A necessary evil?

[Kal]

Originally Posted by Kargool

I dont think that having Open alliance tags is important about this, because if we do have open tags, the smaller alliances will get hit by alliances with more active better planets, instead of galaxybashing we would start to see Alliancebashing.

but if we succeed in making the galaxy important again theese people will get in gal defence

[Kal]

as a random thought... what if we made buddy packs 1 alliance only.... and had 1 pack of 4 per gal - this way we don;t have alliance conflict intially in a galaxy - as one alliance clearly controls the gal (I know there are some big issues)

[The Real Arfy]

Originally Posted by Kal

as a random thought... what if we made buddy packs 1 alliance only.... and had 1 pack of 4 per gal - this way we don;t have alliance conflict intially in a galaxy - as one alliance clearly controls the gal (I know there are some big issues)

Any alliance below the top5 will either not use buddypacks (less galaxies) or they will just not cover each other effectively. This will probably result in the 4 BPers in the galaxy cross-defending themselves before the randoms (yes I know they would do that anyway but it will be more often than before).

[Kal]

Originally Posted by The Real Arfy

Any alliance below the top5 will either not use buddypacks (less galaxies) or they will just not cover each other effectively. This will probably result in the 4 BPers in the galaxy cross-defending themselves before the randoms (yes I know they would do that anyway but it will be more often than before).

what about two alliances max per buddy pack

[ChubbyChecker]

Originally Posted by Kal

what about two alliances max per buddy pack

What about if you leave your alliance during the round?

Also, I don't see what problem this would solve. If you think that somebody's alliance is going to cause a problem for you then you're not going to buddy up with them in the first place.

And if it does cause conflict then this is all just part of the game. Politics is part of what makes this game fun after all.

[Kal]

Originally Posted by ChubbyChecker

What about if you leave your alliance during the round?

Also, I don't see what problem this would solve. If you think that somebody's alliance is going to cause a problem for you then you're not going to buddy up with them in the first place.

And if it does cause conflict then this is all just part of the game. Politics is part of what makes this game fun after all.

i'm trying to limit blocking - if we go by the assumption that the major alliances will be use packs, then that limits people to 1 long term ally if there are two alliances in a pack

[SpaceMonkey]

Originally Posted by MAdnRisKy

it's the defence bonus that makes people use alliances, so in order to make people use gals, they need a defence bonus. And eta won't cut it because eta isn't the bottle neck, fleet slots are, hence the suggestion.

I disagree, an extra fleet for gal defense would greatly reduce stealing due to being able to prelaunch any ships you had to leave behind. This might suit some people but it seems a bit silly after giving non-ziks a stealing ship each.

[Kal]

This is whats been added to the todo list regarding this sort of stuff so far:

Allow free accounts to be GC/ministers
disable self exile for free accounts
only allow self exile every 72 ticks for paid accounts
change self exile cost formula to (value/10)*((number_of_self_exiles_so_far+1)^2)
base return from c200, self exile, new signups location base don number of PAID accounts in a galaxy not number of planets - we probably want a new table column for this - this is changes to galaxy_tbl and find_coords function
restrict galaxy exiles to once every 72 ticks
remove the system disabling galaxy exile for galaxies that are to small - politics.pl - instead give the galaxy a summary on politcis.pl of their number of paid planets, number of free planets, total number of planets and how theese compare with the universe averages so they can make their own decisions
Do not allow galaxy exiling on planets that have not been in the galaxy for more than 72 ticks


Now we could do the change to 1 pack of 4 people in each galaxy for next round if there was a consensus on that, as its a shuffler simplification, but a 4th fleet for in gal defence is simply not possible for next round.

Thoughts?

[Bashar]

Originally Posted by Kal

as a random thought... what if we made buddy packs 1 alliance only.... and had 1 pack of 4 per gal - this way we don;t have alliance conflict intially in a galaxy - as one alliance clearly controls the gal (I know there are some big issues)

You just had a thought which was exactly the same as what I suggested in the very first post (except for single alliance). I thought you said you weren't missing the point.

