[Declined] Alliance bash limmits

[Orion Treet]

Ok, here's a small update and in short what I'm suggesting:

1) If alliance Y is below 30-40% total score (would have to played around with) of alliance X, alliance X can not attack members of alliance Y
2) If a planet in alliance Y is 200% or above his alliances avg score the limit would no longer count and he could be attacked by everyone. This would prevent abuse of huge planets joining small alliances. Also it could push up avg score so it is within range of larger allies.
3) #1 could also be done with avg scores, and then still keep #2 the same, might be easier to prevent abuse that way.

This would create competition between the smaller alliances, and prevent their larger members from being bashed, and make the game funner in general for them, imo

[Gerbie]

Originally Posted by Orion Treet

Something I just thought of while responding to a complaint about smaller alliances not being able to compete. It would work the same way as the planet bash limits, but them with alliance total scores. If you are in X alliance and Y alliance has a total score less than say 40% of yours you can't attack members of that alliance. This would prevent bashing of smaller alliances, even their larger planets, and would promote more competition between the smaller alliances cause they feel a bit safer.

So if you just split up into groups of 20 people you can attack attack some big alliance as much as you like, but they cannot attack you back.

[Orion Treet]

Originally Posted by Gerbie

So if you just split up into groups of 20 people you can attack attack some big alliance as much as you like, but they cannot attack you back.

Ofc measures would have to be taken gainst abuse, like make an official rule against it which is punnishable (which is fairly easily checkeble)

[Gate]

I've considered something like this before, but overall, I don't like it that much.

As Gerbie pointed out... if Angels, for instance, lose a coupla members next round and come with just 30 or so, compared to a 100-man alliance, they may very well get an easier ride at the beginning than they deserve

Overall, I'm against this as you say it.

[mist]

too easy to abuse

[Gerbie]

My first response was maybe a bit too negative. It's not a bad idea. It's just not as easy as it looks at first sight. Maybe a more complex system like could fix those problems: both below 40% total score and below 40% average score, or you can only not attack planets from small (or low average) alliances below the average score of your own alliance.

[Orion Treet]

yeah, I was thinking about somehow combining it with avg memberscore, but as you said it wouldn't be very easy to implement.

[MAdnRisKy]

if you did it on avg member score it'd be interesting..... but you'd get alliances taking in small (read scanners co-opers) to keep the score artificially low....

[Orion Treet]

They'd have to be much weaker though if they'd try to keep avg score low, only prob with that is if they have say 4-5 large planets no-one would be able to attack them. Maybe though if you're planet a certain ammount over the avg alliance score it wouldn't count or not? This would have to be worked on allot though.

[mist]

so, you want an alliance bash limit, but to prevent abuse it won't apply to big planets, only those that'd be under the 40% anyway.

-mist

[Orion Treet]

I mean like, if a planet is 200% or so of alliance avg score it don't count for him, ofc the percentages could be changed, I know what I'm saying has a lot of flaws in it, but maybe worth looking at least at some of idea's.

[noah02]

so the number 1 player could leave 1up(well he/she would be wouldnt they) and and join the smallest alliance in the universe with 20 small players or so and he gets a bit of protection from getting attacked by the top alliances coz his alliance avg score is to small.
I dunno if that could happen but its a crap idea all the same sorry

[Orion Treet]

As I said, if someone was say 200% above alliance avg score he could be attacked by everyone still to prevent that kind of abuse.

[Orion Treet]

Check short update in the first post.

[noah02]

Well I still don't know but I do know what you mean it would be nice for the little alliances to get a lil protection it would be unfair to be the only biggish player trying to defend all the lil guys to get them a lil bigger for your self to get raped constantly to give up helping the lil uns for them to leave the game because no one can help them because anywone who trys to help them gets raped in return.

[wakey]

With my small alliance HC hat on I have to say the 200% limit is worrying. F-Crew's average is artifically low due to the nature of our playing style, we have a core group of experianced players who are there to train the next bunch of inexperianced players. These inexperianced players drag the average of the alliance right down leaving many of the experianced players in the 200% group and if i get you right open to attack from anyone. Its going to either drive experianced player who want to help back up to the top alliances or force the smaller alliance to start imposing score/value requirements for recruits

However that isnt my biggest gripe, my biggest gripe needs my suggestions mod hat on and is one that suprises alot of people whenever I post it as they expect me to want increased hard coded protection. The gripe is hardcoced limits in general. They are simply bad for the game. These limits dont stop bashing, well atleast not until you get the bash limit much higher than it is now, and i'm talking 80-90% range. All the Bash limit does is change the way bashing happens. Gone are the days where everyone picked on the smallest people in the game, now they pick on the smallest planets in their attack range who are just as poorly prepared in most cases to fend off an attack by someone so much bigger.If anything its made bashing more of a problem because people at every level are finding the smallest target they can that gives a good outcome and hitting them which forces those people being hit to do the same to a planet towards the bottom of their bash limit and the distribution of players is now so top heavy there isnt the players at the lower end to make this substainable.

