[Discuss] Alliance politics and battles.

[Piketa]

The following idea is quite big, so it'll probably get dismissed. However, I've been thinking this one over for a long time, so I'd like to post the suggestion anyway.

Not long ago, I've returned to PA from a long, long break. One of the things I keep hearing, is, that PA is trying to ban powerblocks. This idea would make powerblocks impossible.

First of all, completely remove the option to make defensive or offensive orders. Just have the option to send your fleet to a chosen target. Then, the ships will automatically be offensive, unless sent to either a galaxy member or an alliance member. Then, the fleet will automatically change to defensive.

To make getting yourself defense a little easier, every player (and alliance, maybe) might get a number of ally points, which they can use to select players outside their galaxy and alliance. These players will then be added to the "defenselist", so when fleets are sent to a player on this list, the mission will automatically be defensive. But there would be a maximum of players you can select for this list, so the points will have to be used wisely.

I guess it would be quite alot to code, but this way, blocks between multiple alliances can't excist anymore, as they cannot defend eachother, only attack together.

Tell me what you think,

Piketa.

[mist]

as long as you add in something about galaxies and cluster alliances it's quite feasable.

however, given that blocking alliances rarely defend each other (directly) i'm not quite sure what the point is?

-mist

[Kal]

I think this is an excleent suggestion that can be far reaching -

rather than the ships swithcing to offenceive/defensive they simply right on that side - and shoot EVERYTHING not on their side e.g. if 2 people form different alliances attack the same target they wouls shoot each other.

the list of freidns would be - alliance - gal - cluster allince (if put into the game in a formal way) - and possibly have the ability to add say upto 10 friendly planets that you are friends with

This would also fit nicly into having a formalised war and blocking system (thought blocking would need disadnatges as well as the advantag eof people able to hit targets with another alliance)

[noah02]

Hmmm really liked this idea ina sense because it sounds kinda good.
But then I thought about when i jgp and i see like 50 ppl attacking the same target or launching on the same target.
Defence and attackers is gonna really play with my head and I really couldnt be doing with trying to calc that one
So on that note i totally disagree with a luanching fleet rather than defend attack etc...

Imagine seeing 10 ships heading the same planet then imagine not knowing what each ones doing were there from or anything or imagine even you attacking and someone else in the universe attacking
Is he gonna go there just to defend as a freind ? either way you gonna get losses galore and for what ?
to share 50 roids 100 roids? 1000 roids? with so many losses?
And the big battles would just be a blood fest with the planet getting extortianite amounts of salvage.

Sorry this is to long but I really dont like the idea but i did to begin with.

[Kal]

the nature of the scans could change

also the point is to prevent the type of scenarios u describe - its to prevent piggy backing, its to prevent multiple alliances gangig up on a single planet

[noah02]

Originally Posted by Kal

the nature of the scans could change

also the point is to prevent the type of scenarios u describe - its to prevent piggy backing, its to prevent multiple alliances gangig up on a single planet

So we 2 ppl attacking the same target by coincedence are just going to play chicken till 1 minute before they land and blow the crap out of each other?
I would rather share roids than lose my fleet to someone coincedently(cant spell i know) launching at the same time as me especially when we only gonna cap 20% no matter what.
Only difference being the planet alone is always gonna be better of with the salvage by a long run % of everything dieing.
Playing chicken with another player just aint right.

p.s how would zik work on this one then if they steal the pods of a joint attacker?

[Kal]

Originally Posted by noah02

So we 2 ppl attacking the same target by coincedence are just going to play chicken till 1 minute before they land and blow the crap out of each other?
I would rather share roids than lose my fleet to someone coincedently(cant spell i know) launching at the same time as me especially when we only gonna cap 20% no matter what.
Only difference being the planet alone is always gonna be better of with the salvage by a long run % of everything dieing.
Playing chicken with another player just aint right.

p.s how would zik work on this one then if they steal the pods of a joint attacker?

well the precise implementaitons of things haven't bene discussed - but its quite possible that the 2 attacking fleets wouldn;t be targeting each other that much for a start...

also as to zik that depends on the implementation of stealing/subversion - but it is possible to avoid that problem entirly

[hellsmurf]

that idea sounds good for me....

the only problem with that alliance point system is, that u can send some1 in your alli help and get points(without enemy incomming)
but its easy to solve->just get alliance points, if your planet which u are helping got incomming....

[mist]

would this not make small players attacking big players more difficult?

[noah02]

Originally Posted by mist

would this not make small players attacking big players more difficult?

Everything about this sounds very difficult.
Seems like to much of a big leap from the current system.

