451 Topic by Undeath

(8 replies, posted in Ideas)

OK, so Xeno sparked an idea (shudders at the admission)
For years we've had people bring up the idea of Aid between families.  At the moment, that's not an option.  What "might" be an option is to set up a galaxy with 1 family of say...50-100 people. 

This would allow us to create a solo galaxy where all the players are able to work together or apart as they wish within the structure we currently have (again need confirmation on this, not sure why it wouldn't work).  If you want to play solo, you could play solo...if you want to get with 3-4 friends and form a team, you can do that....if 50 people want to work together to see how much income they can get out of 1 banker...totally an option.  We could adjust the new morale formula to take family nw out of the equation and bump the effect you get from individual nw without much of a problem...

If necessary we could disable leadership, but I kind of like the idea of allowing the entire galaxy to vote for it's leader if they wish.

We could possibly this up using the king of the hill galaxy style, only remove the hill as the goal and place the family in the middle.  Then give say...5-7 days before any attacks are allowed.  This would give everyone a chance to establish alliances and their own core area if they wish.

We wouldn't need the market at all (although we could leave it as is) as players would be able to barter between each other as they want.  Theoretically you could directly trade iron or food for endurium, bypassing the traditional necessity of needing gold for all transactions. 

This would prevent new players from being stuck in inactive families, as they would fully have the ability to jump in with an established group to work together.

By design this would be a chaos round since there are no families and everyone is able to aid... and this type of galaxy could give players that like that mechanic a place to stay as I don't think Starburst is going to continue this way (another spot for discussion)

TLDR Summary

  • Everyone is in one "family", allowing everyone to aid and work together/against anyone they want

  • Removing "family nw" from morale equation and slightly bumping individual nw should even out any issues from morale

  • Possibility of Galactic Leader

  • Long period with 0 aggression to allow establishment of cores

  • Barter System!

  • Xeno's civil war (I think Zarfikins had a similar idea as well) thread + Piranha plan sparked this idea

  • "Chaos" round as there would be a fluid system of individuals allying/fighting as they will

  • No more small families disabled by inactives, inactives wouldn't hurt anyone but themselves

I'm at work and have already spent more time throwing this out there than I should...but thoughts?

Go to forum: Ideas

452 Reply by Undeath

(5 replies, posted in Ideas)

This is a cool idea...but would need a lot of polish to work.

Xeno wrote:

6.  A civil war can end only by majority vote.  By default, a player's vote to end a civil war is set to 'No'.

With the current activity level of IC, it's entirely possible for a scenario where 1/3 of the family is active, votes to start a civil war, and then the family doesn't have the ability to end it when they're done.  Easy solution to this would be to set the default vote to "Abstain", and require 1/3-1/2 of the family to vote.

Xeno wrote:

5.  Other families are not permitted to attack the family that declares a civil war, except that fam or fams that were at war with the fam at the time it declared a civil war. 
6. A fam that declares a civil war is not permitted to attack other fams, except those it was already at war with at the time it declared a civil war.

Nope nope nope nope nope nope nope nope nope.  Way too many ways this could be exploited.


This in general seems to favor the side of a theoretical rebel group within a family.  Personally within the current family style set up that we have, I hate this idea.  If we were to do away with traditional family restrictions, and say have a galaxy of individual empires where everyone is able to aid and help each other as they please this would make sense....wait...that gives me another idea...which I'm typing up now....anyway

In a galaxy like Starburst, I hate the idea of built in intra-fam conflict and without considerable changes to the keys to our game as long as I'm a moderator I'll fight it

That being said..../me points to new ideas thread

Go to forum: Ideas

453 Reply by Undeath

(5 replies, posted in Ideas)

Fyre wrote:

Inb4:

Undeath wrote:

Every time the "speed up ticks" idea pops up, I bang my head against the wall for a few minutes

big_smile

Go to forum: Ideas

454 Reply by Undeath

(3 replies, posted in General)

Gwynedd wrote:

Zoz is alive? yikes

yikes

Go to forum: General

455 Reply by Undeath

(197 replies, posted in Universal News)

Masse wrote:

Shame it ended like this. Colorado would have attacked us sooner or later so we took to call to get the first hit. Lesson to be learned Colorado, what comes around goes around. Last round I got raped like this, this round colo got raped. What hurts me is that good people like orbit had to take the hit for it.