Its also unfair on the big players (bet most of you never thought youd see me say that in one of my posts). Is it right that a numvber of small players hit a big player and the big player doesnt get to decide if they hit them back in revenge?

Hard limits are simply bad for the game imho and we need a more soft limit approach to the game. Something like a change in the way point are awarded for example. Attacks should have an honour rating assigned to them, if the #1 then decideds he wants to attack the person ranked 3000 he can do but its a dishonourable attack and will see him lose points no matter what sjips he kills and what roids he captures. This would allow them to attack back those who attack them without a limit getting in the way but they wont be able to profit from it and as such are discouraged from doing so. The system also encourages you to pick more resonable targets, and would make the game alot more about picking the right fleet to attack with rather than just going out for overkill like often happens.

Put simply in my view it should be our own choice who we attack but we get varing levels of reward or punishment depending on who we hit, rather than the current system where you often come out better off hitting a target just in range than hitting one closer to your own size

[mist]

worryingly, i have to agree with wakey

[Orion Treet]

Hmm, what you said about giving more points (as in score) to people who attack planets larger or closer to them is interesting. You made some good points there, gues it ain't such a good idea.

[mist]

isn't that wat XP does already? just need to mod it so that it docs points from people who attack small and it's sorted. although, i'd rather do away with XP and use a different mechanism :/

-mist

[Troglodyte]

Originally Posted by wakey

Hard limits are simply bad for the game imho and we need a more soft limit approach to the game. Something like a change in the way point are awarded for example. Attacks should have an honour rating assigned to them, if the #1 then decideds he wants to attack the person ranked 3000 he can do but its a dishonourable attack and will see him lose points no matter what sjips he kills and what roids he captures. This would allow them to attack back those who attack them without a limit getting in the way but they wont be able to profit from it and as such are discouraged from doing so. The system also encourages you to pick more resonable targets, and would make the game alot more about picking the right fleet to attack with rather than just going out for overkill like often happens.

Put simply in my view it should be our own choice who we attack but we get varing levels of reward or punishment depending on who we hit, rather than the current system where you often come out better off hitting a target just in range than hitting one closer to your own size

i like the idea (i'm not going to be able to sleep tonight)

one concern ... the smaller planet will still feel demoralized after he has been anailated. some big planets have got the whole dark jedi knight thing going .. maybe add on to the idea. if its a dishonerable attack, the more salvage is avaliable

[Appocomaster]

the system of members one bigger alliance not being able to attack members of other much smaller alliances has been argued before and ended up with a no. I remember arguing rather hard to have it at the time
the whole reason that we had score/value instead of just score was that value was less important and xp, which was combined with value to create score, became more important. I'm sure everyone saw that some planets on a par with them (for those still playing who post on these forums :P) sometimes had widely different values one way or another - some of my galaxy attacked once or twice and had a very small difference between value and score, whereas others was double the difference. XP is obviously very powerful, and probably needs to be fiddled with again, but i think we're straying from the thread topic and need a new one :/

[Conall]

I don't like the idea. What if ally A is going to do a galaxy raid, the galaxy has 5 alliances in it. One of Ally As smaller planet decided to hit planet #10 which as 1 million more value than he does. But he can't hit that planet because his alliance is too much bigger than planet #10s? Doesn't make sense. Would reduce the total number of targets yet again and the game would stagnate more.

[Appocomaster]

Btw, what about those not in alliances ingame? do they become unattackable? or is it the normal 40% thing?

[Appocomaster]

Originally Posted by Conall

I don't like the idea. What if ally A is going to do a galaxy raid, the galaxy has 5 alliances in it. One of Ally As smaller planet decided to hit planet #10 which as 1 million more value than he does. But he can't hit that planet because his alliance is too much bigger than planet #10s? Doesn't make sense. Would reduce the total number of targets yet again and the game would stagnate more.

I think that people meant that they'd be forced to attack alliances of similar sizes more. The smaller people would have to team up or not attack, or find small planets of the other big alliances to hit. and of course, when it's alliance vs alliance, ingal def comes into play, so either it'd be very hard to attack, or you'd have to have alliances of galaxies.

