Round ten and the future of alliances - A question to spinner

[Rumad]

As requested I have written this thread after asking a question which was vaguely answered.

I am in a deep belief that the only way for PA to become fun again is to go against blocking. If anyone knows me since round 8 I have been ardently anto blocking in its current form. Blocking in itself limits players and there abilities to develop.

Blocking has been bad for PA. However in the past I have been a proliferator of blocking. For this I have no excuse nor do I expect anybody to flame or comment. The universum size was different and my reasons for playing were different.

Now to the reason for starting this thread. You made it clear that round 10 will be full random. However my secondary concern is the lack of anything constructive to tackle blocking. While I do not blame alliances for blocking and I understand all the positives to this, I do tend to believe that this allows alliances to directly manipulate the universe direction not through politics or skill but through mass - especially in a universe of limited size.

In creators hour you expressed a thought that the new regional travel times would cause a blocking rethink. My concern with this is that regionalised alliance times will have the opposite effect. ALliance bonds become stronger as they attempt to exploit the shorter eta's.

My main concern is that the shorter eta's earlyon will be the method of growth to allow heavier more longer ranged attacks. Alliances will spend more time in making fortress clusters to allow for the huge travel time differences.

I see very few benefits for smaller alliances. The smaller they are the more limited in their resource and in alliances will want to ensure a good "spread" for them and there allies. How do you envisage tackling this?

[Ronin]

its not blocking u ****, theres always been blocking, there just aren't enough players in the game. so it looks as if blocking is the cause, the thing is, the blocking people stayed (the real core) en the rest left the game.

[Rumad]

Originally posted by Ronin
its not blocking u ****, theres always been blocking, there just aren't enough players in the game. so it looks as if blocking is the cause, the thing is, the blocking people stayed (the real core) en the rest left the game.

as i said it wasnt blamingblocking and yes it is related to the player base.

However I do want to limit the impact that blocking may have.

If we have another round like this round I think we may as well pack up now. The conditions of random blocking are different, but i would like to see more limited use of blocking tactics and preventitive measures taken to proactively stop mass blocking.

[Kinley]

Originally posted by Ronin
its not blocking u ****, theres always been blocking, there just aren't enough players in the game. so it looks as if blocking is the cause, the thing is, the blocking people stayed (the real core) en the rest left the game.

true

[wakey]

Originally posted by Ronin
its not blocking u ****, theres always been blocking, there just aren't enough players in the game. so it looks as if blocking is the cause, the thing is, the blocking people stayed (the real core) en the rest left the game.

WRONG! It really shows that you didnt play r1 and r2 where we had true random galaxies and thus no 'blocking'. Private Galaxies brought about blocking in r3 (and before anyone goes R3 was random, we were given to option to stay in our r2 galaxies which resulted in the first real powerblock of Fury/Legion/RB swapping accounts to get all their players together in galaxies).

The game can survive and expand on a playerbase this side without the blocking which makes it impossible for those outside the blocks and thus scares new players off immediatly

[cbk100]

I very much agree with you there Rumad. If eta is made what you call "regional" then it will be... well lets just call it imposible for a small alliance to exist cause they will not the the resources to cover a normal attack nomatter where it is in the universe simply because of the fact that they don't have that damn many ppl situated at the same place. It will be a HUGE advantage for the big and well organized alliances and it will very much help blocking since working many together will be FAR more effective than it is now.
To make eta this way is not the sure way to destroy the fun of PA for the small alliances and small players but its as close to it as it gets.
If anyone here try to think back to when you joined the game and think of how you could get your def... You will all remember that you could maybe manage to scratch something together from here and there and from near and far...
It still works that way and its more or less the only chance newbies has to get def, but that will not be posible if you make the eta regional.

cbk

[Bashar]

I am unsure that the "benefits" hinted at by Spinner would solve anything. For a start, blocking is about coordinating your forces 90% of the time, sharing targets. There is usually very little interaction between alliances at member level. It is more of the HC sharing data/info, and allocating attacks strategically to assist each other. Only when things become dire do they assist each other with defence, and in such cases, it is usually dire for both, so defence sharing is almost non-existent.

Now, assuming you did manage to do something to prevent blocking (which I believe would have to be to somehow prevent alliances from coordinating outside the game, probably by somehow making it counter productive to do so), then I believe that blocking in its current form would stop, but unless you imposed a size limit on alliances somehow, you would just see the rise of 2-3 super alliances that are a collection of large alliances that merged together rather than block. It sounds unlikely that big alliances would accept this, but I believe they would, and it would only be a matter of time. Now, if you went by the option of restricting size, I see a problem there too, you are restricting the natural growth of the game (optimistic forecast that it will grow).

Basically, there is no way I can see that you could force an end to blocking/similar behaviour. I think the only way it can be done is at a personal level, convince people not to block. I doubt that anything else would work. Zeus made a good effort at this for round 8, and as a result, it was the least blocked round since I started playing. I believe he was taking the right route.

[ComradeRob]

Random galaxies solve most of the problems.

The problem that you are describing is basically this:

It's not possible to force two alliances to attack each other

I don't think that anyone will come up with an answer to that problem any time soon.

[Bashar]

Oh, and for the record, I agree with Rumad's original post

[JonnyBGood]

Originally posted by ComradeRob
Random galaxies solve most of the problems.

The problem that you are describing is basically this:

It's not possible to force two alliances to attack each other

I don't think that anyone will come up with an answer to that problem any time soon.

That's simple. Ever tried forcing someone to do what you think is the right thing? However if instead of attempting to coerce and manipulate you convince and make it more profitable not only will you achieve your goal, you won't even waste your own time trying to make them do it.