[Alessio]

I liked mass attacking Tek

not that I ever landed........

Blocking is still possible tho.. only it takes a bit more planning....

Originally Posted by mist

however, given that blocking alliances rarely defend each other (directly) i'm not quite sure what the point is?

idd

[Kal]

Originally Posted by mist

would this not make small players attacking big players more difficult?

not if they were in the same alliance or offical "block"

[Forest]

OK

Stopping non-alliance ppl attacking each other (kals suggestion on making two enemy attackers attacking the same target shoot each other), is a bad idea.

Two words, Red def. Instead of making blocks harder, you will simply move the goal posts. ATM its pretty rare for alliances to def other alliances. Blocks tend to attack with each other. This is not essentially bad tbh. Big aliances, and big planets, and yes, im thinking of Tek in 22:5 last round, would be completely untouchable, as no alliance on its own would have the fire power to take it down.
As it was, 4 alliances hit him at once, and all had to pull, after too much def was showing, over several waves.
It would just make the gulf between small and big aliances bigger.

the last two rounds, imo, have worked. The blocks created have helped the game along.
And once again, I say, if it isnt broken, dont fix it.

[Orion Treet]

My first reaction is no (sorry Piketa ), but I'm trying to think of reasons why not First that would come to mind is you can't defend m8s who you got to know from different alliances. Blocking alliances basicly never defend eachother, so don't see real point actually, they can still target enemy alliances together, and even if you were to implement that attacking fleets attack eachother if not in same alliance you could easily work with waves to same effect, but concidering this almost never happens anyways....

[Orion Treet]

Could actually see this benefitting larger alliances, cause they can and have always worked together in one way or another (call it blocks or NAP's, same thing basicly as we saw last round) Smaller alliances will mostly be the ones killing eachother off by accident etc if you get what I mean.

[Kal]

Originally Posted by Forest

OK

Stopping non-alliance ppl attacking each other (kals suggestion on making two enemy attackers attacking the same target shoot each other), is a bad idea.

Two words, Red def. Instead of making blocks harder, you will simply move the goal posts. ATM its pretty rare for alliances to def other alliances. Blocks tend to attack with each other. This is not essentially bad tbh. Big aliances, and big planets, and yes, im thinking of Tek in 22:5 last round, would be completely untouchable, as no alliance on its own would have the fire power to take it down.
As it was, 4 alliances hit him at once, and all had to pull, after too much def was showing, over several waves.
It would just make the gulf between small and big aliances bigger.

the last two rounds, imo, have worked. The blocks created have helped the game along.
And once again, I say, if it isnt broken, dont fix it.

the question though is would thoose situations arise under this combat system - would a planet be able to get so big they are untouchable - its very hard to predict the effects of such a change

[Forest]

Erm, that looks to me like a hint that u are making the round so even, that ppl dont take a lead, which would allow someone to win. It would make the round stale, and boring.

I sincerely hope that isnt the case, and that u are just misguided in your statement, or that really would be the end of the game.

[Kal]

i was more saying that it might make it unlikely that someone would have a huge and impassable lead

[Forest]

pasting log here for benefit of others.

<Forest> imo last round was the best ever, even with the fked zik stats
<Forest> all it needs is the small changes that will change the view, (like the buttons), and obvioulsy the stats, and its gonna be fine
<Forest> i like suggetsions as it is
<Forest> gives u guys the opportunity for the small changes
<Forest> one thing though, and i will be making a post for AD about it later, again, but blocks are not always bad
<Forest> infact, i would say atm, they are essential
<Forest> without a block, 1up has no chance of being beaten
<Forest> u make it so ppl can only attack/defend certain alliances, u immedieltly make 1up's job easier.
<Forest> all this idea does is make big alliances have it easier
<Forest> imo the top end of the game is ok, its the bottom end of the game that has to change
<Forest> and thats not to say that u make it so easy for the littel guys they can play with the big boys, cause they shouldnt be able to, but something needs to be put in to make the game more fun for the little guys
<Forest> im not sure exactly how to do that though

[Kal]

though ofc i allow blocks ot be considered to be on the same side - this would in essence allow a control over block sizes as they would be ineffective for large scale assaults without using the ingame blocking system

[mist]

how would making blocks 'official' improve the situation? i was under the impression that it's pretty good atm

[Kal]

if blocks can be controlled then they can be forced to exist in a dynamic way - it may not be needed right now but i doubt heavy blocking is gone forever

[Orion Treet]

And the control factor on PA grows even more....

[Kal]

any more thoughts?

[Cochese]

You're over-analyzing 'dynamic combat'.