[mist]

Originally Posted by Troglodyte

i like the idea (i'm not going to be able to sleep tonight)

one concern ... the smaller planet will still feel demoralized after he has been anailated. some big planets have got the whole dark jedi knight thing going .. maybe add on to the idea. if its a dishonerable attack, the more salvage is avaliable

the simplest way to do things would be to take a base roid cap rate, a base salvage rate and a base XP rate. you then calculate a 'return on honour' figure based on relative size which you multiply or divide by as appropriate.

for example, if someone small attacks someone large then the return on honour would be a large figure. multiplying the base xp and roid cap rate by this would therefore give a good return. however, if someone large attacks someone small then the return figure will be low. multiplying roid cap and xp by it would give a low figure, but dividing salvage by it would mean more was given.

if you actually want to give negative XP for attacking someone small then you could subtract the honour value from xp, and if it's big enough it'll go negative (tho, if you manage to get very few roids and no xp + loose some ships then that's going to cost you anyway).

obviously, things would need sensible caps - being able to steal 120% roids would be a little silly. also, i believe that the system should be ignored if someone's attacked or covert opped you in the last X hours (24 or 48 would seem reasonable). this would solve the problem whereby small planets can annoy the big ones with no expectation of retaliation.

-mist

[Conall]

Originally Posted by Appocomaster

I think that people meant that they'd be forced to attack alliances of similar sizes more. The smaller people would have to team up or not attack, or find small planets of the other big alliances to hit. and of course, when it's alliance vs alliance, ingal def comes into play, so either it'd be very hard to attack, or you'd have to have alliances of galaxies.

Yes I see that, but if a one galaxy had 3 memebers of a large alliance in it and lets say 5 more that were large players from small alliances. It would be extremely difficult to get at the 3 larger alliance players as the Small alliance players (with large planets mind you) could not be attacked and be free to defend. Or the larger alliances would be forced into blocking with more smaller alliances to occupy those potential defenders.

In fact I can see some pretty nasty results with Larger planets failing to report incoming on their smaller gal mates, or even secretly arranging attacks from other alliances to keep them small enough to act as their shield.

[Appocomaster]

Originally Posted by mist

the simplest way to do things would be to take a base roid cap rate, a base salvage rate and a base XP rate. you then calculate a 'return on honour' figure based on relative size which you multiply or divide by as appropriate.

for example, if someone small attacks someone large then the return on honour would be a large figure. multiplying the base xp and roid cap rate by this would therefore give a good return. however, if someone large attacks someone small then the return figure will be low. multiplying roid cap and xp by it would give a low figure, but dividing salvage by it would mean more was given.

if you actually want to give negative XP for attacking someone small then you could subtract the honour value from xp, and if it's big enough it'll go negative (tho, if you manage to get very few roids and no xp + loose some ships then that's going to cost you anyway).

obviously, things would need sensible caps - being able to steal 120% roids would be a little silly. also, i believe that the system should be ignored if someone's attacked or covert opped you in the last X hours (24 or 48 would seem reasonable). this would solve the problem whereby small planets can annoy the big ones with no expectation of retaliation.

-mist

upper limits would obviously be important. I don't think it should be discarded if a player hit you though. Covert ops are irritating for big players, but it makes small players feel slightly better short term. I know from experience I had lots of fun last round killing structures of my attackers, as did others I know. You eventually stalemate, and you can obviously become immune to covert ops if they build enough, but ...
I like the idea of (near 0) or negative xp, although at the moment it's related to value ratios already.
Variable cap rates for fleet value vs planet value, like they used to be, would be a welcome return imo, and I've always favoured variable salvage rates depending on attacker vs defender values.

[Appocomaster]

Originally Posted by Conall

Yes I see that, but if a one galaxy had 3 memebers of a large alliance in it and lets say 5 more that were large players from small alliances. It would be extremely difficult to get at the 3 larger alliance players as the Small alliance players (with large planets mind you) could not be attacked and be free to defend. Or the larger alliances would be forced into blocking with more smaller alliances to occupy those potential defenders.

yes. this means that the galaxy is safe from incoming, and as most / all galaxies are going to be at least semi random there'll be smaller alliance players - even private galaxies would arrange it so, so that the bigger alliances wouldn't have any way of hitting their galaxy in the middle/ later part of the game, as without blocking (for attack) with other smaller alliances they couldn't take all the galaxy. And this blocking would go back to 2-3 blocks (to be fair, equal blocks isn't a bad thing, imo, but .... everything just gets more complicated)

[Conall]

Originally Posted by Appocomaster

yes. this means that the galaxy is safe from incoming, and as most / all galaxies are going to be at least semi random there'll be smaller alliance players - even private galaxies would arrange it so, so that the bigger alliances wouldn't have any way of hitting their galaxy in the middle/ later part of the game, as without blocking (for attack) with other smaller alliances they couldn't take all the galaxy. And this blocking would go back to 2-3 blocks (to be fair, equal blocks isn't a bad thing, imo, but .... everything just gets more complicated)

Then I certainly think it is a bad idea as it creates virtual safe havens for some large alliance planets and further stagnates the game.