Powerblocks don't have to be bad things, private galaxies will not always stagnate the game. It all depends on whether it's possible or not for one or a group of alliances to actually play out the game in advance and know precisely what they need to do to win.

People play games because the outcome is unknown and because they enjoy exercising their ability in a particular area during the game. If the outcome is a foregone conclusion and it takes no skill to win then who the **** is going to bother playing?

[Rumad]

Originally posted by ComradeRob
Random galaxies solve most of the problems.

The problem that you are describing is basically this:

It's not possible to force two alliances to attack each other

I don't think that anyone will come up with an answer to that problem any time soon.

Its called rule chanegs and hard coding.

[ComradeRob]

Originally posted by Rumad
Its called rule chanegs and hard coding.

What rules do you want changed? What do you want to be hard coded?

[Rumad]

Originally posted by cbk100
I very much agree with you there Rumad. If eta is made what you call "regional" then it will be... well lets just call it imposible for a small alliance to exist cause they will not the the resources to cover a normal attack nomatter where it is in the universe simply because of the fact that they don't have that damn many ppl situated at the same place. It will be a HUGE advantage for the big and well organized alliances and it will very much help blocking since working many together will be FAR more effective than it is now.
To make eta this way is not the sure way to destroy the fun of PA for the small alliances and small players but its as close to it as it gets.
If anyone here try to think back to when you joined the game and think of how you could get your def... You will all remember that you could maybe manage to scratch something together from here and there and from near and far...
It still works that way and its more or less the only chance newbies has to get def, but that will not be posible if you make the eta regional.

cbk

A major concern for me is that smaller alliances I have heard about will not be able to survive/compete. It will either mean they will become bloated or ineefctive.

While i do think we need some replanning in the game I would also like to think we are not playing into the bigger alliances hands.

[Rumad]

Originally posted by ComradeRob
What rules do you want changed? What do you want to be hard coded?

there are several things that could be done from a straight blanket banning of naps and alliances - through naps and alliance been limited by size and hardcoded so the creators knwo exactly who is allied with who.

I haven't given a lot of thought to it but the rules can support any structure with a little time, thought and definition.

A user agreement supports a software product. The product defines what it covers.

Sure ppl will try and get around rules, but at least if ppl know the framework they cannot claim ignorance.

[JonnyBGood]

How precisely do you intend to ban NAPs? Force everyone to attack someone else the instant they get a ship perhaps? Banning alliances and NAPs are completely impractical if everyone doesn't actually want to get rid of them. Nobody wants to play a game where you're penalised for ability. It doesn't matter if you're also getting rid of the assorted hangers on who couldn't wipe the drool off their chins long enough to think of how to launch a fleet if they didn't have a team of highly trained professionals to help them through it, you'll get rid of the people who make this game interesting as well.

Maybe you won't though. I must admit I don't like the direction PA seems to be taking, but then again I haven't played seriously since r5 so I don't know how bad blocking etc did get. Hopefully I'm wrong, and to tell you the truth I hope I am. I'd really like to enjoy another round of planetarion.

[Rumad]

the banning was an example of a possible rule change.

Nothing more nothing less, but shows the way in which the rules can be changed to assist ppl's views on the subject.

[ComradeRob]

Originally posted by Rumad
there are several things that could be done from a straight blanket banning of naps and alliances - through naps and alliance been limited by size and hardcoded so the creators knwo exactly who is allied with who.

A NAP is an agreement between two alliances not to attack each other. There is no way to force them to attack each other, therefore you can't ban NAPs.

I haven't given a lot of thought to it

[Rumad]

Originally posted by ComradeRob
A NAP is an agreement between two alliances not to attack each other. There is no way to force them to attack each other, therefore you can't ban NAPs.

You asked a direct question I gave possible examples.

The truth lie ina mixture between rule canges and hard coding.

Btw - why are you trying to discredit anti-blocking? Frightened eclipse will lose out or just prefer teh security of a3rd of the Pa universe behind you?

[JonnyBGood]

Originally posted by Rumad
the banning was an example of a possible rule change.

Nothing more nothing less, but shows the way in which the rules can be changed to assist ppl's views on the subject.

Nobody's really come up with a rule change that might actually work yet though. Of course I accept it's possible but if there's no point saying that if there isn't one that's workable. Of course that 2 week free beta thing should prove a decent training ground.

[Rumad]

Originally posted by JonnyBGood
Nobody's really come up with a rule change that might actually work yet though. Of course I accept it's possible but if there's no point saying that if there isn't one that's workable. Of course that 2 week free beta thing should prove a decent training ground.

the game structures means that currently there are benefits to large blocking. Currently side swapping can be proliferated to extend the advantage of the top alliances as with the last war of this round.

I don't envisage to have a masterplan - if i did I would probably have my own game and would be showing spinner how its done. I do from practical experience know that this could be stopped by the product build. When they had the right structure in game they then can enforce it by the rules. Its not rocket science and its not unworkable, its just against the norm.

If smaller alliances are to survive and new players are to be brought through in a p2p universum then something has to be done to limited the effectiveness of blocking.

[ComradeRob]

Originally posted by Rumad
You asked a direct question I gave possible examples.

The truth lie ina mixture between rule canges and hard coding.

Btw - why are you trying to discredit anti-blocking? Frightened eclipse will lose out or just prefer teh security of a3rd of the Pa universe behind you?

I'm trying to discredit morons who whinge about the lack of changes without coming up with a single credible suggestion themselves.

You're not saying anything new - not a single thing that hasn't been said by yourself or others plenty of times before. Yes, changes to PA to make the game more enjoyable for all should be implemented, but you're not helping anyone by simply whining about it. As you so often point out, you have plenty of PA experience and have seen the game from all sides - since you believe yourself to be the self-appointed judge of what makes a good round of PA, I would expect you to have at least one idea that isn't completely pointless.

