Morden]

Originally posted by xtothez
*disclaimer - I'm bored

Should've known keeping a serious discussion on this board was impossible, not that im bothered only reason I made the thread was because I was bored.

[Gerbie]

Originally posted by Morden
Right well as it seems most of the alliances plan to go solo, or at least appear to be following that route, but will this stop blocks? Personally I dont think it will, the only thing that can and would stop blocks is for alliances and people to stop holding the grudges like they do, its a continuos cycle, they beat you one round, so you make sure you win the next and beat them by any means necasary, this is the foundations of block warfare.

Is there an alternative? yes but it would need alliances to be more fluidic in there politics and in the way they fight there wars, as well as when they fight the wars.

• Wars: Not starting wars till your ready would be a start, for example tick 2-300. this would help give both sides a chance of having a fair fight without ending in stagnation as soon as the war ends, simple because it would last longer and hopefully it wouldnt have as many alliances involved in it, at the start at least.
  
• Grudges: these are probably one of the most important factors of PA having a lot of people leaving because they are one of the most important factors in blocking, if people were to take this one round at a time instead of getting caught up in grudges and rivalries, the level of stagnation would rarely reach what has become the "norm" of the current rounds.
  
• Political Fluidity: the biggest problem this round which allowed WEET and then ET, an easy victory was that the alliances wouldnt trust each other which slowed down and/or stopped any chance of an organised counter offensive which would set some level of equilibrium until it was way too late, had people been more fluid in there dealings this round would have been very different as well as not making set peice moves(i.e pre-round agreements) the only things which are possible for alliances.

IF next round is random it would hopefully be a lot more interresting than r8 providing the alliances do actually stay solo for a time at least, this would negate the need to block for a time, and would make sure that a long grueling war would not errupt at tick 120 which doesnt do the game or the players any good as well as dooming every neutral player in the game into a position where there fate hangs in the balance.

Anyone else who has some serious comments or perhaps an insight as to wether your alliance might perhaps try to be a bit more reasonable in the hope of making things better?

I thought all would be fixed in round 10. Weren't alliances going to be hardcoded and all?

TEENWAR started their war in tick 73. It worked. Don't expect people to stay clear of what works.

This game is all about rivalry. Without rivalry there are no winners.
This round has been one of the most fluid in a political sence ever. It helped a bit. It's not enough.

What we intend to do in round 10 depends on the game we will get. We are like wax in your hands. As soon as we know what to expect we will plan and make agreements accordingly. How can we make blocks if we don't know if and how alliances can cooperate in round 10? Or even how an alliance will look like in round 10. I will give you a more detailed post on this tonight.

[Mit]

Originally posted by Morden
Lots of stuff

This is all well and good, the alliances saying "we are going solo" etc, but, one thing that will probably still happen is Galaxy wide NAPs. The game would be a lot better if we could get back to the Planetory NAPs only.
Rnd 8 was a lot better than others, cos it was random, and alliances we're working 'more' on their own. I would prefer PA to go back to being 100% random, but it still needs alliance to co-operate and not block up. The game could become enjoyable for all, pros and n00bs.

[Morden]

Originally posted by Mit
This is all well and good, the alliances saying "we are going solo" etc, but, one thing that will probably still happen is Galaxy wide NAPs. The game would be a lot better if we could get back to the Planetory NAPs only.
Rnd 8 was a lot better than others, cos it was random, and alliances we're working 'more' on their own. I would prefer PA to go back to being 100% random, but it still needs alliance to co-operate and not block up. The game could become enjoyable for all, pros and n00bs.

all depends on the game mechanics really, if it isnt quite so hard to rebuild after being wiped out then the game would be a lot better. just have to wait for spinner to comment on the changes to the game mechanics.

and tbh i doubt that many alliances will keep to them saying they will go solo, as there will always be 2 who will work together and force others to.

[rnd|One]

I take it you're not speaking merely on behalf of Eclipse to not receive the short stick R10?

A joint forum/channel with all alliances represented would be a start for more open discussion.

Another improvement would be all alliance coordinates being input to Planetarion database, that would list real-time total statistics of each alliance. This way it'd be clear to all when sides are uneven. Naturally this would require further enhancements, thought and sets of hard coded rules if implemented. For example being enforced via your ships guns working only at 50% performance defending non-alliance mates might be enough incentive to use the system. Coupled with a bizarre universe that would only let you target a selected set of clusters & parallels, which would rotate twice a week for each galaxy.

Food for thought. Discuss.