[mist]

Originally Posted by Appocomaster

upper limits would obviously be important. I don't think it should be discarded if a player hit you though. Covert ops are irritating for big players, but it makes small players feel slightly better short term. I know from experience I had lots of fun last round killing structures of my attackers, as did others I know.

"i had great fun last round killing the whole fleet of some noobs, as did others i know"

just because it's fun doesn't mean it's a good thing.

-mist

[Appocomaster]

Originally Posted by mist

"i had great fun last round killing the whole fleet of some noobs, as did others i know"

just because it's fun doesn't mean it's a good thing.

-mist

yes but it's all the smaller value/score players having fun at (generally) the expense of much bigger value/score players which is surely an aim?

[Gerbie]

Originally Posted by Appocomaster

yes but it's all the smaller value/score players having fun at (generally) the expense of much bigger value/score players which is surely an aim?

Nah we are all supposed to have fun. Small and big.

[mist]

Originally Posted by Appocomaster

yes but it's all the smaller value/score players having fun at (generally) the expense of much bigger value/score players which is surely an aim?

i thought the idea was to make the game balanced, not to upset all the good players to the point where they leave and the crap players can revel in their mediocracy without interfernce.

[Appocomaster]

Originally Posted by mist

i thought the idea was to make the game balanced, not to upset all the good players to the point where they leave and the crap players can revel in their mediocracy without interfernce.

I think we're drifting from the question, but I merely meant with my origional comment that the fact that you wanted to negate all special mods like xp and cap rate if a person hits you, so that a smaller player wouldn't feel safe while launching / covert opping someone bigger than himself because he wasn't worth retaliating against was probably a bad idea. This would be abused - obviously hitting bigger planets who've launched / covert opped against you is silly because you loose all the extra bonuses, so bigger planets who knew an attack was planned on them could merely launch on all the planets and know that he'd loose less roids and give them less xp - and I'm sure some players would do that. Also, depending on how strictly it was coded, launching at someone who was attacking you who was smaller than you could at one stroke drop their cap rate on you and raise your cap rate on them - I can see Sid rubbing his hands together already.
The reason I said I didn't think there should be an exclusion because it would spoil the smaller planet's fun was that generally, if someone's being irritating who's (much) smaller than you and you want to retal, it was because you killed them first and they're trying to get back at you - covert opping you every 4 ticks, launching at you, whatever - and so why they should be further penalised for something you provoked in the first place? Not including it'd mean more lines of code and the above comments.
I didn't mean "let's make sure all the really bad inactive "crap" players get lots of xp and score and value benefits at the expensive of active playing players", or anthing similar...

[mist]

this implies that bigger planets will know an attack is comming against them.
this also implies that the big planet has enough fleet slots to attack all their attackers
this also implies that the big planet has enough ships to attack all the people that're attacking it (if they don't outgun the planet to start with, might as well stay home and defend it...)

how would launching on someone that was smaller than you lower their cap rate and increase yours? i'll give that if they're attacking you you'd get a decent cap rate, but how would it decrease theirs?

i was under the impresion that alliances nowadays had dedicated covert oppers? what're the odds of you having knocked them down to that size?

plus, i must admit, i think someone who you've totaled being able to get back at you when you've effectivly put them out of the round is wrong. this is a war game. the idea is to kill off your enemies. the idea isn't to kill off your enemies and then put up with them stabbing you in the knees all game. although, tbh, if someone did that to me i'd find alliance mates or gal mates small enough to hit them and make sure they were flatterened untill they stopped.

the whole point of this is to make it so that a large planet can't turn around and beat someone half their size in to the ground. if that happens then the idea's failed anyway. if on the other hand you outthink an equivelant opponent then i don't think the 'reward' should be a round of irritation which you can do nothing about. the better (wo)man *should* win!

