Discussions

After reading a lot of threads and allways hearing similar argurments, I would like to have this as an discussiing thread. Please don't post agree/disagree, just new ideas. If required, we can ask the creators to make a poll, to get the opinion of the comunity.

1) People want some changes, to increase the community
- 10% - 20% won't like the idea and thread stopping to play
- 1% - 5% will stop playing because of a change
=> The idea has to have the chance to increase the number of players by at least 10%

2) Main problems
- Bashing
- Powerblocks
- Night activity required to survive
=> All these points stop new players from joining and staying

Now I'd like you to post shortly your ideas.

Bertrant

[at0mic.c0w]

Originally posted by Bertrant
- Bashing

separation of movement and combat tick
hope ppl ar smart enough to move their ships
generally make rebuilding cheaper
DON'T even THINK about destruction of const/res

Originally posted by Bertrant
- Powerblocks

random universe

Originally posted by Bertrant
- Night activity required to survive

run TV adverts in the US and australia
no seriously: that's PA

[Zapman]

Originally posted by at0mic.c0w
run TV adverts in the US and australia

You shouldn't take it out on us that you happen to live in a less fortunate place.

Really

[Scouse]

Originally posted by at0mic.c0w
separation of movement and combat tick
hope ppl ar smart enough to move their ships

That would spoil the best, and most fun, part of the game, which is fleet catching.

[at0mic.c0w]

Originally posted by Scouse
That would spoil the best, and most fun, part of the game, which is fleet catching.

if that is the most fun part then it must be a really dull game for you.

[Scouse]

Originally posted by at0mic.c0w
if that is the most fun part then it must be a really dull game for you.

How so? What's better? Intitaing roids? Taking roids? Building ships? Posting on politics? Oh I know. I bet for you it's calcing your battles.

Wiping out some big enemy fleet is about a million times more fun than taking their roids.


Anyone with half a brain would agree that wiping out people's fleets is much more important than their roids, after about tick 300.

[at0mic.c0w]

Originally posted by Scouse
How so? What's better? Intitaing roids? Taking roids? Building ships? Posting on politics? Oh I know. I bet for you it's calcing your battles.

seeing the fleet i calced take roids cheaply or kill an attacker with close to no losses is nice. i also found organising in gal defence to be quite entertaining this round.

Originally posted by Scouse
Wiping out some big enemy fleet is about a million times more fun than taking their roids.

i agree BUT i do kill enough ships without having to catch fleets.

Originally posted by Scouse
Anyone with half a brain would agree that wiping out people's fleets is much more important than their roids, after about tick 300.

sadly i seem to have 2 halves

[hAl]

Originally posted by Scouse
Anyone with half a brain would agree that wiping out people's fleets is much more important than their roids, after about tick 300.

Only relevant to someone in a powerblock attacking someone in another powerblock. A lot of people couldn't care less about the fleet but just want the roids even till last tick.

To get back to topic:


Options to get new players in:

Allow free players but with some restrictions
- No news and/or military scan
- No ETA -4
- No attacking without 1% of ships in pods

Options to anti powerblock:

All players have to create or join alliance on signup
- Size limit on alliance size (50/100???)
- Random placement but no alliancem8s in 1 gal
- You can during a round join a non-filled alliance that is not present in your gal yet
- ETA alliance def -1, att 0
- ETA cluster def 0, att -1
- ETA universe def +1, att 0
- Alliances can set 1 (!!) shared target gal where they will attack together with any another alliance who has this same gal set as shared target. This means a group of 'allied' alliances can only attack planets together in one gal only.

Anti bashing:
If a player loses more than 33% of his planetscore in a battletick all of his incomings/attackers recieve an immediate automatic recall that same tick and his planet goes into protection for 24 ticks.

[at0mic.c0w]

Originally posted by hAl
- No attacking without 1% of ships in pods

bit more i'd say.

Originally posted by hAl
- Size limit on alliance size (50/100???)

i don't think we have enough (capable) HC type ppl to run enough 50 member alliances

Originally posted by hAl
- Random placement but no alliancem8s in 1 gal

why no allaince m8s in the same gal if it's random ?

Originally posted by hAl
- Alliances can set 1 (!!) shared target gal where they will attack together with any another alliance who has this same gal set as shared target. This means a group of 'allied' alliances can only attack planets together in one gal only.

don't u make things to complicated here ? why stop friends who happen to be in different allainces from attacking togethere ?

Originally posted by hAl
If a player loses more than 33% of his planetscore in a battletick all of his incomings/attackers recieve an immediate automatic recall that same tick and his planet goes into protection for 24 ticks.

anyone who loses that much score for more then 1 tick a piece without moving his fleet is a fool and doesn't deserve any better. besides losing 33% can happen quite easily at the start of the round when roids make up a large percentage of score...

[hAl]

Originally posted by at0mic.c0w
bit more i'd say.

Ok, mayby free planets should need to include 5% pods into any attack fleet. fine with me.

i don't think we have enough (capable) HC type ppl to run enough 50 member alliances

That is cause you judge the current evolved quality of alliances. We do not need big alliances with high quality leadership. Look where it got us now. 50 people is fine and not every alliance needs a Sid clone to lead them

why no allaince m8s in the same gal if it's random ?

To avoid accountswapping

don't u make things to complicated here ? why stop friends who happen to be in different allainces from attacking togethere ?