[Salomo]

Originally posted by Rumad

Btw - why are you trying to discredit anti-blocking? Frightened eclipse will lose out or just prefer teh security of a3rd of the Pa universe behind you?

why, oh why did you have to bring indiviudal alliances into this discussion?

[Zh|l]

Originally posted by Salomo
why, oh why did you have to bring indiviudal alliances into this discussion?

Did you have to ask?

Because he is a *fill it in with a reasonable word*

[Salomo]

Originally posted by Zh|l
Did you have to ask?

Because he is a *fill it in with a reasonable word*

bye bye interestingly starting thread :-/

[Cochese]

Originally posted by Salomo
why, oh why did you have to bring indiviudal alliances into this discussion?

Bitterness perhaps?

[JonnyBGood]

Originally posted by Rumad
the game structures means that currently there are benefits to large blocking. Currently side swapping can be proliferated to extend the advantage of the top alliances as with the last war of this round.

I don't envisage to have a masterplan - if i did I would probably have my own game and would be showing spinner how its done. I do from practical experience know that this could be stopped by the product build. When they had the right structure in game they then can enforce it by the rules. Its not rocket science and its not unworkable, its just against the norm.

If smaller alliances are to survive and new players are to be brought through in a p2p universum then something has to be done to limited the effectiveness of blocking.

Then remove the benefits. Don't just ban blocking and allying. I'd like to know how people think blocking has killed PA. I don't mean whether it has or not I mean exactly what parts of the blocking strategy damage the game. It'd be far easier to remove the smaller parts than attempt a blanket ban on a basic strategy.

I'll even start! Right now the relative numbers advantage that a block of say 5-700 has is immense. You can even see it in the way roids have concentrated this round. The top five gals are all about 40k, then it drops off dramatically. If you compare the percentage of roids that the top players have to the percentage they had in round 3 you'll see a huge difference. A controlling block will seize roids at a faster rate than anyone else can hope to compete at and as their growth rate goes up exponentially the game stagnates faster.

The problem here lies in the fact that they can seize roids faster. They can capture roids faster because a) people are afraid of them and unwilling to fight back as much b) they can bring more ships to bear initially c) they know/work out what's needed and d) because most likely a few of them cheat like hell. a) is our fault, d) theirs and the creators, b) and c) is because their advantage is huge as the number of players has shrunk and they're all concentrating in groups. Player base up, number of people who will compete up, problem solved. If there is a flaw in my reasoning please point it out.

[Bashar]

Originally posted by JonnyBGood
If there is a flaw in my reasoning please point it out.

Ermmm, your reasoning does make sense in a theoretical world, however, try implementing it. If it were possible to just click fingers and increase playerbase, it would have been done. Sadly, people have to enjoy the game to stay, and I don't think anyone doubts that a larger playerbase would make the game more enjoyable, so, to achieve a higher playerbase, you need either a higher playerbase, or some freak occurence after some hardcore advertising from the entire community, or for the game to be made more fun by the people playing - such as starting off on an equal basis to the newbies.

The first and third ain't gonna happen. The second therefore seems to be pretty much the only way.

[Bashar]

Originally posted by Rumad
Btw - why are you trying to discredit anti-blocking?

I would say rob was pointing out the reasons why the anti-blocking techniques suggested were flawed and would not work. I have yet to see an idea for getting rid of blocking, or large-scale alliance pacts that was even remotely likely to work. It is not because anyone is stupid, or puts no effort in, it is because it is bloody difficult to prevent actions which are a part of fundamental human nature, such as grouping for support and self-security is.

It is one of these dilemas which is a real bugger to solve, and if anyone manages to come up with a solution that works, they are quite simply genius, as defying human nature is no easy feat.

[Salomo]

i believe wakey is pretty much on the right track and share his view that powerblocks originated in r3, but - eventhough i believe going all random is a good start against powerblocks - i would not put all the blame for powerblocks on private galaxies.

In round 3 private galaxies were possible and probably used a lot by fury and legion afaik by swapping accounts, but there was not only the triad but also STEL and other first attempts at powerblocking. The STEL galaxies were a lot less private and still they got together in a block to fight the triad.

So based on that, i'd say that private galaxis were a good help for developing powerblocks to work as effectively as they have, but neither a deciding factor that caused them nor a mandatory prerequisite for them. The deciding factor was the unbound desire to win. And yes, what I am stating here is rather obvious, but it is nonetheless vital to understand and notice.

Fury and Legion, perhaps fearing some stronger oposition after winning r2, figured out they would have better chances to win if they reinforced their powers with a third partner. The STEL alliances didn't think they would have a chance to win alone, and therefore formed STEL. That process happened completely independent of ingame aspects, purely out of the obversation that they are stronger together. These ideas got developed further and we saw powerblocks developing every round, allways motivated by the desire to win or to survive. There was no ingame factor that caused this process, it all originated from the minds of the HCs


Now things like random galaxies can make powerblocks harder to coordinate, and things like regional eta's can change the face of powerblocks, but the only two things that can stop powerblocks again are either taking away part of the freedom of alliance to form diplomatic relations, which aside from being extremely hard to implement would be a severe loss for PA, or learning to use the freedoms more responsibly. As long as alliances have the freedom to form blocks and influence the game as they now do, they are the only ones that can stop the blocking.

As long as alliances don't finally realise their responsibility towards this game and value fun in playing the current and future rounds higher than winning i doubt anything will stop the blocking or its negative effects

[Gerbie]

I have a feeling PA Team has thought about this stuff as well. Lets just wait for their answer, so we can discuss about something real. CH gave me the feeling they will change things dramaticly. Which might mean the end of alliances as we know it. Including the powerblocks.

