A totally different way to think about blocking

[Cayl]

Rob's post convinced me to toss out an idea I've considered an amusement, and not terribly serious, but perhaps it will generate a conversation worth having.

Maybe the problem isn't too much blocking, its too little.

Maybe we could throw a special edition of Planetarion on which there are two, or maximum three sides. Every planet in the game picks their race and which of the two/three sides they are on. Members on a side can not attack each other and get the -1 ETA, but are free to organize themselves into alliances (primary benefits simply being organization and leadership).

The primary ranking would simply be the block that won, with listings for the top alliances of each block, and so forth.

Every round seems to degenerate into a two sided cold war anyway. Occasionally a third side manages to slip in and shake things up, but thats the exception. The only problem is that the top 1-2% of the players are actually having any kind of influence whatsoever on the outcome. With this plan, even the little newbie galaxies in cluster 66 can throw their wars well below the 40% limit of the smallest big alliance players and still feel like their doing something interesting towards the final outcome of the game.

Pre-Game the creators can hold an alliance council and just make sure that alliances are going to split into roughly equal three sides, and perhaps throw in very slightl rewards for a side that has very large numeric disadvantage.

This doesn't have to be the way PA always will be, but it could be an interesting experiment, and may turn out to be quite popular.

[Tactitus]

One problem is that whichever block "won" couldn't split up and start attacking each other (hey, it could happen ).

[Cayl]

Well this is the point where I think the PA-Team would have to step up and actively manage their game. There should be a set timeline and a set of winning conditions. If the timeline expires, as now, then the game would reset, and a new round start.

If the winning conditions are met, then the game should start over, with perhaps urgent hotfixes being implemented, but largely the same code, for either the remaining duration of the original round, or another pre-announced timeline in place (all on the same credit). This shouldn't slow development too much, I mean delete the database and reboot, can't be that hard to start over if you're not trying to rebalance everything every time.

As it stands PA is like a game of football that just keeps going on even if the score is 483 - 102.. the game will end just as soon as we have the new stadium built... please keep playing, and for god's sake, stay active. It just doesn't have any other precedent that I can think of .

[Gerbie]

If one block starts winning then it might get boring for them. For this purpose you might start a 'free out of block exile' button that would allow players that like action exile to the losing side. I don't like playing 'sit back and relax as we have already won' style, so I might actually use that (and probably get killed along the way).

[Cayl]

There's a difference between "winning a game, but its not over yet" and "the game is won, but the referees just haven't called it yet, so we're going to sit around going inactive for a while". To use this game as an example if MFP were hypothetically on one side and all changed to another, it wouldn't change anything at all. They'd still be winning, but the hypothetical "Side" they were on would be the only thing changed...

[Banned]

I dunno, it's an interesting idea, but (imho) part of PA is the open-endedness, which this pretty much defeats. Some way of working blocks and alliance politics ingame would be very interesting though. Maybe I'll give it gander and post a thread of my own.

[wakey]

The problem I have is I personally believe that a limited number of sides like this is ultimatly boring for all

Smaller groups are tighter and you dont get the impretion that your just one of many and dont really matter, your one of a select few and as such your more important and it makes you feel your actions are more worthwhile which adds to the enjoyment

The fact theres a number of competing sides also means the political scene is more intresting and the fact they can leave blocks currently does lead to the ability to backstab also brings a good element to the game and this idea doesnt allow this

I think that if blocks are here to stay the key is to force them to be more diverse, when you have the top 3 blocking its just too much power and leaves many lower down in a position where they are just bashed, it would be better for all if there was a way that the top 3 simply couldnt block together and which would result in any block having to take in a more diverse range of alliances. if we can get blocks to start to include fewer top alliances and include more of the smaller alliances we can get more blocks competing and bring smaller alliances into the mix more. How this would be acheieved i dont kow though

[Kal]

i like the idea of winning conditions......

[Gerbie]

Alliances will continue to exist as close knit groups within their block. Where members attack together and defend each other.

Some alliances will refuse to attack or defend each other, other alliances withing their block will work together. Alliances will have spies in the other block as well.

In the system proposed PA Team can possibly move entire alliances to another block if one side gets too strong. This means that alliances will have to be prepared for such a great change in environment as well.

