26 (edited by Altruist 09-Mar-2013 00:31:59)

Re: Illegal Alliance Rules

~* Darth Vader wrote:

I voted that they are fine the way they are, I do not think it would be good for the game. It opens too many cans of worms imo.

I tend to agree.

When Stefan and MasterMike created IC there were 2 main driving ideas behind:
1) a map (most games were without one at that time)
2) strict rules to avoid this huge alliances which ruined most other games... if I remember correctly both devs and quite many from the starting players had fled games like utopia and were really fed up with huge alliances

At first the idea of smaller families banding together sounds quite good.

But what usually happens in games without strict alliance rules is that huge alliances develop and everybody not member of a big alliance is free meat. It utterly spoils the game.

Having said this, it neverhteless might be interesting to change the rules but how?

I liked it as it used to be: with 2 allies... but that was in galaxies with 100 families.

What is it at the moment? No ally or 1 ally?

Another old bloodstained Harkonnen.

Re: Illegal Alliance Rules

Depends on the galaxy. Right now MW is 1 ally.

I agree that big alliances should be avoided.  I played Planetarion for awhile before IC and it did have that issue as well.  However, I think the current solution isn't the correct one.

Unfortunately, finding the correct solution requires a refreshed perspective on the problem.  It's been years since the current IA rules were introduced and the player base has declined significantly which means the context of those rules is now very different.  I propose we do away with the IA rules entirely and experience the pain for at least 1 round.  That's the only way we can know exactly where the imbalances are.  Otherwise we're really just guessing.

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

Re: Illegal Alliance Rules

the game was played very differently and had a different player base for the most part when these rules were implemented. I see no reason why trying it out for 1 round could hurt anyone really. Is one round of new oldness too much for everyone to handle?

fourdb

29 (edited by Altruist 09-Mar-2013 03:31:06)

Re: Illegal Alliance Rules

I like pie wrote:

Depends on the galaxy. Right now MW is 1 ally.

I agree that big alliances should be avoided.  I played Planetarion for awhile before IC and it did have that issue as well.  However, I think the current solution isn't the correct one..

Certainly true.

I like pie wrote:

Unfortunately, finding the correct solution requires a refreshed perspective on the problem. .

Mmmh, just abolishing any IA-restrictions isn't really a "refreshed perspective". And the given reason that it would help smaller families is obviously wrong, it will be the other way around. Not sure wether really a lengthy explanation is needed, so just some catch-words:
* small families are small because the players are new and inexperienced or inactive or a mix of it... not exactly the right conditions to expect that they will be able to handle the needed extra effort to organize a strong alliance of several families when under attack by a bigger family
* but a strong, well organized family of experienced players, knowing lots of other players,  those will be the most likely ones to get all teh advantages of bigger alliances... and they will hate it at the same time because it will be horrible boredom.

There are some interesting restrictions you could put on the size or power of alliances, like something along the line of:
* The sum of an alliance's NW mustn't exceed 30% of the biggest existing alliance (in the beginning the biggest alliance would be just  the rank 1 family, so lower families might gang together but the rank1 family couldn't.
But since it is dynamic (=NW changing), it is not so easy to implement over a whole round.

Nevertheless I think that's still a dead track.

What's needed are new and more players and to keep them in the game and to give them a chance to have fun. And I still think that the too high specialization in roles, especially the banking/attacker split, is the main problem. Get rid of that and you have lessened the farming problem, you will also have given back the whole game of IC to the players and not only a small specialized role.

Addon:
The latter is probably why people like Orion so much at the moment. Over a longer period it will become a bit lonely, too lonely, though, to play in single player families. Orion lacks the other qualities IC has: organizing a group of players, diplomacy, teaching new players, talking with each other.

Addon2:
Another important thing is activity. There need to be hard-coded changes to lessen the burden of needed activity to stay competitive. The deciding factor should be strat & tact and organization, not being online for much too much time pressing the attack button over and over again.

Addon3: 2 suggestions
1) High specialization and especially the banker/atttacker split is easily killed by imposing a severe cost on "aid" while it still allows helping out a family mate in need.