[Spinner]

First of all, sorry for being so slow in replying, it turned into a busy night.
But thanks for posting this here in stead of continuing in Creators Hour, nice to let some more questions come to the surface.

I shall get right on it.

To quote Rumads original post:
Now to the reason for starting this thread. You made it clear that round 10 will be full random. However my secondary concern is the lack of anything constructive to tackle blocking. While I do not blame alliances for blocking and I understand all the positives to this, I do tend to believe that this allows alliances to directly manipulate the universe direction not through politics or skill but through mass - especially in a universe of limited size.

A fully random universe will go some of the way against blocking. Not a whole lot, specially not if one is using the "old" travelling system, but with a clever "combination" or mix between the old and a "new one", it will have a certain impact, because AN ALLIANCE will have a benefit.

But the main issue in the upcoming testing weeks will be risk VS rewards. Blocking has developed simply due to the rewards and security it offers, knock down those two factors, and the bet isnt so sure anymore. Good players will not block up if it doesnt pay off. And since it will be impossible to enjoy most alliance benefits and opportunities without registering the alliance ingame, we can have a certain degree of control over the blocks, and the possible benefits.

Also, since you mention political skills and individual skills, you bring up another point. It takes no skill at all to hit and crush a target one fifth of your size. Your reward, AND your score ,will reflect just that. It might be time for everyone to realize that you may very well be brought into situations where loosing a bunch of ships, is the right descision, score-wise.

See, thats another thing that will affect the way planets are played, individuall skill, and how people play the game. It wil no longer be the sheer VALUE of a planets fleet and roids that provide his score. Think of score more as a measurement of what you have been able to do with the resources available, in an overall setting. Always fleing from the bigger foe might sound the best solution, but perhaps your planets inhabitants do not think it is fun to be left behind every time trouble approaches. And if you are being hit by a gigantic fleet, perhaps the right tactics and priorities will make you a hero!
When planets are no longer ranked by sheer VALUE, a lot of things come into play.

Consider these two planets:
Planet A has been able to reach 500 roids, he is not a member of a big alliance, but is doing awefully well.
Planet B is a member of the #1 alliance, and has reached 600 roids with lots of help from his friends.
Which player do you think will have the higest score?

Now, please take some of this with a pinch of salt, as much is left to be done here. But change the way players are rated, and you change the way the game is played. Change the benefits of blocking, and you might just avoid a lot of it.

In creators hour you expressed a thought that the new regional travel times would cause a blocking rethink. My concern with this is that regionalised alliance times will have the opposite effect. ALliance bonds become stronger as they attempt to exploit the shorter eta's.

My main concern is that the shorter eta's early on will be the method of growth to allow heavier more longer ranged attacks. Alliances will spend more time in making fortress clusters to allow for the huge travel time differences.

Well, maybe more so than the sheer effect from traveltime, is the effect of limiting sizes of alliances, and how closely multiple alliances can cooperate.
Keep in mind, we are all "blocking". Either just with a few planets, like a galaxy. Or perhaps a few galaxies, up to a cluster. Or perhaps an alliance with the same amount of people as a cluster.
But we are all blocking. The idea is just to get enough blocks to make it fun and unsafe for everyone.

I see very few benefits for smaller alliances. The smaller they are the more limited in their resource and in alliances will want to ensure a good "spread" for them and there allies. How do you envisage tackling this?

10 people have in fact very few advantages when compared to say 40 people. There is nothing that can totally counter for this, if it was, it wouldnt be any point in playing, would it.
But, the smaller alliances might actually be able to grow faster in score per planet, than those in a big alliance.
Yes, I said might, because not everything is ready here yet.
And many things are still yet to go from the drawing board and into the code.

But finally, I would like to add one very important factor in the overall "playing amidst blocks" aspect.

With the introduction of Agents performing instant actions on a target planet, a lot of the uncertainty is gone.
Lets say the top 5 alliances (500 planets) enter a full nap, and leave eahother alone, going for the smaller fish only.
Previsouly, they have been immune to attacks etc.
However, with Agents on the playing field, this is not so, as this is warfare on a different level. And 2000 small angry planets seeing these 500 ruining things, well, they can make some serious noticable damage, which they have never been able to do before.

Naturally, these 5 alliances can fight back with the same means, but they will act with far less impact and frequency, having to spread their Agents a lot thinner, if you know what I mean.
2000 planets sending Agents out to sabotage ships in 100 fleets, will certainly be both seen, heard and fealt.

One last thing that also affects blocking quite a bit, is the way planets grow in Planetarion. There is no "price" for growing, and no "benefit" in staying lean. There is then also a kind of exponential growth. (Yes, this adds to the blocking problem through making the biggest alliances with the biggest planets untouchable, and it makes catching up and rebuilding impossible.)
This issue will be met with some pretty interesting growth-limiting factors, but the details needs testing before they will be published.

All in all , Rumad, we are trying to do a lot to :
- Remove the benefits of blocking
- Remove how close multiple alliances can work together
- Get rid of exponential growth
- Add features that can be used by, and inside, an alliance only (we sure want alliances, but not in groups of 8 in one block (-: )
- Add tactics, priorities and a touch of micro-management to allow for more technical skill with every player
- Introduce a brand new scoring system which measures the score very differently.
- Make the universe more dynamic and more uncertain by adding a second "layer" of combat through instant Agent actions.
- And then some....

So I dare to say we have been both creative in how to approach the blocking problem (which in my eyes is just the visible result of other problems) and also how to meet the other problems that lead to the undesired product known as a predetermined boring game of powerblocks.

