Round 10, traveltime and alliances

[SKiNNY]

The new coordinate / traveltimes would make sence IF:

PA wasnt a "travel and comeback" game

Old situation: When we attack or defend, it'll recall after 3 or 6 ticks @ the target planet, or when we press recall.

New Situation: Being able to "move" fleet to friendly planets closer to the enemy Galaxy and re-launch from there.

So in a nutshell: Abandoning the "travel there and return home" way and using the "building up and have a 2nd launch capability closer to enemy gal" way.

(am i still making sence?

Regards,

SKiNNY

[GA-Thrawn]

Originally posted by Petru
RaH is an alliance based entirely on everyone being friends, and I'd hate to see that ruined for the sake of distance based eta.

If it's really based entirely on everyone being friends, how on earth could a 'tactical' change in the game ruin your alliance?

Ok, it might ruin your score if you're in that alliance, but it shouldn't be ruining the alliance itself.

I actually like the idea Spinner proposed. I want to see some change in the game, not playing the same game every round again. And if it doesn't work out as we hope, then the next round will just be without this change again.

[janks]

I like the new idea. It reminds me of another game, where the universe traveltime is like this. (btw game is called xenocide3001) If u want to travel to the far side of the universe, it will take u about 36 hours and to the neighbouring planets in your system, only about 4 hours. It works ok and i'm sure it will in planetarion too. One difference though. U can take planets (not roids) in that game and make another base and have shorter traveltime that way.

I'm really looking forward to r10 and am sure it will be nice (-:

[Razorback]

Well first of all, nice "idea" spinner, dont know if you are still reading all this but you are taking the wrong road (again?).

In my opinion you will see alot of negative effects in all different scenarios you can think about.
If you have this flat universe ppl talk about, the middle will either be unfairly strong (they can get more defence) or totally destroyed because of permanent incoming, this depends on their surrounding.
Infact this is what the whole game then is about, your surrounding. If you see 3 weeks after the shuffle your close by area is not developing quickly or even containing alot of crapgalaxys, you are out of the competition as you cant grow, due to eta time and if u finally get incomings you cant receive defence because of that.
Same goes with the example of "reginal alliances". Which will infact be "local powerblocks" because if they cut off a certain part of the universe which is weaker they can bash it over and over again while the ppl in there cant even call for outside defence as this is impossible.

You might have your ideas and thoughts about "destroying" alliances but will this do the community any good ? Seeing ppl not able to help each other anymore ?
And will this really hurt those "evil leadertype personages" who build blocks ?
-Hardly, they will form new alliances or they will form superalliances. I.e. compared to Xanadu or Nos -Wingsystem, with a Wing beeing a local department, Something like a megacompany with lots of different daughtercompanies.
But the effect on the overall community will be devastating, 150:1 will not care nor have friends anymore somewhere else, because it doesnt really benefit him except from chatting. Will this help new players to grow into the community? questionable.

Spinner, i can see this beeing another soccermanager, it will fail.
PPl dont buy for 20 pounds something they cant see working and they havent tested. And your model looks not very promising for the normal "peon". Politically it can will(?) be ace. But maybe you shouldnt try to sell a new game but develop the old one more ?

How about the 100time offered suggestion "alliances are down to 150 members total" "you can only defend galaxy and alliancem8s(who wear the same tag ?) with the low eta"

This will cause alot of dissonanz and i cant see many old ppl buying it, as their only reason are their friends and alliances. If u want to throw them out then it would be more honest to do it openly instead of making it impossible for them to stay.

[Petru]

Originally posted by Razorback
How about the 100time offered suggestion "alliances are down to 150 members total" "you can only defend galaxy and alliancem8s(who wear the same tag ?) with the low eta"

This has been suggested dozens of times in many different guises, it's one of the simplest yet most desirable option to have. Why it is repeatedly overlooked in favour of god knows how many other more complex and abuseable features is beyond me.

[Petru]

Originally posted by GA-Thrawn
If it's really based entirely on everyone being friends, how on earth could a 'tactical' change in the game ruin your alliance?

Ok, it might ruin your score if you're in that alliance, but it shouldn't be ruining the alliance itself.

I actually like the idea Spinner proposed. I want to see some change in the game, not playing the same game every round again. And if it doesn't work out as we hope, then the next round will just be without this change again.

It's based on everyone being friends in that everyone is friends, but a working alliance machination is still maintained.

If the members are spread across the universe hte alliance will never be able to cover it's members. It will cease to operate as an alliance.

The alliances are ruining the game. LT of 3-5am cest ain't fun and for me nearly impossible to launch then. when i get attack i almost have no defence because they launch at night and when i get online the eta is too low for defence . There also almost no chance to get roids these days, there's always defence.

i'm thinking of quitting PA because it lost it's touch. few rounds ago attacking at 12-6pm cest was still possible. I played R 2-6 and now 9. I might join R10, but that depends on the changes

so far i agree with this changes. You can even make the 'end' of the universe attached to the 'start' so there won't be any that have an advantage

[Cochese]

I do like the idea of geography...I think it has potential, but as it stands currently, isn't going to work for reasons already pointed out by myself and others.

I had, as I think some others had as well, prepared myself for a round 10 with "hard coded" alliances as Focht described; you have a "tag" or otherwise registered (with a limited number) and you can only defend people in your galaxy or those who share your alliance tag.

