User Name
Password

Go Back   Planetarion Forums > Planetarion Related Forums > Planetarion Suggestions

Reply
Thread Tools Display Modes
Unread 6 Nov 2014, 17:58   #1
Haer
Aquafresh
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: [^-^]
Posts: 261
Haer has a spectacular aura aboutHaer has a spectacular aura aboutHaer has a spectacular aura about
Purchasing NAPs / Surrendering in game

PA is a strategy game, but it also has a significant political element. Some of these political elements are formalised within the game, but one of the major ones - war - is not.

What I am suggesting is that this could be brought into the game formally by allowing alliances to negotiate / purchase temporary ceasefires or surrenders. The basic idea would be for alliances to be able to purchase an in game NAP lasting a set time for a set amount of resources (taken from the alliance fund). Individual alliances would be able to negotiate the terms of these agreements. A nice side effect of this would be that the alliance purchasing the NAP can be considered to have lost the war. The winning alliance could then be given some kind of XP / alliance points as a reward.
Haer is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 7 Nov 2014, 01:05   #2
Adapt
Leader Of The Gang
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Posts: 455
Adapt is just really niceAdapt is just really niceAdapt is just really niceAdapt is just really niceAdapt is just really nice
Re: Purchasing NAPs / Surrendering in game

Disagree.

(No explanation needed)
__________________
Round 60 - Ultores - Rank 67th.
Round 75 - CT - Rank 19th - Galaxy Win.
Round 80 - Ultores - Rank 16th.
Round 81 - Ultores - Rank 73rd.
Round 83 - Ultores - Rank 16th.
Round 91 - Lucky7 - Rank 50th.
Round 92 - Lucky7 - Rank 39th.
Adapt is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 7 Nov 2014, 02:22   #3
Blue_Esper
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 1,038
Blue_Esper is a glorious beacon of lightBlue_Esper is a glorious beacon of lightBlue_Esper is a glorious beacon of lightBlue_Esper is a glorious beacon of lightBlue_Esper is a glorious beacon of lightBlue_Esper is a glorious beacon of light
Re: Purchasing NAPs / Surrendering in game

perhaps maybe ceasefires can be arranged at a cost of ally fund, say before declaring war a price tag of ceasefire is set at like 10mil of each resource for example, by paying this sum you get the ingame nap for the 72 hours or however long it is before it can be canceled
__________________
Did some stuff, played here n there done just about all there is to do
Blue_Esper is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 7 Nov 2014, 03:20   #4
Haer
Aquafresh
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: [^-^]
Posts: 261
Haer has a spectacular aura aboutHaer has a spectacular aura aboutHaer has a spectacular aura about
Re: Purchasing NAPs / Surrendering in game

I dont see any reason to set any kind of arbitrary limits. Just make it so an alliance can offer some amount of resources to another alliance for an NAP of a set amount of time. The other alliance can then either accept or reject. You'd probably need some kind of limits to prevent abuse, but other than that just let ppl negotiate it out themselves.

Thank you for your considered response Adapt.
Haer is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 7 Nov 2014, 03:27   #5
Blue_Esper
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 1,038
Blue_Esper is a glorious beacon of lightBlue_Esper is a glorious beacon of lightBlue_Esper is a glorious beacon of lightBlue_Esper is a glorious beacon of lightBlue_Esper is a glorious beacon of lightBlue_Esper is a glorious beacon of light
Re: Purchasing NAPs / Surrendering in game

its not arbitrary if the alliance declaring war sets the tribute fee in order to enact a ceasefire like ransom money, "we will continue to rape and pillage your planets till you pay this sum of resources into our swiss bankaccounts"

Speaking of which perhaps a 2nd alliance fund which comes from making alliances submit to your will that is used separately and can be spent on fun stuff
__________________
Did some stuff, played here n there done just about all there is to do
Blue_Esper is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 7 Nov 2014, 04:39   #6
BloodyButcher
Propaganda Chief
 