I hope you wil consider my answer, even with all the unknows it brings up, and forgive my speling errors, I am tired, and have to get back up in 3 hours

[Spinner]

Originally posted by Salomo
Fury and Legion, perhaps fearing some stronger oposition after winning r2, figured out they would have better chances to win if they reinforced their powers with a third partner. The STEL alliances didn't think they would have a chance to win alone, and therefore formed STEL. That process happened completely independent of ingame aspects, purely out of the obversation that they are stronger together. These ideas got developed further and we saw powerblocks developing every round, allways motivated by the desire to win or to survive. There was no ingame factor that caused this process, it all originated from the minds of the HCs

Now things like random galaxies can make powerblocks harder to coordinate, and things like regional eta's can change the face of powerblocks, but the only two things that can stop powerblocks again are either taking away part of the freedom of alliance to form diplomatic relations, which aside from being extremely hard to implement would be a severe loss for PA, or learning to use the freedoms more responsibly.

This is not 100% correct, there are more options than the 2 you mention. You can leave the freedom, but implement a "cost" to use it this or that way. As an example, its fairly "militairly speaking", clever to be part of Nato.
But do you think Nato membership comes for free, and that it has no costs for the memebers? I dont (-: All them paperpushers in the top office needs wages, assistants, beuraucracy etc etc.
Look at EU too, many countries look at EU as a clever choice, ut it sure aint free. See where I am getting at?

[Spinner]

Originally posted by Bashar
I am unsure that the "benefits" hinted at by Spinner would solve anything. For a start, blocking is about coordinating your forces 90% of the time, sharing targets. There is usually very little interaction between alliances at member level. It is more of the HC sharing data/info, and allocating attacks strategically to assist each other. Only when things become dire do they assist each other with defence, and in such cases, it is usually dire for both, so defence sharing is almost non-existent.

Ok, let ut theoretically assume that the universe has SOME degree of dynamic traveltime, with a max difference of say 6 ticks or so. Let us assume that regged members in an alliance can reach eachother with a SET eta, to help with defense, and that they get a SET ETA to a target picked by the alliance.
Lets say that the more powerfull the alliance is, the more is costs to be a member. This would be an advantage to a smaller alliance, and it would indeed allow the members of a small alliance grow a bit faster.

Now then, when considering that, I'd say the ability to be able to defend your alliance mate is fairly important.
And if you can not defend your friend in a different alliance as effectively due to not having reduced ETA to him, isnt that a push in the desired direction?

[furssie]

Originally posted by Spinner

All in all , Rumad, we are trying to do a lot to :
- Remove the benefits of blocking
- Remove how close multiple alliances can work together
- Get rid of exponential growth
- Add features that can be used by, and inside, an alliance only (we sure want alliances, but not in groups of 8 in one block (-: )
- Add tactics, priorities and a touch of micro-management to allow for more technical skill with every player
- Introduce a brand new scoring system which measures the score very differently.
- Make the universe more dynamic and more uncertain by adding a second "layer" of combat through instant Agent actions.
- And then some....

Hmmm... Don't wanna celebrate early, but if these stuffs be executed correctly.... This is a winnah \o/

[Rumad]

Originally posted by Spinner
good read

Spinner first of all thank you. This has to have been the third thread we have done like this in the past and each time you reply candidly with a lot of information.

The idea's are interesting and will maube allow for less blocking. As the full details have not been released I cannot say yes or no, but it does look interesting.

Some of the idea's though seem to have the ability disbalance the game whihc may take skill out of it, similar to ob attacks.

How do you propose to limit the effexcts so that a balance can be achieved?

The good thing about PA is its varying levels of activity and skills, Some aspire to get 1k roids overs aspire to win the game. I think it would be pretty harsh to allow these planets to be newbie rushed by 2k small planets and have limited responses.

I do want a fair and practical system to be implemented to stop blocking, I would also like to think there is no disbalance so skill and ability can come through.

[Fred of Bedrock]

I can see an obvious way of abusing the proposed changes ... so I bet if an old fossil like me can see a way then I wont be the only one. OFC I have no intention of doing such abuse nor spreading it but I am not sure others will be so discreet.

You are playing a game with some very clever people... its all very nice to sit around having jam sandwiches and tea playing alpha but when the game gets hardcore you need to ask some of the down and dirty ppl what can happen.


Anyway reset rnd9 pls so at least we can do something while spinner "tweaks"

[Spinner]

Originally posted by Fred of Bedrock
I can see an obvious way of abusing the proposed changes ... so I bet if an old fossil like me can see a way then I wont be the only one. OFC I have no intention of doing such abuse nor spreading it but I am not sure others will be so discreet.

Hehe, I think I Know what you mean, and there will be limits, limitations and time restrictions on what you think of

[Spinner]

Rumad, I am not trying to fool anyone here, I dont have the equation balanced out yet, so I cant give you an answer to your last question. I know what I want, and I think I know the approach to make it happen. But the pieces will have to be woked on while the puzzle is made.

But there are other considerations with regards to skills and activity, and perhaps Engineers and the new Techtree will be a part of your answer here, at least I think it will.

But, to summarize, I dont know jack about how this will balance out

[Rumad]

Originally posted by JonnyBGood
Then remove the benefits. Don't just ban blocking and allying. I'd like to know how people think blocking has killed PA. I don't mean whether it has or not I mean exactly what parts of the blocking strategy damage the game. It'd be far easier to remove the smaller parts than attempt a blanket ban on a basic strategy.

