I miss blocking :/

[Alki]

Originally Posted by Jonas

Hmm, seeing Insomnia in there...should we be flattered?
Insomnia surely havent attacked ND by intention for ages(They might have had some people in the NoS gals we hit) and we've not worked alongside any of thoose allies either But what youre writing is a good indication of how this round is. Id rather have blocks

Wouldnt it be great to have some SET sides Fighting off a huge war??


-Jonas-

obv not, else u wud end up in a situation liek that other game, or like narweet vs vvomm in r9? which u know was bad as u were my gal:P

[Razorback]

Originally Posted by Cochese

Hard-coded politics...

Thats a nice idea.
you could set something up like every alliance has 2 warslots.
if you declare on someone you get an eta -1 advantage to said alliance for attacking purpose.
A max of 3 wars can be declared on you,
An alliance you declare on gets no eta advantage to your planets, to encourage them declaring back.
To prevent exploiting, i.e. declaring on someone friendly to take up slots the winner of each "war" is declared after a week, with the winner getting maybe alliance score and the loser losing it.
As a concept you could also prevent bashing with a minimum "size" to declare on and a human admin checking for exploiting and irregularities.

all in all this is a not flawless, 5 minute brainstorming, concept. This would require most or "all" of the players to be in alliances. Total ticktime needs to be adjusted to prevent end of game stagnation. Maybe not a certain ticktime should in such a scenario the goal but a certain score or scoredifference between 1 and 2, this would allow a fluent roundlength and prevent stagnation.

Just some thoughts, this would also allow 2 alliances to cooperate together. Maybe limit wardeclarations even on 2 (depending on shipstats this needs tuning so its not impossible to attack) and only allow the topdog 1 more declared war on them to signalize its special position and giving them a run for their money.

[Kal]

I had quite a good design for hard coded politcs at one point, I will dig it out and start playing with ideas and make a proposal for the Development Discussions forum, however it will probably be quite a large coding job to get it right so don't expect it any time soon.

[Jonas]

ive suggested it before. War declarations etc.

gl Kal

-Jonas-

[lokken]

Don't hardcode politics.

It'd be terminally shit

[The Real Arfy]

Originally Posted by Razorback

Thats a nice idea.
you could set something up like every alliance has 2 warslots.
if you declare on someone you get an eta -1 advantage to said alliance for attacking purpose.

So with a -1 tick advantage, FI/CO would be seen at eta 6?

I'm guessing here, but your reply to this would probably be "If you're defending while under attack from someone at war with you, you also get -1 eta...", which wouldn't work, because what if someone is hit by two attackers - one with whom he is at war, and one that he is not, does he get the -1 eta bonus?

I think this idea has awesome potential, just pointing out the flaws that I can see

[lokken]

I'd say let HC's do what they want when they want.

This round has been quite good, playing standards have improved, and last round, though not great, wasn't too bad either.

[Razorback]

Originally Posted by The Real Arfy

So with a -1 tick advantage, FI/CO would be seen at eta 6?

I'm guessing here, but your reply to this would probably be "If you're defending while under attack from someone at war with you, you also get -1 eta...", which wouldn't work, because what if someone is hit by two attackers - one with whom he is at war, and one that he is not, does he get the -1 eta bonus?

I think this idea has awesome potential, just pointing out the flaws that I can see

as i stated in my post this was a mere brainstorming, not the ultimate cancer cure.

To work against that we could maybe give alliance eta a -2 bonus.

As a conclusion we need a bonus "to declare war far" if its not eta related you could add capping boni or individual score boni for attacking a "war target".

Like i said in the first place, thats just spouting some ideas which could create a set of rules for politics which would prevent superstagnation or uberblocks and help to determine a round end before ppl get bored out of their accounts and might never return.

[G.K Zhukov]

PaCrew / Spinner still have not made the shuffle code correct, so I think they should keep their hands of stuff like this, as they will sure fu** it up, Im afraid

[Gate]

Originally Posted by Razorback

To work against that we could maybe give alliance eta a -2 bonus.
.

And make it nearly impossible to get through any alliance players, making it harder for newbs?

I like hardcoded politics as an idea; but as said, it needs lots of brainstorming. My suggestion would be increased cap: 25% or maybe more vs. people you're at war with, 20% vs. random, 15% vs. allianceless or something...

[The_Fish]

I like that idea a lot Gate. It's about the first good thing you've ever said on forums

[Seth Mace]

Compared to you fish, gate ownz you at forum posting:P

Originally Posted by Gate

I like hardcoded politics as an idea; but as said, it needs lots of brainstorming. My suggestion would be increased cap: 25% or maybe more vs. people you're at war with, 20% vs. random, 15% vs. allianceless or something...

