Alliances in Clusters

[zmaster]

Hello, i am not a very well known member on these forums however i have played the game for the last 3 rounds and after reading alot of the suggested ideas to improve the game, A friend and I worked out this idea. I think its a good one :-) So hear me out and give me some level headed opinions :-)


First up, the problems with the current gameplay:

1. IRC is a big requirement for the game and bigger alliances don't accept players who can't connect to it. Which if you're a n00bie or just don't have the means for it then you feel shunted from the game.

2. Players have stated that it all comes down to the shuffle. Making it luck rather than strategy and gameplay as to how high you can reach.

3. Players don't want to be stuck in gals that are inactive or hostile ones that pull them down

4. The workload on a HC is fairly high. One reason for it is that alliances create a "cloak-and-dagger" environment (for some crazy reason). This creates work by forcing the HC to use "member lists" before they can contact/coordinate their members.
By this I mean that ppl hide which alliance they play for and generally only the HC/bc/dc/ect know whose who until lists are leaked ect. And let's face it they _will_ leak out.

The idea is:

1. To create unique clusters for each alliance. An alliance can only have one cluster
2. An alliance must have enough members to form at least 1 full galaxy (10 members)
3. 10 galaxies per cluster, 10 players per galaxy. So max alliance size (100) is still the same
4. Non-alliance players are in "free-for-all" clusters. Basically same as it is now
5. Attacking a player in a non-alliance cluster can only be done by a player that is only slightly larger. Ie. player sizes must be closer than attacks between 2 alliance clusters
6. HC of an alliance is responsible for member placement within galaxies
7. A second movement between alliance galaxies can only be done after a 48hr (or more) delay
8. A player can self-exile to the non-alliance clusters, with placement random (48hr delay before next move)
9. HC can boot someone out of the alliance, to the non-alliance clusters (48hr delay before next move)
10. Same cluster destinations still get eta advantage, as do gals
11. Adding a "Lap Leader" style of point scoring in various categories like roids, XP, value etc. The leader getting 3pts, 2nd place getting 2pts and 3rd getting 1pt. These points are accumulated each tick. This system is meant for alliances, but could be extended for gals and individuals also.

How this improves the game:
1,2&3. Galaxy and Cluster are all of one alliance. Forums can be used in conjunction with IRC, so if a member cannot use IRC, so long as they are willing to look frequently at their forums, they can still be an active and helpful part of the alliance. It also means that clusters actually mean something again. Gals should become more active, as these are your alliance members. Workload for HC's should go down as there is no need for a "secret list".

4&5 By limiting the size difference (hopefully) noobs won't get stomped easily. And just because they are not alliance bound does not mean that their gal-mates won't work together.

6,7,8&9 Eliminates "luck-of-the-draw" Alliances can move their strengths to cover their weaknesses. Better race and size spread. Elite gals will do their alliance more harm than good, as turnaround eta is a critical factor in alliance efficiency. Gals with little defense will get picked on.

10. Why does a cluster get a eta bonus in the current system? changes 1-3 give it a valid reason to exist

11. Planeterion is a long distance race, it should only be decided in the last 8 ticks, if the 1st and 2nd placers have been competing equally. So if an alliance (or someone) wants to win, they must stay in contention throughout the _entire_ game, not just towards the end. It also gives a more realistic gauge on how an alliance performed over the entire round. Alliances cannot sit in second and still expect to win with an 11th hour push. It also may stop alliance blocking at the higher levels (at least for long periods of time).

Possible problems:
1,2,3&4. No hidden players. At the beginning alliances will have to protect themselves from the "grunt rush" of fighters & corvettes. There is a possibility of alliance beatups.

11. More code running on the tick update.

[Monroe]

Impressively thought out, one glaring point against this idea is that you are placing all of the non-allied players together, by themselves, with no protection from the big allies. I gaurentee that the first thing that will happen every round is the unorganized non-allied players get pounded into oblivion, and then it just becomes a fight between the big guys. Another big downer is that all new players WILL be non-allied, so they won't have a chance to interact with experianced, allied players. You would be in essense segmenting the good players from the bad/new players, which imo is a really bad idea. This might not be a bad idea to try for a speed round, where most players are experienced, but in the regular game play, seperating the good and active players completely from the bad and new players is really a bad idea.

[Chika]

Yeah, I agree with Monroe. It is a superb idea, but the area for the non-allied people could cause a problem. But technically, it shouldn't really mayyet, because in a universe aspect, un-allied people would have no protection so thus they die. There is a big effort for new players to join alliances. There are forums and it is right in your face on the main pages of planetarion. This idea is very broad though, and seems the game as a whole would have ot be revamped a bit.
I am all for trying it. Can't be much worse than the current gal situation.