Killed is such an ugly word. Alliances have done what is best for there members. The main problem is that kills off at least 50% of the universe very quickly. Direct targetting which is employed also goes on way too long which means that they kill the universe until they give up. This is due to the way in which the politics work. Whats worse is the reluctance of some individuals to even accept that its wrong. Even now I know to alliances planning blocks (new alliances, but still blocking under the facade independent wings).

Originally posted by JonnyBGood

I'll even start! Right now the relative numbers advantage that a block of say 5-700 has is immense. You can even see it in the way roids have concentrated this round. The top five gals are all about 40k, then it drops off dramatically. If you compare the percentage of roids that the top players have to the percentage they had in round 3 you'll see a huge difference. A controlling block will seize roids at a faster rate than anyone else can hope to compete at and as their growth rate goes up exponentially the game stagnates faster.

actually its deeper than that. They stagnate because they grow too fast, but is it because they are more skilled or the fact everyone has given up.

The problem is that all alliances will not consider more action (we vs et war) until they have a certain degree of certainty as to there solidity and there structure. Killing off players isnt skill or better roiding its about killing someone till they give up. The politics are way too one dimensional in a small universe.

Originally posted by JonnyBGood

The problem here lies in the fact that they can seize roids faster. They can capture roids faster because a) people are afraid of them and unwilling to fight back as much b) they can bring more ships to bear initially c) they know/work out what's needed and d) because most likely a few of them cheat like hell. a) is our fault, d) theirs and the creators, b) and c) is because their advantage is huge as the number of players has shrunk and they're all concentrating in groups. Player base up, number of people who will compete up, problem solved. If there is a flaw in my reasoning please point it out.

No this part is wrong. You are dead. You know if you get above X million you will be attacked. Your gal is inactive and you cannot be on 24 hours a day. Most are not affraid, tbh most couldnt give a stuff when a round reaches the point it has. Then alliances start you use tactics like oversending fleet to stop defence and start a mopping up job.

If you could keep all 5k players playing you are right, but in reality ppl lose heart and enjoyment.

Blocking is not to be blamed for this, but it is the main cause. The effect is stagnation.

Alliances have prooved time and again they do not have the responsibility to accept the power of being able to block. They abuse and misuse it all the time. This is why I believe something needs to happen to force them to act better and more responsible.

/me awaits spinners ideas and how he perceives they can be balanced.

[Gerbie]

In order to get the hords of new players in our alliance we want to have both a junior alliance and a main alliance. Will it be possible for some members to join multiple alliances or will being officer of the junior alliance mean you've more or less given up the round?

[Rumad]

Originally posted by Spinner
Rumad, I am not trying to fool anyone here, I dont have the equation balanced out yet, so I cant give you an answer to your last question. I know what I want, and I think I know the approach to make it happen. But the pieces will have to be woked on while the puzzle is made.

But there are other considerations with regards to skills and activity, and perhaps Engineers and the new Techtree will be a part of your answer here, at least I think it will.

But, to summarize, I dont know jack about how this will balance out

I am not trying to force you to answer something which isn't fully worked out. I just worry like OB it will disbalance things.

I also perceive that multi's will gain a huge benefit from some of these changes and I would like to see better and more effective multi hunting than this round.

All I hpe is that you ask some of the more experienced community what they feel. There are several members of this community that will have a balanced opinion and they need input. It would also be nice if you could get hc's around the table again to talk about the changes and how it effects them and how it will be better to go alone / with limited allies.

Btw thanks for your responses some good ideas I just hope its not half assed implemented like some of the things in the past

[Salomo]

Originally posted by Fred of Bedrock
I can see an obvious way of abusing the proposed changes ... so I bet if an old fossil like me can see a way then I wont be the only one. OFC I have no intention of doing such abuse nor spreading it but I am not sure others will be so discreet.

You are playing a game with some very clever people... its all very nice to sit around having jam sandwiches and tea playing alpha but when the game gets hardcore you need to ask some of the down and dirty ppl what can happen.

If you know of ways to exploit the changes you should post them now when things are still in planning in order to make it possible to avoid those abuses. If they are not avoided sooner or later someone will find and use them, so it is a lot better to know them now and have the possibility to avoid them
than to find out about them when it's too late

[Fred of Bedrock]

Originally posted by Spinner
Hehe, I think I Know what you mean, and there will be limits, limitations and time restrictions on what you think of

Bet you dont and if you want to make a challenge of it then so be it Ù

[Salomo]

Originally posted by Spinner
This is not 100% correct, there are more options than the 2 you mention. You can leave the freedom, but implement a "cost" to use it this or that way. As an example, its fairly "militairly speaking", clever to be part of Nato.
But do you think Nato membership comes for free, and that it has no costs for the memebers? I dont (-: All them paperpushers in the top office needs wages, assistants, beuraucracy etc etc.
Look at EU too, many countries look at EU as a clever choice, ut it sure aint free. See where I am getting at?

Originally posted by Spinner
Lets say that the more powerfull the alliance is, the more is costs to be a member

The two ideas, introducing a price for being part of an alliance based on its power and paying a price a price for realtions seem very interesting imo, but i see a few problems with it you might want to consider to find ways around them:

1. To implement this system you will need to give people the incentive to register their alliances and relations ingame, and if i understood corrwectly you plan on doing that by giving those that do register certain benefits. The problem is, that for people to register you need to give them large enough benefits due to the restrictions that come with registering. The larger the benefits are, the more at a disadvantage those are, that are not in an alliance. People new to the game usually don't start out in an alliance, so they will be even more at a disadvantage, making PA more newbie unfriendly.