[gzambo]

a way round larger alliances working together would be to hard code it into the game but the creators seem very slow to answer this point as to whether they will or not , personally i dont see a problem with smaller alliances working together but would prefer to see a true solo rd where every alliance goes alone.
but unfortunatly with every solution they come up with to try achieve this someone finds a way around it

[Fleet_Multiplex]

Originally posted by Mit
This is all well and good, the alliances saying "we are going solo" etc, but, one thing that will probably still happen is Galaxy wide NAPs. The game would be a lot better if we could get back to the Planetory NAPs only.
Rnd 8 was a lot better than others, cos it was random, and alliances we're working 'more' on their own. I would prefer PA to go back to being 100% random, but it still needs alliance to co-operate and not block up. The game could become enjoyable for all, pros and n00bs.

thats also all well and good, but half the alliances saying "we are going solo" is probably just BS. Using your example, Round 8, ViruS LDK and Titans had been working together from day one, virus for one intended to lie to their members continuously saying we are not allied/coopearing with any1 rah rah etc when we/they were blantely doing so from the first tick to destroy fury fang etc. This is why im very sceptical over the alliances i.e. virus which is announcing now that they will go solo next round, i remember announcing the same thing along with the other HC to them in round 8 when it was total bs. I really do hope alliances do go solo so there is no need to block, but im a sceptic at heart and will believe it when i see it.

[Mit]

Originally posted by gzambo
a way round larger alliances working together would be to hard code it into the game but the creators seem very slow to answer this point as to whether they will or not , personally i dont see a problem with smaller alliances working together but would prefer to see a true solo rd where every alliance goes alone.
but unfortunatly with every solution they come up with to try achieve this someone finds a way around it

Hard coding has been suggested, but it brought up a lot of moaning from those bigger alliances that don't like AH etc. the ones that want to use their own sites and have no link in game for the alliance other than where they will send fleets etc.

[Morden]

Originally posted by Mit
Hard coding has been suggested, but it brought up a lot of moaning from those bigger alliances that don't like AH etc. the ones that want to use their own sites and have no link in game for the alliance other than where they will send fleets etc.

next round will hopefully have a suprise for them then.

afterall hardcoded alliances might be the only way for them to work together effectively, they might not like the constraints that using the system would make, but the alternative would be much worse, it all depends on how spinner implements the Hardcoded alliances.

[Mit]

indeed, after being on the VoM side this round, and being pasted from tick 72, something needs doing to stop the bashing.

It would be good, to get people to suggest what might help, how things could be hard coded etc to make it fair, but at the same time, constrain large alliances from blocking and make the game more fun for us all.

[gzambo]

Originally posted by Mit
Hard coding has been suggested, but it brought up a lot of moaning from those bigger alliances that don't like AH etc. the ones that want to use their own sites and have no link in game for the alliance other than where they will send fleets etc.

is that the same big alliances that are blocking together to stagnate the rd and ruin the rest of the players rd's?

if it is sod them we need the game to evolve not make it easier for them to own the game

[Fleet_Multiplex]

Originally posted by Mit
indeed, after being on the VoM side this round, and being pasted from tick 72, something needs doing to stop the bashing.

It would be good, to get people to suggest what might help, how things could be hard coded etc to make it fair, but at the same time, constrain large alliances from blocking and make the game more fun for us all.

its not possible to hardcode your way out of it. Simply because the larger alliances will not comply with using pa alliance stuff. I know if it was implemented Seraphim would continue to use its own site for everything. Im sure most other major alliances would do the same. Its down to the leaders of alliances to have the balls to stop this re-run each round of similar block wars and there is very little the creators can do about it or they would have allready. They have no say in alliance related matters.

[gzambo]

i dont think that the suggestion of hard coding alliances within the game means that alliances have to only us AH it can be worked with both

[Morden]

Originally posted by Fleet_Multiplex
its not possible to hardcode your way out of it. Simply because the larger alliances will not comply with using pa alliance stuff. I know if it was implemented Seraphim would continue to use its own site for everything. Im sure most other major alliances would do the same. Its down to the leaders of alliances to have the balls to stop this re-run each round of similar block wars and there is very little the creators can do about it or they would have allready. They have no say in alliance related matters.

If it were up to me, i'd implement a system which would make it very hard for an alliance to operate outside the hard coded system.

combined with a dynamic universe, the hard coded system might be the only way for you to be in reach of your members defence wise, and thus would not survive without using it.

[Fleet_Multiplex]

Originally posted by Morden
combined with a dynamic universe, the hard coded system might be the only way for you to be in reach of your members defence wise, and thus would not survive without using it.

i dont see how would be possible?

