Login is disabled. This forum is read-only.
Imperial Forum → Feedback → The Official "Illegal Alliance" Feedback Thread
tbh, the # of "IAs" happening this round probably isn't significantly higher than in a normal round. players are just able to talk about them in forum and chat instead of having to stick to outside modes of communication.
"Illegal Alliance": allowed
Oh oh...
Ever talked with Stefan or some of the really old players (from beta 1) why there was always such a strong ban on illegal alliances?
Many of the earliest IC-players including Stefan and MasterMike were actually refugees from the first MMPOGs like Utopia and others which had upto 50k of players and huge alliances of thousands of players. The individual player was nothing, the power and arrogance of the alliances and their members unbearable. No tactics, no strat, no real competition was possible because the alliances ruled everything.
IC was invented to allow exactly the opposite: a very strong focus on tactics, strat, math and, well, yes, team work but in a limited form without "disabling" the individual and on top of that it added a map (which was a unique new and very innovative feature at that time).
And since quite many of the very early players were refugees from those other games, they also felt a responsibility to keep IC different. Actually this was probably the special spirit of the early IC time: admins and players bound together to forge a better game, a refuge from all the huge alliance games.
This hit quite a nerve in the player community: the map plus (rather by chance) the right mix of team play and individual empowerment was a huge success and IC started right away with 250 players in beta 1 and grew to several thousand players in beta 4. (Back then the mix of team play and individual game play consisted of teams/families of upto 20 members and each family was allowed to have 2 allies.)
The idea is not to say "go as many allies as you want!" but rather to say "we won't tell you how to play". The players should ultimately determine what this means for them.
Sounds good but the truth is that it was tested and determined already over and over again and the result is always the same: If you do not have a very strict and enforced rule to limit alliances, the players themselves will do all what is necessary to form alliances that will grow and grow and finally destroy the game.
Of course, there won't be alliances of thousands of players in IC because the player base is a bit small. So it will balance out to 1-2 alliances in each galaxy. And after a while they will be perma, existing even before and after the round is over. Your only chance to play will be to join one of the 2 alliances and find your lowly place in the hierarchy. Finally... a different game which shouldn't be called IC anylonger.
Yeah, I remember. I played Utopia back in the day too, and before I found IC I played a game called Planetarion that suffered from this "problem". I very clearly remember the problems you describe, but I also very clearly remember the positive aspects.
Finally... a different game which shouldn't be called IC anylonger.
If this is how we define IC, it should have stopped being called IC already, as in-game alliances were disabled quite some time ago.
If you do not have a very strict and enforced rule to limit alliances, the players themselves will do all what is necessary to form alliances that will grow and grow and finally destroy the game.
The irony in your statement is that this has already happened. As strict as we claimed to ever be about this, it is practically unenforceable. Even if I changed my mind right now and said "Illegal Alliances are banned again" what I would really be saying is "We know you guys can get around this rule and we can't actually catch you, but let's pretend nobody is going to cheat."
This has for years given an unfair advantage to players who are smart enough to cheat without getting caught; and it's not hard. If anything will destroy a game, it's ignoring that with this rule cheaters have a secret but very real strategic advantage over honest players.
For years IC has taking the lazy/easy way out by saying this rule exists while knowing that we don't have the means to enforce it, and burdening the mods with fruitless investigation work at that. I will not accept that as "normal".
the power and arrogance of the alliances and their members unbearable
IC has already suffered this for years through other means. New players routinely get killed off if they don't want to fall in-line with a very specialized family structure. The same logic could state this mean families are the problem with the game.
But families aren't the problem, and unofficial alliances aren't the problem. The problem is that IC is inherently imbalanced and our attempts at fixing this (protection rules, v-mode and p-mode, morale changes) have been unsuccessful.
That doesn't mean we should accept defeat and revert to "enforcing" a rule that we can't actually enforce. It means we should double down our efforts and get creative about solving the problems we find. Ultimately this is my job and IC's success or failure is now on my hands. Given the game's downward trend over the years, I am not going to accept that what we had was the best we can do. It isn't.
Indeed, Utopia's gameplay ("dull" to use Stefan/MMs wording) was one half of the stated reason for IC's creation, but there is another half that you didn't mention: inactive admins. I am not content to judge IC's opportunities by the failures of other games who fell victim to inactive developers.
We can do better than that, and we can do better than pretending rules work when they clearly don't.
Hey, that was a very fast response.
And all your points, I like pie, seem to be very valid ones adding up to... well, a mess, I have to admit, I have not really any good ideas how to solve. Thus I beg your excuse if my post was perhaps a bit patronizing.