BloodyButcher's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Under the Rainbow
Posts: 4,740
BloodyButcher has much to be proud ofBloodyButcher has much to be proud ofBloodyButcher has much to be proud ofBloodyButcher has much to be proud ofBloodyButcher has much to be proud ofBloodyButcher has much to be proud ofBloodyButcher has much to be proud ofBloodyButcher has much to be proud ofBloodyButcher has much to be proud of
Re: Purchasing NAPs / Surrendering in game

Putting cost on naps would bankrupt the likes of Ultprime, black-flag and p3guins.
So a big no from me
__________________
RainbowS

RB Ely MISTU Angel Fusi0n 1up ToF VisioN CT FAnG ROCK
BloodyButcher is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 7 Nov 2014, 08:42   #7
Mzyxptlk
mz.
Alien Invasion Champion, Submarine Champion, Tiger Punch Champion, Barts Watersports Adventure Champion
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 8,587
Mzyxptlk has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.Mzyxptlk has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.Mzyxptlk has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.Mzyxptlk has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.Mzyxptlk has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.Mzyxptlk has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.Mzyxptlk has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.Mzyxptlk has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.Mzyxptlk has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.Mzyxptlk has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.Mzyxptlk has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.
Re: Purchasing NAPs / Surrendering in game

I don't think there's a good reason to formalize these things in the ingame mechanics. On top of that, there is a good reason not do to that: PA Team has no time and no money, and any attempt to introduce this kind of thing will inevitably be limited, providing far fewer options than the system (or rather, the lack thereof) that we have now.
__________________
The outraged poets threw sticks and rocks over the side of the bridge. They were all missing Mary and he felt a contented smug feeling wash over him. He would have given them a coy little wave if the roof hadn't collapsed just then. Mary then found himself in the middle of an understandably shocked family's kitchen table. So he gave them the coy little wave and realized it probably would have been more effective if he hadn't been lying on their turkey.
Mzyxptlk is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 7 Nov 2014, 09:53   #8
Haer
Aquafresh
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: [^-^]
Posts: 261
Haer has a spectacular aura aboutHaer has a spectacular aura aboutHaer has a spectacular aura about
Re: Purchasing NAPs / Surrendering in game

Perhaps I haven't explained this clearly enough. I am not proposing a full formalisation of all politics / war, nor am I suggesting that all NAPs/Wars must be formalised within the game. I think a lot of the NAP type stuff that is negotiated informally and trust based works fine.

The way I am envisioning this working is that any alliance is capable of making an offer to any other alliance. They can offer say anything over 5 million resources to another alliance for an in game enforced NAP of 24/48/72 hours. The other alliance can either accept or reject this offer. That would be it - no formal declaration or state of war, no requirement that all NAPs are arranged / purchased in game. Mutually agreed NAPs would still have to be agreed outside of the game.

In terms of adding this to the game, I dont think it requires much - The alliance fund is already there, the concept of a planet you can't hit is already there and the resource transfer mechanism is already there. I think it would another option to the political aspect of the game, and with experimentation eventually provide a possible way to reform the way alliance score is calculated.
Haer is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 7 Nov 2014, 13:25   #9
booji
a bucket
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Chatham, UK
Posts: 1,073
booji is a splendid one to beholdbooji is a splendid one to beholdbooji is a splendid one to beholdbooji is a splendid one to beholdbooji is a splendid one to beholdbooji is a splendid one to beholdbooji is a splendid one to behold
Re: Purchasing NAPs / Surrendering in game

I dont see a point in doing this with resources from the alliance fund. Unless the cost was immense it would really have no impact on the alliances in question so why bother? It has several disadvantages such as being extremely discriminatory against smaller alliances. While many would surely hate it the only possibility for a resource based proposal would be planets paying alliances not to hit them as resources are more valuable and limited for planets than alliances.