[gzambo]

maybe im being naive but please explain why having to use AH next rd would not benefit the game if it was the same for everyone using it , and before u say that the reason is spy's
that is not a valid reason because they will always be around every alliance has had the mand will continue to have them,
rather than finding problems with the hardcoding issue find solutions
otherwise jolt will pull the plug if we have another 5k player size rd (great advertising for rd 10 wont make ppl play, better game dynamics for all players will though)

[Fred of Bedrock]

Hardest thing is some alliances are planning on going alone atm yet others are hoping for private gals and hence need blocks so they fill their gals with "friendlies"

Until we know exactly what sort of gal structure there is .. ie private/random/semi-private no alliance is prepared to commit to a plan of independance or blocking yet.

Ofc there are always some that will block to take "advantage of the others going alone" so we will see. I am sceptical of numbers who will play and hence a small group of real players and a whole bunch of their "wives and assorted pets playing to help them"... once again the bashing is making ppl leave

Advertising will never replace the numbers already lost.... in fact if 9.5 doesnt come along they may lose even more as even the ToT bashers must be getting bored... or then again they are trying to prove what brave "fighters" they are atm and making ppl quit must be heroic when numbers are so low anyway... I say ToT because they are enjoying their newfound status of a "l33t" alliance and want to enjoy it while they can before rnd10 gives them a rude awakening about revenge.... may just form a block to kill them off... wait thats the cycle again... so do you see why rnd9 must end now before revenge comes in and the sole purpose of rnd10 becomes ppls revenge and hence blocks form to kill the evil tot guys

[Morden]

okay, lets go with what we know about r10 so far,

afaik spinner is looking into a more dynamic galaxy setup according to the questions forum, which could cripple the traditional alliances, unless there is a feature built into the game to allow them to survive, ofc that feature would have to be heavily moderated and take into account that alliances will probably try and work around it, but if done well alliances would need to use it to survive let alone to prosper.

^ that is a hopeful thing tho, but wether it happens or not will be interresting to see.

[Toop]

Originally posted by rnd|One

A joint forum/channel with all alliances represented would be a start for more open discussion.

I kinda like that idea. It would be way better than AD-flaming.

I understand the big alliances have all kinds of l337 tools that allow their HC to see who is attacking their alliance, and who belongs to what alliance. Maybe it's a nice idea to give these kinds of tools to a group of non- or ex-players, who can provide 'us' with actual facts. It would be better than lies and accusations by HC's or members on AD (such as the discussion about the existance of a "narsweetfz..." block).


I don't like the idea of hardcoding alliances into the game though, I have lots of friends outside my alliance who I would like to continue working with - no, they are not 30 mil or even close to top 250 - . Plus the AH we have now sucks .

[gzambo]

Originally posted by Fred of Bedrock
Hardest thing is some alliances are planning on going alone atm yet others are hoping for private gals and hence need blocks so they fill their gals with "friendlies"

Until we know exactly what sort of gal structure there is .. ie private/random/semi-private no alliance is prepared to commit to a plan of independance or blocking yet.

Ofc there are always some that will block to take "advantage of the others going alone"

afaik it was stated on the last creators hour that spinner has decided that rd 10 will be random could be wrong and u know we cant take anything from CH seriously

[Obfuscator]

Originally posted by Fleet_Multiplex
its not possible to hardcode your way out of it. Simply because the larger alliances will not comply with using pa alliance stuff. I know if it was implemented Seraphim would continue to use its own site for everything. Im sure most other major alliances would do the same. Its down to the leaders of alliances to have the balls to stop this re-run each round of similar block wars and there is very little the creators can do about it or they would have allready. They have no say in alliance related matters.

All you need to do is hard-code an advantage for those alliances that DO use in-game alliance functions. The big boys will toe the line, or they will become obsolete. For instance, an ETA-advantage would work wonders.

[gzambo]

Originally posted by Obfuscator
All you need to do is hard-code an advantage for those alliances that DO use in-game alliance functions. The big boys will toe the line, or they will become obsolete. For instance, an ETA-advantage would work wonders.

my point exactly make it benifical for those that use it thru traveltime reduction and maybe even increased resources
so if the big boys dont want to be dis-advantaged they gotta us it

[G.K Zhukov]

Originally posted by rnd|One
I take it you're not speaking merely on behalf of Eclipse to not receive the short stick R10?

A joint forum/channel with all alliances represented would be a start for more open discussion.