[The_Mad_Keg]

if the bashing limits were vastly increased for the non allied guys, i.e only ppl same size and smaller can hit them, would give them a fighting chance, in some of cases new players are kicked out of gals containing the really big alliances anyway, note i say some cases, its not a universal trend but it does happen. Still be a problem getting the newer guys into the same IRC circles as the other allys in the game, but still worth a try, the game is in big need of something like this.

I love the idea of everyone knowing where the other alliances are again, as it is unless ure an excellently organised ally too many players in a gal can be a pain in the ass, but with everyone in the same boat it makes it valid again. Will maybe bring back the days of Ally logos gracing our gal screens, always nice to see what artistic flair there is hanging around various blacked out rooms across the world

Very well thought out and impressive thread m8, good to see newer players bringing a fresh perspective to the game, wd

[Orion Treet]

The one huge problem I see with this which is already explained is that new non allied members do NOT come into IRC contact with experienced players. It is often the experienced players who buy newbies credits who can't, who help sort them alliances and teach them the game a bit. If you were to take this away I think many new players would leave much much sooner.

[zmaster]

Thanks for taking the time to have a read and for the great feedback :-)

Okay after another chat we have come up with some ideas to build upon/explain some of our earlier ideas and try and nail the idea better so that it becomes more feasible. I am sure i have missed some of the things we discussed so i will add them later


Problems:

1. Alliances bashing the non-allied galaxies into the ground
2. No Comrade for new players from experienced players thus them not learning how to play


Solutions for these problems that could be added for "non allied clusters" only:

1. Increasing the bash size percentage from 40% to 70%
2. Allowing only one attacker on each eta tick (so no joint attacks)
3. Giving these players a safety zone of three ticks. Meaning a player can only have incomings on eta 1, 4, 7 and 10 (prelaunch)
4. Creating a sticky thread which is basically a FAQ thread that covers alot of the questions that are asked and to have this in all galaxies forums (it can't be deleted)


How this improves the game:

1 - This stops players that are double the size of another player smashing their fleet to pieces and leaving them with no hope of ever being able to defend the incoming attack. I think this percentage allows players to be able to defend against the attacker but at the same time also allow attacks through and also recieve reasonable xp.

2 - New players don't really understand attacks at first and when you get say a xan and a cath working together it just confuses them even more. This idea counters the problem. Battle calcs are great for this but most new players don't know about them let alone how to use them.

3 - This idea reduces the ammount of incomings that each player will get as it stops wave attacks. It also encourages cross defending your gal mates as you will have less incomings and extra time. You could also reduce the safety zone depending on how much xp you have gained. The idea being that if your xp is pretty good you generally know what you are doing and you should be able to defend against more incomings (this also prepares a player for when they join an alliance).

4 - It teaches new players that important stuff is on the galaxy forums so its a good idea to check here. There are heaps of questions that get asked over and over again so why not put them somewhere that all new players are going to find.


Added features that would help:

1. A ranking system for the non-allied cluster players. This is to provide a means for alliances to search these galaxies for players that they would like to recruit. Thus encouraging recruiting of non-allied players which is currently just about non-existent. The ones that are actually going to be active and useful would be recruited as opposed to the ones that start for a few weeks then quit. I believe that this answers the below statements

"Another big downer is that all new players WILL be non-allied, so they won't have a chance to interact with experianced, allied players." - Written by Monroe

"is that new non allied members do NOT come into IRC contact with experienced players" - Written by Orion Treet

I look forward to reading more replies

[Kargool]

Originally Posted by zmaster

Solutions for these problems that could be added for "non allied clusters" only:

1. Increasing the bash size percentage from 40% to 70%

2. Allowing only one attacker on each eta tick (so no joint attacks)

3. Giving these players a safety zone of three ticks. Meaning a player can only have incomings on eta 1, 4, 7 and 10 (prelaunch)
4. Creating a sticky thread which is basically a FAQ thread that covers alot of the questions that are asked and to have this in all galaxies forums (it can't be deleted)

1: No, i disagree with you here. I wish a higher bashlimit 50% perhaps, but not as high as 70%.
2: This smells of abuse. If you know that someone is gonna attack you, you just get someone to prelaunch a fake attack or a real attack. No thanks.
3: This isnt a very smart idea, most alliances plan wave attacks, and this system will basically remove the importance of the alliance when it comes to the attackbased part of the game.
4: This should be covered by the PA crew, not by the galaxies.