Single alliance is not good, people might want to play with their friends. When they choose who they are with, the problems mentioned are lessened significantly, and people can only blame themselves if tehre are problems.

[Bashar]

Originally Posted by Kal

what about two alliances max per buddy pack

Oh, and also, easy solution, create an alliance, all 4 of you join alliance, get into gal, just before ticks you leave alliance, end of protection, you join your proper alliance.

[Bashar]

Originally Posted by Kal

i'm trying to limit blocking - if we go by the assumption that the major alliances will be use packs, then that limits people to 1 long term ally if there are two alliances in a pack

No need for you to try and limit blocking, the community is trying to move away from it on its own. Just don't introduce anything that encourages blocking, that is all you need to do.

[Heartless]

Originally Posted by Kal

This is whats been added to the todo list regarding this sort of stuff so far:

Allow free accounts to be GC/ministers
disable self exile for free accounts
only allow self exile every 72 ticks for paid accounts
change self exile cost formula to (value/10)*((number_of_self_exiles_so_far+1)^2)
base return from c200, self exile, new signups location base don number of PAID accounts in a galaxy not number of planets - we probably want a new table column for this - this is changes to galaxy_tbl and find_coords function
restrict galaxy exiles to once every 72 ticks
remove the system disabling galaxy exile for galaxies that are to small - politics.pl - instead give the galaxy a summary on politcis.pl of their number of paid planets, number of free planets, total number of planets and how theese compare with the universe averages so they can make their own decisions
Do not allow galaxy exiling on planets that have not been in the galaxy for more than 72 ticks


Now we could do the change to 1 pack of 4 people in each galaxy for next round if there was a consensus on that, as its a shuffler simplification, but a 4th fleet for in gal defence is simply not possible for next round.

Thoughts?

On a first look it sounds lovely.

[Kal]

a single BP of 4 people does encourage blocking though...

[Bashar]

Originally Posted by Kal

This is whats been added to the todo list regarding this sort of stuff so far:

Allow free accounts to be GC/ministers
disable self exile for free accounts
only allow self exile every 72 ticks for paid accounts
change self exile cost formula to (value/10)*((number_of_self_exiles_so_far+1)^2)
base return from c200, self exile, new signups location base don number of PAID accounts in a galaxy not number of planets - we probably want a new table column for this - this is changes to galaxy_tbl and find_coords function
restrict galaxy exiles to once every 72 ticks
remove the system disabling galaxy exile for galaxies that are to small - politics.pl - instead give the galaxy a summary on politcis.pl of their number of paid planets, number of free planets, total number of planets and how theese compare with the universe averages so they can make their own decisions
Do not allow galaxy exiling on planets that have not been in the galaxy for more than 72 ticks

You see a problem and are trying to build a wall around it to stop it rather than address the actual problem here. I really don't think these things are at all necessary, just sort out the galaxy setup, that is where the full attention is needed.

Now we could do the change to 1 pack of 4 people in each galaxy for next round if there was a consensus on that, as its a shuffler simplification

I agree on this myself, but don't restrict number of alliances or anything similar.

but a 4th fleet for in gal defence is simply not possible for next round.

Good, I think it's a terrible idea. Killing someones fleet becomes impossible, and 3 fleets is fine.

[Bashar]

Originally Posted by Kal

a single BP of 4 people does encourage blocking though...

Nah, 4 doesn't encourage blocking. I could understand the argument for 5 encouraging it, and 6 I certainly could. Ultimately though, the communities desire is to swing away from blocking, and people will avoid it if they can, and with 4 people, it is easy. Currently you tend to have 3 from an alliance in a buddypack, they'll just add a friend in. Almost everyone in big alliances has friends who play, and they'll get a friend or two in from another alliance, but it would only ever really be at member level.