Another improvement would be all alliance coordinates being input to Planetarion database, that would list real-time total statistics of each alliance. This way it'd be clear to all when sides are uneven. Naturally this would require further enhancements, thought and sets of hard coded rules if implemented. For example being enforced via your ships guns working only at 50% performance defending non-alliance mates might be enough incentive to use the system. Coupled with a bizarre universe that would only let you target a selected set of clusters & parallels, which would rotate twice a week for each galaxy.

Food for thought. Discuss.

This will result in the alliance with the highest numbers of members will win..
Also it will be extremly difficult for n00bs, and it would make people less friendly to each other, couse bascily having friends/contacts in pa will mean alot less.

Hardcoding of alliances are ****e. Plain said it sucks d***.

[Fleet_Multiplex]

Originally posted by G.K Zhukov
Hardcoding of alliances are ****e. Plain said it sucks d***.

aye

[Teh_Necro]

Originally posted by Morden
Should've known keeping a serious discussion on this board was impossible, not that im bothered only reason I made the thread was because I was bored.

Its logs, and some1 having a dig at u, dont be so hypocritical as you've done exactly what he did to others several times.

For the records i wont hold the logs against u, as most logs in pa are faked :/

-Necro

[Cochese]

Hard coding is the only option, as much as some may dislike it, though there are some fringe benefits to it such as more intricate alliance-based rankings.

In general, players--alliances--have complete control over the outcome of the game, and have proven time and time again that they are incapable (or unwilling) to do the "right" thing (keeping in mind that "right" is relative, but I think you get the point)

"We play for our amusement, not yours" or something along those lines.

Even amidst this discussion about alliances "going solo" next round, how many actually believe that they all will, or that the ones who claim to do it won't have a secret deal(s) in place?

With the likeliness of random galaxies next round, it would be easiest and most sensible for all alliances simply to avoid making pre-round deals--and then make moves based upon where the chips fell.

[gzambo]

Originally posted by G.K Zhukov
This will result in the alliance with the highest numbers of members will win..
Also it will be extremly difficult for n00bs, and it would make people less friendly to each other, couse bascily having friends/contacts in pa will mean alot less.

Hardcoding of alliances are ****e. Plain said it sucks d***.

instead of moaning about it offer a solution

[Scouse]

I wouldn't ever trust any HC of another alliance and beleive anything they said.


If we all expect alliance HC's to stick to their word and not block then we may as well not bother playing round 10.


Coding it is the only way.

[Saitam]

Blocks have very little to do with grudges and alot to do with winning. So the only way you will see blocks and stagnation stop, is for players to stop to play to win only. But then we have some ppl that refuse to see that pa can be played for the game itself rather than for the goal of being #1.

[G.K Zhukov]

Originally posted by gzambo
instead of moaning about it offer a solution

1) Total randomness.
2) galaxies of 20 people. This will mean a n00b will always end up with some experienced people. And alot of other good things, like more likely that someone will be awake to report incoming on you.
3) actaully doing something about the cheating. Shouldnt be that difficult really, getting some automatic tools, and not demanding more evidence than they do in rl murder trials. (and ofc someone compentent to do the hunting)
4) No less than 20k univserse size.
5) Offer some help page to n00bs, witch explain all the basic things. (like how to reg a irc channel, first 200 ticks, galaxy/cluster business)
6) Close AD, or atleast close some of the "Im better than you, and Im so good, that you cant voice your opionion" people.
7) Give our additonal resourses every 500 ticks, to even the battlefield a bit more.
8) Increase base travel time with one hour.
9) the races must be equal, not like xan in r8, witch means if your a n00b and choosen zik, you have partily lost already.. Couse you dont have someone analysing the facts, in order to give you good advice.

I fear hardcoding will make the alliance part of this game (witch is extremly important, and why alot play) less interesting.

[Gerbie]

Originally posted by Gerbie
...
What we intend to do in round 10 depends on the game we will get. We are like wax in your hands. As soon as we know what to expect we will plan and make agreements accordingly. How can we make blocks if we don't know if and how alliances can cooperate in round 10? Or even how an alliance will look like in round 10. I will give you a more detailed post on this tonight.

Alliances
Use of the in-game alliances system will be based on what incentives will be given to make use of the system. For instance reduced eta for defense, or possibly non-members will be fired at when in same orbit (in case of defense/attack).

Size
In game features could be beneficial to either smaller alliances or bigger alliances, or a limit to in-game alliances could be set.

Composition
Should an alliance aim for bigger and smaller members (a varied composition) or try to get only the most active and experienced players? What is the most optimal size for an alliance? This may also be determined by in-game incentives.