Yup!  Everyone in 01 has had experience with Colo's ruthlessness when it comes to winning a round.  We felt it was a strike first or be stricken situation.

That being said, it was a chaos round.  Can't knock us for playing to the theme

Go to forum: Universal News

456 Reply by Undeath

(197 replies, posted in Universal News)

Xeno wrote:

So which is true? 

1.  Nobody sent info to me for PVC
2.  People sent a lot of info but I'm too lazy to want to deal with it all
3.  People sent info but the info got deleted because of stupid Windows 10 update
4.  People sent info, but I don't want to share, due to us Piranhas' security interests / tactical advantages, but want to hide that fact, hence why I'm coming up with these bad excuses for not doing PVC.


I vote #4

Go to forum: Universal News

457 Reply by Undeath

(9 replies, posted in Questions)

In the past it's typically been used when someone accidentally explores into the core of someone who is napped.  Trading for specific planets with a family that isn't your own is classified as an Illegal Alliance, just as requesting specific planets as compensation is.

Go to forum: Questions

458 Reply by Undeath

(9 replies, posted in Questions)

As long as they aren't requesting specific planets in compensation, and you're not blatantly trying to swap planets so you can get positioning on someone, this is fine

Go to forum: Questions

459 Reply by Undeath

(20 replies, posted in Ideas)

Every time the "speed up ticks" idea pops up, I bang my head against the wall for a few minutes

Go to forum: Ideas

460 Reply by Undeath

(52 replies, posted in Feedback)

]PW[ Forever wrote:

The big guys should fight the big guys and be scared of the small guys, it used to be big guys NAP the big guys and the small guys get farmed, this way everyone is a potential threat and you need to keep your wits about you, not logging off thinking you can't be touched because you've NAP'd everyone you want to. You'll NEED to NAP certain empires, and you'll NEED to not NAP others, time to learn the game again me thinks. smile

Yup!  The general idea has been to nap people close to you, frequently we'll have rounds when the top 4-5 fams are napped at EOR, so have to find other ways to gain planets.  If you still do this, than yes you should stop attacking and focus on exploring.  If you only want to attack people smaller than you you're more than welcome to do so,  but plan on only being able to do 1 attack ever 3-4 ticks.

Go to forum: Feedback

461 Reply by Undeath

(50 replies, posted in Feedback)

What kind of stats would you suggest exceed?

Go to forum: Feedback

462 Reply by Undeath

(50 replies, posted in Feedback)

Hookers wrote:
[PW9]~KT~ wrote:
Bandito wrote:

for 1 opps mostly lose 65% morale so its not working



Morale Cost: 70 for 1 opp


You know the cost before. If you are trying to op someone that requires that much morale you need to look for a bigger target.


The family was bigger than ours is.  Bankerdoing infiltrate on attacker should be expected without using 50% of morale on a single infiltrate

Or we could all realize that with this new system traditional roles won't necessarily work well.

Go to forum: Feedback

463 Reply by Undeath

(50 replies, posted in Feedback)

Aeonflux wrote:

I think there should be a limit on how much a op costs you as big bankers / resources become bored when it costs nearly all there morale to do 1 op on someone, I understand why this morale formula was introduced but ATM it's making people get bored quicker resulting in them going in-active as there is nothing for them to do apart from send aid

I disagree!  Bankers and resourcers have plenty ability to do ops, it's just a different role than it was in the past.  Doing 1 cpff on a smallish attacker can cost 50-60 morale easy sure, but a big partax in sb is currently able to keep the pop down on 3 bankers.  It will take some time to adapt I'm sure, but this change has basically created some new roles while adjusting traditional roles.  A middle of the pack opper will be useful for things like cpffs and ips big_smile

Or if there's a way to adjust morale used for specific ops, making informational ops cost less would make sense as well.

