Planetarion Forums - So we held a little poll on AD

Shyne · 22 Dec 2005, 17:50

As the man who wants the change lokken, surely you should do that instead of telling Kal what to do.

mist · 22 Dec 2005, 18:04

i think it's based on the fact that kall obviously cares what the player base thing, as he's in pateam and that lokken has asked about it, but his methods have been called in to doubt so he feels that someone else should have a go.

Squidly · 22 Dec 2005, 18:18

Ok. I have a 10 minute coffee break right now. How's this for an idea.

Is there any way to either specify this rule or maybe even hardcode it so that any player who is part of a top 5 alliance cannot receive defence from anyone outside of their own galaxy/alliance?

For the smaller alliances, and a prime example being the rock/hr/vgn fight... how about no outside defence from anyone not in an alliance?

This could possibly make sure that the top 5 aren't using other alliances as flak defence, and will let the lower scored folk play things their own way and have wars/agreements (I have to admit the whole hr/rock/vgn thing was a good fight to hear about. )

I'm not really seeing many drawbacks to this, but then again I've been completely out to lunch before

so feel free to let me know

This doesn't really solve the issue of flak attack planets ... but I suppose the MH can just keep an eyeball on offenders there couldn't they?

furball · 22 Dec 2005, 19:11

Squidly - how about NewDawn1 and NewDawn2 defending each other? 80 members each.

Fair or unfair?

Squidly · 22 Dec 2005, 19:31

Quote:

Originally Posted by furball

Squidly - how about NewDawn1 and NewDawn2 defending each other? 80 members each.

Fair or unfair?

Dude. There's an ND 2? fk, I gotta go see if they're as crazy as the original ND then

If ND1 are top 5, then ND2 can't defend em. Hardcoded.

If ND1 and ND2 are not top 5, then I suppose that's a completely new can of worms, but... you'd think the MH would be able to ID an obvious support alliance (ND2) as opposed to two alliances simply working together {HR+Rock} ... That's my thinking anyways.

Shyne · 22 Dec 2005, 21:28

Alliances have cross deffed in the past - its done at the risk of using up your own defence on someone else, and leaving yourself open to attack.

The above should BE ALLOWED.

The creation of 'support planets' - people that dont really play the game (and wouldnt be opened to attack by defending their high rolling friend) should NOT be allowed.

lokken · 22 Dec 2005, 22:50

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shyne

Alliances have cross deffed in the past - its done at the risk of using up your own defence on someone else, and leaving yourself open to attack.

The above should BE ALLOWED.

The creation of 'support planets' - people that dont really play the game (and wouldnt be opened to attack by defending their high rolling friend) should NOT be allowed.

The problem is by allowing one, you allow the other and the two are very very similar, as you could effectively create a subsidiary alliance of support planets that defends itself, attacks to the mother alliance's requirements and defends the mother alliance as when needed. The object of the rule was to enforce the alliance limit. The problem is you can't just think about what has happened to circumvent the rules, but would could be done in future to do so.

The current rule punishes a friend for defending a friend twice potentially. This has far less effect on the game than what i described above.

xontas · 22 Dec 2005, 23:13

kal lots of people are reading it just not responding
responding to you get you fired or you push them out of the team you wanne control

its just nice to see you now act in public like you did in private all those times we had words
maby if you keep it up biffy might see it to, you GO BOY GO

anyway, you run PAteam you dont own us all
so kindly stop the censorship of all content you dont like on this forum
its the COMMUNITY forum and not the portal!

i got a couple of post closed because they where anti-jolt (in fact they where anti biffy, i have no problems with jolt)

now, i would be amazed if i could do this without getting biffy to delete post/ close my account and ban me
so i am waiting with curiousity

greetz

Xontas

Alessio · 22 Dec 2005, 23:22

Take your constructive flame to PM xontas

xontas · 22 Dec 2005, 23:30

this is me flaming him because i just got a VERY angry mail by phil who has put in a lot of hours on this game and was very offended
phil is a nice guy and will never flame
i'm not a nice guy......so :-)

anyway, i dont do that in PM anymore, because that get used agains you (twisted)

Kal · 23 Dec 2005, 00:13

Quote:

Originally Posted by lokken

The current rule punishes a friend for defending a friend twice potentially. This has far less effect on the game than what i described above.

No it doesn't at all - despite what people thing of the MH team they are reaosnable people, and a couple of defences here and now clearly does not make someone a support account.