Information
Information already is an important factor in PA. Security is an important factor. A reason why alliances don’t use AH is that it does not give them the requested control over information. Showing coords of defense calls in the defense systems disables use of such a system for many alliances. Target checkers are not available to all members in many alliances.
Information will be different in round 10. It might become even more important in round 10. If different groups should have different access, then perhaps multiple alliances should be set up for members with different access levels. This will however give enormous coordination problems. For instance: will it be possible for people (like recruiters) to join more then one alliance (for instance an alliance and its junior wing)? Can these alliances cooperate within the game?

At this point it is unknown how the game will have to be played. How will one win the next generation of PA? By score? Then how does one gain score? How can alliances play a role in acquiring score in round 10?

I expect measures to be taken that will prevent/limit powerblocking. Asking people not to form massive powerblocks doesn’t work. People beg for that every round. Alliances promise not to form blocks every round. But every round they do and blame others for starting it. I expect TFD to take part in a small block next round. We are too small to exist on our own. If the game will not allow it we could for instance even consider a (in-game-alliance) merger.

We were told we would slowly get to hear more. Problem is we don’t have that long. Alliances should reshape themselves to whatever they believe will work in round 10. Sites will have to be updated (the TFD site still is not finished for round 9…). A recruitment policy will have to be set and implemented, preferably before the end of this round. Plans will have to be made on alliances/NAPs and strategies.

[Petru]

Hardcoding alliance limitations is a necessity. Time and time again HCs as a collective group have proved unable to stick to any intentions to "do good for the game" etc.

In an ideal world HCs would realise it was their responsibility to live up to the effect and outcome they have on the game, and make decisions accordingly. But some just prefer to win at any cost instead.

Hardcode the bugger.

[K-W]

Proper hordcoding is the only solution.

[WipeOut]

Originally posted by K-W
Proper hordcoding is the only solution.

It will be diffilcult to hardcode without taking too much away I think.

[Obfuscator]

Originally posted by G.K Zhukov
1) Total randomness.
2) galaxies of 20 people. This will mean a n00b will always end up with some experienced people. And alot of other good things, like more likely that someone will be awake to report incoming on you.
3) actaully doing something about the cheating. Shouldnt be that difficult really, getting some automatic tools, and not demanding more evidence than they do in rl murder trials. (and ofc someone compentent to do the hunting)
4) No less than 20k univserse size.
5) Offer some help page to n00bs, witch explain all the basic things. (like how to reg a irc channel, first 200 ticks, galaxy/cluster business)
6) Close AD, or atleast close some of the "Im better than you, and Im so good, that you cant voice your opionion" people.
7) Give our additonal resourses every 500 ticks, to even the battlefield a bit more.
8) Increase base travel time with one hour.
9) the races must be equal, not like xan in r8, witch means if your a n00b and choosen zik, you have partily lost already.. Couse you dont have someone analysing the facts, in order to give you good advice.

I fear hardcoding will make the alliance part of this game (witch is extremly important, and why alot play) less interesting.

I think most of these are pretty good ideas, particularly 1, 2, 5, 8, and 9. 4 would be wonderful, though there's no magical wand the creators can wave, or one change that they can make that will help them attain it. I'm not sure why you think hardcoding alliances will make them less interesting. Informal arrangements will still be worked out between alliances, even if they are hard-coded. My alliance might still team up with yours in the short term to defeat a third alliance. It's just that if some hard-coded advantages are there for each of us to work more autonomously on our own, we will be more likely to split sooner in favor of going it alone, or at least with different allies. Care to elaborate your concerns further?

[hAl]

Originally posted by WipeOut
It will be diffilcult to hardcode without taking too much away I think.

Taking away some of the alliance current capabilities is one of the goals. That is not a side-effect of some kind. Alliance capabilities need to be reduced and not just by a little either.

hAl

[Ice]

Originally posted by xtothez

• Cheating:

  <coza> why do u think we were top 20 for about 5 weeks? 
  me ice and morden logged in and did everybodys roid scans for them
  <coza> and yes we sent ppl on attacks
  <coza> :p

*disclaimer - I'm bored

I'm sorry coza was deleted and me and Morden werent.

care to give some proof etc, rather then bitter logs.

[Ice]

Originally posted by Teh_Necro
Its logs, and some1 having a dig at u, dont be so hypocritical as you've done exactly what he did to others several times.

For the records i wont hold the logs against u, as most logs in pa are faked :/

-Necro

or maybe just lies?

