• Posts: 2,791
  • Tag points: 185

Re: forbidden systems

[2:13 PM] <pie|work> btw i just realized
[2:13 PM] <pie|work> how sweet would it be if my attacking/exploring options could be limited by existing in-game naps
[2:13 PM] <pie|work> like if we could input these system lists into the nap agreement itself, and the game would warn us if we're entering a bad system
[2:13 PM] <Lee> very sweet indeed
[2:14 PM] <Lee> would save ppl abusing loopholes
[2:15 PM] <Lee> lets just say 2 familes fighting
[2:15 PM] <Lee> and one of the familes has a nap with Fam C but the other doesnt
[2:15 PM] <Lee> Fam C takes a bunch of planets off the fam there napped with, but via the fam there not napped with
[2:16 PM] <Lee> ie fam A lose planets to fam b in a raid and fam c took them
[2:16 PM] <pie|work> ah yeah
[2:16 PM] <pie|work> indeed this would stop that
[2:17 PM] <Lee> would basically stop dishonour in its tracks imo
[2:17 PM] <Lee> like a fam exploring core breaches and not giving them up for war time
[2:17 PM] <Lee> seen it happen so many times
[2:18 PM] <pie|work> yeah.  would disallow players to be chumps


i generally dislike limitations but i think this is a practical one.  if not flat out forbidding it then at least a warning would reduce accidents, and make looking a the map easier

it could be as simple as a reformed nap agreement process which takes a list of systems for each family involved

thoughts?

Got a few bucks?  The Imperial Tip Jar is accepting contributions!

0 Dislike 0 Post Points

  • Player
  • Offline
  • Posts: 783
  • Tag points: 25

Re: forbidden systems

Treat it more like the forbidden zone is the fams predetermined core

Friend is a four letter word.

0 Dislike 0 Post Points

  • Posts: 1,473
  • Tag points: 2

Re: forbidden systems

at first i liked this idea. but if its just a warning your telling everyone that planet is of interest and a good time to attack. and if this is forbidden then under what conditions do these planets become safe to attack? i say once the winning family or the family that supposed to take this planet takes it. otherwise there may be ways to make this into a protection mode allowing for portalling ect. it must also be planet specific. in short i like this idea as long as theres no way to abuse it from fam a b or c.

0 Dislike 0 Post Points

  • Posts: 2,791
  • Tag points: 185

Re: forbidden systems

to clarify: this isn't anything automated.  the systems involved would be up for the families to decide and could vary with each agreement

this would only ever impact families that have already agreed to not enter these systems.  nobody else would see anything different than they currently do

Got a few bucks?  The Imperial Tip Jar is accepting contributions!

0 Dislike 0 Post Points

  • Posts: 643
  • Tag points: 35

Re: forbidden systems

what of this situation ....

A and B have a nap the states they have to surrender core breaches.
C expoes into A's core to get close to B.
B decides to push C back knowing that they will have to surrender the planet to A.

Valour-the courage to do what scares you to death

0 Dislike 0 Post Points

  • Posts: 2,791
  • Tag points: 185

Re: forbidden systems

If this is a flat-out restriction then the core breaches would be impossible to begin with.

Both A and B can each remove C from their own core, but not from the other fam's core.

Got a few bucks?  The Imperial Tip Jar is accepting contributions!

0 Dislike 0 Post Points

  • Posts: 5,988
  • Tag points: 241

Re: forbidden systems

He means attacking a non NAPPED family in someone elses core.  With the intention of giving that planet back to the NApped fam as a core breach.  This is a standard tactic in IC.

I don't like this idea really, I've never been on the opinion of making 'cores' formalised through the game.

Ya, it might solve a lot of headache of solving people checking where to explore and stuff - but in my opinion, if your fam is not adept enough to know where or where not to explore, then you should suffer the potential consequences.  After all, there's nothing forcing you to make a NAP with 'cores' anyway.  It's just a gamestyle which has been adapted.

In addition, the intention with the new IC map was to be able to share lists together.  There's no reason why a leader/orgniser/whatever can't make a list of systems not to explroe in, and then share this with the fam.  That way it's all consolidated in one area.  This could also be flipped to make a leader show others where is 'good' to explore.  Sharing lists with your own family is already something Stefan has implemented.

0 Dislike 0 Post Points

  • Posts: 2,791
  • Tag points: 185

Re: forbidden systems

"With the intention of giving that planet back to the NApped fam as a core breach.  This is a standard tactic in IC."

Yes I know, that's the point.  This wouldn't be possible.  C could get into B's core but wouldn't be able to pass it along to A.  A isn't just restricted to attacking B, but restricted from attacking *anybody* or exploring any planet in these systems.

That's if this was a hard restriction though, which is a big if.  I think at the very least we should be able to be warned of violating system breaches.  Just being able to be reminded that I may be making a mistake seems a welcome addition, even if I'm not flat out forbidden.

Got a few bucks?  The Imperial Tip Jar is accepting contributions!

0 Dislike 0 Post Points

  • Posts: 5,988
  • Tag points: 241

Re: forbidden systems

A warning would definitely be nice.  Flat out restriction, not as nice - cos what was described should still be viable tactic.

0 Dislike 0 Post Points

  • Posts: 2,791
  • Tag points: 185

Re: forbidden systems

Just had a productive convo with Torqez (thanks torq!).  I was misunderstanding the situation as one fam (A) scheming to get into NAP'd fam's (B) system via a 3rd fam (C).  What they were actually describing was one fam (A) removing the 3rd party (C) as a defensive move, and then giving the planet back to the NAP'd fam (B).

Either way, I may have something that makes either scenario a matter of player option.  As in, nobody would have to be restricted to any system unless they agree to such as part of mutual protection from a perspective NAP family.  When proposing a NAP in-game, if system exclusion is involved you could pick "warning" or "restricted".

Warning would mean that you would get warned if you enter the system, but can still do to say, clear a 3rd party as described by Valcona/Torqez above.
Restricted would mean that you simply could not attack or explo into the systems at all.

Which you choose would be part of the negotiations, and each could have their own advantage.  Not only would this add a useful feature to the game but it could also add a new dimension to NAP negotiations.

Got a few bucks?  The Imperial Tip Jar is accepting contributions!

0 Dislike 0 Post Points