[Discuss] An Ingame Alliance War feature

[Banned]

1. To declare war, you must have ingame HC consensus (majority).
2. To declare war, you must have had at least 20-40 hostile fleets (not too much, but clear hostile intent) from the target launched against your ingame alliance within the last 72 ticks (timeframe adjustable).
3. Alternatively your own alliance must have launched at least 100-200 hostile fleets (enough that you need more than one guy recall/resending all day) in the last 72 hours to declare war*.
4. Constraint b. is waived for declaring war on any alliance that is already at war with your alliance.
5. When you declare war, your enemy is immediately notified ingame.
6. Upon declaring war the following advantages are gained:
   • Roid cap rate is increased by 5% (linear, so the current 25% would be increased to 30%).
   • Structure killing cap is increased by 10% (this assumes the normal cap is reduced to say, 15%).
   • Any planet in the hostile alliance is fair game, there is no bash limit for enemies.
7. An alliance may only declare war on one other alliance at a time.
8. HC consensus is once again requried to end hostilities.
9. You may not end a state of war until at least 72 ticks after it has begun. All advantages of being at war are immediately lost. Fleets already in flight are, naturally, untouched.
10. After ending a state of war, an alliance must wait 24-48 ticks to declare war again.
11. If at any time after the first 72 ticks of war the number of hostiles per tick over the last 72 ticks falls under 10 per 72 ticks the state of war is relaxed (ended).
12. If at any time after the first 72 ticks of war the number of hostiles the declaring alliance has sent against the targeted alliance falls under 20 per 72 ticks the state of war is relaxed (ended).

The idea here is to allow alliances to 'step it up a notch' when fighting eachother. The launch requirements are to require a bit of intel and balance things a bit.

You could even add a state of friendliness that allows you to declare war on someone who declares on an ally.

* I'm not entirely sure about this one, I suspect it's too easy to use it for bashing in cases like this.

[jerome]

If an alliance declares war etc, then the biggest value-wise planet o the alliance declaring war could -potentially- find a LOT of enemy coords by attacking most of 'sensible' planets below his bash level to see if he can actually launch on them, etc.

[fizzyxl]

this ties in with my thread on official declarations

http://pirate.planetarion.com/showthread.php?t=182744

[Banned]

Originally Posted by fizzyxl

this ties in with my thread on official declarations

http://pirate.planetarion.com/showthread.php?t=182744

No it doesn't. Your idea is ****ing awful. A freebie way of getting an alliance coord list is not the same as a system for alliance war.

[arbondigo]

That's a nice idea Banned. ryzekiel, i see what you mean by that. I was going to say would the score limit thing still apply, but if at war keeping that in force would be a bit stupid. Usually most co-ords of enemies are known early on in the game, so it might not be that big a problem (at least for the bigger alliances). Smaller alliances could suffer, but then again how many would've thought to do that in the first place?

And fizzyxl your idea was crap.

[furball]

It's a good idea, but I'm not sure if it's Planetarion. Then again, enough other things have changed....

I'm not sure about some of your numbers re: fleets, perhaps it should be proportional to the number of members?

This sort of suggestion needs alliance consensus as well, rather than it being forced on them.

[mist]

i disagree with an alliance being able to start a war with someone by launching a load of fleets at them, as this could be used unfairly. that asside, seems a good idea

stating which alliances were at war with whom on the alliances page would also be pretty cool.

-mist

[Banned]

Originally Posted by _ryzekiel_

If an alliance declares war etc, then the biggest value-wise planet o the alliance declaring war could -potentially- find a LOT of enemy coords by attacking most of 'sensible' planets below his bash level to see if he can actually launch on them, etc.

Considering the cost of going to war (~100 ticks in which you can't go to war with someone else) , targeting an alliance with a substantial number of small planets to get their coord list isn't all that economic. Plus they can immediately tag you back, giving them an advantage.

Originally Posted by arbondigo

That's a nice idea Banned.

Thank you.

ryzekiel, i see what you mean by that. I was going to say would the score limit thing still apply, but if at war keeping that in force would be a bit stupid. Usually most co-ords of enemies are known early on in the game, so it might not be that big a problem (at least for the bigger alliances).

Seeing as going to war with someone whose coords you don't actually know is pretty silly, I don't really see the problem.

Originally Posted by Nonentity

It's a good idea, but I'm not sure if it's Planetarion. Then again, enough other things have changed....

What's 'not Planetarion' about it?

I'm not sure about some of your numbers re: fleets, perhaps it should be proportional to the number of members?

That is a point. I just pulled my numbers out of a hat really, so I'm not all that attached to them.

This sort of suggestion needs alliance consensus as well, rather than it being forced on them.

I'm not so sure alliances should have any sort of veto right over any feature at all, ever.

Originally Posted by mist

i disagree with an alliance being able to start a war with someone by launching a load of fleets at them, as this could be used unfairly. that asside, seems a good idea

Really, you could use a mole to start wars as well. That said I have severe doubts that launching for war is viable.

stating which alliances were at war with whom on the alliances page would also be pretty cool.

That'd be ace.

[The Real Arfy]

[quote=mist]stating which alliances were at war with whom on the alliances page would also be pretty cool.