[ComradeRob]

Hard-coding alone does not force alliances to abide by any moral code - none of the proposed solutions that I have seen force alliances to behave any differently to how they do currently.

Before mentioning such ideas as hard-coding as a potential means of improving the game, it might be a good idea to suggest what this will actually achieve in practical terms.

[G.K Zhukov]

Originally posted by Obfuscator
I think most of these are pretty good ideas, particularly 1, 2, 5, 8, and 9. 4 would be wonderful, though there's no magical wand the creators can wave, or one change that they can make that will help them attain it. I'm not sure why you think hardcoding alliances will make them less interesting. Informal arrangements will still be worked out between alliances, even if they are hard-coded. My alliance might still team up with yours in the short term to defeat a third alliance. It's just that if some hard-coded advantages are there for each of us to work more autonomously on our own, we will be more likely to split sooner in favor of going it alone, or at least with different allies. Care to elaborate your concerns further?

Well, "hardcoding" isnt an exact thing, so obviously we will have to wait before creators tells us about exactly how its gonna be (if they decide on it).

I got several conserns about it.
1) creators will make it f*** it up severly. The chance of this beeing... horribly big, sadly.
2) if for instance you cant defend someone outside your alliance and your galaxy, how will you be able to help your friends? What will then be the incentive to meet new people, or to keep up contacts with friends. Beeing well-connected will then mean very little. It will also make it tempting for an alliance to aquire more members. There will be problems for battlegroups, if you cant register yourself under two alliances.
3) If everyone sees how many members, and what average score/roids that alliance have, it takes away the "fog-of-war". It also takes away some of the need for intel.
4) There will be issues about security.
5) In fact, this might end up giving the top5-top10 alliance even more power, and to make starting a new alliance ever harder.
6) I dont belive in creators trying to control the community. I think they should stop trying to do that, and focus on providing a battlefield witch let the community flourish and be creative. Just look at the many alliances in the world of pa.
They have their own irc server, their own webby/portal, HC/officers/techies and jr-allainces and wings.
With a big universe, random ofc, and cheating actually beeing dealt with a block of 700 people wont do anything.
7) There is nothing wrong with a situasion where the most skilled and dedicated players win. In fact, its how it should be. Those who take the time and develop tools, gather intel and having active members who are on good foot with their cluster (and therefor get defence from their cluster alliance/m8's) should benefit from it.
With a private universe, a bunch of medicore fence-sitters can win (r6, Jurgens gal who also massivly cheated fx). That wont happen in random universe.

Ok, thats my thoughts for now. They arent very clever, and Im quite tired now. But they will have to do for now

[MrL_JaKiri]

I think it should be clear to all that Planetarion is a dying game, and has been for some time.

The creators are trying to deal with it by getting new players in.

I personally believe this to be a flawed idea, as by the nature of the game itself the only people who continue to play are the more dedicated players, and so the universe will be an exceptionally harsh environment for any new player. This isn't round 3, where we had enough targets for all and then some; how many people will be willing to put in the activity that this game requires without knowing anything about it beforehand?

The problem, I believe, is that the creators are trying to play to the wrong crowd.

Instead of penalising the big alliances, which represent most of the member base, and almost all of the sustained member base, they should encourage them!

As this round has shown, the length of your average round is just too long for the size of the universe.

So why not have shorter rounds?

Cater for the more dedicated players, and instead of having a round last for 1/3 of the year, with 1 hour ticks, have them last for a week with 5 or 10 minute ticks. Instead of paying for the round, pay for the month.

And what's more, remove many of the systems which protect the lowbie; reduce the protection %, so that there are more targets in the universe.

In rounds of that length, stagnation doesn't matter; if you're bored, just don't play for 2 days and wait for the new round!

Alliance politics become much more free form; if you backstab someone in this game, they have to wait for months to be able to attempt to get revenge, by which time the memories of the event may have faded; let them try to take their revenge within a week!

This system would also remove the invulnerability that some planets have; noone can be awake for 24 hours for weeks on end, and whilst missing 2 ticks doesn't really affect much, missing 24 does, and may affect whether people will be able to get defense or not, especially in a random universe.

On a balance issue, I would have the 72 ticks (or however much it may be) from whenever the player first logs in, rather than tick start, to stop the problems of logging on 6 hours late and finding yourself out of protection with only 3 roids.

Of course, this won't be implemented, noone will pay attention to it, and would probably be more appropriate for PD than AD.

[Scouse]

Originally posted by ComradeRob
Hard-coding alone does not force alliances to abide by any moral code - none of the proposed solutions that I have seen force alliances to behave any differently to how they do currently.