It would however make much more sense if the alliance victory is ever changed to being based on alliance points. If this becomes the case then buying naps with your alliance points, or a surrender stripping you of more points (transferring over to the victor?) would make more sense and potentially add a new strategic dimension to the alliance politics game. But until that happens there is little point in implementing this in a piecemeal way.
__________________
Proud to have been TGV!
aargh! died in Jenova! | idled in ROCK | disappointed in Audentes | been Roguish | p-p-previously a p-p-p3nguin
Ascendancy

Otterly an Otter.
booji is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 7 Nov 2014, 23:42   #10
Zeke
Registered User
 
Zeke's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Germany
Posts: 155
Zeke is on a distinguished road
Re: Purchasing NAPs / Surrendering in game

Quote:
Originally Posted by Haer View Post
The way I am envisioning this working is that any alliance is capable of making an offer to any other alliance. They can offer say anything over 5 million resources to another alliance for an in game enforced NAP of 24/48/72 hours. The other alliance can either accept or reject this offer. That would be it - no formal declaration or state of war, no requirement that all NAPs are arranged / purchased in game. Mutually agreed NAPs would still have to be agreed outside of the game.
Create one alliance: 60 members full tag
create another alliance: 10 farm planets
farm planets ally saves up resources for 1 week
Real ally offers nap, farm ally pays, for 6-7 weeks all they have. Nice. GG
Zeke is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 8 Nov 2014, 01:15   #11
Haer
Aquafresh
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: [^-^]
Posts: 261
Haer has a spectacular aura aboutHaer has a spectacular aura aboutHaer has a spectacular aura about
Re: Purchasing NAPs / Surrendering in game

Quote:
Originally Posted by booji View Post
I dont see a point in doing this with resources from the alliance fund. Unless the cost was immense it would really have no impact on the alliances in question so why bother? It has several disadvantages such as being extremely discriminatory against smaller alliances. While many would surely hate it the only possibility for a resource based proposal would be planets paying alliances not to hit them as resources are more valuable and limited for planets than alliances.

It would however make much more sense if the alliance victory is ever changed to being based on alliance points. If this becomes the case then buying naps with your alliance points, or a surrender stripping you of more points (transferring over to the victor?) would make more sense and potentially add a new strategic dimension to the alliance politics game. But until that happens there is little point in implementing this in a piecemeal way.
Well, obviously the cost would have to be significant enough for the attacking alliance to forgo the roids they would steal. Probably it would mean higher alliance tax or a fixed donation from everybody.

Dont really see how it discriminates against smaller alliances - they already suffer from having less members, so I dont really see how this adds to their woes. Does mean they have an option to avoid some incs though.

That said, switching to top alliance from alliance points and trading points for NAPs could also work and would be worth considering as an alternative.
Haer is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 8 Nov 2014, 01:17   #12
Haer
Aquafresh
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: [^-^]
Posts: 261
Haer has a spectacular aura aboutHaer has a spectacular aura aboutHaer has a spectacular aura about
Re: Purchasing NAPs / Surrendering in game

Quote:
Originally Posted by Zeke View Post
Create one alliance: 60 members full tag
create another alliance: 10 farm planets
farm planets ally saves up resources for 1 week
Real ally offers nap, farm ally pays, for 6-7 weeks all they have. Nice. GG
Just like many of the other abusable things in PA (ship farming, roid farm planets, etc) this is fairly easy to detect.
Haer is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 8 Nov 2014, 01:22   #13
Adapt
Leader Of The Gang
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Posts: 455
Adapt is just really niceAdapt is just really niceAdapt is just really niceAdapt is just really niceAdapt is just really nice
Re: Purchasing NAPs / Surrendering in game

Quote:
Originally Posted by BloodyButcher View Post
Putting cost on naps would bankrupt the likes of Ultprime, black-flag and p3guins.
So a big no from me

still ****ing LameBows up without our fund lol
__________________
Round 60 - Ultores - Rank 67th.
Round 75 - CT - Rank 19th - Galaxy Win.
Round 80 - Ultores - Rank 16th.
Round 81 - Ultores - Rank 73rd.
Round 83 - Ultores - Rank 16th.
Round 91 - Lucky7 - Rank 50th.
Round 92 - Lucky7 - Rank 39th.
Adapt is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 8 Nov 2014, 12:43   #14
Zeke
Registered User
 
Zeke's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Germany
Posts: 155
Zeke is on a distinguished road
Re: Purchasing NAPs / Surrendering in game