From speaking to the MH team 1up primarilly have reported a lot of people as being support accounts. Some were and were closed, others were not and hence wern't. I fell a lot of the issues being described here are becuase the people reporting them feel that the MH team simply did not have enough evidence and that their hands were tied. But the MH team tell me that it was more a case that the planets simply wern't support planets.

People need to have some faith in the MH team - yes mistakes will be made occasionally, but they are happy that the eula has given them the powers they need to close the people casuign damage to the game.

In consultation with the MH Manager I am in the process of designign the next gen MH tools, theese will be an integral part of the PAN design and not just a bolted add on. They will be taylored to detecting the specifically banned offences in the EULA, and may even remove the need for an exceptions system that requires registration.

Once I have finished the design and got the MH teams stamp of approval then the MH team will decide whether the systems should be publically announced and discussed or not.

lokken · 23 Dec 2005, 02:28

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kal

No it doesn't at all - despite what people thing of the MH team they are reaosnable people, and a couple of defences here and now clearly does not make someone a support account.

From speaking to the MH team 1up primarilly have reported a lot of people as being support accounts. Some were and were closed, others were not and hence wern't. I fell a lot of the issues being described here are becuase the people reporting them feel that the MH team simply did not have enough evidence and that their hands were tied. But the MH team tell me that it was more a case that the planets simply wern't support planets.

People need to have some faith in the MH team - yes mistakes will be made occasionally, but they are happy that the eula has given them the powers they need to close the people casuign damage to the game.

In consultation with the MH Manager I am in the process of designign the next gen MH tools, theese will be an integral part of the PAN design and not just a bolted add on. They will be taylored to detecting the specifically banned offences in the EULA, and may even remove the need for an exceptions system that requires registration.

Once I have finished the design and got the MH teams stamp of approval then the MH team will decide whether the systems should be publically announced and discussed or not.

Essentially, you want to stop support planets by leaving it to the whims of multihunters. The rule says this is possible, so it can happen. I'm sure the multihunters are pleased to have such a wide discretion - they aren't the players who are playing subject to it with the uncertainty that surrounds it. Any rule as subjective as this simply invites circumvention and uncertainty.

Many a PA team member have claimed they have some 'magic' tools to clear the problems of planetarion, and every one has disappointed, it's sad but true. I don't think players care about whether your multihunting team is satisfied - they want to have certainty on what tactics, strategies and fleet movements are and aren't out of bounds, not what a multihunter might/might not delete them for. Tools do not stop the rule being vague. The point is that only the multihunters know what support planets are on a case by case basis, while the players are left to muddle along not knowing what a support planet is.

On top of this you had the audacity to claim that you wanted to enforce the alliance limit, yet wish to uphold a rule that allows big one off gratuitous defences that change the complexion of the game itself, unlike actions under the rule that are potentially illegal yet have negligible effect - the whole situation is nonsense on stilts. Quite frankly, if there was no rule I wouldn't mind it being done, but the fact there is one stinks of loophole considering the very reason it was created.

Your post quite frankly stinks of "what's convenient for you" rather than what allows a smoothly running game. On top of this, you've posted associating 1up with this, when 1up have very little to do with myself. What's your problem? Are you just trying to throw rocks at our credibility as a way of defending your position? I have not even dealt with a multihunter in the past round. I have been nothing but polite to you so far.

I think you are being most unreasonable - not because you won't accept or have the plain courtesy to scrutinise my proposal, but simply because all you want to do is give vague assurances that your approach is ok when a large number are not satisfied and not even open the topic up for a discussion on acceptable terms (as I am so inadequate as an impartial moderator to start one) - all you want to do is dismiss. Then again, you said you wanted a more open discussion discussing all the options, so get it started since i am unable to, unless you're determined to simply have your way and ignore any constructive input.

mist · 23 Dec 2005, 09:50

how about, alliances with more members than half the alliance limit can't get defence outside gals/alliance? ie. if the alliance limit is 80, then any alliance with 41+ players won't be able to get external defence. that way alliances which are forming / new arn't restricted, but i can't really see the large alliances splitting in two and forming wings as i think the loss of the eta bonus between both halves wouldn't be worth the use of support planets.

obviously, the 50% value could be upped/downed depeding on what people think is an acceptable deterant.

on a sliughtly different, tho related note - why is it that people care so much about support planets, when scan planets outside the alliance have been a fact in pa for years? i'd have said that free scans when you need them is a form of support - arguably a greater one as it sves you doing the tech tree so you get resources and tech.