You are probably right that some (even wild and even if it means breaking some old taboos) tries and errors are needed until finding a new balance... a balance which anyway can be always only achieved temporarily and needs constant adjusting and admin care which IC lacked for years.
By the way: I think it's a good way to try different approaches in different galaxies.
Oh oh again, I've just reread some of the entries in the IC wiki. Especiallly some lines I wrote myself, completly forgotten until reread a few minutes ago, about why I quit IC and being a Mod years ago:
http://ic-wiki.com/wiki/Altruist#Quitting_IC.3F
Some problems of IC are REALLY old.
Nah no worries about coming off as patronizing. You didn't, and criticism is healthy. As frustrating as it can be, we'd all be much worse off if we weren't talking about these things.
Things are indeed a mess, but cleanup is in progress. 
this rule is trash and is the downfall of the new "ic"
Altruist, that is the best post I've read in the last month or two in here. I didn't know that story about why Stefan made IC the way it is and hadn't stopped to think about it but that is exactly why I like IC so much. The huge alliances is what I don't like about other games. I feel like IC does have more competitive integrity because the playing field is much more even than in other games. Everyone has the ability to influence the game and strategies and math and all that is imperative. It's probably impossible to make the game balanced enough to be "fair" and fun and perfect in every way like many people demand. However, there really doesn't seem to be any point to playing anything besides attacker. Having infra has so many downsides so all the math and strategizing that would normally go into banking doesn't give you an advantage really. All that matters is defense stuff which isn't that complicated and you can do all that as an attacker anyway. I always liked banking best way back because calculating things like funding research vs going futher OB actually made a difference because those little decisions had an effect.
I get that going through this illegal alliance phase is something that can improve the game. I'd just like to hear more often that it is a very temporary change that will be gone in the foreseeable future once the devs learn what they need. I would much rather play with a couple cheaters getting away with having IAs than everyone doing it within the rules. It's how the American justice system works anyway. Better to let a guilty man go than send an innocent man to prison. I'm okay with a few IA when it's a very minor problem. It being widespread and encouraged isn't better. Hell, even tell everyone that the mods won't be investigating IA at all and I still believe that most people won't break the rules. Trusting the majority of people to keep the game fun is better in my opinion. Don't throw it out because some people are jerks. This is basically why farming doesn't happen that much. Most players are good people and appreciate why the game is fun and try to keep it that way.
This is basically why farming doesn't happen that much. Most players are good people and appreciate why the game is fun and try to keep it that way.
So like... if the general consensus is that farming doesn't happen that much, I'm convinced that the entire community was neuralyzed the day we launched the new morale formula. We didn't throw the new formula together for shits and giggles, we did it because farming was such a problem 
Haha sorry yes you're right. Morale system stops farming much more than peoples' morals. I'm trying to say that the farming that can happen doesn't always happen because sometimes players choose not to
The problem in the past was that the players that choose to farm would automatically win every round. You either held to your sacrificed your morals/honor/whatever you want to call it and joined in the farming, or you didn't compete. I don't know that this was always intentional, for many people it was an extension of PNAPs existing. Families sign naps that are beneficial to them early on only to get a month into the round and find that the only people left to fight are the small families that can't defend themselves.
The problem in the past was that the players that choose to farm would automatically win every round. You either held to your sacrificed your morals/honor/whatever you want to call it and joined in the farming, or you didn't compete. I don't know that this was always intentional, for many people it was an extension of PNAPs existing. Families sign naps that are beneficial to them early on only to get a month into the round and find that the only people left to fight are the small families that can't defend themselves.
Yea PNAPs need to be gone. That is exactly what happens, you fight a tough family for a lil bit and decide its best to pnap so you don't hhave to fight anymore. And then all that's left are small weak families...
Everything is indeed interconnected. The players have responded to disabling in-game naps (and thus, p-naps) rather favorably, which took me by surprise somewhat. If this becomes the new default I think we'll all be better for it.
Anyway, I think there is some truth to what DustyAladdin is saying, and it's something I've been thinking about in response to all the protest. In particular:
I'm okay with a few IA when it's a very minor problem. It being widespread and encouraged isn't better. Hell, even tell everyone that the mods won't be investigating IA at all and I still believe that most people won't break the rules.
[...]
Most players are good people and appreciate why the game is fun and try to keep it that way.
We're only just now regaining momentum on planning variety in our galaxy options. I don't think there's any reason not to try what DA suggests above, but in a single galaxy. Of course, we'd need to be extremely clear that we can't effectively enforce the rule and that it really is a matter of playing by the honor system.