All in all, i think having alliances in cluster is a bad idea for several reasons. We would get more alliancebashing (as the smaller alliances will get into trouble from bigger who sees them as easy targets (Hi HR). The idea is good, but unfortunally, i think only the more active alliances will gain from this.

[Orion Treet]

I still don't see the problem adressed of smaller players coming into contact with more experienced ones, because it's nice to come into a gal and an irc channel is already set up for it and the new player can emidiatly get some encouragement and pointers if he's active. The recruitment through the ranking of non allied planets would work in theory but don't think it would really work in reality.

Also with the post above this smaller alliances would get a huge disadvantage, and would FORCE blocks to be formed (a cluster with 20 planets can not possibly compete with one of 80 thus will have to call on out of ally help (thus blocks must be formed with high cooperation) since all their coords will be known from tickstart and those clusters will simply become roid 'farms' (as in just pick easy roids off of them) for the larger alliance clusters early in the game.

[Kargool]

I dont think i mentioned anything about blocking in my post..

[Orion Treet]

Sorie, only first part was referring to what you said there, about smaller alliances being disadvantiged.

[Monroe]

Originally Posted by zmaster

Thanks for taking the time to have a read and for the great feedback :-)

Okay after another chat we have come up with some ideas to build upon/explain some of our earlier ideas and try and nail the idea better so that it becomes more feasible. I am sure i have missed some of the things we discussed so i will add them later


Problems:

1. Alliances bashing the non-allied galaxies into the ground
2. No Comrade for new players from experienced players thus them not learning how to play


Solutions for these problems that could be added for "non allied clusters" only:

1. Increasing the bash size percentage from 40% to 70%
2. Allowing only one attacker on each eta tick (so no joint attacks)
3. Giving these players a safety zone of three ticks. Meaning a player can only have incomings on eta 1, 4, 7 and 10 (prelaunch)
4. Creating a sticky thread which is basically a FAQ thread that covers alot of the questions that are asked and to have this in all galaxies forums (it can't be deleted)

All of these solutions you propose have the same basic flaw, they are restricting game play to try and help smaller players. The problem is that when you do this you increase stagnation in the game, and limit the strategic choices of players and alliances. Keeping smaller players from getting bashed, as well as integrating them into the player collective is a constant problem, one that people have been trying to solve for as long as this game has been around, and so far the success rate has been rather poor unfortunatly. These adendums you have suggested unfortunatly seem to fall into the same catagory as previous suggestions along these lines.

[zmaster]

Well as you know i didn't add everything thus confusing ppl :-p

This whole thread is merely here to suggest ways to cover two aspects in the game:

1. Bringing players that can't get onto IRC back into the game with more purpose
2. Giving a stronger incentive for new players to remain in the game rather then bashing them until the go inactive and to retain these players


Addition to my last post:

- 1,2 and 3 are to be reliant on xp. The more xp you get then these "benefits" disappear
- There should be a rate to express your xp. rate = xp_points/number of ticks that the player has been playing for. The reason for this is that if you have a player that has played alright for 1 month and a player that has played for 1 week and they have the same xp it shows that the 2nd player is more active/useful and therefore more likely to be recruited into an alliance


Kargool,

Not sure as to whether you read this part of my post "non allied clusters" only:"

1. 50%? I think that still leaves it too easily to bash new players.
2. Since when does someone know someone is going to attack them? and if thats the case then its simply a waste of fleet slots trying to protect one player. You could counter abuse by simply getting rid of pre-launch attacks.
3. Yes this is the point. To stop alliances bashing new players out of the game
4. Yep i totally agree

Alliance bashing? how is this any different then in the current state of the game? alliance bashing is here already. I disagree with you saying that "only" the more active alliances will gain from what i have suggested. I believe that the smaller alliances that have players that can't connect to IRC will gain a greater chance of being able to work together as an alliance and give them a better way to organise themselves.


Orion Treet,

Yep i conceed that new players won't come into contact with experienced players from the get go as much as they would in the current system. This is why i suggested that there be better reading material for a new player that is easily accessible. I tend to think that you have contridicted yourself slightly by saying that the recruitment wouldn't work in theory but alliances will not be able to compete when they only have 20 members. Alliances with only 20 players will be definitely looking for new recruiters. There is already blocks in the game and there will continue to be for the rest of the games life span. Blocks aren't entirely bad though its only when you get large alliances blocking that it becomes a problem and with the "lap leader" (11 in first post) style points it would help stop it.