Kal · 23 Dec 2005, 10:25

(f) Support Accounts are accounts which are dedicated to undertaking specific
and repeated actions which result in an unfair benefit for a
planet/organisation, where an organisation is defined as an alliance or galaxy.

Lokken - what exactly is unclear about this? We have defined what a support account is - it is clealry not conected to someone defending their friends every so often, it is clearly not connected to alliances defending each other.

I am against stoping alliances defending each other as I feel it is not connected to the support account issue as described in the eula.

There are two issues - support accounts, and inter alliance defence.

PA Team does not ahve an issues with inter alliance defence, it has gone on for ages and we feel the current rules are enough to limit its effectiveness, and with the abolition of cluster defence bonuses this should be further limited in PAN. This rounds ship stats idd unforutnatly make the issue of support accoutns and inter alliance defence worse - but I am sure Appocomaster and whoever else deals with ship stats in the future will ltake this on board.

I am also confident that the new MH tools which will be an integral part of PAN, not just an add on will help prevent support accounts as defined in the EULA. I think that given this is a very new rule, we are being very quick to act on it and taylor our tools to detecting it. In fact the current MH team have a whole load of new tools this round preuely for detecting support accounts - which is why the exceptions system is delayed as resources were diverted in this direction.

Now your poll was about the support planet rule - I have answered on that. If you want to have a poll on whether alliances should be able to defend each other I suggest you do that, then we can think of a solution to address your findings.

mist · 23 Dec 2005, 10:54

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kal

(f) Support Accounts are accounts which are dedicated to undertaking specific
and repeated actions which result in an unfair benefit for a
planet/organisation, where an organisation is defined as an alliance or galaxy.

Code:

ded·i·cate    ( P )  Pronunciation Key  (dd-kt)
tr.v. ded·i·cat·ed, ded·i·cat·ing, ded·i·cates 
To set apart for a special use: dedicated their money to scientific research. 
To commit (oneself) to a particular course of thought or action: dedicated ourselves to starting our own business. See Synonyms at devote.

so, any use that doesn't support another planet would mean that a planet isn't counted as a support planet? for example, if i do a few scans for someone completely unrelated then i won't be closed?

Code:

spe·cif·ic    ( P )  Pronunciation Key  (sp-sfk)
adj. 
Explicitly set forth; definite. See Synonyms at explicit. 
Relating to, characterizing, or distinguishing a species. 
Special, distinctive, or unique: specific qualities and attributes.

in order to be a support planet i've got to say i am one? seems a little strange.
or again, perhaps you mean the unique element - in which case, i'm going to fall back on the scanning for a few random people again.

Code:

re·peat    ( P )  Pronunciation Key  (r-pt rpt)
v. re·peat·ed, re·peat·ing, re·peats 
v. intr.
To do or say something again.

so, twice is enough to get me deleted, or thrice perhaps, or 4? perhaps 5? who knows really...

This rule contains no specifics (because you don't want them to be used as an excuse, i suspect). had you said that a planet would be coinsidered a support planet if more than 25% of its launches were in support of an alliance then it would be specific. however, you've included no specifics whatsoever.

definintions from dictionary.com, btw.

Kal · 23 Dec 2005, 11:16

Oxford English Dictionary:

dedicated - devoted to an aim or vocation

i.e its purpose is to be a support account - not its purpose is to defend a few friends

specific - clearly defined, defintie e.g. the actions were specific

e.g. he defended1:5:6 or he defended1up

repeat - recure, appear again, possibly several times.

he did it several times.

Suffice it to say your reason for not having a number in there is correct

mist · 23 Dec 2005, 11:30

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kal

Oxford English Dictionary:

dedicated - devoted to an aim or vocation

i.e its purpose is to be a support account - not its purpose is to defend a few friends

so, if it were to do something else a bit, it wouldn't get closed? like the scanning i mentioned?

Quote:

specific - clearly defined, defintie e.g. the actions were specific

e.g. he defended1:5:6 or he defended1up

where are these actions defined? "actions which result in an unfair benefit for a Planet/organisation, where an organisation is defined as an alliance or galaxy." would include scan planets, for example, which i'm pretty sure are legal (?) and therefore there must be another definition somewhere?

Quote:

repeat - recure, appear again, possibly several times.

he did it several times.