Quote:
Originally Posted by Haer View Post
Just like many of the other abusable things in PA (ship farming, roid farm planets, etc) this is fairly easy to detect.
And what u gonna do then? Close all 70 planets? ^^
Zeke is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 8 Nov 2014, 13:17   #15
lokken
BlueTuba
 
lokken's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Posts: 6,339
lokken has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.lokken has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.lokken has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.lokken has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.lokken has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.lokken has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.lokken has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.lokken has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.lokken has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.lokken has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.lokken has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.
Re: Purchasing NAPs / Surrendering in game

Quote:
Originally Posted by Haer View Post
Just like many of the other abusable things in PA (ship farming, roid farm planets, etc) this is fairly easy to detect.
It's not about detection - any multihunter can detect stuff like this, it's finding the evidence to be able to shut someone down.

While this is a good idea in principle that you could implement with various hard coded limits to prevent donations, I feel it misses the point. Really the game needs to be made simpler than more complicated. The simpler it is the less easy it is to exploit, and what the game needs to be is more accessible via apps/facebook to get more players. With more planets the game is excellent, rather than cannibalising itself which is what is happening now.
__________________
"Build a man a fire, and he'll be warm for a day. Set a man on fire, and he'll be warm for the rest of his life."
lokken is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 8 Nov 2014, 14:01   #16
Haer
Aquafresh
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: [^-^]
Posts: 261
Haer has a spectacular aura aboutHaer has a spectacular aura aboutHaer has a spectacular aura about
Re: Purchasing NAPs / Surrendering in game

Quote:
Originally Posted by lokken View Post
It's not about detection - any multihunter can detect stuff like this, it's finding the evidence to be able to shut someone down.

While this is a good idea in principle that you could implement with various hard coded limits to prevent donations, I feel it misses the point. Really the game needs to be made simpler than more complicated. The simpler it is the less easy it is to exploit, and what the game needs to be is more accessible via apps/facebook to get more players. With more planets the game is excellent, rather than cannibalising itself which is what is happening now.
Obviously the game needs more planets and an app/FB integration would be a huge boost to that. But from what various people have said to me, it's simply not going to happen due to lack of resources / will. Frankly, I'd like to see the community just say enough is enough with the lack of investment in improving/fixing the game and just make an open source community run game, but frankly it seems too late for that to be viable with a universe <1k planets.

I'd also agree that the game could do with simplification, but I don't really see how this complicates matters that much, while also adding some strategic depth to the game. If you want to simplify things, a better idea would be to start by removing all the options which no experienced player even considers, but which new players might not immediately dismiss as useless. The players who would be making these decisions - will my alliance be better of taking X amount of resources as a donation or roiding the alliance over the next few days - are going to be alliance HCs, experienced in the game and capable of handling the small increase in complexity.
Haer is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 8 Nov 2014, 14:04   #17
Haer
Aquafresh
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: [^-^]
Posts: 261
Haer has a spectacular aura aboutHaer has a spectacular aura aboutHaer has a spectacular aura about
Re: Purchasing NAPs / Surrendering in game

Quote:
Originally Posted by Zeke View Post
And what u gonna do then? Close all 70 planets? ^^
Just like in any case of cheating, you'd deal with it on a case by case basis? You could close the 70 planets, close the 10 planets and rescind the donations, close the 10 planets, rescind the donations and fine the offending alliance a set amount of value/roids.
Haer is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 8 Nov 2014, 18:53   #18
lokken
BlueTuba
 
lokken's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Posts: 6,339
lokken has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.lokken has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.lokken has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.lokken has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.lokken has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.lokken has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.lokken has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.lokken has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.lokken has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.lokken has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.lokken has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.
Re: Purchasing NAPs / Surrendering in game

Quote:
Originally Posted by Haer View Post
Obviously the game needs more planets and an app/FB integration would be a huge boost to that. But from what various people have said to me, it's simply not going to happen due to lack of resources / will. Frankly, I'd like to see the community just say enough is enough with the lack of investment in improving/fixing the game and just make an open source community run game, but frankly it seems too late for that to be viable with a universe <1k planets.
I don't disagree. The current guys in charge are doing a fantastic job with minimal resources, while there's not much to be said for the game's previous owners.

