Possible Gal setup (maybe just one off round)

[lokken]

Originally Posted by Banned

I'd like to make it perfectly clear that I don't give a rat's ass about balance in this question, I'm just sick of exiling and sick of having to deal with galmates that I didn't choose to be with.

Ideally you'ld want to have some kind of activity limit so you could exile people at zero cost if they fell below activity.

How you monitor that, i have no idea.

But otherwise, I think you're asking to have your cake and eat it. It's just one of the shit things in the game you put up with. The issue here is that going to kill off this problem does raise the question of balance, hence why this idea will face an uphill struggle.

[Banned]

Originally Posted by lokken

Ideally you'ld want to have some kind of activity limit so you could exile people at zero cost if they fell below activity.

I think you're on to something here. Why does changing the exile cost make sense? Because the current formula discourages giving people a chance. Exile them before they get any value. Make a judgement call within the first 24 ticks, then throw them out if they don't measure up. This encourages people to only accept people who are 'obviously going play the entire round as a valuable contribution'. Emphasis on obviously.

But otherwise, I think you're asking to have your cake and eat it.

Probably.

It's just one of the shit things in the game you put up with.

It's not quite that simple (imo). PA doesn't have a lot of things that aren't given merit. There are two places in PA where there is randomness, one is covert operations, in which it functions as balance, and the other is exile/sign-up placement. In covops it functions actively in the action. I find my target, I check my stealth, I apply my 'skill' to figuring out if I will be successful and then I roll the dice.

In the search for a worthwhile* random, all you can do is adjust your position and hope that the active party 'hits'. The problem here is that there isn't any actual control of the event. When a placement is done for my galaxy, I have no control over it. All I can do is hope. There is no merit, and therefore no actual achievement in getting a good exile, it's just dumb ****ing luck.

With covops you can make a risk assesment. I think that my chances of succeeding are 1 in 20, but the reward for succeeding is high enough that it's worth risking.

The opposite would be to have a pool of 'unplaced' planets, then galaxies could spend resources flagging one as their own. You can continue to flag until you're happy with the choice, at which point the planet joins your galaxy. Or the random could be reduced. Let galaxies bid on planets.

Turning this around to the active party. A self-exiler is making a risk assesment. For them joining a good galaxy is an achievement. The problem is that whereas the covert operator is putting a little res on the line, the self-exiler is putting his planet on the line, often so for a playable game. When the self-exiler fails, his best option is a planet reset.

This is ****ed up.

* My definition of worthwhile is 'someone that comes on IRC and talks without being a ****wit'. We don't care if the player is 'good' or even willing/able to defend. So far my galaxy is highly ranked for exiles (more than JBG) with this criteria.

The issue here is that going to kill off this problem does raise the question of balance, hence why this idea will face an uphill struggle.

I don't think this is the issue anymore. The idea started with a dissatisfaction with the galaxy/exile system and has now progressed to defining many of the problems with the galaxy/exile system.

I still hold that the current system is shit. It may lead to a nice set of distributions, but it's not helping the game.

[Appocomaster]

I think you have a valid point - I do want to change the current exile system as much / more than the current galaxy system.

I do have to say that the other reason why they exile small/inactive planets is to keep their planet count down so they can recieve potentially big exiling planets.

[Banned]

Originally Posted by Appocomaster

I do have to say that the other reason why they exile small/inactive planets is to keep their planet count down so they can recieve potentially big exiling planets.

Originally Posted by Banned

In the search for a worthwhile* random, all you can do is adjust your position and hope that the active party 'hits'.

That's what I'm saying there.

[JonnyBGood]

Originally Posted by Banned

I think you're on to something here. Why does changing the exile cost make sense? Because the current formula discourages giving people a chance. Exile them before they get any value. Make a judgement call within the first 24 ticks, then throw them out if they don't measure up. This encourages people to only accept people who are 'obviously going play the entire round as a valuable contribution'. Emphasis on obviously.

This is massively important, especially later on in the round when the resource cost increases dramatically due to the high number of exiles done. When they start gaining value then it's really expensive to exile them.