Easy way for bigger (maybe smaller) alliances to come in and take easy roids?

[Envious]

Originally Posted by Banned

[list=a][*]Upon declaring war the following advantages are gained:

• Roid cap rate is increased by 5% (linear, so the current 25% would be increased to 30%).
• Structure killing cap is increased by 10% (this assumes the normal cap is reduced to say, 15%).
• Any planet in the hostile alliance is fair game, there is no bash limit for enemies.

[*]An alliance may only declare war on one other alliance at a time.

Do these advantages automatically apply to the alliance that has been declared war against? Or do they need to declare war back to the agressor? Because then 3 alliances A,B,C could declare war on D, all get the bonus, but D can only hit one of them back.

[Banned]

Originally Posted by Envious

Do these advantages automatically apply to the alliance that has been declared war against? Or do they need to declare war back to the agressor?

The latter.

Because then 3 alliances A,B,C could declare war on D, all get the bonus, but D can only hit one of them back.

If D is alone they're better off just hitting one alliance. I think it would be unbalanced to let one alliance get the bonus on several at once.

Consider, for example, a mounted resistance against alliance D, who have 95 members and are in a dominating position. If a substantially smaller alliance than D starts attacking it aggressively, D should have the option of retaliating. If 3 substantially smaller alliances start attacking D, should D, which can easily defend with a lower number of fleets and easily out-values all three one-on-one, have the option of bashing them all? I think D should be forced to make a choice. To prioritize.

[Kal]

also under rule b it would be quite hard for an allaince to hit enough different alliances hard enough in order to get all of them hitting them back with declared wars

[The Real Arfy]

[quote=mist]stating which alliances were at war with whom on the alliances page would also be pretty cool.

Easy way for bigger (maybe smaller) alliances to come in and take easy roids?

[Banned]

Originally Posted by Kal

also under rule b it would be quite hard for an allaince to hit enough different alliances hard enough in order to get all of them hitting them back with declared wars

Yes.

In fact, I think point c. is pretty crap. It was added as an afterthought on how to prevent organized alliances from solely targeting one alliance at a time to prevent big incoming. But really, people aren't going to only attack if they're at war. Nor is it a bad thing for alliances to keep targeting on one alliance.

As a clarification to i. I only meant that fleets don't get retroactively recalled due to bashlimit restrictions. Not that fleets already in flight keep all war bonuses when landing.

[Gerbie]

Since the entire universe fears my alliance, I'm bound to get declared war on by at least half the universe and can only declare war on 1 myself (or maybe it was another alliance they feared...). Having half the universe declare war on you sucks.

[Kal]

Originally Posted by Gerbie

Since the entire universe fears my alliance, I'm bound to get declared war on by at least half the universe and can only declare war on 1 myself (or maybe it was another alliance they feared...). Having half the universe declare war on you sucks.

read the last 2 posts and rule b

[Banned]

Originally Posted by Gerbie

Since the entire universe fears my alliance, I'm bound to get declared war on by at least half the universe and can only declare war on 1 myself (or maybe it was another alliance they feared...). Having half the universe declare war on you sucks.

See point b. Optionally 'learn how to read'.

[Gerbie]

In that case it just sucks.

[mist]

it sucks, but you don't have a reason why it sucks. great argument if ever i heard one.

as for people taking the opertunity to attack if it's shown on the alliane page. any alliance large enough to pose a problem doing this will have enough intelligence to know who's at war with who anyway. the point was for the unaligned players, or those in smaller alliances, to be able to see what's going on so that they feel more involved with the game.

[Gerbie]

rule g.
There is no ranking in those rules. If rules contradict then what happens?
This is a complex set of rules: it is impossible for me to grasp the effect of this set of rules especially when it is quite arbitrary how to apply them.

It sucks.

[mist]

which rules contradict?

why do you disagreewith rule g? it seemed fairly much of a none issue to me, as an alliance should be 'finishing' one war before starting another really anyway.

[Banned]

Originally Posted by Gerbie

rule g.

An alliance may only actively declare war on one alliance at a time. What of it?

There is no ranking in those rules. If rules contradict then what happens?

It's stated clearly when one rule overrides another.

This is a complex set of rules: it is impossible for me to grasp the effect of this set of rules especially when it is quite arbitrary how to apply them.

It's not that complex, it's laid out in a reasonably simple, somewhat chronoligical order. 12 points isn't too much ask people to understand in my opinion.

Let's go over them again (this time with c excluded).

1. To declare war, you must have ingame HC consensus (majority). This places you in a state of war. It does not place the target in a state of war.
2. To declare war, you must have had at least 20-40 hostile fleets (not too much, but clear hostile intent) from the target launched against your ingame alliance within the last 72 ticks (timeframe adjustable).
3. Constraint b. is waived for declaring war on any alliance that is already at war with your alliance.
4. You may not declare war while already in a state of war.
5. War may not be declared if you left a state of war under 24-48 ticks ago (not sure what the exact number should be).

These are the points deciding when you can declare war.

• When you declare war, your enemy is immediately notified ingame.

This is trivial, really.

• Upon declaring war the following advantages are gained:
  • Roid cap rate is increased by 5% (linear, so the current 25% would be increased to 30%).
  • Structure killing cap is increased by 10% (this assumes the normal cap is reduced to say, 15%).
  • Any planet in the hostile alliance is fair game, there is no bash limit for enemies.