The main argument against that idea is "what if the tag code gets out, you're all screwed". Think about it like P2P. The HC, who register the alliance at round start, get how ever many "credits" the alliances are coded for...be that, 100 people for example.

They then can "activate" their members into the alliance in a similar fashion as activating an account...enter a user-id, and bingo, they're in the alliance. No passwords to leak, and only the HC have access to add people...and rightfully so.

Considering I came up with this idea in a matter of seconds, just now, it's by no means perfected...but it seems like a "common sense" solution.

With that idea in mind, perhaps a more workable "geography" can be developed around hard-coded alliances.

[Petru]

Originally posted by Mopster
The alliances are ruining the game. LT of 3-5am cest ain't fun and for me nearly impossible to launch then. when i get attack i almost have no defence because they launch at night and when i get online the eta is too low for defence . There also almost no chance to get roids these days, there's always defence.

i'm thinking of quitting PA because it lost it's touch. few rounds ago attacking at 12-6pm cest was still possible. I played R 2-6 and now 9. I might join R10, but that depends on the changes

so far i agree with this changes. You can even make the 'end' of the universe attached to the 'start' so there won't be any that have an advantage

I think you're confusing people who don't like this idea with people who don't want to see change.

PA _does_ need a change to fix alliance domination, but this won't do it. It will stop the existing alliance but new ones will form with even greater domination in their "districts".

Fix alliance registration/existance, limit defence to alliance and galaxy only.

It's so simple, but is being ignored.

This regional eta will lead to nesting and embedding in regions which will in turn lead to blocking to break them.

[JonnyBGood]

It'll completely destroy every single alliance as you know it and will force people into relying on others who they barely know. It will redraw the rational limits for alliances and bring a slightly larger element of luck into the game. And it will only work if the numbers hit 10,000. I shall withhold my own judgement on whether or not this is a good thing as I'm really not sure. Nice to see someone has the balls to make an unpredictable change though.

[ComradeRob]

Simple solution.

Make galaxies 25 planets in size and random. Build alliances into the game with an 'Alliance Status' similar to gal status and -2 ETA to any planet in the alliance. Also, allow in-galaxy roiding.

[Lerxst]

Originally posted by JonnyBGood
It'll completely destroy every single alliance as you know it ...

No. Those based on community will easily survive. Also those alliances who are led and driven by intelligent ppl will find out how to cope with this situation.
IMO it was about time to bring in a drastic shocker to test the mental flexibility of the posters...

[Morden]

Originally posted by Mopster
The alliances are ruining the game. LT of 3-5am cest ain't fun and for me nearly impossible to launch then. when i get attack i almost have no defence because they launch at night and when i get online the eta is too low for defence . There also almost no chance to get roids these days, there's always defence.

i'm thinking of quitting PA because it lost it's touch. few rounds ago attacking at 12-6pm cest was still possible. I played R 2-6 and now 9. I might join R10, but that depends on the changes

so far i agree with this changes. You can even make the 'end' of the universe attached to the 'start' so there won't be any that have an advantage

even if alliances were to all dissapear due to this,

new ones would be formed that are all close together thus untouchable unless you make massive counter blocks as has been previously said, and the game will get even harder for the underdog who cant watch his planet all the time.

in r1-4 the newer/lower score people basically lived in a world of there own because on the whole they werent worth targetting enmass so they were left alone to fight there own little wars. tbh there arent many ways to bring it back to this sort of situation, ive said one possible way but tbh i doubt it'd get used as it doesnt get rid of blocks or alliances it makes them impose there own limits and makes them in a different universe compared to the softcore player, i.e they are +8 ticks ontop of there base travel time to get into the newbie training grouns,

although tbh it would allow the current hardcore players to play the game without them being seperated from long time friends as well as allowing the ones who want to be able to go to bed at reasonable times a chance to play the game there way if it was coupled with hardcoded alliances that give incentives to use them it would work well imho as it'd give pa a chance to get new blood without feeding them to the wolves straight away and without shafting the alliances who have kept pa alive even though they have harmed the playerbase the game would have died without alliances.

[RexDrax]

I actually READ ALL 4 Pages, must have been the onle one I think.

Anyways, its an intresting concept but I think its a mistake. Any travel time over 15 ticks is bad imo. Reason being is that this is a war game so you should not hinder activity and skill and make attacking un-preferable. I agree limiting alliance/block power is a worthwhile goal, but what you are proposing is not the right option.

Yes maybe increase eta by 1-3ticks overall, but leave the current game mechanics in terms of travel time the same. If/When you do decide to increase the travel times, maybe consider the Jumpgate once again. I think its a great idea, but there is not enough incentive to make it poriftable to build and use. For instance maybe lower the cost and make the Jumpgate give an eta advantage, but have it limited so that only 2-4 JG's can target a certain galaxy. This will ofc lead to more blocking/co-operation in hitting galaxies but there might be a balance.

Quetzovercoatl



30 ticks or more to reach a distant planet needn't be a bad thing.

Just make a simple change to something that was always wrong :

Since the beginning, you can't issue new orders to your fleet. They can receive the recall message but nothing else.