Before mentioning such ideas as hard-coding as a potential means of improving the game, it might be a good idea to suggest what this will actually achieve in practical terms.

There's is no need to rely on people's morals and promises if it's impossible to.


If alliances were limited to 100 people, and each alliance could only ally 1 other alliance, with allies being allowed to defend each other (and noone else) and attack together (without worry of cross attacking) then it would be a lot harder for alliances to ally to the point of helping each other. So having more than 1 ally becomes pointless.

They could NAP each other, but that means a lot of trust in each other, and that's rare amongst top alliances today. Who would want to NAP (and thus share vital info with) an alliance they wern't allied with, and would perhaps end up at war with later in the round? And who'd want to NAP with an alliance when they knew that alliance had an ally, basically meaning if they get on top you're going to be dropped anyway?


Include non-allied planets attacking/defending together shooting at each other, as well as their 'enemy', and you've got little point in helping non-allied people. And so no powerblocks. Or at least, game controlled powerblocks.

[ComradeRob]

Originally posted by Scouse
There's is no need to rely on people's morals and promises if it's impossible to.

If alliances were limited to 100 people, and each alliance could only ally 1 other alliance, with allies being allowed to defend each other (and noone else) and attack together (without worry of cross attacking) then it would be a lot harder for alliances to ally to the point of helping each other. So having more than 1 ally becomes pointless.

That's a good argument for making alliances part of the game, exactly the kind of thing that I was hoping someone would post. It would certainly be very difficult to abuse, at least. I'm not quite sure what you mean by 'cross attacking' though.

They could NAP each other, but that means a lot of trust in each other, and that's rare amongst top alliances today. Who would want to NAP (and thus share vital info with) an alliance they wern't allied with, and would perhaps end up at war with later in the round? And who'd want to NAP with an alliance when they knew that alliance had an ally, basically meaning if they get on top you're going to be dropped anyway?

The historical precedents seem to suggest that such deals are quite common. FoS/Xeta in r6 is probably the best example - both sides knew that they would fight each other, but the NAP was maintained until the common enemy was defeated. Such deals would not be prevented at all by incorporating alliances into the game. Cooperation within FoS/Xeta was very limited, and essentially extended to a broad NAP and cooperation in targetting hostile clusters. I don't see how that would be affected by the proposed changes, it would just make it a little more difficult to administer, but history has shown that PA alliances are capable of some remarkably effective acts of cooperation even under difficult circumstances.

Include non-allied planets attacking/defending together shooting at each other, as well as their 'enemy', and you've got little point in helping non-allied people. And so no powerblocks. Or at least, game controlled powerblocks.

If non-allied planets attacking together shoot at each other, it becomes possible to 'defend' a planet by attacking it (bearing in mind that the genuine attacker will only land if it is cost-effective, and the presence of other attackers will make sure that this is not so, rather reminiscent of r4 piggybacking in some ways).

[Scouse]

Originally posted by MrL_JaKiri
The problem, I believe, is that the creators are trying to play to the wrong crowd.

They definately need to consider the dedicated players a bit more in their decisions, but anyone still here now must have a reason or two to stay, so driving them away would be a little harder than driving away Joe Newbie who doesn't care for the game. The dedicated players would happily take a bit of **** (or should, at least) if it means keeping a decent majority of new players here. If every new player is drove away then this game is going nowhere, and dedicated players know that, so they should be prepared to take the losses on their part for the general benefit of everyone (including themselves) later on.

As this round has shown, the length of your average round is just too long for the size of the universe.

So why not have shorter rounds?

I could use round 4 and round 8 as examples as to why to not have shorter rounds. Shorter rounds with powerblocks, or rounds of the current length with no powerblocks and fair fighting throughout with the best alliance (or alliances) eventually 'winning'? I'd much prefer the latter.

have them last for a week with 5 or 10 minute ticks. Instead of paying for the round, pay for the month.

Bad idea. Really bad. This is PA. Don't forget that. It's not some crappy clone people play at weekends. 1 hr ticks should, and will (I guess), be here for the duration.

And what's more, remove many of the systems which protect the lowbie; reduce the protection %, so that there are more targets in the universe.

Again, terrible idea. If you want this game to die and to squeeze every last drop out of the remaining players then do this. The limit has proved to be a great addition to the game.

Of course, this won't be implemented, noone will pay attention to it, and would probably be more appropriate for PD than AD.

Well it probably should be on PD, but this idea would never ever replace PA. It could perhaps run as well as, but not instead of.