None of these numbers are set in stone or anything. The last one is the only one I'm in doubt about. I think it may be better if it just drops the bash limit, but I figured I'd start at the extreme and let someone else rein me in if it's a bad idea. So I'm going to keep my suggestion at 'no bash limit' for the time being.

1. You may not end a state of war until at least 72 ticks after it has begun. All advantages of being at war are immediately lost.
2. At any time after the first 72 ticks of war, an HC consensus can decide to stand down (end the state of war).
3. If at any time after the first 72 ticks of war the number of hostiles per tick over the last 72 ticks falls under 10 per 72 ticks the state of war is relaxed (ended).
4. If at any time after the first 72 ticks of war the number of hostiles the declaring alliance has sent against the targeted alliance falls under 20 per 72 ticks the state of war is relaxed (ended).

Here are three ways that a war can end and the one restraint. This text no longer has any contradictions.

[Conall]

Hmm Ok
Alliance A attacks D (an alliance 1/3 their value) D retals over the next 24 hours. 24 Hours later B attacks D (an alliance half their value) again D retalls. SO now 24 hours latter A and B declare war and get bonuses plus no bash limit on D regardless if D declares ware in return or not. On top of that D can only declare war on one of the 2 alliances attacking them. So now D can be bashed into oblivion by A & B (both much larger than D) for as long as they desire to launch fleets.

Sounds great!!!

[DukePaul]

And as I mentioned in the "fuel cost" thread, this makes life for scanners harder. In war-mode, any planet one side can attack any planet on the other - no bash limit. Then throw in extra structure destruction %, and scanners will be the least desired job in an alliance - so easy to kill that no one wants the job.

As you at the same time has planets with lots of distorters, and no alliance able to have scanners with enough amps (given that war-mode is frequently used), and distorters will be everyone's best friend - no one likes to attack in the blind.

A solution would not to have scanners under the tag, I guess... Some alliances don't, but personally I prefer to have them there.

[Banned]

Originally Posted by Conall

Hmm Ok
Alliance A attacks D (an alliance 1/3 their value) D retals over the next 24 hours. 24 Hours later B attacks D (an alliance half their value) again D retalls. SO now 24 hours latter A and B declare war and get bonuses plus no bash limit on D regardless if D declares ware in return or not. On top of that D can only declare war on one of the 2 alliances attacking them. So now D can be bashed into oblivion by A & B (both much larger than D) for as long as they desire to launch fleets.

Sounds great!!!

But why? If A and B want to bash D, fine, but C and E are going to pull away by hitting larger alliances...

[Banned]

Originally Posted by DukePaul

And as I mentioned in the "fuel cost" thread, this makes life for scanners harder. In war-mode, any planet one side can attack any planet on the other - no bash limit. Then throw in extra structure destruction %, and scanners will be the least desired job in an alliance - so easy to kill that no one wants the job.

I don't really see the problem here. If alliances want to expend their resources on strategic targets rather than getting roids, that's up to them. From a scanner's point of view it looks awful, from an alliance's point of view it's a question of prioritizing. And if the scanner's in the alliance tag, he can get defense.

[Conall]

Originally Posted by Banned

But why? If A and B want to bash D, fine, but C and E are going to pull away by hitting larger alliances...

Well, if bashing is fine then just remove the limits altogether. But now I am with Gerbie - the idea is crap, but I'll state why.

1. Encourages bashing - removes limits and allows larger players to hit much smaller ones
2. Encourages blocking - alliances ban together to hit another one so no alliance goes over the limit so they don't get war declared on them
3. Discourages smaller alliances attacking larger ones - they would be afraid of the larger alliances being free to bash them into nothing
4. Insulates larger alliances - since larger alliances often share galaxies smaller alliances will avoid hitting a galaxy with alliance A because they will also have to hit B and risk war that would get them based into nothing
5. Puts smaller alliances at extreme disadvantage due to poor intel - small alliances with poorer intel will risk getting into wars they do not mean too nor can they win because they don't know who they are hitting.
6. Its unbalanced - two alliances can declare war on 1 alliance but the lone alliance can't declare war on both. Major abuse possibilities.
7. Its unbalanced - 2 blocked planets can effectively destroy one alliance in another block then turn their focus on the 2nd later.
8. If you make it so that "friendly" alliance can join in the war - it opens major abuse possibilities
9. It creates a no win situation for smaller alliances - while a larger alliance can attack as much as they wish on the smaller one, the smaller one may be forced to not retal to keep from going to war or to go to war to get pounded into nothing

Do I really need to go on................................

[Banned]

Originally Posted by Conall

Well, if bashing is fine then just remove the limits altogether. But now I am with Gerbie - the idea is crap, but I'll state why.

Bashing isn't fine. If

1. Encourages bashing - removes limits and allows larger players to hit much smaller ones

It doesn't. It removes the limits under certain, restricted circumstances. Like I said, I'm not sure they should be removed, but I believe they should at the very least be lowered. I'm not convinced by your arguments; you've just presented a speculative situation and stated that this makes it broken. I've argued that your situation is not benificial to either bashing alliance. In addition to that I'd like to state that alliance D could after being hit by A could immediately go to war and give alliance A a proper headache, convincing alliance B that they might as well go elsewhere.