Suffice it to say your reason for not having a number in there is correct

so, you admit that you refuse to define this, yet claim the rule is well defined? hmm...

Kal · 23 Dec 2005, 11:40

Quote:

Originally Posted by mist

so, if it were to do something else a bit, it wouldn't get closed? like the scanning i mentioned?

I can be dedicated to passing an exam - that doesn't mean I can't still go out drinking

Quote:

Originally Posted by mist

where are these actions defined? "actions which result in an unfair benefit for a Planet/organisation, where an organisation is defined as an alliance or galaxy." would include scan planets, for example, which i'm pretty sure are legal (?) and therefore there must be another definition somewhere?

it covers all actions yes, so scans are included, yes. The issue would be with the defintiion of what is an unfair benefit, not that any action can be covered.

Quote:

Originally Posted by mist

so, you admit that you refuse to define this, yet claim the rule is well defined? hmm...

I said it was clear, not well defined. I think its fairly eident form what I have been saying that people who defend a few friends won;t be closed for it.

But if you can come up with a way to define it that won't result in people abusing it as much as they can then please help us out and do so.

mist · 23 Dec 2005, 11:42

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kal

But if you can come up with a way to define it that won't result in people abusing it as much as they can then please help us out and do so.

you seem to have rather missed some of the point...

Kal · 23 Dec 2005, 11:49

Look I know people are worried they will be clsoed if they defend some friends becuase its not well defined.

People had the exact same worries prior to the exceptions system, which is why we implented that. Now people complain that it just allows people to cheat.

Either way we cannot win: we either have the ability to close people we think are doing damage; or we limit people a little and allow some abuse - but allow most people to play normally; or we entirly lock everything down and prevent anyone from doing anything.

I personally would not play a game in which I can do nothing and from what I have seen a lot of people agree. This leaves one of the other options which is basically to leave it as it is now, or to define some acceptable limits after which someone should be closed, but in doing that we must acknoledge that it will allow some abuse of the system.

But this is not just limited to the idea of support planets, its about the whole approach to MH in general. The next gen MH stuff will be compatible with both approaches -- the question is which approach do people want?

xontas · 23 Dec 2005, 12:18

this is the problem of PA and the wildgrowth of rules
what we need it a system that forces people into following the rules because not folling it rules will make you lose!

this is why i am saying "sell = more"
lets not make PA more complex and lets not fix every problem by adding some rules!
you could make it a more simple game that is more easy to balance and when you run into a problem you could actualy CUT some rules to fix it

on the subject of MH having the discression to delete people they feel are breaking the rules
it has always been like that.
but its not the goal of the MH team
the MH team is there to stop cheating and abuse not to kick as many people out

so if you feel you are at risk of getting closed for what you are doing you might wane consider not doing it!
because IF you feel you are @ risk you are probably doing something you are not sure about is legal.
most people in this game search for loopholes to cheat that are not fixed in the rulebook!
i consider this cheating and unfair to the community
its something that you know is unfair and because you know that its cheating in my book.

this is why the MH team have there own discression
when they find someone who has gained 100 places in the ranking by a dirty move who is laughing because what he did is a new trick and feels he cant be punished i feel this person should be closed.
and usualy they have broken a minor rule so they usualy are!

hope that clears something up for you

mist · 23 Dec 2005, 12:22

Quote:

Originally Posted by xontas

this is why i am saying "sell = more"
lets not make PA more complex and lets not fix every problem by adding some rules!
you could make it a more simple game that is more easy to balance and when you run into a problem you could actualy CUT some rules to fix it

you're suggesting that the rules define what's legal, and then anything else is punishble? that's the only way i can see of cutting rules to address new issues.

overall, your post seems somehow to lack logical consistancy

lokken · 23 Dec 2005, 13:34

"you're cheating when we think you've reached a level that's dedicated."

Cheating is therefore what is within the definition and then it's dependent on whether you feel like it, presumably.

There are several points to be taken from this that I shall summarise.

1. This definition allows clever planets to circumvent the rules with reserve alliances and big one off defence which goes against the very idea of limiting alliance size. It is not adequate.

2. So the friend can defend his mate, until PA crew says he can't and deletes him? You see your outright refusal to define your breaking point means there's a good deal of uncertainty.

3. The point we've made is that while alliance defence is something you may welcome, its very easy to set up dummy alliances to get round the rule. This round when support planets were lost, we saw the same alliance do it by proxy by effectively running puppet alliances. Next time there's the potential to keep it in house.