In the long term both extremes would give way to a more balanced middle ground. In the short term though this could be a good way to assuage the discontent players while still getting what I need out of the larger test.
There's no magic button go push to make everything fantastic, but man is it refreshing to have a dev on hand that's taken an active role. Sure some of the experimenting is going to be frustrating, but it's necessary to make progress 
There's a basic design flaw in the game, and that's why things like super ia's and farming become such a problem.
The traditional computer game takes certain path. You play, you win or you lose, and then you can start the game again and try to do better. And then you have modern games that have a continuous format where you can always increase in levels.
IC doesn't follow either of these paths, or really any path that I've seen in other games. In monoply you can stretch out the game for awhile by borrowing money, but eventually you lose.
In IC, you have a fight, you get beaten up, and then you have to stay around for the rest of the round, with really no hope of winning. And so we try to implement things to prevent this. The moral system, the attacking limits, and so on.
I think the real problem is the staying around with no way to win. I don't mind getting beaten up and then having to try again. That's what a computer game is. But when you have to sit around in your own failure, it leaves you feeling bad. The point of a computer game is to feel good.
The moral system and the illegal alliance rules are an attempt to prevent a person from having to lose and the sit around and wait. I think that's the wrong direction. I think instead of preventing us from losing, we should have a way for a player to build up again and fight back into a winning position.
I think allowing ia could be a solution to this. If we allow 3 small families to team up, then they can take down the big family.
But we need to find a way to prevent the super alliances.
Actually, a better way would be to just allow people to lose, but that's hc and I gather that a lot of players don't like hc. Personally, I think a better solution would be for all galaxies to be hc.
I don't mind losing. It's the losing and then sitting around that sucks.
There's a basic design flaw in the game, and that's why things like super ia's and farming become such a problem.
The traditional computer game takes certain path. You play, you win or you lose, and then you can start the game again and try to do better. And then you have modern games that have a continuous format where you can always increase in levels.
IC doesn't follow either of these paths, or really any path that I've seen in other games. In monoply you can stretch out the game for awhile by borrowing money, but eventually you lose.
In IC, you have a fight, you get beaten up, and then you have to stay around for the rest of the round, with really no hope of winning. And so we try to implement things to prevent this. The moral system, the attacking limits, and so on.
I think the real problem is the staying around with no way to win. I don't mind getting beaten up and then having to try again. That's what a computer game is. But when you have to sit around in your own failure, it leaves you feeling bad. The point of a computer game is to feel good.
The moral system and the illegal alliance rules are an attempt to prevent a person from having to lose and the sit around and wait. I think that's the wrong direction. I think instead of preventing us from losing, we should have a way for a player to build up again and fight back into a winning position.
I think allowing ia could be a solution to this. If we allow 3 small families to team up, then they can take down the big family.
But we need to find a way to prevent the super alliances.
Actually, a better way would be to just allow people to lose, but that's hc and I gather that a lot of players don't like hc. Personally, I think a better solution would be for all galaxies to be hc.
I think this falls into the long list of issues that require a bigger player base to fix. Once we have a larger base built up, we'll be able to have more galaxies running. Once we can have more galaxies running, we can have galaxies starting more frequently. This should theoretically give people that want a fresh start more opportunities.
We can fix some of it sooner than that actually, and I'm looking forward to doing so.
IC has made some assumptions for years about how galaxies should be set up. UD, you've heard me talk about this behind the scenes with regard to how weird of a process it is to have to set up each round, and how it can/should be automated.
If we can crack that nut, we can address Lone Tiger's very valid point: that sitting around sucks. Part of the solution is shortening rounds, which we've already done somewhat.
Another thing I intend to do though is allow fewer open spots per galaxy. Instead of having 60-70 players in a 6-8 week long round, we might instead of 30-40 players in a 4 week long round. Then stagger galaxy openings so that there's always something new around the corner, and players have some recourse to cure the "loser's boredom".
Of course, that's only half of the solution and it'd be a mistake to put all our energy into that being the sole fix. The core game itself should also address this such that even "losing" in the middle of an 8 week round is still fairly recoverable.
If we can do both of these things together, I think we'll be see a solid increase in player satisfaction. Things like this are what I mean when I talk about "real solutions" to the IA situation. There's more to it of course, but conversations like this are a great step forward.
Imperial Forum → Feedback → The Official "Illegal Alliance" Feedback Thread
Powered by PunBB, supported by Informer Technologies, Inc.