2. Encourages blocking - alliances ban together to hit another one so no alliance goes over the limit so they don't get war declared on them

That's pretty clever. However, the limit is pretty low at the moment, could they really avoid launching 20 fleets over 72 hours? At the moment an alliance launches 50-200 attack fleets a night, they're hardly 'blocking' if they're using under a third of their attack force to hit the same alliance as someone else.

3. Discourages smaller alliances attacking larger ones - they would be afraid of the larger alliances being free to bash them into nothing

Or they could check the alliance page to see when an alliance goes to war: 24 hour freebie period while your attacks aren't counted! (because of the restrictions on relaxing the state of war and redeclaring).

4. Insulates larger alliances - since larger alliances often share galaxies smaller alliances will avoid hitting a galaxy with alliance A because they will also have to hit B and risk war that would get them based into nothing

I doubt that, I suspect that alliance HC see further than some random incoming. I suspect that an extra 5% roidcap will be more worthwhile than being able to attack some alliance that has trouble making a dent on one's own alliance.

5. Puts smaller alliances at extreme disadvantage due to poor intel - small alliances with poorer intel will risk getting into wars they do not mean too nor can they win because they don't know who they are hitting.

They can't log their incoming like everyone else?

6. Its unbalanced - two alliances can declare war on 1 alliance but the lone alliance can't declare war on both. Major abuse possibilities.

But only if the 1 alliance attacks both. It's balanced because they can affect who can do this to them. Not only that, but it's balanced because it gives smaller alliances a chance to gang up on people bashing them.

8. If you make it so that "friendly" alliance can join in the war - it opens major abuse possibilities

You're right, that's probably a bad idea. Then again, it balances out a lot of what you've been saying about two people ganging up on one... Make up your mind, will you?

9. It creates a no win situation for smaller alliances - while a larger alliance can attack as much as they wish on the smaller one, the smaller one may be forced to not retal to keep from going to war or to go to war to get pounded into nothing

Basically it seems like your only real problems with are two limitations: that an alliance can only be at war with one alliance a time and that the bash limit is removed. Neither of these are key factors in the suggestions.

For example, would you consider this a viable suggestion if one ammended it in the folowing ways:

Bash limit is lowered to 25% rather than removed.

An alliance is normally only allowed to go to war with one alliance, but it is always allowed to reply to a declaration of war with one of its own.

Do I really need to go on................................

Yes, please do.

This leaves only point 7, that a block can pound one alliance while ignoring other enemies. This is already done. The only real difference would be that any alliance that joined in on the gang-bang would be at risk of being warred on by the alliance they're hitting. Not only that, but so long as they're commited to staying that way, the allies of the bashed alliance can hit away.

[mist]

being realistic. if an alliance feels the need to have a fight with someone 3* its size then they're already in trouble. firstly, the odds of them ever getting through are fairly near 0 as they're obviously outclassed and secondly the alliance they're attacking obviously has members small enough to hit them anyway so will still be launching on them. the big players more than likely would rather attack someone with decent roids. the only reason for the removal of the bash limit is to enable tactical strikes against scanners and covert oppers, i can't see people actually *wanting* to attack targets with no roids

[arbondigo]

Originally Posted by Conall

Well, if bashing is fine then just remove the limits altogether. But now I am with Gerbie - the idea is crap, but I'll state why.

1. Encourages bashing - removes limits and allows larger players to hit much smaller ones

When at war, this happens. Live with it.

Originally Posted by Conall

2. Encourages blocking - alliances ban together to hit another one so no alliance goes over the limit so they don't get war declared on them

Yeh this could happen, fair point. It can be easily countered though if blocking does occur. The side who band together against one alliance could find themselves at a huge disadvantage when other alliances decide to pick them off...

Originally Posted by Conall

3. Discourages smaller alliances attacking larger ones - they would be afraid of the larger alliances being free to bash them into nothing

Then don't piss them off basically.

Originally Posted by Conall

4. Insulates larger alliances - since larger alliances often share galaxies smaller alliances will avoid hitting a galaxy with alliance A because they will also have to hit B and risk war that would get them based into nothing

The smaller alliances should be concentrating on alliance their own size anyway. This shouldn't be an issue.

Originally Posted by Conall

5. Puts smaller alliances at extreme disadvantage due to poor intel - small alliances with poorer intel will risk getting into wars they do not mean too nor can they win because they don't know who they are hitting.

It's fairly obvious who the bigger alliances are and which planets belong to a big alliance from a reasonably early stage in the game. It's common sense. You don't hit someone who's twice your size in real life, why do it in PA and don't expect any repercussions in the long run. It's all good and well looking after the smaller players, but if the smaller players attack the bigger ones first then i think that the player who they attacked should be allowed to strike back.

Originally Posted by Conall

6. Its unbalanced - two alliances can declare war on 1 alliance but the lone alliance can't declare war on both. Major abuse possibilities.

See your blocking point.

Originally Posted by Conall

7. Its unbalanced - 2 blocked planets can effectively destroy one alliance in another block then turn their focus on the 2nd later.