Quote:

PA Team does not ahve an issues with inter alliance defence

Quote:

Originally Posted by Assassin

The reason for this is that the alliance limit is there for a reason. It is unfair on the smaller alliances and unbalanced the gameplay when a large alliance creates these dummy planets for the sole purpose of unofficially increasing the size of their alliance.
This tactic has been named "OOGOOA Defence" (out of alliance, out of gal defence) and is now deemed an offense. If you are caught practising this tactic you will be put under investigation and closure.

The point i've been trying to make is that hardcoding the top 5 stops these top alliances dead - it achieves exactly what the mutlihunters set out to stop. It also preseves a good level of interaction between alliances, it simply prevents those likely to abuse the rule from doing so.

So either you want to stop it or you don't. Halfhearted measures do not suffice with top alliances, because they are more clever than you are at tricking multihunters and pa team, because they get a lot of practice. If there ever was a certificate for "caniving little shit" i'd give it to quite a few of the population of AD.

If you want inter alliance defence throughout the game, then get rid of the rule, it's counterproductive and doesn't give a clear message on tactics to the whole universe.

And yet again you post something designed to kill an argument instead of instigating this magic debate on your terms that you would find appropriate.

xontas · 23 Dec 2005, 13:59

Quote:

Originally Posted by mist

you're suggesting that the rules define what's legal, and then anything else is punishble? that's the only way i can see of cutting rules to address new issues.

overall, your post seems somehow to lack logical consistancy

ok let me be more clear
1) PAteam should not try to regulate everything in the game
2) when people do things to upset the balance intended in the game they should get closed, even when not specificly mentioned in the EULA

this means that PAteam should profide the enviroment of the game (universe, planets, ships, roids) and the goal of the game (growth in numbers)
but not to tell you, you can attack player x but not player y because they play with player z.
thats taking it 2 far imo

all the new nice features added to the game spawn new rules that need to be inforced and those rules make people quit the game
this lowers the playerbase and to keep the game playable PAteam has to put in some more rules
and DOWN WE GO!!

take a game like WORLD OF WARCRAFT.
the game designers create a world and put in things to make you act a sertain way
but you are the person that desides what to do and with who.
you CAN join a team
yo CAN play on you own
you CAN attack everyone you want
or just sit on you ass all day (it all up to you)
the game is designed so that what you can do is alowed!
if you find a way to do something unintended it considered cheating (if you dont report it)

imo PAN should be designed based on that not just on the largest amount of cool features
those features (to get back to the topic) will spawn a whole list of rules that will make this a shit game in the end

mist · 23 Dec 2005, 14:04

Quote:

Originally Posted by xontas

ok let me be more clear
1) PAteam should not try to regulate everything in the game
2) when people do things to upset the balance intended in the game they should get closed, even when not specificly mentioned in the EULA

i'm going to refer you to most of what lokken's written in this thread for this one (you did read it, right - 'cus your response feels otherwise)

WOW is a terrible comparison, as there's no real competition on it. everyone can get to lvl 60 and have the best epics going, you don't have to beat anyone else to do it. even in pvp you can be crap and get a load of honour if you just stick at it.

xontas · 23 Dec 2005, 14:20

Quote:

Originally Posted by mist

i'm going to refer you to most of what lokken's written in this thread for this one (you did read it, right - 'cus your response feels otherwise)

WOW is a terrible comparison, as there's no real competition on it. everyone can get to lvl 60 and have the best epics going, you don't have to beat anyone else to do it. even in pvp you can be crap and get a load of honour if you just stick at it.

the reason i compair to WOW (or EVE) is that the design of PAN should be based on regulating thing is the design.
like adding setain rewards to the game to make sure people dont do the stuff that unbalances it

i feel that the game should be run by the community and the system by PAteam
PA is a world on its own where the freedom to chose what you do and how you do it.
thats where the comparison ends with WOW.

when i was in PAteam we had 2 sides to this.
people that want to add features and rules all the time and people that want to keep it simple
one by one the people that supported the simple side lost interest due to the powerstruggle in the team
so the best people to run this game (A2, phil, spinner) left
so the people left in PAteam want to add and add.....

imo this is the death of PA and that is why i am making posts like this
you might say i am flaming, but i see real problems in the future of PA and i am wondering why the paying clients are not in a full revolt!!

mist · 23 Dec 2005, 14:40

Quote:

Originally Posted by xontas

and i am wondering why the paying clients are not in a full revolt!!

because you're trying to insight people in to a rebelion to gain vague rules in a thread that's all about getting rid of them.

and no, WOW is still a terrible example. for a start, wow is a lot more simple than planetarion, rules wise, because the scope for breaking them is smaller. for example, repeating scripts are banned in wow, as they can be used to write bots. a parralel would be limiting defence to alliances because it can be used to run support alliances - yet you're for one and noe the other.

take football as an example. football has a huge ruleset, because it's competative and people need to know what they can do. the offside debate, for example, seems to have some reasonable parallels with this thread.