[wakey]

Originally Posted by Gerbie

Alliances will continue to exist as close knit groups within their block. Where members attack together and defend each other.

Some alliances will refuse to attack or defend each other, other alliances withing their block will work together. Alliances will have spies in the other block as well.

In the system proposed PA Team can possibly move entire alliances to another block if one side gets too strong. This means that alliances will have to be prepared for such a great change in environment as well.

If this is a responce to me I think youve missed the point I was trying to make. My point isnt that you wont get the close knit communities BUT that these communities have alot less drive. When your one person in a single alliance or even a smallish block you matter much more, your not just a small redundnat cog in the machine your a major one. This gives you a reason to play, a reason to keep getting better. When you upscale things you simply become less important, yout just one person of thousands in your block , you cant not bother and you alone make no difference to the blocks success. Basically you lose the whole personal touch of the game, you become disconnected and if this happens your in a bit of trouble as its the fact that players feel connected to the game that it was so successful and why its hung around so long.

[Cayl]

Sadly wakey, the phenomenon you've described has already come to pass. Thats one of the KEY problems with this round. If you're actually leading an alliance you'll stick around. If you've made it to the top 10, you'll stick around, if you're galaxy is top 20, you may stick around, beyond that, you're a cog in the machine. People play for a short while at the beginning just to see how they'll do, they end up losing quite badly, and eventually realize that their futile struggles will have no bearing on who wins, because about all they can change is which member of the evil block gets to be #1.

Thats what leads to the massive attacks at the end of every round. People are willing to go from rank 359 to 1047 if it means they get to change the #1 guy's score by a few k along with everyone else in the game.

But it does nothing for the overall health of the game. As I said this doesn't have to be something thats ever tried more than once. Especially if the three sides can be somewhat equal in number if not quality. There will always be people to attack. I mean the top winning alliances aren't going to defend little free planets out in the outer reaches, but the smaller members of the blocks will sure attack out there. It basically means that for a while, even the lamest n00b like Sevrok could have a chance to be on the same side as some well organized alliances.

If there was actually some minimal benefit to FAnG allying up with Lupine Crux, maybe they would have more interest in seeing it succeed and could pass on some tips or organize massive interalliance attacks.

Instead, right now the game's definitely split into "Leagues". There's the major league teams like FAnG, Mistu and 1up, there's some minor league teams who just don't have the quality leadership, but can still sway the outcome of the game. And then there's Triple A teams who exist because anyone can click the "Create an Alliance" button and someone will always follow those people. One of the main problems of the game is that there hasn't been more than like 4 Big league teams since Round 2. (If you think being part of the winning block makes you a big league team, I refer you to Phraktos, ta).

[ComradeRob]

Originally Posted by Cayl

One of the main problems of the game is that there hasn't been more than like 4 Big league teams since Round 2. (If you think being part of the winning block makes you a big league team, I refer you to Phraktos, ta).

The only round I can disagree with this statement for is round 6. Whilst some alliances were definitely 'better' (higher average player skill) than the others, there were several alliances which could have won the round. The battle for victory went on until almost the end of the round, and even the losing alliances were not that far behind the winners at the end.

The thing that allowed round 6 to work was that there were 3 blocks instead of the traditional two - instead of 'Fury and friends' vs 'Xanadu and friends', there was a proper 3-way contest - between the Xeta (Xanadu, Ely, TFD, Silver) block, FLVT (Fury, Legion, Virus, ToT) block and FoS (Deus, ND, hirr, Wolfpack, NoS) block.

Of course, FoS and Xeta originally cooperated against FLVT. I still believe that without that cooperation FLVT would have won, and so it was justified as a means of making sure the round remained openly competetive. Once FLVT were conclusively prevented from winning, FoS switched sides and cooperated with FLVT against Xeta. The end result was that both the top 10 planets and galaxies featured members of all three blocks. Xanadu emerged with the #1 planet, Wolfpack with the #1 galaxy. Admittedly the Xeta-FoS split should have occurred earlier, but it wasn't too late to kill of FLVT's interest altogether.

I don't think that forcing people into blocks will necessarily work - especially with an odd number of blocks, as there is likely to be a 2 vs 1 scenario. I think what is most important is the victory conditions, especially the principle that only one alliance can win. I have some other thoughts on this which I may post later if they still make sense then