See your blocking point

Originally Posted by Conall

8. If you make it so that "friendly" alliance can join in the war - it opens major abuse possibilities

See your blocking point yet again.

Originally Posted by Conall

9. It creates a no win situation for smaller alliances - while a larger alliance can attack as much as they wish on the smaller one, the smaller one may be forced to not retal to keep from going to war or to go to war to get pounded into nothing

Conall do you honestly believe that a big alliance will go to war with a small alliance??? No is the correct answer. I mean taking last round as an example, would 1up have gone to war with SiN? No. They had bigger fish to fry. A pretty meaningless point there Conall.

Originally Posted by Conall

Do I really need to go on................................

No really you don't. Shut up thanks

[Conall]

Originally Posted by Banned

Bashing isn't fine. If

It doesn't. It removes the limits under certain, restricted circumstances. Like I said, I'm not sure they should be removed, but I believe they should at the very least be lowered. I'm not convinced by your arguments; you've just presented a speculative situation…

Bashing is not speculative. The limitation was put in place because it occurred regularly. I don’t see why bashing needs to be reinstated. What purpose does it serve?

Originally Posted by Banned

That's pretty clever. However, the limit is pretty low at the moment, could they really avoid launching 20 fleets over 72 hours? At the moment an alliance launches 50-200 attack fleets a night, they're hardly 'blocking' if they're using under a third of their attack force to hit the same alliance as someone else.

Okay – I’ll lets say you are right, your argument just supported my point about an alliance getting themselves into a war they didn’t mean too. After all how “could they really avoid launching 20 fleet over 72 hours?” So this creates an open invitation to bashing game wide. I don’t see that as a positive.

Originally Posted by Banned

Or they could check the alliance page to see when an alliance goes to war: 24 hour freebie period while your attacks aren't counted! (because of the restrictions on relaxing the state of war and redeclaring).

And it makes it easier for a 1up and ND to go after a LCH and pound them into nothing.

Originally Posted by Banned

I doubt that, I suspect that alliance HC see further than some random incoming. I suspect that an extra 5% roidcap will be more worthwhile than being able to attack some alliance that has trouble making a dent on one's own alliance.
They can't log their incoming like everyone else?

As you stated above it would be easy to launch 20 fleets in 72 hours. So yes it is very likely to happen, after all how “could they really avoid launching 20 fleet over 72 hours?”

Originally Posted by Banned

But only if the 1 alliance attacks both. It's balanced because they can affect who can do this to them. Not only that, but it's balanced because it gives smaller alliances a chance to gang up on people bashing them.

Again how “could they really avoid launching 20 fleet over 72 hours?”

Originally Posted by Banned

You're right, that's probably a bad idea. Then again, it balances out a lot of what you've been saying about two people ganging up on one... Make up your mind, will you?

I don’t need to make up my mind, you made my point, it can’t be balanced. It’s a bad system.

Originally Posted by Banned

Basically it seems like your only real problems with are two limitations: that an alliance can only be at war with one alliance a time and that the bash limit is removed. Neither of these are key factors in the suggestions.

For example, would you consider this a viable suggestion if one ammended it in the folowing ways:

Bash limit is lowered to 25% rather than removed.

An alliance is normally only allowed to go to war with one alliance, but it is always allowed to reply to a declaration of war with one of its own.

No not really, all this suggestion does is allow legal bashing. The are limitations for a reason.

Originally Posted by Banned

This leaves only point 7, that a block can pound one alliance while ignoring other enemies. This is already done. The only real difference would be that any alliance that joined in on the gang-bang would be at risk of being warred on by the alliance they're hitting. Not only that, but so long as they're commited to staying that way, the allies of the bashed alliance can hit away.

And the other real difference is that the block could bash the other alliance out of any change of recovery, further stagnating the game.

[Conall]

[SARCASM]This post was teaming with so much intelligence it has me tingling all over[/SARCASM]

Originally Posted by arbondigo

When at war, this happens. Live with it.

In the spirit….
There are bashing, roiding and sk caps LIVE WITH IT!

Originally Posted by arbondigo

Yeh this could happen, fair point. It can be easily countered though if blocking does occur. The side who band together against one alliance could find themselves at a huge disadvantage when other alliances decide to pick them off...

Fine, that happens now, no need to change a thing.

Originally Posted by arbondigo

Then don't piss them off basically.

Ah, a healthy attitude. Note to small alliances and planets Don’t attack someone larger than yourself, you might piss them off and that would lead to you being bashed, LIVE WITH IT! Make sure you only hit players smaller than yourself, sorry if you are on the bottom, but as they say sh*t rolls down hill.

I have seen enough players leave this game, not looking forward to too many more leaving because of idiots like you.

Originally Posted by arbondigo

The smaller alliances should be concentrating on alliance their own size anyway. This shouldn't be an issue.