Friends is nice for IRC. If you want to attack together go into the same alliance !! Allowing such would keep the cross alliance battlegroups and keep the availability of support fleets in attacks. Neither is wanted or really needed in the game.

anyone who loses that much score for more then 1 tick a piece without moving his fleet is a fool and doesn't deserve any better. besides losing 33% can happen quite easily at the start of the round when roids make up a large percentage of score...

I find your objections rather supporting my 33% solution . These fools as you call them are just the people who need protection like the protection I suggested and people who lose 33% by huge roidslosses could use going into protection as well (especially farms )

hAl

[Stress]

Am I the only one that seems to think that the - eta's be it in para or cluster is one of the single most powerfull tools given for alliances to work with ?

Flat ETA all ower, exept in gal would solve a lot.

[at0mic.c0w]

Originally posted by hAl
To avoid accountswapping

can't u think of any better solutions for that ?

[hAl]

Originally posted by Stress
Am I the only one that seems to think that the - eta's be it in para or cluster is one of the single most powerfull tools given for alliances to work with ? Flat ETA all over, exept in gal would solve a lot.

Not if you make alliances very small. If you allow alliances to be 100 people or more then it is extrmely powerfull. Giving only a gal improved ETA means that with launches at :59 outside def will only be small ships limiting the diversity in ships used in the game. ETA -1 for a small group of players is to compensate for the non-ability to send def on first tick of incomings.

hAl

[hAl]

Originally posted by at0mic.c0w
can't u think of any better solutions for that ?

If placed randomly what do you have against spreading alliances so that only one member can be in one gal ? 90% will be anyways by their random placement. So if I suggest 100% it just removes any kind of luck factor or possibility to cheat in improving your placement. But effectivly most player will be in same situation anyways as they were placed alone so I really cannot see any reason for you to object to such a measure if you already supported random placement.

hAl

[Stress]

Originally posted by hAl
Not if you make alliances very small. If you allow alliances to be 100 people or more then it is extrmely powerfull. Giving only a gal improved ETA means that with launches at :59 outside def will only be small ships limiting the diversity in ships used in the game. ETA -1 for a small group of players is to compensate for the non-ability to send def on first tick of incomings.

hAl

So change the ships eta. Having variouls etas allows alliances to build fortressess and secure attack bases.

ANd u cannot stop an alliance from going to the scale it wants to. U can try. but I assure u annything pa crew can code so make it more proffitable to be a small alliance in game. alliances can code allso. Annything they do to make smaller alliances benefit, larger alliances will use for attack battle groups
etc
etc
etc
we are here to stay.

[at0mic.c0w]

Originally posted by hAl
But effectivly most player will be in same situation anyways as they were placed alone so I really cannot see any reason for you to object to such a measure if you already supported random placement.

random is just that: random. so why not allow for a little bit of luck.

[Stress]

oh before i forget, random i sa gift to larger alliances, given the playerbase expands with say twise the players.

anny active random player will easely be convinced by an experiansed player with a large alliance to back him up

[hAl]

Sure stress, if you think so.
But I think it will be pretty easy to limit the scale of most alliances.

hAl

[hAl]

Originally posted by at0mic.c0w
random is just that: random. so why not allow for a little bit of luck.

No luck means equality to start with. Surely you won't object to an equal start for all. and if it also removes an obvious need for cheating than it has my blessing.

hAl

[at0mic.c0w]

Originally posted by hAl
No luck means equality to start with. Surely you won't object to an equal start for all. and if it also removes an obvious need for cheating than it has my blessing.

equal starts are boring. i'd prefer giving everyone an equal chance to have a good start.

[Tactitus]

Originally posted by at0mic.c0w
equal starts are boring. i'd prefer giving everyone an equal chance to have a good start.

Maybe we could all buy lottery tickets instead of PA accounts?

[hAl]

Originally posted by at0mic.c0w
equal starts are boring. i'd prefer giving everyone an equal chance to have a good start.

People won't get equal starts. Random placement will require luck but not so much that people from one alliance end up in in the same gal. This should also apply to joining an in game alliance and exiling.

I hate giving people extra chances to cheat. All gals only having maximum of one alliance member seems fine. If you allow only 50 people in an alliance than the alliance will be nicely spread around the universe. Giving alliances the chance to create stronghold gals seems pretty useless. Also spreading players around will be optimal for the newbies to get experienced players in their gals.

hAl

[Gerbie]

I agree that fleetcatching has no place in a universe without powerblocks. People should be able to team up against bigger players/gals though, both in offence and defence. Different alliances should be able to team up there as well. Otherwise it would be almost impossible to take down the #1 planet.

That's also why i like eta's based on score difference. But if hard coded alliances are small, there still should be a way for them to team-up against bigger targets.

Against bashing, a difference in travel and battle ticks might be a good idea. It works in SS. A better solution would be salvage% based on the % of score lost in a battle. If ships recall after more then 33% score loss (for instance a 1 tick fleet wipe) and you go to protection mode for 24 hrs, they will simply return then. And they will not be alone: top 10 losing gals --> half of PA will send a few pods, hoping to get free roids

Whatever the traveltime formula will be: everybody needs alliance and/or friends mates within range for def and attack. So if there are no friends allowed in priv gals, there should be a way to get them in cluster/para.

If alliances are spread over the universe they might attempt full galNAPs all over the universe. 10 different alliances with 50 members each could NAP you to 500 gals. If there are 500 gals.