2. Since every new member to an alliance increases the power of an alliance (unless of course you use the average score of the alliance to determine the power, which would however not limit alliance size in any way) alliances will need to select even more carefully who they allow to join. Allowing newbies, who have neither proven themselves yet nor have had the chance to proove themselves, to join is quite risky, making it even harder for newbies to join an alliance, again making the game more newbie-unfriendly.

3. If implemented in the way i hope it would, this system would hopefully bring back small elite alliances. Very many people usually wish to join these alliances, as they are the most prestigeous. What is to stzop these elite alliances from simply using these many aplicants in a type of "recruitment alliance"? These could be registered or unregistered alliances that increase the power of the main aloliance without charging the main alliance any price for it. That they perhaps can not defend the main alliance as easily doesn't matter, as long as they are able to target the enemy alliance and soak up their defence they will be a great tool to increase the power of the main alliances without any extra cost for them.

4. This is allready touched at in #3, but what is to stop alliances from unoficially allying? A block does not need the members of different aslliances to defend each other, which you could probably regulate, all they need to form a strong block is to not attack each other and to attack the same alliance(s) in order to spread its defence more thinly.
A possible way to work against this might be an adaption of a system similar to this http://games.swirve.com/utopia/help/relation.htm?
but that would open new ways of exploitations

5. Taking the idea from #4 a bit further yet, why should large alliances not simply use a wing system and register each wing as seperate alliance? Especially if regional traveltimes are introduced that seems like a very plausible step to take.

Please don't get me wrong, i'm not trying to rip the idea appart, i like the idea and would like to see it further developed. There most likely are a lot more problems with the idea, but once they're seen they can be dealt with and avoided hopefully

[Bashar]

Originally posted by Rumad
I am not trying to force you to answer something which isn't fully worked out. I just worry like OB it will disbalance things.

I also perceive that multi's will gain a huge benefit from some of these changes and I would like to see better and more effective multi hunting than this round.

All I hpe is that you ask some of the more experienced community what they feel. There are several members of this community that will have a balanced opinion and they need input. It would also be nice if you could get hc's around the table again to talk about the changes and how it effects them and how it will be better to go alone / with limited allies.

Btw thanks for your responses some good ideas I just hope its not half assed implemented like some of the things in the past

The multi-hunting techniques will be vastly improved. Before he was a creator, Kloopy and I brainstormed ideas on preventing multi's, bots etc that are hardcoded in, and ways of tracking them, and we came up with dozens of new measures which we felt would be effective. After becoming a creator, he told me that those would be implemented, and I have to say, I don't think I could think of a way to get around them. As a result, I think anybody who attempts to multi or use bots from round 10 on is foolish, and would get caught. It is likely to put to shame current multi-hunting methods.

/me runs away and awaits a bollocking from Kloopy for sticking my nose in.

[Bashar]

Originally posted by Salomo
If you know of ways to exploit the changes you should post them now when things are still in planning in order to make it possible to avoid those abuses. If they are not avoided sooner or later someone will find and use them, so it is a lot better to know them now and have the possibility to avoid them
than to find out about them when it's too late

No, he shouldn't post them, he should tell them to a creator in private

[hAl]

Any regional traveltime system will encourage blocking via alliance and battlegroups. For a winning side it is a nescesity to be able to cover all regions of the universe in attack. That means you need as big a powerblock as you can get.

Smaller alliances going at it alone will be completly doomed in such a scenario. They will not have the ability to attack together properly because they have to much difference in travel time on a lot of targets.

To win easily in a setting with regional traveltimes you will probably need to get 10% or more of the universe attacking together in alliances and battlegroups. If you limit the alliancesize like was suggested so far that will have little meaning cause the big alliance can easily try to enter several wings as separate alliance and use battlegroups to keep their members of the different in game alliance together as a whole and even join up with other bigger alliances to form regional battlegroups who will have more planets attacking targets together than alliance playing more loosely.

What is completly missing in the current approach towards a new round is to make the game less interesting for alliances and for blocks. More emphasis on individual play in stead of alliance play
there can be loads of suggestions that can impact one or more of these areas. For instance:
Making alliances attacking together get less results
Making outside gal defence much more difficult/inefficient and in gal def more efficient.
Make combined bashing fleets useless
Make scan planets more useless
Make only one alliance get roids during a battletick on a galaxy which (the alliance with heaviest hostiles attacking that galaxy)
No more late in the round tagging of gals. Name changes only during 1st 2 weeks of the gals existance.
Emphasis on planet rankings and in game alliance rankings, no tagging allowed to create tag alliance/battlegroup rankings
No changing for planet to other in game alliances during the round
Remove AD from forums and remove allcomp
Randomly place people in 'in game' alliances and making only those planets and galmembers able to send def fleets

Hmmmm, there is much more I can think when I wasn't at work atm and probably even some ideas to force people to attack certain other alliances (which some claim to be impossible).

hAl

[cbk100]

This is all about making the game as interesting as posible. As I see it many of the changes we are to see will make this game a lot better so I really think we are on to something right here, but powerblocking can ruin the fun of any game. Atm. when I look at that travel time system I really see no reason that it will prevent powerblocking. I really see noone saying why it should prevent poverblocking but ppl only say that it will. On the other hand I think it will incurage powerblocking cause as I said a little above it will be imposible for a little alliance to def a few members if they are at about the same place in the universe simply because their member base is little and not many ppl at about the same place in the universe. For the big alliances it will be far easier cause its not as easy to hit all of the ppl they have lets say in c8,c9,c10,c11,c12 as it is to hit the few ppl a little alliance might have in those clusters. I know almost for sure that if we see a travel time system like the one we are talking about atm. then there will be far more blocking and teaming up simply because member count will get more priority than skills.