Yes God forbid an alliance has the balls to hit someone larger and by all means if they do let us make it easy as hell for the larger alliance to annihilate them. Besides you missed the point in two ways.
Alliances often cannot attack one alliance without hitting another one. Galaxy wide attacks always end up with other alliances being hit. That’s the point, if alliance D wants to hit alliance B in a galaxy that also contains alliance A then they run the risk of war they don’t want or need or not attacking at all. Which is true now, but now A cannot annihilate them as easy as as this proposal would make it.
Second miss; This is about alliances having the ability to bash each other. But if 6-7 top players in alliance G hits 6-7 planets of similar size in alliance A and A is much bigger than G (so Alliance G’s biggest planets are hitting planets that are in the lower 1/3 of alliance A even though they are the same size planets) – then A can now legally smash G. I have seen an entire alliance totally annihilate a planet because he attacked their HC, then wave his gal mates for defending him. If you don’t think that a large alliance would bash a small one to prove a point you are:
A: Naïve
B: Stupid
C: All of the above

I’ll vote C

Originally Posted by arbondigo

It's fairly obvious who the bigger alliances are and which planets belong to a big alliance from a reasonably early stage in the game. It's common sense. You don't hit someone who's twice your size in real life, why do it in PA and don't expect any repercussions in the long run. It's all good and well looking after the smaller players, but if the smaller players attack the bigger ones first then i think that the player who they attacked should be allowed to strike back.

It is not always obvious what alliance a planet belongs too. And again this is about Alliance collectively destroying another alliance. A planet can attack a planet of similar size, even smaller. And then be bashed into nothing by the larger alliance. So your point here is not even relevant to this discussion. Besides your is the same spinless attitude that even 1UPers agree lead to their cruise into 1st place. If everyone felt your way Sid could go ahead and retire since we should not even dare to hit his alliance.

Originally Posted by arbondigo

See your blocking point.

See your blocking point

See your blocking point yet again.

You didn’t even make sense here, make a point or as you say shut up thanks

Originally Posted by arbondigo

Conall do you honestly believe that a big alliance will go to war with a small alliance??? No is the correct answer. I mean taking last round as an example, would 1up have gone to war with SiN? No. They had bigger fish to fry. A pretty meaningless point there Conall.

Well using my example from earlier, you don’t think 1up would have gone to war with Angels or Wolfpack – There were plenty of reasons for 1up to hit them not the least of which was roids. As I said before naïve and stupid.

Originally Posted by arbondigo

No really you don't. Shut up thanks

[Kal]

Originally Posted by Conall

Okay – I’ll lets say you are right, your argument just supported my point about an alliance getting themselves into a war they didn’t mean too. After all how “could they really avoid launching 20 fleet over 72 hours?” So this creates an open invitation to bashing game wide. I don’t see that as a positive.

the point is chances are any given alliance activlt playing will get multiple war opportunities at any given times - they then have to choose which of thoose is the msot serious threat and go after them - this system gives them the tools to kill thoose who harass them - alterntivly they could choose to avoid retalling on the biggest hostile as they do not want to allow that hostile to make war back.

Also if the war statuses are shown somewhere then people can be very clever about who they secalre war on. for example a small alliance could happily turn on a big one if the big one was otherwise engaged - it would be very clever to provoke an aliance into attacking you instead of concentrating on its war as then you can make war back.

This idea is very good assuming that alliance hcs are competant - and tbh if they arn't they should stop deluding their members and step down.

having said all that i'd suggest some possible additions to this idea.

jester has designed a very robust war system, but i'd also like a robust blocking system (this is where it gets fun) - assume for a minute someone could design a way to limit block size etc well then what if we had formal blocks in the game (blocks would be displayed so all knew about them) and then the war conditions jester descibed also applied to block on block wars (with some tweaks ofc) this could lead to some very interesting events.

now just to make things even more complicated i'd like to bring into this an alliance fund and possibly a block fund. We can then have financial costs associated with going to war - theese could perhaps depend on the score ratios between alliances e.g. it coudl cost more to be able to declare war on a smaller alliance as you have to spend money to motivate your troops as they don;t like push over jobs. war costs could be recurring so it costs not only to decalre war but also to maintain war. I'd also possibly have a cost to join a block as well which should be proportional to an alliance size - e.g. if an alliance with a score of 60mil wishses to join a block it pays 60mil of each res - so blocking of small alliances is better than blocking of big alliances.

[Kal]

another thing - perhaps in war fleet costs could be reduced - http://pirate.planetarion.com/showthread.php?t=182776

[arbondigo]

Originally Posted by Conall

In the spirit….
There are bashing, roiding and sk caps LIVE WITH IT!

If you're at war with an alliance then i don't see why you can't hit all of their members. Perhaps you could introduce something that stops an alliance completely killing a smaller alliance. Say if 1up declared war on SiN, have a bash limit thing like they do now as it's clearly an uneven fight, or if SiN were the ones who declared war then there's no limit and they can be completely wiped out if 1up decided to do so.

Originally Posted by Conall

Ah, a healthy attitude. Note to small alliances and planets Don’t attack someone larger than yourself, you might piss them off and that would lead to you being bashed, LIVE WITH IT! Make sure you only hit players smaller than yourself, sorry if you are on the bottom, but as they say sh*t rolls down hill.

If you continually hit someone bigger than yourself then it's only fair that the bigger player can hit you back. Don't you think so? Say if the smaller planet hits you 5 times in the round or something. You probably won't know how annoying it is being hit by someone you can't hit back Conall as you're most likely the person doing it.

Originally Posted by Conall

I have seen enough players leave this game, not looking forward to too many more leaving because of idiots like you.