Quote:
I'd also agree that the game could do with simplification, but I don't really see how this complicates matters that much, while also adding some strategic depth to the game. If you want to simplify things, a better idea would be to start by removing all the options which no experienced player even considers, but which new players might not immediately dismiss as useless. The players who would be making these decisions - will my alliance be better of taking X amount of resources as a donation or roiding the alliance over the next few days - are going to be alliance HCs, experienced in the game and capable of handling the small increase in complexity.
Well your bigger problem is the size of the universe which is making HCs increasingly twitchy and irrational to any sort of move by any one else. Everyone just NAPs each other now and any kind of aggression is paid back by a block quickly forming and dishing out a smack down. This is actually devaluing alliance play, because anything that's remotely good play just ends with alliances pressing the red button. If an alliance can't win when it is outsmarted or outgunned, it just uses kamikaze tactics, which means there's less incentive to fight to win. So in this environment, this feature wouldn't have much benefit, although it could well do in a healthier one.

I put myself in the position of an alliance HC, and if I'd beaten an alliance I'd be tempted to surrender to them and pay them off to go away, so I could focus on my other enemies. I'm not sure if I'm happy or unhappy with that.
__________________
"Build a man a fire, and he'll be warm for a day. Set a man on fire, and he'll be warm for the rest of his life."
lokken is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 8 Nov 2014, 19:36   #19
Haer
Aquafresh
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: [^-^]
Posts: 261
Haer has a spectacular aura aboutHaer has a spectacular aura aboutHaer has a spectacular aura about
Re: Purchasing NAPs / Surrendering in game

Quote:
Originally Posted by lokken View Post
Well your bigger problem is the size of the universe which is making HCs increasingly twitchy and irrational to any sort of move by any one else. Everyone just NAPs each other now and any kind of aggression is paid back by a block quickly forming and dishing out a smack down. This is actually devaluing alliance play, because anything that's remotely good play just ends with alliances pressing the red button. If an alliance can't win when it is outsmarted or outgunned, it just uses kamikaze tactics, which means there's less incentive to fight to win. So in this environment, this feature wouldn't have much benefit, although it could well do in a healthier one.

I put myself in the position of an alliance HC, and if I'd beaten an alliance I'd be tempted to surrender to them and pay them off to go away, so I could focus on my other enemies. I'm not sure if I'm happy or unhappy with that.
I can't really comment that much on the politics side 'cos this only the second round i've played in ~10 years, but in many ways it seems more interesting politically than back in say r3 which had a massive universe and boring stagnant politics.

That said, i'd say the problem you identify is the situation this sort of addition aims to solve - an alliance which is outnumbered has very few options atm. This change would add a third option, which may lead to some interesting consequences - if two alliances team up to attack a third, what happens if one of them accepts an NAP after the first night?

The issue of the winning alliance having an incentive to offer to pay a losing one may be a problem, but might just add to the strategic depth. If you tied in XP/Alliance points to the NAP purchasing system, I think it would go away to some extent though.
Haer is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 8 Nov 2014, 22:48   #20
booji
a bucket
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Chatham, UK
Posts: 1,073
booji is a splendid one to beholdbooji is a splendid one to beholdbooji is a splendid one to beholdbooji is a splendid one to beholdbooji is a splendid one to beholdbooji is a splendid one to beholdbooji is a splendid one to behold
Re: Purchasing NAPs / Surrendering in game

Quote:
Originally Posted by Haer View Post
Dont really see how it discriminates against smaller alliances - they already suffer from having less members, so I dont really see how this adds to their woes. Does mean they have an option to avoid some incs though.
I really dont see how it can not be discriminatory. You have two options:
a, the cost to nap is a flat rate in which case smaller alliances pay more per planet
b, it is flexible in which case small alliances will always be offering less so other alliances have less incentive to actually agree to such a nap.
The only way I can see in which it might not be discriminatory would be if smaller alliance had to pay less yet the big alliance agreeing the nap gains the same amount... but how massively open to abuse would that be!
__________________
Proud to have been TGV!
aargh! died in Jenova! | idled in ROCK | disappointed in Audentes | been Roguish | p-p-previously a p-p-p3nguin
Ascendancy