[Kal]

while that might happen i'd have thought 2 people from 2 alliances would be more likely

[Bashar]

Originally Posted by Kal

while that might happen i'd have thought 2 people from 2 alliances would be more likely

Well, from my experience, I'd say otherwise.

[The Real Arfy]

Originally Posted by Kal

while that might happen i'd have thought 2 people from 2 alliances would be more likely

Well currently we have what, 2 players from 1 alliance joined with a friendly alliance, or 3 players from one alliance (pretty rare). So, its really no different.

[MAdnRisKy]

Originally Posted by SpaceMonkey

I disagree, an extra fleet for gal defense would greatly reduce stealing due to being able to prelaunch any ships you had to leave behind. This might suit some people but it seems a bit silly after giving non-ziks a stealing ship each.

or *gasp* you could change other things to make this a possibility :/

I add the sarcasm because it disappoints me the lack of thinking outside of the box. Yes allowing people to prelaunch more would on the face of it seem to cut down on stealing. However you could say change the targetting of ships to be stolen and ships targetting stealers, to make people think about leaving them home.... or you could do something original like, i don't know, fleet catching?

it may involve a change in playing style, and i'm very sorry that zik haven't been as uber godly this round as last. Perhaps you could join in with the beta testers, then i'm sure your opinions could recreate the "cath effect"

[MAdnRisKy]

Also, what completely disgusts me to be frank, is the way that people have imediately looked at suggestions in a "but i can abuse this this way" fashion, i mean that kind of analysis is important, but there's no indication of any merits being weighed up It's almost as if people have started to play this game, with a blinkered view to "how can i come out of this best" rather that a "we" anywhere in the sentence

[furball]

I must admit that I find these kinds of summary threads difficult, because I have replied to most of the suggestions individually. However, I'll do my best.


1) I agree with having a separate fleet for in-gal defence. I think that it would go a long way towards redressing the galaxy/alliance balance. I would point out that it was skewed back when we changed to PaX because of the ETA -1 bonus for hard-coded alliances, forcing people to rely on their alliances as opposed to getting defence from across the universe.

What are the consequences of this? It'll be harder to land attacks in active galaxies. There will be more opportunities to fake defence, and it'll be easier to send in-gal defence. Thus we must reduce galaxy size, moving onto my next point.

2) Galaxy size. I don't think we can afford to have galaxies bigger than 15 planets, because of point 1. 10 is a little small, and will make inactive galaxies dreadful. 15 should be about right. I suggest that every galaxy starts off with about 10 planets, then gets filled to 15 over the round - but that 15 is a hard limit. I don't envisage having 33% of the member base signing up after tick 36 (the shuffle), so we should never reach it. Of course, inactive planets do need to be purged regularly to c200.

3) Buddy packs. I like the suggest of 4 planets per buddy pack, which is enough for the buddy pack to control a galaxy (GC + 3 ministers). What they choose to do with it is up to them. Should they be allowed to leave the galaxy? I don't like not allowing them to, frankly. So, some conditions for doing so:

1. Planet must put self up for nomination, any 3 members of the galaxy (not necessarily ministers) must agree to the exile
2. Galaxy must have a score in the bottom 30% of all galaxies

There would probably be some more, but I lack inspiration at the moment. And since I started writing this post 4 hours ago, I'd better click the post button.

[MysticYoshi]

The galaxy is still important, but people are so wrapped up in their alliance they fail to realise it.
Even if you have hostile alliances in gal, it doesn't tend to be *that* often that you have incoming on everyone but a few planets and they can't help you.

When galaxies work together, defend all they can within the alliance rules, the galaxy soon becomes something very important and as valuable as your alliance, from my experience anyway. I think a lot of us just fail to even make an effort to get along with gal mates because they are from another alliance. IMO when this happens they miss out on a lot of potential friends and defence against potential incomings.