People are leaving because of the way PA is being run, please inform me how it's my fault, or ever likely to be my fault.

Originally Posted by Conall

Yes God forbid an alliance has the balls to hit someone larger and by all means if they do let us make it easy as hell for the larger alliance to annihilate them. Besides you missed the point in two ways.
Alliances often cannot attack one alliance without hitting another one. Galaxy wide attacks always end up with other alliances being hit. That’s the point, if alliance D wants to hit alliance B in a galaxy that also contains alliance A then they run the risk of war they don’t want or need or not attacking at all. Which is true now, but now A cannot annihilate them as easy as as this proposal would make it.

I think you missed the point there. It's still just as easy to hit the other alliances, you just don't get the bonus that is associated with hitting the alliance that you declared war on.

Originally Posted by Conall

Second miss; This is about alliances having the ability to bash each other. But if 6-7 top players in alliance G hits 6-7 planets of similar size in alliance A and A is much bigger than G (so Alliance G’s biggest planets are hitting planets that are in the lower 1/3 of alliance A even though they are the same size planets) – then A can now legally smash G. I have seen an entire alliance totally annihilate a planet because he attacked their HC, then wave his gal mates for defending him.

Please tell me what the point of alliance A "smashing" G in that scenario is when only 6 or 7 of the alliance members can attack them? That won't happen. That is what you're failing to notice. Do you honestly think that if 1up or LCH were hit by 6 or 7 members from WP, SiN, etc they'd declare war on them? No. They would declare war on the alliance which was an immediate threat, so last round 1up v LCH, though LCH appeared to declare war on ND, but that's another matter. The alliance might make a retal against those members attacking them, but they won't declare war on them.

Originally Posted by Conall

If you don’t think that a large alliance would bash a small one to prove a point you are:
A: Naïve
B: Stupid
C: All of the above

I’ll vote C

Depends. Most big alliances have other things to sort out first. I believe you should stop talking about yourself so much.

Originally Posted by Conall

It is not always obvious what alliance a planet belongs too. And again this is about Alliance collectively destroying another alliance. A planet can attack a planet of similar size, even smaller. And then be bashed into nothing by the larger alliance. So your point here is not even relevant to this discussion. Besides your is the same spinless attitude that even 1UPers agree lead to their cruise into 1st place. If everyone felt your way Sid could go ahead and retire since we should not even dare to hit his alliance.

It is pretty obvious from an early stage whether a planet belongs to a big alliance or not. The big alliances have enough intel to work out which alliance it belongs to, and usually his name on IRC. Spineless attitude. From the view that you're seeing it yes. But if you're number 1 in the universe then you expect number 2 to be attacking you, number 3 too. You don't expect the number 10,11,30 alliance to hit you etc. Understand? That's really common sense. Obviously, as we saw last round and indeed in previous rounds, that's not always the case. I fail to see how this affects the declaration of war proposal being put forward though. All it does is give you a bonus on roids and structure killing. Maybe it would be best to say that you can't hit an alliance that is smaller than half your size UNLESS they hit your alliance first, and/or declare war on you.

Originally Posted by Conall

Well using my example from earlier, you don’t think 1up would have gone to war with Angels or Wolfpack – There were plenty of reasons for 1up to hit them not the least of which was roids. As I said before naïve and stupid.

They had no reason to go to war with them. They were hitting the number 2 alliance to further prevent them from closing the gap on them. They were successful at it too so it seems and i'm sure they hit others too, but why would they declare war on Angels or WP when they were successful hitting LCH and other higher ranked alliances?

[myke]

This Idea would make Planetarion more realistic in a politcal and stratigic sence. Alliance would ally with each other against the opposing forces that is a good thing, but it can also be bad because if the opposing forces do the same there would be a massive war.

In a stratigic sence: That would make the game more intresting, rather than the same old "I attack you,you attack me" it would be like a real stratigic game, like finding the enemys main planet.

In a political sence: It would be very intresting to find help and work out things between alliances.

Ups: It would promote teamwork and activeness in the game.

Downs: This idea could lead to a stalemate if the war takes too long.

Summary: The idea would get more people fighting for a cause other than just roids and score,it would get more active players and improve teamwork among players.It could help other small planets or it could devastate them and theres a chance that the big alliances would be attacked until it becomes just a small alliance.

Conclusion: I dont mind trying this idea,I say give this idea a trail of 5 days, and see how things goes.

[cypher]

having read most.. (couldn't be bothered with the huge copy pasting at the end.) the idea in itself is good, with a few modifications (maybe they are there but i missed em tho)

it's basically utopia ofc we all know that.

you can always add in the rule that an alliance can't declare war on an alliance say 3 or 4 ranks below them. or use some sort of score percentage or something. but smaller alliances CAN challenge bigger ones.

if war is declared... the alliances still don't know all the planets that are in the other alliance i assume... so still not that easy to just bash.

if you do put this in you might aswell make sure an alliance can only be at war with 1 other alliance or 2 maybe, else it is too easy to kill a certain alliance.

make some sort of options to win or loose set by hc... like they can pick from choices such as loose 20% of roids of alliance and surrender or loose 5k roids (just as examples ofc, something better can be worked out easily ofc )

[DukePaul]

Except in Utopia it's between the Kingdoms (same as our gals), as the clans are not an integrated part of the game. Heh, I seem to recall teaching you how to play Utopia, ages ago.