Shyne · 23 Dec 2005, 14:41

Quote:

Originally Posted by lokken

"you're cheating when we think you've reached a level that's dedicated."

Cheating is therefore what is within the definition and then it's dependent on whether you feel like it, presumably.

Its the same as when the jury convict someone of murder.

Theres often uncertainty. How can we be certain without a multihunter in every single players home?

mist · 23 Dec 2005, 14:48

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shyne

Its the same as when the jury convict someone of murder.

Theres often uncertainty. How can we be certain without a multihunter in every single players home?

not really, the definition of murder is pretty clear, whereas this debate has a lot of grey to it.

xontas · 23 Dec 2005, 14:56

not realy
if you find you can do something unintended in the game, you need to report it or its a closable offence

if you take actions to unbalance the game ist a closable offence

whats not clear about those!

the funny thing is that people would like a list of all the things that are considered cheating
well if Pa made such a list some people would go : " he i can take action X and get 10.000 extra ships, its not on the list so its legal!!"
that what you dont want
thats why we have a MH team
but the apeals also go to the MH team, thats wrong
imo we should have a player counsel to handle the apeals

mist · 23 Dec 2005, 14:57

Quote:

Originally Posted by xontas

if you take actions to unbalance the game ist a closable offence

"you have been closed for having too many roids. we felt this was unbalanced. good day"

Kal · 23 Dec 2005, 15:03

I actually agree with some of what xontas is syaing - for example the reaosn support planets became a serious issue this round is largly becuase of the ship stats. Had we not wanted people to use this tactic we should have designed ship[ stats that prevented it.

One problem we do have htough is that we do want to design a game that works around team work, but at the same time we don't want one team to become so powerful that they win easily and hence the fun lasts less time.

One possible way to encourage the style of play we want would be to offer XP for defending in galalxy and in alliance, but not for defending other people. We have seen that XP has been reaosnably effective in producing the attacking style we want, but at the same people some people do still go for the easy targets.

While this would probably encourage the "casual" support planet to stop and join an alliance. The issue would really be the dedicated support planet that we don't want who does not care about his own score. THis is surely a problem in any game - if someone is willing to sacrifice hsi own success to help another person then there is little we can do about it unless we specifically forbid it, which is what we have done - but even then is that really fair?

Another issue is that we should design the game so that to be effective in a team you have to be effective as an individual - and I think the game does do that at the moment - as a big planet is more useful for defending than a small one.

This brings us to the damaging case phil spoke about where you have an army of undectable multi-support planets who support a planet/alliance. This case however should really be controlled by systems to detect multis, however we allready know that its close to impossible to reliablly detect vnc based multis for example. While there are potenital methods theese will become less effective as time goes on and internet speeds increase.

Another way to lower the effectivenes of multis is to make it difficult and time consuming to run multiple accounts - but again this perhaps comes at the expense of making the game so complex that new players find it to difficult to learn to play.

So in essence there is no easy answer to any of this.

Kal · 23 Dec 2005, 15:06

another random thought - with pan we are considering friendly fire.

what if you got friendly fire when attacking with or defending with people who are not from your alliance/galaxy (or in the case of defence, the galaxy of the person you are defending provided the person you are defending is in your alliance) - this doens't need to be much friendly fire, but it would serve as a discouragement

lokken · 23 Dec 2005, 15:25

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shyne

Its the same as when the jury convict someone of murder.

