Purchasing NAPs / Surrendering in game
PA is a strategy game, but it also has a significant political element. Some of these political elements are formalised within the game, but one of the major ones - war - is not.
What I am suggesting is that this could be brought into the game formally by allowing alliances to negotiate / purchase temporary ceasefires or surrenders. The basic idea would be for alliances to be able to purchase an in game NAP lasting a set time for a set amount of resources (taken from the alliance fund). Individual alliances would be able to negotiate the terms of these agreements. A nice side effect of this would be that the alliance purchasing the NAP can be considered to have lost the war. The winning alliance could then be given some kind of XP / alliance points as a reward. |
Re: Purchasing NAPs / Surrendering in game
Disagree.
(No explanation needed) |
Re: Purchasing NAPs / Surrendering in game
perhaps maybe ceasefires can be arranged at a cost of ally fund, say before declaring war a price tag of ceasefire is set at like 10mil of each resource for example, by paying this sum you get the ingame nap for the 72 hours or however long it is before it can be canceled
|
Re: Purchasing NAPs / Surrendering in game
I dont see any reason to set any kind of arbitrary limits. Just make it so an alliance can offer some amount of resources to another alliance for an NAP of a set amount of time. The other alliance can then either accept or reject. You'd probably need some kind of limits to prevent abuse, but other than that just let ppl negotiate it out themselves.
Thank you for your considered response Adapt. |
Re: Purchasing NAPs / Surrendering in game
its not arbitrary if the alliance declaring war sets the tribute fee in order to enact a ceasefire like ransom money, "we will continue to rape and pillage your planets till you pay this sum of resources into our swiss bankaccounts"
Speaking of which perhaps a 2nd alliance fund which comes from making alliances submit to your will that is used separately and can be spent on fun stuff |
Re: Purchasing NAPs / Surrendering in game
Putting cost on naps would bankrupt the likes of Ultprime, black-flag and p3guins.
So a big no from me |
Re: Purchasing NAPs / Surrendering in game
I don't think there's a good reason to formalize these things in the ingame mechanics. On top of that, there is a good reason not do to that: PA Team has no time and no money, and any attempt to introduce this kind of thing will inevitably be limited, providing far fewer options than the system (or rather, the lack thereof) that we have now.
|
Re: Purchasing NAPs / Surrendering in game
Perhaps I haven't explained this clearly enough. I am not proposing a full formalisation of all politics / war, nor am I suggesting that all NAPs/Wars must be formalised within the game. I think a lot of the NAP type stuff that is negotiated informally and trust based works fine.
The way I am envisioning this working is that any alliance is capable of making an offer to any other alliance. They can offer say anything over 5 million resources to another alliance for an in game enforced NAP of 24/48/72 hours. The other alliance can either accept or reject this offer. That would be it - no formal declaration or state of war, no requirement that all NAPs are arranged / purchased in game. Mutually agreed NAPs would still have to be agreed outside of the game. In terms of adding this to the game, I dont think it requires much - The alliance fund is already there, the concept of a planet you can't hit is already there and the resource transfer mechanism is already there. I think it would another option to the political aspect of the game, and with experimentation eventually provide a possible way to reform the way alliance score is calculated. |
Re: Purchasing NAPs / Surrendering in game
I dont see a point in doing this with resources from the alliance fund. Unless the cost was immense it would really have no impact on the alliances in question so why bother? It has several disadvantages such as being extremely discriminatory against smaller alliances. While many would surely hate it the only possibility for a resource based proposal would be planets paying alliances not to hit them as resources are more valuable and limited for planets than alliances.