That kind of thing is pretty nice idea imo but wud only benifit a few on usual ally gal attacks (unless the gal has lots of enemy ally there).

[The_Fish]

Originally Posted by Seth Mace

Compared to you fish, gate ownz you at forum posting:P

Compared to you Seth, I ownz you at forum posting :P

And to your other point, I guess some people have to take one for the team every once in a while (or for example LCH and HR could declare war on ND and NoS, each taking one alliance, and co-ordinating who they hit)

[Razorback]

Originally Posted by Gate

And make it nearly impossible to get through any alliance players, making it harder for newbs?

I like hardcoded politics as an idea; but as said, it needs lots of brainstorming. My suggestion would be increased cap: 25% or maybe more vs. people you're at war with, 20% vs. random, 15% vs. allianceless or something...

Note again that it was 1 suggestion. Giving alliances an -2 advantage doesnt result in "newbs" not getting through. In general a newb wont go through an alliance player as a newb will have prolly a crap fleet, will attack alone (as he is in no alliance) and hence can be owned by galaxy and alliance defence.

The cap idea would be good as i mentioned myself, just that it would be highly unfair to ppl "covering the gal". But im sure solutions can be thought of.

[BCEagle]

What about the time in the round when alliance affiliations are still unknown. How would the code decide when the bonus goes into effect without aiding alliances in finding who is who?

[Lei~]

valid point but maybe you could implement it that ppl can only start war on an alliance they got a crtain high percentage of coords lets say 85% or something.
if they wanna declare war on em theyd have to put in a coord list somewhere and only if it reaches 85% will they be allowed to attack. an ingame arbiter would make this procedure much easier ofc

[The_Fish]

that's open to abuse.

[Stifler]

Originally Posted by lokken

Don't hardcode politics.

It'd be terminally shit

have to agree there!

[lokken]

As fish said, it's open to abuse, not to mention difficult to implement, and quite honestly ruin the fluidity of PA politics permanently.

Keep the debate going though, it's quite an interesting one.

[Seed of Chaos]

I preferred blocking too... it made politics more interesting These forums have been a lot duller without them

[lokken]

Originally Posted by JonnyBGood

For a round with blocks to "work" it requires intelligent HC and dedicated players on more than one side.

For a round without blocks to "work" it requires intelligent HC and dedicated players in more than one alliance.

Most, if not all, of the horribly stagnated rounds PA has had can be blamed on one or the other of these factors (usually both as dedicated players gravitate towards intelligent HC). Most people seem to forget that alliances work best under the principle of enlightened self-interest. Keyword enlightened.

This post came to mind instantly, I think it'll help.

[Alki]

he said on forums tbh, not on irc

[Gate]

Sethy got owned \o/
But I still kinda like him

[Gate]

Ummm, everyone wins? Now lets go have fun.

And whilst you're at it, what did FYTFO actually mean? I'd always assumed 'FAnG You Tossers F*ck Off', as that's the way in which I'd name an alliance, but apparently that's wrong

[Gate]

Originally Posted by Seth Mace

Lol, i canni tell you because Zhukov may use it against me as proof to that HR-LCH nap;(

If you don't tell me, I'll cry!11 And I'll set CleaningMuppet on you. No mashed potatoes are safe, I tell you!

[lokken]

Dear Zhukov/Sethmace.

Kindly desist.

Lok

[G.K Zhukov]

Okey, but it was so tempting

[Jonas]

One thing... Maybe lower cap on allianceless people. Meaning they can have a bit better chance of surviving...

Gate had a good idea there. OMFG

[god113]

Originally Posted by Jonas

One thing... Maybe lower cap on allianceless people. Meaning they can have a bit better chance of surviving...

Gate had a good idea there. OMFG

But if a planet was due to get raped by loadsa waves, they could just leave their alliance and lower the cap So possibly abusable?

[Jonas]

and loose the eta??

72h of more incs without def?

Maybe even make Cap 25% until thoose 72h has passed

[hydridia]

i was VOM and yes we go crushed quick, why

cos we were f**king stupid and told people we were blocking

btw

blocking sucks

down with blocks
sid did you guys a favour

[khaos]

What is blocking? (I'm a n00b)

[lokken]

Blocking is where 2 or more alliances get together in order to exert a potentially dominant force on the game.

[Jonas]

Originally Posted by hydridia

sid did you guys a favour

So unofficial blocks is the answer...interesting