• Posts: 4,031
  • Tag points: 671

Re: core

how about giving every family a core of x systems around their hs which no other family can enter.

it will give small families a bit of base area, and possibly you can outlaw demanding other cores.

NEE NAW NEE NAW

Primo

0 Dislike 0 Post Points

1 Tag Point

  • Posts: 6,555
  • Tag points: 90

Re: core

sounds good

~*✠ ]PW[ Forever ✠*~

0 Dislike 0 Post Points

  • Posts: 4,031
  • Tag points: 671

Re: core

*bump*

NEE NAW NEE NAW

Primo

0 Dislike 0 Post Points

  • Posts: 3,083
  • Tag points: 378

Re: core

Good bump, first I've read of it. I like the idea in theory, would be interested to trial it in practice.

Insanity and genius are closely related!
*** Eltie for mod! ***
Failing Lemming of Teachings and Australian Cop Orgies: Gwynedd

0 Dislike 0 Post Points

  • Posts: 3,007
  • Tag points: 425

Re: core

or merge this with the farming/nw rule and only allow the set core for families that are under a certain percent of the attacking fam.  core can only be around so much of home system to prevent coring.  ineffective against families that are so many systems close to you to prevent coring.  pie likes getting lots of demands on him so we can make it as complex as we want and make him figure out the coding

So I told the cop, "No YOU'RE driving under the influence... of being a JERK!"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eFjjO_lhf9c

0 Dislike 0 Post Points

  • Posts: 3,007
  • Tag points: 425

Re: core

like a pvp game where you cant attack noobs under a certain level!

So I told the cop, "No YOU'RE driving under the influence... of being a JERK!"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eFjjO_lhf9c

0 Dislike 0 Post Points

  • Posts: 5,199
  • Tag points: 19

Re: core

And how would you pinpoint what systems would belong to what fam? Especially when there's a conflict of interest between two close families (mind you the way families are placed into the galaxy is still random)?

Would mods have to pick systems manually, or would you have this done by a special committee of players, or would you let the game decide on 30 systems (and how would you program this, especially with above mentioned problem of close families).


It is an interesting idea nonetheless, but I doubt it is practical.

Maar doodslaan deed hij niet, want tussen droom en daad,
Staan wetten in de weg en praktische bezwaren,
En ook weemoedigheid, die niemand kan verklaren,
En die des avonds komt, wanneer men slapen gaat.

0 Dislike 0 Post Points

  • Posts: 6,734
  • Tag points: 34

Re: core

It could be practical. If you code it, it is possible. Game already uses an equidistance function when placing families during a reset. If it would "claim" 20 of the closest systems as a core, same way it protects planets for family spots, it could be feasible. Only problem you would run into is in smaller galaxies.

Modestus Experitus

Arby: A very strict mod, reminds me of a fat redneck who drives a truck around all day with a beer in one hand. I hated this guy at the start, however, I played a round in PW with him where he went as an anonymous player. Our fam got smashed up and everyone pretty much left. Arby stayed around and helped out the remaining family. At the end of the round he revealed himself.... My views on him have changed since. Your a good guy.....

0 Dislike 0 Post Points

  • Posts: 5,199
  • Tag points: 19

Re: core

If that is the case, then you should be able to vary the number of closest systems according to that particular reset: when resetting MW, one could use 20 as a number, whilst when resetting PW, one could use 10 as a number.

Maar doodslaan deed hij niet, want tussen droom en daad,
Staan wetten in de weg en praktische bezwaren,
En ook weemoedigheid, die niemand kan verklaren,
En die des avonds komt, wanneer men slapen gaat.

0 Dislike 0 Post Points

  • Posts: 6,734
  • Tag points: 34

Re: core

Yes, making it a variable selection would be good. Having options us never a bad thing.

It could also be a % of the total systems per galaxy. Say, each fam gets 2% as a secured core impenetrable by any other fam. That would resolve any conflicting numbers.

Modestus Experitus

Arby: A very strict mod, reminds me of a fat redneck who drives a truck around all day with a beer in one hand. I hated this guy at the start, however, I played a round in PW with him where he went as an anonymous player. Our fam got smashed up and everyone pretty much left. Arby stayed around and helped out the remaining family. At the end of the round he revealed himself.... My views on him have changed since. Your a good guy.....

0 Dislike 0 Post Points

  • Posts: 5,199
  • Tag points: 19

Re: core

Yeah that'd indeed be very nice and provide some more objectivity, making the size of your core less dependent on semi-ambiguous ideas of whoever is resetting the galaxy tongue.


Now to just have someone code it!

Maar doodslaan deed hij niet, want tussen droom en daad,
Staan wetten in de weg en praktische bezwaren,
En ook weemoedigheid, die niemand kan verklaren,
En die des avonds komt, wanneer men slapen gaat.