It would however make much more sense if the alliance victory is ever changed to being based on alliance points. If this becomes the case then buying naps with your alliance points, or a surrender stripping you of more points (transferring over to the victor?) would make more sense and potentially add a new strategic dimension to the alliance politics game. But until that happens there is little point in implementing this in a piecemeal way. |
Re: Purchasing NAPs / Surrendering in game
Quote:
create another alliance: 10 farm planets farm planets ally saves up resources for 1 week Real ally offers nap, farm ally pays, for 6-7 weeks all they have. Nice. GG |
Re: Purchasing NAPs / Surrendering in game
Quote:
Dont really see how it discriminates against smaller alliances - they already suffer from having less members, so I dont really see how this adds to their woes. Does mean they have an option to avoid some incs though. That said, switching to top alliance from alliance points and trading points for NAPs could also work and would be worth considering as an alternative. |
Re: Purchasing NAPs / Surrendering in game
Quote:
|
Re: Purchasing NAPs / Surrendering in game
Quote:
still ****ing LameBows up without our fund lol ;) |
Re: Purchasing NAPs / Surrendering in game
Quote:
|
Re: Purchasing NAPs / Surrendering in game
Quote:
While this is a good idea in principle that you could implement with various hard coded limits to prevent donations, I feel it misses the point. Really the game needs to be made simpler than more complicated. The simpler it is the less easy it is to exploit, and what the game needs to be is more accessible via apps/facebook to get more players. With more planets the game is excellent, rather than cannibalising itself which is what is happening now. |
Re: Purchasing NAPs / Surrendering in game
Quote:
I'd also agree that the game could do with simplification, but I don't really see how this complicates matters that much, while also adding some strategic depth to the game. If you want to simplify things, a better idea would be to start by removing all the options which no experienced player even considers, but which new players might not immediately dismiss as useless. The players who would be making these decisions - will my alliance be better of taking X amount of resources as a donation or roiding the alliance over the next few days - are going to be alliance HCs, experienced in the game and capable of handling the small increase in complexity. |
Re: Purchasing NAPs / Surrendering in game
Quote:
|
Re: Purchasing NAPs / Surrendering in game
Quote:
Quote:
I put myself in the position of an alliance HC, and if I'd beaten an alliance I'd be tempted to surrender to them and pay them off to go away, so I could focus on my other enemies. I'm not sure if I'm happy or unhappy with that. |
Re: Purchasing NAPs / Surrendering in game
Quote:
That said, i'd say the problem you identify is the situation this sort of addition aims to solve - an alliance which is outnumbered has very few options atm. This change would add a third option, which may lead to some interesting consequences - if two alliances team up to attack a third, what happens if one of them accepts an NAP after the first night? The issue of the winning alliance having an incentive to offer to pay a losing one may be a problem, but might just add to the strategic depth. If you tied in XP/Alliance points to the NAP purchasing system, I think it would go away to some extent though. |
Re: Purchasing NAPs / Surrendering in game
Quote:
a, the cost to nap is a flat rate in which case smaller alliances pay more per planet b, it is flexible in which case small alliances will always be offering less so other alliances have less incentive to actually agree to such a nap. The only way I can see in which it might not be discriminatory would be if smaller alliance had to pay less yet the big alliance agreeing the nap gains the same amount... but how massively open to abuse would that be! :p |
Re: Purchasing NAPs / Surrendering in game
Quote:
|
Re: Purchasing NAPs / Surrendering in game
Quote:
We should not be building a system just for the 8 tags that are nearly full but also for the 30 which are not (including 1 man alliances). We should also not assume that most tags will always be nearly full when making such a system. There have been rounds where there has been a big split between full tags and smaller ones or 'battle groups' before. In fact I would hazard a guess that if you look back through pa history there has usually been a much greater diversity of tag sizes. And of course for the first couple of hundred ticks of this round there was more diversity of tag sizes until Huehue joined faceless and a chunk of Astraeus joined p3n. |
Re: Purchasing NAPs / Surrendering in game
Quote:
Besides, this doesnt really hurt smaller alliances? Certainly it's minor compared to the fact that a 10 man alliance only has defence from a maximum of 9 other planets. |
Re: Purchasing NAPs / Surrendering in game
First of all why do you want to make a system that does not benefit all alliances? You suggest that this does not really hurt the small alliances but if it is not a system that is good for the whole of pa why would you want to invest the time, effort and money into implementing it rather than something that is potentially useful to everyone?
However as I mentioned you are using statistics from this round. Take (randomly) round 30 instead; you had only 1 alliance with full tag (100), then another two with around 10 less than full tag. Another three with more than 70. After that there were two more above 50, 4 in the 40s and 4 in the 30s. The three alliances with 88+ made up just 17% of the uni. I did say that there are other negative points so I will bring up some more here. 1, do we really want to entrench a system where alliances feel they have to try to get as close to tag limit as possible so as not to be disadvantaged in negotiations? This seems to damage variety in the game. 2, do we really want to make politics more static? Either the sums involved are tiny to alliances so it is not a worthwhile addition or they are big. If they are big then the consequence is to entrench blocks; alliances are going to be less willing to go back on agreements when they have sunk resources into creating them. The result then is that blocks are more fixed and without fluidity the alliance victory will probably be decided by tick 700 at the latest. To get the fluidity back there is a good chance deals would simply move out of the game once more which would rather defeat the object of the changes. |
Re: Purchasing NAPs / Surrendering in game
Quote:
Quote:
As for #2, I dont see how agreements lasting 24//48/72 hours are going to make politics more static. We already have these kinds of agreements in place, this is just formalising them. In fact, I actually think in many ways this change would lead to less blocking. If you have two alliances hitting you at the moment, your options are ally up (this eventually leads to 2 blocks) or just die. This gives the game a third option - make one of the attackers a good offer and see just how strong that alliance is? |
Re: Purchasing NAPs / Surrendering in game
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
Re: Purchasing NAPs / Surrendering in game
We seem to be overlooking the potential for bullying in this proposal. The bigger alliances going to the smaller ones and saying, "give me your dinner money or I'll beat you up".
I don't think we really need to encourage bullying - there are already enough "bottom-feeders" playing this game. |
All times are GMT +1. The time now is 21:53. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.1
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2002 - 2018