Well, if you could sent out a fleet, change it's orders, move from one galaxy to the next without returning home, maybe raiding planets for fuel, stealing fleets to replace losses, defending one day, attacking the next, all on a deep space mission with no chance of reaching your home planet in an emergency, joining a cloaked killer alliance fleet out in the middle of nowhere that just maintains a presence (before wiping out an enemy galaxy) etc etc

Maybe this could be done by having a new kind of battleship similar to an aircraft carrier, that you could load up with a variety of ships, extra fuel etc, even taking roids (and stolen roids) on board and using them to produce new ships while out in space, becoming a mini-planet that can move through space.

The more I type the further I get from sanity, but admit it, if the universe was like this it would be worth paying for

I like that idea quite a bit. Have like nodes or space-warps that are controlled by alliances. Each alliance can have a total of like 4-5 spaceportals and only alliance members can use them. These spaceportals will have to be 'found' so to speak by a galaxy and then a certain amount of ships have to be sent in order to lay claim to it. Each member is expected to pay a upkeep cost on the spaceportal, this forces alliances to submit members list to the game, and if an alliance war breaks out, enemy alliance can target the spaceportals in order to disrupt another alliance defensive/offensive capabiliites.

Spaceportals offer its alliance members a flat eta travel of lets say 4 ticks. So if I was in 1:1 and I am attacking 5:6 normal eta would be 11 ticks, but since we have a spaceportal at coords 5:1 which is a galaxy belonging to my alliance, I would travel 4 ticks to 5:1 and then anohter 5 ticks to 5:6, total travel time 9 ticks. Not much of an advantage, but if the spaceportals are spaced properly then it could be intresting. Plus this might lead to more battles and bigger ones too.

As I wrote my post I realized the concepts of spaceportals, carriers, space stations and all other related concepts are nice on paper, but they are hard tobalance out. No matter what is done it willlead to some sort of bashing and/or certain bigger alliances gaining an advantage.

So honestly, I have to respectfully totally disagree with the eta increase you are planning on implementing. Increasing it a bit is fine, but what you are proposing will be not beneficial as far as I am concerned. Instead maybe consider other avenues, what they are I am not to certain of at the momemnt so cant offer any suggestions.

Last thing I want to mention is that the only reason I have kept on playing since round 3 was coz of the people I met and friends. Without the community I would have quit a long time ago. And by community I dont mean people in my alliance, but the PA community in general. We all have friends in several alliance and some rounds we are allies, other rounds we are not but we still are friends. That has kept PA going so long and you idead I think will ruin that sense of comeraderships (spelling?). I sometimes like rubbing my higher score/roids of past rounds into my friends faces just for the fun of it, or any ownage I have done at their planets.

-RexDrax

[JonnyBGood]

Originally posted by Lerxst
No. Those based on community will easily survive. Also those alliances who are led and driven by intelligent ppl will find out how to cope with this situation.
IMO it was about time to bring in a drastic shocker to test the mental flexibility of the posters...

Of course, because they'll want to adapt. I was just pointing out that winning will now need different prerequisites. For alliances whose primary goal was not winning, but rather the community aspect, they will continue regardless of any changes.

[Petru]

I think between round 7 and round 8 I wrote a very lengthy and detailed brief on geometry using "perimeters". Which allowed for stationing of fleets, short term occupation and also doubled up with detection of incoming hostile fleets based on the number of ships stationed on the perimeter relative to the planets size.

I'd be willing to post it up again given their seems to be a possibility of open mindedness to such ideas. It also covered the discussion of defence only to alliances etc using a fixed "tag" system.

The good thing here is the willingness to discuss ideas, but as with all things PA the first ideas are never the best, but an amalgimation of theories.

[RexDrax]

Originally posted by Cochese
I do like the idea of geography...I think it has potential, but as it stands currently, isn't going to work for reasons already pointed out by myself and others.

I had, as I think some others had as well, prepared myself for a round 10 with "hard coded" alliances as Focht described; you have a "tag" or otherwise registered (with a limited number) and you can only defend people in your galaxy or those who share your alliance tag.

The main argument against that idea is "what if the tag code gets out, you're all screwed". Think about it like P2P. The HC, who register the alliance at round start, get how ever many "credits" the alliances are coded for...be that, 100 people for example.

They then can "activate" their members into the alliance in a similar fashion as activating an account...enter a user-id, and bingo, they're in the alliance. No passwords to leak, and only the HC have access to add people...and rightfully so.

Considering I came up with this idea in a matter of seconds, just now, it's by no means perfected...but it seems like a "common sense" solution.

With that idea in mind, perhaps a more workable "geography" can be developed around hard-coded alliances.

I think that is the BEST solution out of everyones suggestion sofar. Creators and the community shouldent look for something complicated, something simple in most cases will do it. And another item is that so far most/all suggestions I have read seem to me very tough to code with pron to quite a few logic errors.

Originally posted by ComradeRob
Simple solution.

Make galaxies 25 planets in size and random. Build alliances into the game with an 'Alliance Status' similar to gal status and -2 ETA to any planet in the alliance. Also, allow in-galaxy roiding.

In galaxy roiding I think will lead to more claims/accusation of shipfarming and farming in general. Lets avoid that and continue with the way things are at the moment.

I've not read the whole thread (too lazy ), so the following might already been suggested.

One of the major disadvantages of powerblocks and in general, alliances, is that battles are more and more inbalanced. Major fleets from several places move at the same time towards the designated target and simply outnumber them. Off course this happens, as it increases the chance of winning the battle and getting roids. There are hardly any disadvantages, besides the fact u get to share roids, or u get less of them, cause of the roidcap.