Go to forum: Feedback

464 Reply by Undeath

(197 replies, posted in Universal News)

Is anyone else wondering what skummy chum is?

Go to forum: Universal News

465 Reply by Undeath

(45 replies, posted in Feedback)

You realize that until we made this change nw didn't come into it at all...and it was all planet count...right?

Go to forum: Feedback

466 Reply by Undeath

(45 replies, posted in Feedback)

logansport wrote:

played as ss, I was in top family at time, was being hit by guy in number 2 family by guy twice my size, but still coast over 24 moral to hit back, so basically he could hit me twice to every 1 I hit back, now that we are in third it is not as bad, it is frustrating not to be able to defend our selfs, I can see where it would help a small family from being farmed, but it puts to much of diadvange to family similar in size and nw


Either your family at #1 was over twice the size of their family at #2, or you had a crazy amount of planets for your nw.  Those are the only scenarios where someone twice your nw could hit you and have those numbers make sense.

Go to forum: Feedback

467 Reply by Undeath

(50 replies, posted in Feedback)

Hookers wrote:

Seriously, blocking 1 portal and doing 1 infiltrate on another person took me down to 6 morale?

You know how much morale you'll lose from an op before you cast the op.  If you're opping someone that requires 52 morale per op, you're focusing on someone who's at best 1/3 you're size.  These changes were brought around to prevent attacking someone that much smaller than you.  If you're trying to clear your core, they shouldn't have had time to get portalled to begin with.

Go to forum: Feedback

468 Reply by Undeath

(92 replies, posted in General)

We all know you just do a Google Image search TCO

Go to forum: General

469 Reply by Undeath

(197 replies, posted in Universal News)

*is warned*

Go to forum: Universal News

470 Reply by Undeath

(45 replies, posted in Feedback)

LG wrote:

Because we still all agree size wins so don't make it hard to attaxk small fat fams

Actually...the driving force behind this change was to make it hard to farm small fams...

Go to forum: Feedback

471 Reply by Undeath

(45 replies, posted in Feedback)

Artic wrote:

should be more size orientated and not networth

Why?  Doesn't nw reflect a family's overall capabilities better than size?  I'd rather be going to war with a family at 10mil nw and 2000 planets than a family with 20mil nw and 1000 planets.

Go to forum: Feedback

472 Reply by Undeath

(50 replies, posted in Feedback)

Note : there's a thread set up for discussion that is specific to SN

Go to forum: Feedback

473 Reply by Undeath

(2 replies, posted in Ideas)

1% morale loss, 90% fleet loss would be proper for a true berserker style idea

Go to forum: Ideas

474 Reply by Undeath

(53 replies, posted in Universal News)

Note:

Apparently it isn't clear that this round in Supernova is not a chaos round.  Those rules are only applying to Starburst.

http://imperialconflict.com/forum/viewt … 7#p1742997

Go to forum: Universal News

475 Reply by Undeath

(197 replies, posted in Universal News)

{Black Mafia} IC Death wrote:

Joe Whining really? im not whining im just sick of mods doing dumb shit and then taking 2-3 days to actually respond.. then if u are gonna make a chaos round u should of through about the rest of the shit.. first off i didnt cheat in SN i was making fun as i through since i cant delete i might as well op everyone while making jokes.. then u block me which is dumb when u have a galaxy with rules and and gal without rules supposely. and from my understanding anyway i through both gals were chaos rounds.. but nevertheless u block me in both gals.. When u could of simply just deleted my SN account like i ask.. but then it doesnt make since.. ur adding changes to the game while trying keep the same old rules DUMB!! u cant make a chao round and make everything legal then block someones entire account for supposelly doing the shit u allowed to happen.. once again i didnt cheat in SN but whateva.. shits done im done this game is lame.. only way to fix it is to change out these mods first..too much lazyiness shitty login times and etc

http://imperialconflict.com/forum/viewt … 7#p1742997

Go to forum: Universal News