And yes, limiting to two wars per alliance seems like a good idea.


If we want to make it even more like KD war in Utopia, we could say that each alliance has a "hostility meter" towards each other alliance. When the hostility reaches a certain level, war may be started. For exactly how to calculate hostility, an idea would be to ask Mehul (Utopia creator) how he did it, and then work on from those ideas.

Ofc, "hostility" goes both ways, so attacks on an alliance and being attack back both affects the hostility meter. Also, alliance X has the same hostilty meter towards alliance Y as Y has towards X.

It would strongly formalice alliance relations, as you can easily see who has hit you most recently, judging from the rise in hostility meters.

[Envious]

Originally Posted by DukePaul

If we want to make it even more like KD war in Utopia, we could say that each alliance has a "hostility meter" towards each other alliance. When the hostility reaches a certain level, war may be started. For exactly how to calculate hostility, an idea would be to ask Mehul (Utopia creator) how he did it, and then work on from those ideas.

Ofc that would make intel easier. You need to keep in mind in PA alliance membership is secret as opposed to gal (kingdom) membership.

[Orion Treet]

Originally Posted by Banned

The latter.

If D is alone they're better off just hitting one alliance. I think it would be unbalanced to let one alliance get the bonus on several at once.

And the other way around then? Alliance D would stand no chance against 3 alliances who all have that advantage while they'd only have it on one.

[mist]

limiting the number of wars would open up exploits wherby people found a small crappy alliance with their dog, and then use it to occupy one of the war slots

[Conall]

I am tired of arguing the point. There are so many ways that this can be abused it is crazy. The goal here is clearly to allow bashing. SO why not just lift the caps altogether, that way no ones hands can be tied because someone has "worked" the system. Then we can all have fun bashing people till PA dries up and blows away.

[Kal]

the goal is to restrict heavy combat to thoose that want to take part in it - i.e. why roid people not your enemy if u get such bonuses for attacking your enemy.

one other possibility is that perhaps if in a sate of war you get benefits for hitting the enemy but perhaps handicaps on attacking people not in the enemy alliance e.g. -5% roid cap, -5% struct kill

[lokken]

Question: is ending wars quicker (as your post would suggest) a good thing?

I suggest no.

[Banned]

Originally Posted by lokken

Question: is ending wars quicker (as your post would suggest) a good thing?

I suggest no.

Wars wouldn't necessarily end faster. Seeing as both sides can take more roids off the other and all that. Roid swapping would probably be more aggressive.

[Conall]

Originally Posted by Kal

the goal is to restrict heavy combat to thoose that want to take part in it - i.e. why roid people not your enemy if u get such bonuses for attacking your enemy.

one other possibility is that perhaps if in a sate of war you get benefits for hitting the enemy but perhaps handicaps on attacking people not in the enemy alliance e.g. -5% roid cap, -5% struct kill

Then that is easy - give both side the ability to declare war, if both sides agree then get it on. Either side can end it when they want. That way no bashing, no abusing. Mano y Mano so to speak. All this other stuff is fluff to be abused.

[noah02]

So i go to war with Noobs r us and they have 10 members does that mean thats all i can attack?
I am allianceless and dont want an alliance does that make me invincible?

Sorry if i missed reading something but is this an alliance only game now or something?
Coz I would rather be allianeless if no one could attack me and who can i attack if i cant declare war on anyone? No alliance will let in so does that mean i have to go it alone in my own alliance?

[arbondigo]

Originally Posted by noah02

So i go to war with Noobs r us and they have 10 members does that mean thats all i can attack?
I am allianceless and dont want an alliance does that make me invincible?

Sorry if i missed reading something but is this an alliance only game now or something?
Coz I would rather be allianeless if no one could attack me and who can i attack if i cant declare war on anyone? No alliance will let in so does that mean i have to go it alone in my own alliance?

No noah, if you declare war on someone it means that if you attack members of that alliance you get a bonus. They can of course still attack others but they don't get a bonus for doing so.

[DukePaul]

noah02: As Banned said that in war-mode, caps and bash-limits are raised/removed, it would be obvious that these limits would be in effect outside warmode - and so attacks will be possible when not in a war/alliance. Aslo, the extra caps etc are to make hitting war targets more satisfying than non-war targets, as you get lower cap on non-war targets.

Now, I thought a bit about limiting the number of wars it's possible to have at any one time - If 2 alliances just declare on each other, and then do nothing, they will both gain some immunity towards other alliances wanting to declare war the two aliances (or one of the two). Guess that's a problem with limited number of warslots.

Also, I might add that several alliances has strong feelings against ganging up on one single alliance - except during the last part of the round, ofcourse... So I don't think the scenario of 3 alliances ganging up on one in the start of the game is very likely - except, ofcourse, when you have collapsing alliances, and everyone wants as much of the cake as they can get - take what happened to Absolute this round as an example.

[Banned]

Originally Posted by mist

limiting the number of wars would open up exploits wherby people found a small crappy alliance with their dog, and then use it to occupy one of the war slots

The crappy alliance would need to occupy a certain number of fleets though, see points k. and l.