Take for example a little newbie alliance with lets say 20 members. Maybe they have 2 members in the same gal. What if they both get incomings? then maybe 5 of the other ppl can reach them. you can count on some half of those 5 has ships out so only 2 left... DOMED!!!. Or even all 5 can be unlucky and get incomings at the same time so all of them is tied up, but if you put a 0 behind the numbers so the alliance has 200 members is so VERY much more unlikely that 20 gets incomings and what I would consider imposible that all 50 get incomings... It simply makes numbers a more important factor and that is kinda what we are trying to prevent here.

Its not the travel time system that is the problem so no reason to change it.

To think that the alliances will register and give out the member list is not even a thought to consider as long as the small alliances will bennefit from it cause if the small alliances are to bennefit then some are to so the opposite and that is the big alliances and I don't think any big alliances freely want to shoot themself in the foot unless ALL big alliances agrees to do it casue then they are still equal in that matter.

Beside that I have a few suggestions:

Spinner is talking about changing score system and yes that is very much needed. What about inplementing another thing called "Fame"?
Fame is calculated into the score so if you have 1 mill fame it adds 1 mill to your score without being based in any ships or roids or resources you have.
When you attack your fleetworth is still counted into your attack but so is your fame... not all of your score but your fame. So if you are lets say 10 mill of which 1 mill is fame and 9 mill is fleetworth. Then it becomes VERY difficult to attack small targets at lets say 2 mill cause they most likely have about no fame at all but 2 mill fleet worth. If you want to get max cap you are only allowed to send 66% of his score which is 1.320.000 score worth of fleet and fame. Since 1 mill of what you send will be fame you can only send 320.000 worth of ships and its very unlikely that you are able to take 2 mill worth of ships with 320.000 worth of ships.
This will simply prevent the bashing of planets 20% of your size.
And if we turn it around then it will also be easier for smaller ppl to attack bigger targets.
What I really like about this is that it doesn't make skill less important in the game but maybe even more important, but it will balance the universe more instead we we see ppl who just rise sky high compared to most other by attacking small targets from which he gets pretty much secure roids.

I don't know where we can "put in" that fame... maybe into the roids so that the more roids you got the more fame you have. As I see it this will only have one disadvantage and that is, that if you lose your roids then you will be able to effectively roid newbies again, but then again why roid newbies who has no only little roids and all of its score in fleet when you can roid fat targets which has much of his score in fame?
So I think it should be in roids... I have also thought about it in both ships and roids but to have fame in ships is simply not a good idea cause that will remove much of the advantage with it since small planets will still have much of their score in fame.
The fame thing also counts when you send defense... which will mean that if you send 1 vsh that 1 vsh will count like 1 vsh+fame in the battle which will cause the planet you are defending to lose more roids (this will ofc. requere that def sent to a planet to def is added to the homeplanet fleetworth so a little change in the cap formula is needed).
Another huge advantage with this is that it will make it less effective to powerblock cause when one block begins to get the edge then they will be attacking with more fame compared to defenders which will have little fame but much fleet worth. The differense in score will become bigger faster because you also capture fame and therefore you will run out of targets faster... As I have said earlier it prevents the effectivity of powerblocking in attacks but also in def cause in def the big ones will have too much fame involved in the battle which will make attackers get better cap and when you defend aggainst the big ones their cap will easily be screwed by the fame compared to your def fleets which is far less fame and more fleetworth.

Another option I have thought about might be able to limit powerblocking and that is the still keep the limit at 20% of targets you can attack but beside that make it so that you can also only attack limited score/roid ratios compared to your own score/roid ratio. This will make the round stagnate faster for the big planets and as we have seen the last rounds powerblocks break up when the round stagnate. This will make them break earlier and the smaller planets will have a far bigger impact on the univese (like I described with the fame) and therfore the round is far from over and it will be FAR easier to take down the big planets and alliances.

Sorry for it being that long but even though I have thought a lot about it its far from totaly clear to me what effects will come out of it and how it has to be done precisely, but said in short what I think we need is:

NO change in ETA or at least not that regional ETA thingy
Get "fame"(or whatever you want to call it) implemented in the score calculation.
Make another attack limit alongside with the 20% of your score limit. A limitation based on your score/roid ratio compared to your target's score/roid ratio.

cbk

[Rumad]

Originally posted by hAl
Any regional traveltime system will encourage blocking via alliance and battlegroups. For a winning side it is a nescesity to be able to cover all regions of the universe in attack. That means you need as big a powerblock as you can get.

Smaller alliances going at it alone will be completly doomed in such a scenario. They will not have the ability to attack together properly because they have to much difference in travel time on a lot of targets.

I find myself agreeing with hal here. The cost thing is a nice idea, but how is it implemented? If you are a lowbie and semi active - if the cost is based on member count you are being punished for being with other similar members. Hardly an ideal situation. If its based on score thats slightly differrent...

whatever is implemented needs to encourage, not hinder micro alliances. Perhaps they can receive attack modifiers and defence modifiers which will encourage them to stay smaller. Perhaps this could also work the other way for large alliance attacks (roid capture is euql to the largest amount of ships attacking regardless if they land or not).

I just feel that some of these idea's that spinner presented sound nifty, but hard to implement.

[hAl]

Btw, if you want to add something for small alliances that cannot fill a 100 person alliance. Make resource income dependant on alliance size.
Individuas get 300 per roid.
Alliances with 10 members get 300 - 10 = 290 resources per roid
Alliances with 100 members get 300 - 100 = 200 resource per roid

Those are serieus measures to help out small alliance and even give unallied newbies a better start into the game. Also with most roids expected to be in larger allied hands anyways the avarge income per roid will probably drop below 250 making for less quick stagnation as a little sideeffect.

hAl