If u think logicaly, several big fleets together, should be far more easy to notice then one or two small fleets. In both situations, the fleets will have the same eta (if same tech level), but the smaller fleet(s) shouldn't be noticed as soon as the several big fleets.
With such feature u could also find a solution to travel far away and only get noticed at a considerable eta.

An additional idea could be that whenever a galaxy is beeing target at BIG time, like to say 5+ attacking fleets per planet, even surrounding galaxies of the target gets notified.

note 1; I'm not playing this round and have no clue what the stats, rules, etc. are, so it might be possible I suggested stuff allready beeing implemented in some kinda way.

note 2; The suggestions are in no way worked out and in no way supported with formulas, as I leave that to u all It's just to put out some ideas

grtz,

Aramir

[Event_Horizon]

After reading most of this thread and pondering a bit on it, I have a few suggestions:

1) The linear (flat) view of this universe travel time will not work as not everybody will be equal from the start. However, simply make it a circle and that problem is fixed.

2) Planetarion needs more players. I think that for this time travel you have suggested to have any chance of working properly it would have to be extremely complicated and will do anything BUT attract new players. It is just too much of a change. Make smaller adjustments to the game. Not every adjsutment has to be in the more "complicated" direction. The greatest changes that can be made are to make things more simpler. The greatest rounds in PA were the simplest...

3) Spinner I think you brought this up to try and shake up the current alliance/powerblock existance in PA. A couple of things can fix this. One of them is by getting more players. The best way that I can see to do this is to charge players who want to play in a private gal (or create a gal) and to allow randoms to go free. I am not sure if you are able to do this financially, but if you can do that it will be the best thing you could possibly do for the game. It will allow alot more people to play, more roids in the universe, and more alliances.

Also I think the idea of limiting alliances in the beginning to a certain number of members is a good idea, but they have to have the ability to add members through out the round. By only allowing defense to be sent by gal or alliance members defintely would break up powerblocks. However, I would allow clusters OR parallels to send defense as well (please only do parallels or clusters in r10, both is just too much).

In conclusion, Spinner while it was a good idea I would abandon it because too much can go wrong with the idea; it is too complicated. Please when you are deciding what changes to make to the game, make simpler changes so the game is more accessable to newer people, and, quite frankly, more enjoyable for us vets.

[Petru]

A thought on the fixed alliance "tag" system (not a tad, but the easiest comparison), what's to stop a parent alliance just registering multiple alliances a la old style mega wings?

[Petru]

Originally posted by Event_Horizon
Please when you are deciding what changes to make to the game, make simpler changes so the game is more accessable to newer people, and, quite frankly, more enjoyable for us vets.

This is one of the key things. Fundamental changes don't have to be complicated to have a large effect, sometimes the simplest of things can have the most radical outcome.

The more complex you make something, the more conditions you involve, the more you leave it open to abuse.

[Cochese]

Originally posted by Petru
A thought on the fixed alliance "tag" system (not a tad, but the easiest comparison), what's to stop a parent alliance just registering multiple alliances a la old style mega wings?

That's the other main argument against hard-coding, and something else I think most people were prepared for in thinking about round 10...splitting their alliance into "wings" depending on how big the registered alliances could be.

Every scenario I run through, doesn't lead me any closer to a solution either...if the in-game alliances were ranked, as they easily could be, perhaps the desire to 'win' would be enough to force these "wings" into becoming their own disctinct alliances, so they would have to (in order to "win") fight against their former friends.

Of course, they could simply settle for 1st and 2nd places respectively, and claim an "allied" victory (MadCows won the round because their wings were 1st and 2nd, for example) which doesn't get us any closer to a solution.

There has to be some incentive for people to fragment their existing groups, and just fight each other, instead of making a wing system, which defends itself, but attacks with it's allied wings.

If there are private galaxies (which is the topic of much discussion) then they could mix their galaxies with both wings, in order to use the "you can only defend your alliance and galaxy" and effectively circumvent (to a large extent, anyways) the whole point of that idea.

[RexDrax]

Originally posted by Petru
A thought on the fixed alliance "tag" system (not a tad, but the easiest comparison), what's to stop a parent alliance just registering multiple alliances a la old style mega wings?

None at all. Except if more than 1 alliance ships are present in a defence call they will fire on each other. Does that makes sense? ie Legion and Fury planets are allied but have 2 diffrent tags, ie wings of each other. They defend the same planet. Legion members have sent 40% of the ships and fury 60%. Lets keep assuming that a total of 1000 spiders died 1st tick, and they each sent equal amounts so legion members lose 400 and fury lose 600. Remember the Legion ships will fire on all ships except Legion members and same things for Fury ships EVEN THOUGH they are defending the same place.

Now I can see your next argument, what is to stop them from switching between wings. Limit the amount of times you can change alliances and/or make it such that once you have left an alliance you CANNOT return till next round. Hard code it into the game.

The next flaw you would probably point out is that what is to stop a HC from renaming/making another alliance once it is warranted. Simple, hard code it such that the HC's cannot make another alliance and/or are stuck with the current alliance. Or even xx planets from the topXX planets of the galaxy.

Next flaw would be, what would alliance HC stop from getting some simple peon from signing up the alliance but teh HC actually control it? Well nothing really. Only suggestion I would have is would a HC actually trust a peon? Or we could try the Honour system?