Theres often uncertainty. How can we be certain without a multihunter in every single players home?

juries decide questions of fact, whether someone was killed or not.

if you compare this rule to murder, it's like saying killing is bad but we'll let you get away with it until we want it to stop.

mist · 23 Dec 2005, 16:22

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kal

another random thought - with pan we are considering friendly fire.

what if you got friendly fire when attacking with or defending with people who are not from your alliance/galaxy (or in the case of defence, the galaxy of the person you are defending provided the person you are defending is in your alliance) - this doens't need to be much friendly fire, but it would serve as a discouragement

it would make support planets less effective, but still better than nothing imo, and i suspect some will take any advantage they can get

Kal · 23 Dec 2005, 16:34

Quote:

Originally Posted by mist

it would make support planets less effective, but still better than nothing imo, and i suspect some will take any advantage they can get

remember that the support planet would be killing the ships of the other defenders - so unless you have all your own ships out and no other defence the support planet could possibly cost you more score than you would gain through keeping your roids.

remember the game allready favours attacking over defence anyway - loosing roids isn;t as big a deal as it used to be.

Cochese · 23 Dec 2005, 16:59

Friendly fire should have been implemented two rounds ago anyways

As to the main point, if there are indeed some new MH tools for PAN which can actively detect "support" planets and so forth, then apparently we have nothing to worry about--friends can still defend each other, but the true support planets will be found and removed.

(That should have been created about ten rounds ago, but better late than never!)

xontas · 23 Dec 2005, 17:35

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kal

I actually agree with some of what xontas is syaing - for example the reaosn support planets became a serious issue this round is largly becuase of the ship stats. Had we not wanted people to use this tactic we should have designed ship[ stats that prevented it.

One problem we do have htough is that we do want to design a game that works around team work, but at the same time we don't want one team to become so powerful that they win easily and hence the fun lasts less time.

One possible way to encourage the style of play we want would be to offer XP for defending in galalxy and in alliance, but not for defending other people. We have seen that XP has been reaosnably effective in producing the attacking style we want, but at the same people some people do still go for the easy targets.

While this would probably encourage the "casual" support planet to stop and join an alliance. The issue would really be the dedicated support planet that we don't want who does not care about his own score. THis is surely a problem in any game - if someone is willing to sacrifice hsi own success to help another person then there is little we can do about it unless we specifically forbid it, which is what we have done - but even then is that really fair?

Another issue is that we should design the game so that to be effective in a team you have to be effective as an individual - and I think the game does do that at the moment - as a big planet is more useful for defending than a small one.

This brings us to the damaging case phil spoke about where you have an army of undectable multi-support planets who support a planet/alliance. This case however should really be controlled by systems to detect multis, however we allready know that its close to impossible to reliablly detect vnc based multis for example. While there are potenital methods theese will become less effective as time goes on and internet speeds increase.

Another way to lower the effectivenes of multis is to make it difficult and time consuming to run multiple accounts - but again this perhaps comes at the expense of making the game so complex that new players find it to difficult to learn to play.

So in essence there is no easy answer to any of this.

you say you want a game that is based on teamwork (alliances) but you want to limit there growth
why not make a system where the size of your alliance gives you benefits or costs you something

something like this
if you have a 1-25 people alliance you can merger with a other alliance (on your own)
if you have 26 -50 people alliance you can fly 2 ticks faster in eachothers defence
if you have 51- 75 people alliance you can fly 1 tick faster to eachotehrs defence but you do get high salvage
if you have 76 to 100 people alliance you can fly 1 tick faster to eachothers defence
if you have 101 to 150 people alliance you can only defend 1 tick faster with certain ships
if you have more then 151 people allinace you get no benefits anymore

that way you dont have to create a rule or hardcode a limit
the reward system will make most people do what you want them to do

(yes i can see some problems with a system like that but those can be solves)

Kal · 23 Dec 2005, 18:40

as shocking as this sounds I actually like xontas's basic idea there, so i'll have a think over xmas (i'm away form tomorrow until the 1st/2nd) and see if we can get something like that into PAN

mist · 23 Dec 2005, 23:30

worryingly, i've been thinking something vaguley similar. however it involves friends lists rather than alliances (which are similar, but not the same).

ChipZ^ · 24 Dec 2005, 02:07

Wow an entire thread created cause 1up whined at eX's 6 "support planets" *cough* scanners *cough*

Squidly · 24 Dec 2005, 07:53

Quote:

Originally Posted by ChipZ^

Wow an entire thread created cause 1up whined at eX's 6 "support planets" *cough* scanners *cough*

Let's see. 6 def planets with 3 fleets each and a bunch of fakeable spiders looking like vipers can 'cover' up to 18 people. Almost 25% of your members if you're talented at DCing.

"Random" thought.