[MrL_JaKiri]

Originally posted by Scouse

I don't really see how that would help.

Even if you could only defend within your own alliance, that wouldn't stop SuperBlocks from forming, as the main benefit behind them is not attacking together, is not defending together, but not attacking eachother.

That is why you can never truly remove the concept of the superblock from a game of this variety, because you can't [i]force people to attack everyone who isn't in their alliance[i].

ps.

I don't like this whole idea of crossfire for attacking and defending players; it can't be justified as realistic, and it stops people defending their friends. This game is based on community, and anything that is implemented to remove this element will just kill the game further.

I have other objections, but they can be saved for later.

[rnd|One]

Originally posted by MrL_JaKiri

So why not have shorter rounds?

So true. Shorter rounds with a playerbase that kills itself in a few weeks time would get a thumbs up from me.

Running a separate universe full of stupid-AI planets and freebie planets going thru a massive list of quests and tips for the sole purpose of training new brethen into the game should be possible too?

[Scouse]

Originally posted by ComradeRob
I'm not quite sure what you mean by 'cross attacking' though.

Alliance A and B are allied, they attack an Alliance C planet. Alliance D and E defend that planet, along with alliance C. Alliance A and B shoot at Alliance C, D and E ships. Alliance C ships shoot at everyone, as does Alliance D and E ships. Alliance D and E are getting shot at by each other, as well as the planet they are defending, and also the people they are trying to stop.

Not very good for them.

The historical precedents seem to suggest that such deals are quite common.

I expected somone to point that out, and you're right. As long as each alliance attacked their own targets and defended themselves then any alliance could work together to bring down another, without being allied.

If non-allied planets attacking together shoot at each other, it becomes possible to 'defend' a planet by attacking it (bearing in mind that the genuine attacker will only land if it is cost-effective, and the presence of other attackers will make sure that this is not so, rather reminiscent of r4 piggybacking in some ways).

Well that's the point. Whether they defend or attack that planet, they'll shoot at anyone who they arn't allied to. So if Alliance A attacks an Alliance B planet, and Alliance C (unallied to either) decides to get involved, attack or defending means they are still shooting, and being shot at, by both Alliance A and Alliance B ships.


Also, having alliances coded into the game means people would find it harder to have escrots and defence planets. They could still have them, but having them land would result in losses on their part, since every decent alliance is going to be very strict on who gets in, and that means no escort/defence planets.

[MrL_JaKiri]

Originally posted by Scouse
They definately need to consider the dedicated players a bit more in their decisions, but anyone still here now must have a reason or two to stay, so driving them away would be a little harder than driving away Joe Newbie who doesn't care for the game.

Thing is though, as I have said before this game is based around community. If people start to really enjoy this game again, they'll tell their friends, who might also start to play (again?). This means that people will be coming into the game knowing people, and possibly getting alliance spots. The issue is sustained growth, not getting people to play for one round and then giving up because they don't have the connections.

Originally posted by Scouse
I could use round 4 and round 8 as examples as to why to not have shorter rounds. Shorter rounds with powerblocks, or rounds of the current length with no powerblocks and fair fighting throughout with the best alliance (or alliances) eventually 'winning'? I'd much prefer the latter.

Two points.

1. I didn't say substantially shorter. Also bear in mind that this round is over as a contest before the 1300th tick, when most rounds are twice that.

2. The figures I mentioned (1 week rounds, 5 minute ticks) would have the same number of ticks as a regular round (Or even more; 12x tick speed, 1 week, you do the maths). Try to read and understand the whole post before replying.

Originally posted by Scouse
Bad idea. Really bad. This is PA. Don't forget that. It's not some crappy clone people play at weekends. 1 hr ticks should, and will (I guess), be here for the duration.

Some justification for this statement?

Originally posted by Scouse
Again, terrible idea. If you want this game to die and to squeeze every last drop out of the remaining players then do this. The limit has proved to be a great addition to the game.

I didn't say remove it, I said lower it. Don't forget that we're NOT TAKING MY POINTS IN ISOLATION, as you appear to be doing. In a shorter (in real time) round, people won't care as much that they're being roided, as they have another chance soon enough; it's not like they're going to be sitting there doing nothing for months on end as people are finding now.

Oh, and two additions to my previous post:

1. Planetarion is like Go, the best way to learn is to lose as many games as you can in as short a space as time.

2. Make ships tougher to kill. If they're less likely to have all their ships die when they're attacked, it will matter less if they're offline for reasonable chunks.