Several alliances have stated publicaly that they dont like blocks and rather go alone, well....here is your chance.

[RexDrax]

Originally posted by Cochese

If there are private galaxies (which is the topic of much discussion) then they could mix their galaxies with both wings, in order to use the "you can only defend your alliance and galaxy" and effectively circumvent (to a large extent, anyways) the whole point of that idea.

hmm...I didnt even think of that. I always figured that round 10 would be random. If it is private then the post I just made above, quotin Petru, would not necessarily work on a private galaxy round.

[NaQ]

dont give the advantage to the middle coords, dont do the coords like they are done now, perhaps loop the whole universe? :P 1:1 goes to whatever the last planet e.g 126:10, as it does to 1:2


how about a 5 private/5 random gal combination, it would let close friends be together and give noobs a chance, combined with this eta malarky it could stop blocks. Even skilled players could go random to end up in a gal with real HARDCORE players. Another thing to increase people chosing randoms would be to offer bonus's to them, like increased protection time or whatever.

These ideas are open to be improved

[RooKie]

Make eta zones not that extrame as in SPinner´s suggestion and use Eonium as main tool to get much the same effect as with extreme eta´s.

[Morden]

Originally posted by NaQ
dont give the advantage to the middle coords, dont do the coords like they are done now, perhaps loop the whole universe? :P 1:1 goes to whatever the last planet e.g 126:10, as it does to 1:2


how about a 5 private/5 random gal combination, it would let close friends be together and give noobs a chance, combined with this eta malarky it could stop blocks. Even skilled players could go random to end up in a gal with real HARDCORE players. Another thing to increase people chosing randoms would be to offer bonus's to them, like increased protection time or whatever.

These ideas are open to be improved

still wont solve the biggest problem with keeping the game alive.

new players would still have a snowballs chance in hell.

[NaQ]

Morden they would, read where i said 5 private/5 random in each gal, this would allow much fairer galaxies to be around, and allow the new players to be taught and helped by their gal mates...

I got to be a very strong pa-player by going random in r6 meeting some very good players. I ended up no.2 in that galaxy.

In r8 many gals got lucky and struck 10 hardcore players, and some had 1 hardcore/9 noobie, etc... this really made alot of pa's loyal supporters annoyed :[

[Morden]

Originally posted by NaQ
Morden they would, read where i said 5 private/5 random in each gal, this would allow much fairer galaxies to be around, and allow the new players to be taught and helped by their gal mates...

I got to be a very strong pa-player by going random in r6 meeting some very good players. I ended up no.2 in that galaxy.

In r8 many gals got lucky and struck 10 hardcore players, and some had 1 hardcore/9 noobie, etc... this really made alot of pa's loyal supporters annoyed :[

right, your a new player you've just signed up you land in a galaxy that isnt dominant within the spheres of influence that are created by these cluster eta's. the gal you've landed in is beaten and broke, you get over x roids and you get constant incomming...........

sound familiar? as thats all that will happen. there would be the odd few who end up doing great, but that isnt enough, there needs to be masses of new players in this game in order to make the mechanics work well.

[Cochese]

Well making allied ships fire at everything other than allied ships in a combat would make using two different wings on any given operation quite pointless.

They could still probably function jointly within the theatre of war, but not at specific engagements...limiting their effectiveness.

However, the problem I mentioned about sharing galaxies would still give them an advantage defensively.

If we go to random galaxies, some of these issues suddenly clear up.

[RexDrax]

Originally posted by Cochese
Well making allied ships fire at everything other than allied ships in a combat would make using two different wings on any given operation quite pointless.

They could still probably function jointly within the theatre of war, but not at specific engagements...limiting their effectiveness.

However, the problem I mentioned about sharing galaxies would still give them an advantage defensively.

If we go to random galaxies, some of these issues suddenly clear up.

RIGHT. My suggestions where based on a random universe. But lets face it, no matter what measures are implemented alliances will exploit them. The only way we can all have a good round is if alliances agree to some ground rules, namely no blocking in such a manner to create overwhelming numbers. Limiting alliance total to 130 or so members. Allying/Naping 1 alliance I have no problem with, to a certain extent. ie NoS+Auld is not a too bad of a block, or even WP+Ely, although that block is fairly powerful and on the border line.

If the Creators want to restrict alliances and blocking capabilities, the only option they have, from the general impression I am getting from reading this thread, is that they will do it in such a manner that they will hinder the new players that are joining and the smaller alliances. So far, except for Cochese idea, all other suggestions are cumbersom and will not benefit smaller alliances and new players, while bigger and more expierienced alliances will still be able to function but not as before. (and still dominate?)

[Cochese]

I'm pushing for a random round, or the most I'd concede is a 50-50 galaxy set up, with 5 friends and 5 randoms...private galaxies are simply not conducive to expanding the playerbase.

I'd still like to see a 'senate' or some "gentlemans' agreement" whereas we can all, as players and alliances, take some responsibility for the game upon ourselves...in concernt with the addition of useable, non-exploitable (aka: decent) features, it's quite possible for the first time in PA history I think.

[Gerbie]

I read it all so I think that entitles me to make a pretty long reply.

I have a lot of comments, opinions and idea's I would like to share. (I made notes.)