-mist

[Appocomaster]

Originally Posted by mist

this implies that bigger planets will know an attack is comming against them.
this also implies that the big planet has enough fleet slots to attack all their attackers
this also implies that the big planet has enough ships to attack all the people that're attacking it (if they don't outgun the planet to start with, might as well stay home and defend it...)

a lot of bigger planets are in bigger alliances and have spys. I've seen people mail attackers that were meant to hit them in 4-5 ticks, and so on.
it depends why you mean by "launch" - if your ships actually leave the planet, then ok, but if the planet has one fleet and a few ships left...

Originally Posted by mist

how would launching on someone that was smaller than you lower their cap rate and increase yours? i'll give that if they're attacking you you'd get a decent cap rate, but how would it decrease theirs?

depends if the cap rate etc is worked out when you launch, or land. Is it that they've launched on you in the last 24/48 hours before you launched, or landed?

Originally Posted by mist

i was under the impresion that alliances nowadays had dedicated covert oppers? what're the odds of you having knocked them down to that size?

They do, but generally you've done something to irritate the alliance in the first place. But I know alliance members in the mid/late part of last round who were in smaller galaxies and covert opped whoever attacked them last and landed on them.

Originally Posted by mist

plus, i must admit, i think someone who you've totaled being able to get back at you when you've effectivly put them out of the round is wrong. this is a war game. the idea is to kill off your enemies. the idea isn't to kill off your enemies and then put up with them stabbing you in the knees all game. although, tbh, if someone did that to me i'd find alliance mates or gal mates small enough to hit them and make sure they were flatterened untill they stopped.

generally you just up your covert op centres till it stops them getting through. Realistically, putting security on first priority makes a big difference, and after say 2-3 days people being covert opped are pretty near immune. it just gives them something to do while they're getting ships back.

Originally Posted by mist

the whole point of this is to make it so that a large planet can't turn around and beat someone half their size in to the ground. if that happens then the idea's failed anyway. if on the other hand you outthink an equivelant opponent then i don't think the 'reward' should be a round of irritation which you can do nothing about. the better (wo)man *should* win!

-mist

The only way of making sure a large planet can't turn around and beat someone half their size into the ground is hardcoding it. I thought we were making it so it was much more attractive hitting people bigger / equal to your own score.
I don't think anyone has suffered a round of irritation, but i don't think someone covert opping you a few times means you can hit them at normal cap rates.
hellooooooooooo abuse.
you get a nice roidfat guy 45% of your value to covert op you or attacking you, whether by cheating in some way or taunting them or something. Then you steal their roids at full cap rate and normal xp values. tell me that won't happen if you get this exclusion cause in. It's not worth the extra lines of code.

[I am Idler]

Ive always been against ANY measurements that limits the ammounts of targets, so Im certainly going to be negative about this

[Appocomaster]

Originally Posted by I am Idler

Ive always been against ANY measurements that limits the ammounts of targets, so Im certainly going to be negative about this

unless i've misread the thread i think we gave up with the actual alliance bash limits in favour of variable cap rates, tweaking xp, and so on

[wakey]

mist: certainly in my idea the point was that it deals with small planets being a nuicence by giving planets an option. They can leave them be OR they can teach them a lesson. However teaching them a lesson would have a cost when it coems to your score and as such wouldnt be something you would take lightly. If you just allow big planets to hit small with no concequences then your just opening the game up for farming, bashing ect ect

[Troglodyte]

wakey maybe u should start a new thread about the dishonourable and honorable attacks.
imo(it would be an easy addition to the required formula's)

I think u got a winning filly here.

[Appocomaster]

Originally Posted by Troglodyte

wakey maybe u should start a new thread about the dishonourable and honorable attacks.
imo(it would be an easy addition to the required formula's)

I think u got a winning filly here.

basically, it's just a modified version of the xp idea, you get more experience for being honourable, and less for being dishonourable... so just suggest ways of changing it

[Troglodyte]

i would go further than that,

dishonourable attacks:
-the roid's captured should be reduced.
-the ships stats should be weakened for the attacker
-ETA's should be longer for the attacker

[mist]

teaching them a lesson would use a fleet slot that could be used to go and get decent roids, so will cost whatever else is implimented.

imo, at least the bonus salvage should be dropped. otherwise you destroy their ships and give them ore resources to covert op you with - which would be lame.

idler: the idea is to give more targetting choice, not less.

-mist

[Appocomaster]

Originally Posted by mist

teaching them a lesson would use a fleet slot that could be used to go and get decent roids, so will cost whatever else is implimented.

imo, at least the bonus salvage should be dropped. otherwise you destroy their ships and give them ore resources to covert op you with - which would be lame.

idler: the idea is to give more targetting choice, not less.

-mist

what bonus salvage? from attacking ships?

[Kal]

declined for the variosu reasons posted in the thread