Otterly an Otter.
booji is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 8 Nov 2014, 23:12   #21
Haer
Aquafresh
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: [^-^]
Posts: 261
Haer has a spectacular aura aboutHaer has a spectacular aura aboutHaer has a spectacular aura about
Re: Purchasing NAPs / Surrendering in game

Quote:
Originally Posted by booji View Post
I really dont see how it can not be discriminatory. You have two options:
a, the cost to nap is a flat rate in which case smaller alliances pay more per planet
b, it is flexible in which case small alliances will always be offering less so other alliances have less incentive to actually agree to such a nap.
The only way I can see in which it might not be discriminatory would be if smaller alliance had to pay less yet the big alliance agreeing the nap gains the same amount... but how massively open to abuse would that be!
Smaller alliances have less roids so a smaller price might still be tempting? Considering that the majority of alliances are at/close to full, it's not a huge problem really.
Haer is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 8 Nov 2014, 23:50   #22
booji
a bucket
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Chatham, UK
Posts: 1,073
booji is a splendid one to beholdbooji is a splendid one to beholdbooji is a splendid one to beholdbooji is a splendid one to beholdbooji is a splendid one to beholdbooji is a splendid one to beholdbooji is a splendid one to behold
Re: Purchasing NAPs / Surrendering in game

Quote:
Originally Posted by Haer View Post
Considering that the majority of alliances are at/close to full, it's not a huge problem really.
I clearly cant count
We should not be building a system just for the 8 tags that are nearly full but also for the 30 which are not (including 1 man alliances). We should also not assume that most tags will always be nearly full when making such a system. There have been rounds where there has been a big split between full tags and smaller ones or 'battle groups' before. In fact I would hazard a guess that if you look back through pa history there has usually been a much greater diversity of tag sizes. And of course for the first couple of hundred ticks of this round there was more diversity of tag sizes until Huehue joined faceless and a chunk of Astraeus joined p3n.
__________________
Proud to have been TGV!
aargh! died in Jenova! | idled in ROCK | disappointed in Audentes | been Roguish | p-p-previously a p-p-p3nguin
Ascendancy

Otterly an Otter.
booji is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 9 Nov 2014, 02:59   #23
Haer
Aquafresh
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: [^-^]
Posts: 261
Haer has a spectacular aura aboutHaer has a spectacular aura aboutHaer has a spectacular aura about
Re: Purchasing NAPs / Surrendering in game

Quote:
Originally Posted by booji View Post
I clearly cant count
We should not be building a system just for the 8 tags that are nearly full but also for the 30 which are not (including 1 man alliances). We should also not assume that most tags will always be nearly full when making such a system. There have been rounds where there has been a big split between full tags and smaller ones or 'battle groups' before. In fact I would hazard a guess that if you look back through pa history there has usually been a much greater diversity of tag sizes. And of course for the first couple of hundred ticks of this round there was more diversity of tag sizes until Huehue joined faceless and a chunk of Astraeus joined p3n.
If you add up all the players in the 15 lowest ranking alliances you dont even get 30 planets...The top 10 alliances contain almost 75% of the universe ...

Besides, this doesnt really hurt smaller alliances? Certainly it's minor compared to the fact that a 10 man alliance only has defence from a maximum of 9 other planets.
Haer is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 9 Nov 2014, 10:27   #24
booji
a bucket
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Chatham, UK
Posts: 1,073
booji is a splendid one to beholdbooji is a splendid one to beholdbooji is a splendid one to beholdbooji is a splendid one to beholdbooji is a splendid one to beholdbooji is a splendid one to beholdbooji is a splendid one to behold
Re: Purchasing NAPs / Surrendering in game

First of all why do you want to make a system that does not benefit all alliances? You suggest that this does not really hurt the small alliances but if it is not a system that is good for the whole of pa why would you want to invest the time, effort and money into implementing it rather than something that is potentially useful to everyone?