1. First of all i agree that since it is unknown to what the other changes to the game will be (and there will be a lot of changes and very significant) it is very hard to anticipate the effect of such a change. All we can do is signalize possible threaths to the game since we don't see the whole picture. If another cure is found to prevent stagnation, then perhaps most remarks are simply useless.

2. A formula for traveltime calculation could be: TT=5+dC/#C*TC+dP/#P
with:
dC/dP difference between the clusters/Parallels
#C/#P total amount of clusters/parallels
TC travel constant, for instance 10 ticks, allows a maximum travel time of 25 ticks from one end of the universe to the other
with a globe shaped universe the TCmax would be 15 ticks.

3. I would also like an extra long distance eta reduction for random players in order to promote random play.

4. This might work against farming, since there is little use to farm a planet which will keep your fleet slot occupied for 1,5 day. I also like the idea of making long distance scans more difficult. Since scan planets normally have plenty of amps, the cost per scan should increase, for instance by making such scans cost more amps or additional resources.

5. Technological research should allow reduction of the TC. This means that locations will play a major role in the beginning, but since they can ruin your round after local powers have been established, a reduction of the long distance eta difference later in the game could bring back more opportunities for the defeated gals.

6. It seems like this will lead to a lot of self exiles of people hoping to end up in a part of the universe where they will not receive daily incomming. Blocks can obtain local dominance. Ruïning the game for local "hostile" gals. A galaxy exile option might seem like a nice feeture, so you still can play with your friends (if there will be priv gals). Other wise the smaller gals will be treated as farms. The entire idea is an extension of the p/c idea.

7. Then there is that choice between the dC+dP kind of formula or a phytagoras style formula. When thinking of this i realize that if you have too few planets around you keep bashing the same planets all the time (or get bashed by them). That's not the way to go. A pythagoras style formula seems to allow more planets within a short distance than the other formula, so i prefer that one.

8. Overburn could add something to reduce the severety of the local stagnations that can be expected with this kind of noncence. Stagnations will happen a lot more and sooner then before, though they will now be localized. No invisible attack OB, just reduced eta for def and attack, though no more than a % of the additional TT, given by the distance and at great E and/or ship cost.

9. I like the idea of setting travel time by the score difference of gals or planets. That would allow VVOMM to raid the **** out of WEET in the current round and would have prevented stagnation. Every alliance would love to take in noobs with low score, because they have low eta. And attacking someone a lot smaller is a lot more dangerous and inefficient that way (fleet out for a longer time), making the game a lot more exiting and ending/reducing exponential player growth. This would give fun game dynamics.

10. Local domination of 1 gal or group of gals normally leaves more gals suffering and being roided than that profit from it.

11. The number of planets at the lowest eta should be as high as possible if no other measures are taken to precent powerblocking and noob bashing.

12. I love the idea of organising clusters in levels, arranged by rank. Let the so called l33t players sit together in their own cluster and stagnate their own private fun, while the noobs have fun on their own.

13. By using the travelling system as proposed the effective universe size to a player will only be smaller. That is the opposite of what should be achieved.

14. The maximum travelling time should be below eta 12 or the game will be too boring. Eta cost can ofcourse increase enormously. It is well known that 1 or 2 ticks eta difference can make huge differences. A xan fleet attacking at eta 12 at the end of the round is suicide.

15. I want more questions to the players about the next round.

[RexDrax]

Originally posted by Cochese
I'm pushing for a random round, or the most I'd concede is a 50-50 galaxy set up, with 5 friends and 5 randoms...private galaxies are simply not conducive to expanding the playerbase.

I'd still like to see a 'senate' or some "gentlemans' agreement" whereas we can all, as players and alliances, take some responsibility for the game upon ourselves...in concernt with the addition of useable, non-exploitable (aka: decent) features, it's quite possible for the first time in PA history I think.

TOTALLY agree. The game has evolved to the extend that its not the Creators that are in charge anymore, but the HC's of alliances. Specifically of the big name alliances. They/You are the ones that will have to safe PA and ensure its continuation, if not then do not complain/whine about the current situation.

[Morden]

if the alliance feature is hardcoded into the game properly and done well, the senate could proove an interresting way of stopping blocking,

so that if one group were dominating by staying together they could be sanctioned, this would give them a lot more incentive to split and would balance the game again.

i.e alliances a,b,c are all allied and working together and totally dominating, so the senate votes on sanctions for them and they end up losing 25% of there total income until they end there relationship with there allies.

could be interresting and perhaps add a bit more depth to alliance politics.

[Gerbie]

Or the senate is controled by one single powerblock, lets say it's called NaRSWEETFZ and they decide to ban the other alliances.

[Morden]

Originally posted by Gerbie
Or the senate is controled by one single powerblock, lets say it's called NaRSWEETFZ and they decide to ban the other alliances.

how would they do that while spinner and the select few form up the "advisory board" to moderate things so they cannot be dominated by a block...........

[HOPupNdown]

probably the worst idea ive ever had the pleasure to read ..
no one will play this game to wait 24 hour before his fleets are
back home from an attack or defense . 8 hours in more then
enough already , increase fleet travel time and people will
get bored waiting for some action .

another private round , even partialy private wont help either ,
there will always be 2 sides to the war in a private round
and stagnation .. boredom .. leaving players .

if this is your mighty brilliant plans for r10 , anyone
pm me a link to other decent games around ?