[XelNaga]

Banned, I can only agree at 100% with your post, you put it all very nice. What I don't agree with is your proposed solution. Currently, as far as I see, the best solution is the compromise we have with buddy packs, and it's not really a satisfying one, agreed, but I haven't read a better suggestion yet.

I was typing up a really huge post involving an idea I had, plus some changes through your feedback, but it really needs much more time to be thought out. I've been dwelling on it for quite some time, maybe when I get bored one day, I'll work it all out, there's still a month to the round .

[Banned]

Originally Posted by XelNaga

What I don't agree with is your proposed solution.

I don't care about the proposed solution anymore.

[Storebo]

Well.. lokken.. that is the same fear element that makes people attack sertain alliances members from tickstart aswell.. In order to slow down the ones who will be strong later. With a good cluster, u might be able to survive with a mediocre gal. But clusters won't work without incluster attacks being enabled. A cluster alliance will introduce a new player to a bigger part of the pa community.

[bwtmc]

I think you're being far too optimistic about cluster communities Storebo. You're saying they'll only be enacted if cluster attacks and defences come back. I really can't see many active players (and you need a few of them to make it work) having fleets to throw around after supporting their alliance/galaxy/random friends, and of course, the thing planetarion players do most, keeping fleets home in the anticipation of the above.

It suddenly looks a lot more viable when you start talking about private galaxies, galaxy attacks etc. Attacks in cluster alone really aren't enough to persuade anyone to care.

No one can really guess.. after the time it's been since we've had private galaxies how it'd unfold. What strikes me is that as Banned has said, this system feels 'nice' (in that it tries to encourage blah blah) but in reality, the system itself probably doesn't help many new players find their way.

On the other hand, I think it'd completely change the face of alliance politics. I think it'd make the gap much bigger at the top, particularly as mid-rank alliances find their players increasingly busy with their galaxies and not their alliances.

Of course, alliances don't have to be the centre of the game as they are now.

[Banned]

Originally Posted by bwtmc

I think you're being far too optimistic about cluster communities Storebo. You're saying they'll only be enacted if cluster attacks and defences come back. I really can't see many active players (and you need a few of them to make it work) having fleets to throw around after supporting their alliance/galaxy/random friends, and of course, the thing planetarion players do most, keeping fleets home in the anticipation of the above.

It suddenly looks a lot more viable when you start talking about private galaxies, galaxy attacks etc. Attacks in cluster alone really aren't enough to persuade anyone to care.

I think everything thing said here is correct. With the current engine, the only way to provide incentive to build cluster alliances is to proved a defensive ETA bonus superior to that of the tag bonus, and superior defensive ships available at that ETA (FR/DE vs FI/CO, CR/BS vs FR/DE).

Edit: I had some more comments, but they were off-topic so I posted this.

[Kal]

I'm strongly against fixed sized galaxies as it means new players get dumped in new galaxies (or the lucky few go into a space in an existing galaxy) (it also means for much more complex code in a few areas.

It might however be interesting to have a max BP size of say 10 for a round.

[Banned]

Originally Posted by Kal

I'm strongly against fixed sized galaxies as it means new players get dumped in new galaxies (or the lucky few go into a space in an existing galaxy) (it also means for much more complex code in a few areas.

It has meant in the past, that doesn't mean it needs to be that way in the future. I agree that dumping new players into victim galaxies is bad, and it's probably the primary problem with private galaxies in the past. It doesn't need to be that way, though.

[Kal]

Originally Posted by Banned

It has meant in the past, that doesn't mean it needs to be that way in the future. I agree that dumping new players into victim galaxies is bad, and it's probably the primary problem with private galaxies in the past. It doesn't need to be that way, though.

but why wouldn't it be the case in the future

[Banned]

Originally Posted by Kal

but why wouldn't it be the case in the future

Because it's possible to have private galaxies without making them exactly like they used to be! You're inventing limitations of private galaxies based on how they used to be implemented.