However as I mentioned you are using statistics from this round. Take (randomly) round 30 instead; you had only 1 alliance with full tag (100), then another two with around 10 less than full tag. Another three with more than 70. After that there were two more above 50, 4 in the 40s and 4 in the 30s. The three alliances with 88+ made up just 17% of the uni.

I did say that there are other negative points so I will bring up some more here.
1, do we really want to entrench a system where alliances feel they have to try to get as close to tag limit as possible so as not to be disadvantaged in negotiations? This seems to damage variety in the game.
2, do we really want to make politics more static? Either the sums involved are tiny to alliances so it is not a worthwhile addition or they are big. If they are big then the consequence is to entrench blocks; alliances are going to be less willing to go back on agreements when they have sunk resources into creating them. The result then is that blocks are more fixed and without fluidity the alliance victory will probably be decided by tick 700 at the latest. To get the fluidity back there is a good chance deals would simply move out of the game once more which would rather defeat the object of the changes.
__________________
Proud to have been TGV!
aargh! died in Jenova! | idled in ROCK | disappointed in Audentes | been Roguish | p-p-previously a p-p-p3nguin
Ascendancy

Otterly an Otter.
booji is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 9 Nov 2014, 11:50   #25
Haer
Aquafresh
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: [^-^]
Posts: 261
Haer has a spectacular aura aboutHaer has a spectacular aura aboutHaer has a spectacular aura about
Re: Purchasing NAPs / Surrendering in game

Quote:
Originally Posted by booji View Post
First of all why do you want to make a system that does not benefit all alliances? You suggest that this does not really hurt the small alliances but if it is not a system that is good for the whole of pa why would you want to invest the time, effort and money into implementing it rather than something that is potentially useful to everyone?

However as I mentioned you are using statistics from this round. Take (randomly) round 30 instead; you had only 1 alliance with full tag (100), then another two with around 10 less than full tag. Another three with more than 70. After that there were two more above 50, 4 in the 40s and 4 in the 30s. The three alliances with 88+ made up just 17% of the uni.
This not benefiting every single alliance is a red herring. Sure, this might not have a massive effect on the 10-15 1 man alliances, but its probably going to impact on >90% of the active universe. If the standard for implementing change is that it has to benefit every single planet, nothing will get changed. Honestly, this objection sounds more like a politician grandstanding for some kind of effect ("You dont care about people with X? You monster!) than a reasonable objection. Taking stats from a round with a tag limit double what we have now doesnt really help either. Plus the whole objection is predicated on the idea that smaller alliances will be unable to use this system. Sure, a 2-3 man alliance probably wont get much use out of it. But they arent getting an NAP with anyone at the moment anyway, so why does it matter?


Quote:
I did say that there are other negative points so I will bring up some more here.
1, do we really want to entrench a system where alliances feel they have to try to get as close to tag limit as possible so as not to be disadvantaged in negotiations? This seems to damage variety in the game.
2, do we really want to make politics more static? Either the sums involved are tiny to alliances so it is not a worthwhile addition or they are big. If they are big then the consequence is to entrench blocks; alliances are going to be less willing to go back on agreements when they have sunk resources into creating them. The result then is that blocks are more fixed and without fluidity the alliance victory will probably be decided by tick 700 at the latest. To get the fluidity back there is a good chance deals would simply move out of the game once more which would rather defeat the object of the changes.
#1 assumes that you have to be full tag for this to work? I dont see why you are assuming that.

As for #2, I dont see how agreements lasting 24//48/72 hours are going to make politics more static. We already have these kinds of agreements in place, this is just formalising them. In fact, I actually think in many ways this change would lead to less blocking. If you have two alliances hitting you at the moment, your options are ally up (this eventually leads to 2 blocks) or just die. This gives the game a third option - make one of the attackers a good offer and see just how strong that alliance is?
Haer is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 9 Nov 2014, 12:12   #26
booji
a bucket
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Chatham, UK
Posts: 1,073
booji is a splendid one to beholdbooji is a splendid one to beholdbooji is a splendid one to beholdbooji is a splendid one to beholdbooji is a splendid one to beholdbooji is a splendid one to beholdbooji is a splendid one to behold
Re: Purchasing NAPs / Surrendering in game

Quote:
Originally Posted by Haer View Post
If the standard for implementing change is that it has to benefit every single planet, nothing will get changed.
The real problem with this proposal is that it is a proposal that benefits only about 20 planets. It provides a new potentially interesting political arena for those who are HCs of the main alliances. It does almost nothing for the members.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Haer
Taking stats from a round with a tag limit double what we have now doesnt really help either.
While the tag limit was not quite double this round the number of players was double so really there should have been more full tags not less. Moreover I think most people would like for the number of players to increase again and so to have tag limits increase in line with that. Are you saying you want to create something that limits us to having a universe the current size? I presume you are not!