0 Dislike 0 Post Points

  • Posts: 6,734
  • Tag points: 34

Re: core

Would also make naps more fair and easy. No more no core shit or 100 system core lists lol

Modestus Experitus

Arby: A very strict mod, reminds me of a fat redneck who drives a truck around all day with a beer in one hand. I hated this guy at the start, however, I played a round in PW with him where he went as an anonymous player. Our fam got smashed up and everyone pretty much left. Arby stayed around and helped out the remaining family. At the end of the round he revealed himself.... My views on him have changed since. Your a good guy.....

0 Dislike 0 Post Points

13 Reply by [TI] Primo (edited by [TI] Primo 20-Aug-2012 17:03:00)

  • Posts: 4,031
  • Tag points: 671

Re: core

just have all home systems have 8 or so systems directly adjacent to it, on 1 tick

NEE NAW NEE NAW

Primo

0 Dislike 0 Post Points

14 Reply by RisingDown (edited by RisingDown 20-Aug-2012 16:54:54)

  • Posts: 5,199
  • Tag points: 19

Re: core

Although, 2 more problems:

How do you have a program figure out which of 2 fams gets a system that is exactly the same distance from their HS?
- It isn't given to either: the system might become an island system to which other fams can easily spread to get an advantage over both families.
- It is given to both: both families will feel cheated for having to share a core system, in essence meaning they both have 1 less save system (as the other will be able to use it for spread as well)
- It will be randomly given to one fam: the other fam will feel cheated.


This also goes for overlap of the 20 closest systems of 2 fams:
- If the systems are given to whatever fam is closest and new systems are given to the duped family (I can imagine this is very difficult to code), this may cause the duped family to have a stretched out core, which is inherently less save than a perfectly round one (as travel time to the center  of the core may be less from different locations, etc.)
- If the minimal distance between families is increased to the point where none of these conflicts can take place, this may result in an enormous system and an ever-lasting expo phase, possibly resulting in a boring round of ImperialInfra with less skirmishes/wars.

Maar doodslaan deed hij niet, want tussen droom en daad,
Staan wetten in de weg en praktische bezwaren,
En ook weemoedigheid, die niemand kan verklaren,
En die des avonds komt, wanneer men slapen gaat.

0 Dislike 0 Post Points

  • Posts: 5,199
  • Tag points: 19

Re: core

Primo, I think you mean 8 big_smile

Maar doodslaan deed hij niet, want tussen droom en daad,
Staan wetten in de weg en praktische bezwaren,
En ook weemoedigheid, die niemand kan verklaren,
En die des avonds komt, wanneer men slapen gaat.

0 Dislike 0 Post Points

  • Posts: 4,031
  • Tag points: 671

Re: core

i said 8 X(

NEE NAW NEE NAW

Primo

0 Dislike 0 Post Points

  • Posts: 5,199
  • Tag points: 19

Re: core

Liar liar pants on fire!

Maar doodslaan deed hij niet, want tussen droom en daad,
Staan wetten in de weg en praktische bezwaren,
En ook weemoedigheid, die niemand kan verklaren,
En die des avonds komt, wanneer men slapen gaat.

0 Dislike 0 Post Points

  • Posts: 6,734
  • Tag points: 34

Re: core

Bump!

This is an idea that has great chances of being implemented. Continue discussion.

I would say a 2% of total systems as a "safe core area" would be best. With that amount, there shouldn't be any conflicts of overlapping cores as long as fams are equally distanced apart.

Modestus Experitus

Arby: A very strict mod, reminds me of a fat redneck who drives a truck around all day with a beer in one hand. I hated this guy at the start, however, I played a round in PW with him where he went as an anonymous player. Our fam got smashed up and everyone pretty much left. Arby stayed around and helped out the remaining family. At the end of the round he revealed himself.... My views on him have changed since. Your a good guy.....

0 Dislike 0 Post Points

  • Posts: 4,031
  • Tag points: 671

Re: core

I am thinking that would be a great start, but why not make core size a setting in the interface, so you can adjust it when resestting a round.
If 2% isn't good, next round, new chances.

NEE NAW NEE NAW

Primo

0 Dislike 0 Post Points

  • Posts: 960
  • Tag points: 58

Re: core

This is an interesting idea but it comes with quite a price. I can see how it would help the small fams and give them a base economy which can't be touched so they gain the capability of fighting other(even bigger) fams for prolonged periods. This can be good, but also might be abused by small fams to make life miserable for the big ones by sitting in their core all round, OBing to 3000%, ignoring fleet and just getting op units to harass the eco of other fams.

Also, Cores are terrible for gameplay. They reduce conflict and make the map effectively smaller. Attackers are already barred from a considerable percentage of the galaxy's systems due to core NAPs (these days this means pretty much every NAP), which reduces shares with each other, which reduces wars and promotes Imperial Infra.