Monroe,
Did you read this part of my post "non allied clusters" only:?

If so can you please elaborate on how this restricts game play and who is restricted?

[Kargool]

Originally Posted by zmaster

Kargool,

Not sure as to whether you read this part of my post "non allied clusters" only:"


2. Since when does someone know someone is going to attack them? and if thats the case then its simply a waste of fleet slots trying to protect one player. You could counter abuse by simply getting rid of pre-launch attacks.

Sorry, i may have misinterpreted your post about non allied clusters.

Getting rid of prelaunch would surely destroy it for alot of the newer players. As it is the lesser active players that uses prelaunch the most.

[Monroe]

Originally Posted by zmaster

Well as you know i didn't add everything thus confusing ppl :-p

This whole thread is merely here to suggest ways to cover two aspects in the game:

1. Bringing players that can't get onto IRC back into the game with more purpose
2. Giving a stronger incentive for new players to remain in the game rather then bashing them until the go inactive and to retain these players


Addition to my last post:

- 1,2 and 3 are to be reliant on xp. The more xp you get then these "benefits" disappear
- There should be a rate to express your xp. rate = xp_points/number of ticks that the player has been playing for. The reason for this is that if you have a player that has played alright for 1 month and a player that has played for 1 week and they have the same xp it shows that the 2nd player is more active/useful and therefore more likely to be recruited into an alliance

...

Monroe,
Did you read this part of my post "non allied clusters" only:?

If so can you please elaborate on how this restricts game play and who is restricted?

What you are suggesting is segmenting non-allied players from allied players, here are several immediate issues I see. First, what happens when someone who signs up as a "non-allied" joins an alliance? Do they get moved to the alliances cluster? (where they loose their protection?) Also if someone is kicked out of an ally do they go the the non-allied clusters where they then gain some protection? If so this seems rife for abuse, if not, then you are hurting people who join/leave allies.

At some level what you are suggesting is that there should be two games instead of one, one where the allies, and assumedly better players, duke it out, and one where the non-allied players kind of piddle around on their own, unless they get too big. Besides the massive coding issues with all this, the chances for abusing the rules go way up, and I'm still not convinced this whole system actually adds to the fairness, or the "funness" of the game. You claim this may help players who don't use IRC, but IRC is really the point of the game, and I think we should do more to encourage IRC use, rather then discourage it. The whole bashing issue is, and will continue to be an issue, if for the simple fact that there will always be players who are bigger then others, and will use it to their advantage. Imo those who really cry about being bashed are really crying about people's inability to play the game well, and frankly I'm not sure the PATeam should do anything about that.

[zmaster]

Ok i think this thread has now become more confusing then beneficial. More then likely due to myself having to add in extra parts. Simply people are missing stuff that i have already wrote.

Monroe

First, what happens when someone who signs up as a "non-allied" joins an alliance? Do they get moved to the alliances cluster?

- Yes, where HC of the alliance can shift them to where ever they like

(where they loose their protection?)

- No, they gain the protection of their new alliance

Also if someone is kicked out of an ally do they go the the non-allied clusters where they then gain some protection?

Yes, they go to the non allied cluster. No, they don't gain protection because "The more xp you get then these "benefits" disappear" (from my last post)

If so this seems rife for abuse, if not, then you are hurting people who join/leave allies.

Heh.. in the current state of the game if someone leaves an alliance they get bashed by the alliance they left anyway. I don't buy this argument

or the "funness" of the game. You claim this may help players who don't use IRC, but IRC is really the point of the game, and I think we should do more to encourage IRC use, rather then discourage it. The whole bashing issue is, and will continue to be an issue, if for the simple fact that there will always be players who are bigger then others, and will use it to their advantage. Imo those who really cry about being bashed are really crying about people's inability to play the game well, and frankly I'm not sure the PATeam should do anything about that.

I don't find it fun bashing noobs, my idea reduces the bashing of n00bs so they can learn to be competitive. Not everyone can gain access to IRC and i should know as i can't while i am at work, i've tried everything and this idea also helps those who can't use IRC.

Its blatenly obvious you don't want to see a change in the game that would benefit others without benefiting yourself (even though there are aspects which would) and It doesn't greatly affect the overall play of the game that much. I certainly don't hold it against you or anything like that i will just say that we should agree to disagree on this topic

Kargool

No problems.
Getting rid of prelaunch would surely destroy it for alot of the newer players. As it is the lesser active players that uses prelaunch the most.

Maybe, maybe not. When i first started playing i would launch attacks at 10pm-11pm game time and i got into the top 800. Who knows