[§pa¢e¢ook¦e]

you could make it like a circular uni and get it to shift every hour/4/8/12/16/24 or somothing similar (randomly ofc) so it wont be predictable where you end up, it may help the smallerguys (n00bs/whateveryouwannacallehm) wont get hit by the same galaxy each day and that it gets boring, your coords would stay the same but there would be a 3rd # that would be randomised each x/xx hour (for exampl 1:1:3:x) where x is your planet nr ofc and 3 the changing coord every x(x)tick so it wont be predictable where you end up the comming ticks in the 3rd nr and that # would give you an eta advantage so if you would planning to put in longer traveltimes you could maximise it to 12ticks whereas if your in the same as the 3rd coord you would have an advantage besides i would go for higher fuel costs wouldnt be to bad either, the bigger the distance the more eo it costs, you could do a lower attack eta and make it a bit lowerthru jumpgate etc altho that would cost you a great amount of resources and the cost increase dependant on your score/fleet and distance ofc meaning paras/cluster would have advantage but still would be costly the further you go.

edit : the tag alliance system would be a nice implemention too, when you sign up you have to choose an alliance if available (with only HC of that alliance that can accept you and view the member count as coords) otherwise you select none and itll give you space for lets say 150 friends about the same as alliance etc, with attack your not able to attack a planet when some1 with other tag is allready attacking that planet untill its gone, like secretspacegame or similar 'pa-clones' where i saw this feature, except this planet will only be able to be attacked by a certain tag at that moment this could be missused but could be changed so that it would be beneficial for both.


heh to the one who said make attack fleet visible when eta2 incomming from your planet, what you mean with encouraging bash fleets

ps spinner your sew sexeh with that dress ;p

[Event_Horizon]

Spinner is there anyway that Jolt could still finanacially make it, if you guys allowd randoms to be free and just charged ppl to be in priv gals?

Honestly, this is the only way that I see pa surviving for the long run. There must be some aspect of it that allows free play.

The more ppl that are in the universe the better the game is period. That is the number one thing that makes it fun, more ppl. The only way to do this (realisticly sp?) is to offer a free aspect to the game. If its possible plz consider allowing randoms to be free. That would help promote random play, and you would still get moeny from the ppl that choose to go priv.

[AlbinoSquirrel]

I haven't read the entire thread (cba), but two things immediately spring to mind: the linear scaling of the traveltime (even if capped, anything over 8 hours is usually cake to defend) and the "edges" of the universe.

I'd suggest the following. Instead of the standard X:Y galaxy, add a third coordinate - in effect, make the universe 3D. Planets will have four coordinates, galaxies three. Then, of course, make it wraparound in all three dimensions - 1 adjacent to 50 (if 50 is highest), etc.

The benefits would be that the universe would be far more compressed, which would greatly benefit the traveltime problem. Galaxies would also have 6 immediately adjacent neighbors (2 X, 2 Y, 2 Z) and then 8 more that are close as well. Another idea to add would be a non-linear function that scales traveltime, instead of a direct 1:1 ratio, but that wouldn't be terribly necessary.

The disadvantages would include the extra code, some more complex coding to determine distance between two galaxies (hello Pythagoras), a bit more database space. The major problem would be any sort of graphic display, and then getting the users to wrap their head around the third dimension.

[Spinner]

First of all, many thanks for the feedback. It was pretty much exactly what I wanted, and about as concise and presise as I could expect when I just throw out one little piece of the puzle like this.
(Thats was not meant as irony or offense)

I also understand that people took my example way to litterately, and actually belived 30 + hours traveltime was a working example. Wether the max cap on traveltime is 8, 10, or 16 ticks, its the general idea to bring back local wars and regional fights, like the old cluster wars.

The old cluster wars contained a lot of the fun missing from PA today, when alliances are pretty much decided long before the round starts, and by having enough info on how many is in each alliance and how the relations are between them, you can pretty much know the outcome of the round from Signup day.

Surely I agree that the alliances, or those who control them, must take much of the responsibility for how the game has developed, and how they prefer winning over fun and challenges every day. I am not saying its wrong ofc, its a game, but that sword cuts both ways, it IS JUST a game (-:

"Bring in new people" they shouted. We have done so. Why do you think they have gone away? Exactly, relentless roiding and bashing from planets they can never hope to be a threat against.
The game isnt fun when you dont have a chance.
I am going to try to take back a lot of the control of the game development that the alliances have grasped over the past X rounds. Yes it will hurt, yes people will react, yes people will quit and shout the usual Spinner-words. But if anyone out here thinks that the game has a future without drastic changes, they should wake up. The changes from round to round have been small, and the problem with blocking is getting ever worse.

Dont get me wrong, I never wanted to hurt or kill the alliances, I have no intention of killing what tries to pay my bills and what I consider my "baby". But it IS out of control, and something needs doing.

Some people mentioned the old idea of limiting defense to Alliance members and Galaxy members, and this was my other option in the question to try to limit the capabilities and impacts of big alliances blocking. I have spent a lot of time considering this, and was quite prepared to do this for round 10.
But through carefull thinking, I thought the dynamic traveltime would have a better effect.
And its not complicated at all, if you consider the view from new players. You punch in a coord, and you see the traveltime right in front of you. And launch if you want to. It is definatly not more complicated than trying to survive while being in the cluster or parallell with i.e. XXXXX <---Insert big alliance name if you wish, and much less frustrating.