I realize we are kinda on a crusade to empower small fams and I'm all for that but I think implementing cores ingame and giving families a free untouchable eco-zone which they don't have to fight for, might be going too far.

Back in the day there used to be a rule in IC that families are not allowed to claim more than 1-2 systems as their core. There was probably good reasons for that. For a better IC, I think we should work towards banishing cores, not favoring them.

0 Dislike 0 Post Points

21 Reply by Render

  • Render
  • Guest
  • Tag points: 76

Re: core

lets discuss it then...

to avoid what RD pointed out as problems, the standard core we're talking about should be tiny, I'd say 10 systems as much for every family, and they are appointed authomatically by the game, being the 10 closer systems to your HS.  And the only way you can attack this systems is by declaring war.

Now even that way neighbours may be appointed to share 1 or more systems as standard core, how to fix this?

option1 -> mods reset the map, until there aint core conflicts
option2 -> those neighbours actually share the system(s) in conflict and a 48h nap is enforced. So they'll have the option to claim that system(s) as their standard core in a future cancel war.

Option 2 looks interesting, but it will give an advantage to the fams that arent sharing standard cores because they can use a safe core for OBinfra and boost their economy, while the fams sharing a standard core will use it as a risky system.  So to balance this situation, any family sharing a standard core system will have all their other non shared systems increased by 1 planet (and this should be manually done by mods).

Example ---> you have 10 standard cores, but 2 of them are shares with other families' standard cores, 1 share with fam 5555 and 1 share with fam 5567.  To balance the situation, each one of your other 8 standard core systems will be added 2 planets each, so a system with 20 planets will have 22, a system with 22 planets will have 24, etc..
Now family 5555 has 1 share with you, so to balance the situation they'll be added 1 planet in each one of the other 9 systems, and same for family 5567.

This works perfectly if the amount of standard cores is 10, but if we want it higher, then the planets to add in each free system should be increased in the correct proportion.

0 Dislike 0 Post Points

  • Posts: 4,031
  • Tag points: 671

Re: core

Jag, part of this idea is to limit cores.
Imo you shouldn't be allowed to make core demands in NAPS anymore, and seeing as pretty much everyone demands more than 10-20 systems when they NAP, this will significantly reduce the amount of core systems in the galaxy.

Sharing core/making it attackable when in war kinda defeats the point imo, its not safe then anymore.

Personally, I don't see the problem in having a set cluster per family (give every family 9 home systems directly touching eachother in stead of 1) That way you don't have problems with cores crossing families, and locations are equal for everyone.

NEE NAW NEE NAW

Primo

0 Dislike 0 Post Points

  • Posts: 6,734
  • Tag points: 34

Re: core

Adding planets to a specific system would be difficult. If you keep the core as a % of total systems in galaxy, then there won't be any shared systems.

When resetting a galaxy, we use an equidistance function. It places all fams equally apart from another on the map. The only thing that would cause overlap is if you decreased size of map to a minuscule size, made extremely large amount of systems (every coord would be a system), and then placed too many families. That setup would be rediculous and extremely flawed.


Another point, is make claiming anything outside your set core zone in a nap to be IA. That would give power to attackers for spread and still keep the conflict aspect.

As for small fams ob to 3000%, that's almost near impossible. Any gains from that cost would take forever to pay off. Trying to op war a large fam would still be suicide. They, with larger ecos, would be able to build larger amounts of ops for defense, and then return them 10x.

Modestus Experitus

Arby: A very strict mod, reminds me of a fat redneck who drives a truck around all day with a beer in one hand. I hated this guy at the start, however, I played a round in PW with him where he went as an anonymous player. Our fam got smashed up and everyone pretty much left. Arby stayed around and helped out the remaining family. At the end of the round he revealed himself.... My views on him have changed since. Your a good guy.....

0 Dislike 0 Post Points

24 Reply by Render (edited by Render 23-Aug-2012 18:47:28)

  • Render
  • Guest
  • Tag points: 76

Re: core

> [TI] Primo wrote:

...
Sharing core/making it attackable when in war kinda defeats the point imo, its not safe then anymore.

Personally, I don't see the problem in having a set cluster per family (give every family 9 home systems directly touching eachother in stead of 1) That way you don't have problems with cores crossing families, and locations are equal for everyone.



I still think every system should be attackable in war, but we could design an upper step to your idea of having a set cluster per family, in the way, instead of giving every family 9 extra HS, make the original HS have an insane amount of planets, always protected by a fixed DS  (plus an extra default DS you can actually move)

10 standard cores makes an average of 220 planets, now the question (for Arby) whats the chance of making the original HS hold 220 planets??  that'd be the perfect core according to the point of this idea imo.

edit: 220 seems a bit overpowered in anycase, 100 home planets would be ok

0 Dislike 0 Post Points