Quote:
Originally Posted by Haer
Plus the whole objection is predicated on the idea that smaller alliances will be unable to use this system. Sure, a 2-3 man alliance probably wont get much use out of it. But they arent getting an NAP with anyone at the moment anyway, so why does it matter?
My argument is not just based upon 2-3 man alliances. To be honest with very small alliances I doubt resources would make much difference to whether alliance HCs agree a nap. It is more alliances at half strength that are impacted. These are alliances which can have an impact on the politics of the game yet under this system get their politics hobbled by not having the resources to compete with the bigger alliances when offering naps/alliances/surrenders etc.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Haer
#1 assumes that you have to be full tag for this to work? I dont see why you are assuming that.
You clearly misunderstood me here. I am not assuming that this works only for those on full tag as should be obvious by the fact that I am talking so much about smaller alliances. What does however seem likely that if this provides a benefit to bigger tags then you are adding yet another incentive for alliances to feel they have to try and aim to be full tag rather than playing in some other way.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Haer
As for #2, I dont see how agreements lasting 24//48/72 hours are going to make politics more static.
Your initial posts did not make mention of this being strictly for set periods. However I dont really think this affects the psychology of it much. Does not the whole gambling industry rely on people doubling down on sunk money rather than pulling away?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Haer
In fact, I actually think in many ways this change would lead to less blocking. If you have two alliances hitting you at the moment, your options are ally up (this eventually leads to 2 blocks) or just die. This gives the game a third option - make one of the attackers a good offer and see just how strong that alliance is?
It certainly does provide a new way to bribe one alliance but in practice this third option already exists in a different form; the one alliance being hit can already offer that other alliance the option of not giving them incs or supporting them against another alliance. Or threaten to only hit them. A bribe of resources would have to be huge to compare to any HC's calculations based upon possible incs. You are also forgetting that under a formallised system surely the block would have been created through an exchange of resources so may may the block much more difficult to break. Though it could lead to some fun bidding wars.
__________________
Proud to have been TGV!
aargh! died in Jenova! | idled in ROCK | disappointed in Audentes | been Roguish | p-p-previously a p-p-p3nguin
Ascendancy

Otterly an Otter.
booji is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 9 Nov 2014, 20:22   #27
ArcChas
General (Adjective Army)
 
ArcChas's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Yorkshire, England.
Posts: 825
ArcChas has much to be proud ofArcChas has much to be proud ofArcChas has much to be proud ofArcChas has much to be proud ofArcChas has much to be proud ofArcChas has much to be proud ofArcChas has much to be proud ofArcChas has much to be proud of
Re: Purchasing NAPs / Surrendering in game

We seem to be overlooking the potential for bullying in this proposal. The bigger alliances going to the smaller ones and saying, "give me your dinner money or I'll beat you up".

I don't think we really need to encourage bullying - there are already enough "bottom-feeders" playing this game.
__________________
Amnion (aka The Arcane Chas of Arcania) - Playing PA under those and other pseudonyms every genuine round since Round 2. Most recently (and insignificantly):
Onset of Apathy R94 | Stacks of Resources R95 | The Necromancer of Dol Guldur R96
70 Years of Queen Elizabeth R97 | Worst of The Worst R98
Knights of the Green Shield R99 | Look Out of The Window R100 | Most of All R102
Hard of Hearing (2:7:1) R103 | The Lateness of Your Application (1:6:6) R104 | Kinnison of Tellus (5:1:2) R105
ArcChas is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 11:23.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.1
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2002 - 2018