But there are other ways. And you will see a lot of them.
As for the travel time change, I have not made up my mind about it yet, I only know that it certainly requires some more thinking and debate.

The private / randoms questions is also a fairly hot topic, and I look at it like this:
Either round 10 is random, or round 10 makes sure every galaxy has a decent mix of private and random people, i.e. the suggested 5+5 version.

But trying to prevent blocking can be done in many other ways.
Even tweaking, such a small number as the %-limit of your score you can hit, helps. It doesnt help the block of course, as they run out of targets, but that would be the desired effect here, to let them block until they are bored, run out of targets, and let the rest of the universe have fun at least (-: (ok, a bit over the top perhaps, but you know what I mean)

Its going to be some heavy thinking this weekend, and I have a meeting scheduled with "the selected few" who will assist me with these issues. I am glad to see we consist of people from both ends of the argument

But, as I started, thank you for your feedback, both the positive and the negative. Not everyone can be made happy, but I will do my best to improve the game in the best way.

Spinner

PS: I apologise for posting this here and not in the Questions to the Players forum, I stand corrected and will be back in the RIGHT forum next week.

[(°>]

All for the coords sytem of travel time.
Worked on this for another game concept.
One additional thing you might like is the ability to base your fleets at allied planets.
Once at the allied planet your fleet can launch with the shorter local eta.
Maybe even usuing eonium from the host allied planet.

PS Wish I had taken notice of this earlier but I avoid AD like I avoid Roleplaying

[Spoticus]

On the topic of changing the % for who you can attack. Something will probably done to the ships to make this irrelevant bat a xand style race relies on bashing to score roids. Late round it is impossible to roid any1 decent unless they run because your losses are too high. So what i am getting @ is changing the attack size limit hinders a fleet of high damage low armour while helping emp most as they can usually roid ppl larger than them on paper atleast.

[Cochese]

Originally posted by Spoticus
On the topic of changing the % for who you can attack. Something will probably done to the ships to make this irrelevant bat a xand style race relies on bashing to score roids. Late round it is impossible to roid any1 decent unless they run because your losses are too high. So what i am getting @ is changing the attack size limit hinders a fleet of high damage low armour while helping emp most as they can usually roid ppl larger than them on paper atleast.

Expect the combat/ships to be completely different, so this situation doesn't apply.

(you didn't hear this from me):eek:

[berten]

Spinner,
when u gonna come up with summit decent??
This will certainly be the end of pa, i wouldn't play as i couldn't play with my M8s, which is the main thing i'm still playing this game, secondly attacking would like take 2 days :s which is even more ****ed up :s.
U say this will be in the benefit of new guys, well i must disagree, if start to play a game and wanna find out whot attacking is about i don't wanna wait 20 ish hours or summit for that

Bad idea, throw int he trash can

[Spinner]

Originally posted by berten
Spinner,
when u gonna come up with summit decent??
This will certainly be the end of pa, i wouldn't play as i couldn't play with my M8s, which is the main thing i'm still playing this game, secondly attacking would like take 2 days :s which is even more ****ed up :s.
U say this will be in the benefit of new guys, well i must disagree, if start to play a game and wanna find out whot attacking is about i don't wanna wait 20 ish hours or summit for that

Bad idea, throw int he trash can

You dont understand this do you?
You see, in such a universe, you wouldnt just have people at ETA 20, You would have them at ETA 6 too

[WipeOut]

If you increase traveltime, do you consequently increase the length of a round?

I think, like BD said, you are neglecting the fact that many loyal pa players currently play for their friends, and alliances. By creating a disadvantage for alliance memberbases, you do create a more dynamic playerbase, and yes, you might even have new players educated by older ones, but what do you do when none of the older ones are left because you took their reason to play?

[Tuz]

lol what an idea lol
I really doubt it will work/change anything....:e_chick:

[Spinner]

The point isnt to simply increase the traveltime, it would be to make it more dynamic, with shorter traveltime to nearby systems and longer to more distant systems.
Today, there are only 3 ETA's so to speak, no matter where you are going in the universe, and this would simply create a smoother transition, which would increase the traveltime only to the distant parts of the universe.

It is a levelling factor in terms of balance, and it is realistic.
However, it also seems it is unpopular, as many people refuse to step down from the pre-made alliances and pre-determined outcome. Some want the same kind of security as they have had for the last rounds, and some doesnt think security is that important.

I have stated earlier that the biggest challenge before round 10 will be to explain to the players and the community that the game will alter to the point where it wil no longer be played the same way. And that might be true. It is very different in some ways, there are quite a few new things going in that has never been there before, and the game logic is being remade from scratch.
But I am throwing all my energy into making it a beter game, a "next generation" game, richer in content and richer in features, with a richer gameplay and more fun. Wether it will be "Planetarion", well, that remains to be seen

But for sure, the game will have to take better care of the not-so-good players to keep them with us long enough to be trained properly, and it will have to include some limits as to how much blocking is possible. And its not to "punish" the good veterans we have, it is simply to make the game more enjoyable, more challenging and more fun. AND, more financially viable, as we need any new player we can get both in terms of money AND the new blood and addition he or she will make to the community.

I hope both alliances and veterans will at least try to help out with the same goals and be constructive in the next month.