2) The most simple way to ease the activity burden: Give a good growing bonus to players which haven't done a defined set of actions within the last 8h, 12h, 18h. This still allows hanging around, chatting, using the family forum and taking part socially and perhaps some actions can be still done but not attacking, sending explos and some other stuff. And if you are hyperactive, you can still do everything but the other players won't fall behind that much due to their time-out-bonus. Boni could be a percentage of the production like +10%, +20%, +25% but also more morale (better get rid of it together with the high specialization, though), more spells and operations. This way you might handle a RL AND IC.

Another old bloodstained Harkonnen.

Re: Illegal Alliance Rules

Altruist wrote:

Mmmh, just abolishing any IA-restrictions isn't really a "refreshed perspective".

To clarify, it's not the removal itself that gives us perspective but rather the opportunity for problems to appear.  I full expect problems to show up by doing this, which is the point.  This is drastic for sure, but imo a necessary evil if we intend to fix things properly.

Altruist wrote:

What's needed are new and more players and to keep them in the game and to give them a chance to have fun. And I still think that the too high specialization in roles, especially the banking/attacker split, is the main problem. Get rid of that and you have lessened the farming problem, you will also have given back the whole game of IC to the players and not only a small specialized role.

This is a great point.  Specializing is effective but it is also very rigid.  If you're a new player coming to this game you very quickly learn that you better fit into the right role or you will not be considered a "team player".  That really sucks.  We need to disturb this formula.

Altruist wrote:

The latter is probably why people like Orion so much at the moment. Over a longer period it will become a bit lonely, too lonely, though, to play in single player families. Orion lacks the other qualities IC has: organizing a group of players, diplomacy, teaching new players, talking with each other.

Agreed.  Torqez has made some comments about this as well.  Orion gets a few things very "right" by nature of self sufficiency.  If we could capture the essence of what makes it fun and re-apply it to the main galaxies I think we could all benefit.

Altruist wrote:

Another important thing is activity. There need to be hard-coded changes to lessen the burden of needed activity to stay competitive. The deciding factor should be strat & tact and organization, not being online for much too much time pressing the attack button over and over again.

I've been trying so hard to convince people of exactly that.  Unfortunately the consensus seems to be that "any activity = good activity" which I strongly disagree with.  You pretty much took the words right out of my mout there.

This came up in another thread but is relevant here.  If you're at all interested, the following ideas all deal with this issue:

1) "State of Family Affars": http://imperialconflict.com/forum/viewt … ?id=181975
2) Fam Bank: http://imperialconflict.com/forum/viewt … ?id=180385
3) Sending aid on a regular basis: http://imperialconflict.com/forum/viewt … ?id=180882
4) more even gameplay: http://imperialconflict.com/forum/viewt … ?id=181985

I gotta run for now, but will reply to your suggestions when I get back.  Thanks for posting them.

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

Re: Illegal Alliance Rules

this Thread makes me miss Xeno... sad

~*✠ ]PW[ Forever ✠*~

Re: Illegal Alliance Rules

smile I remember the days when Nimmersatt and I caused the IA/Player alliance/Forcing beaten opponents to announce their servitude rules to be put into place after beta 3 andro.  Those were the good times.

You have now been infected with Bird flu. Good day.


~Testudinae~

33 (edited by Devilz 18-Mar-2013 23:27:07)

Re: Illegal Alliance Rules

Enforce the rules. or get rid of them them... war has no rules so i vote to have the rule removed. because its not people who do this get punished anyways, so why even have it?

Re: Illegal Alliance Rules

War has rules. Geneva convention ftw!

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.....

Re: Illegal Alliance Rules

Only people this potentially hurts are the old timey vets that we see EVERY ROUND nap with each other, spend 4/5 of the round farming smaller families, and then have a big war at the end. 

and I'm all for hurting those players.

<KT|Away> I am the Trump of IC

Re: Illegal Alliance Rules

[TI] Wendy wrote:

I just worry it will be total anarchy, not sure I wanna play that way.

While you see that removing the IA rules would make it so the small fams can team up on large, I see the other way around (which I think is why the rules were made to start with. ).

say #1 and #5 have a war and #5 is winning.
#1 may ask #2 you join him and help beat #5 so they can stay at the top.

Valour-the courage to do what scares you to death

Re: Illegal Alliance Rules

That's not what I was implying at all Valcona, but that could be possible. I just see total anarchy & like I said I'm not sure I wanna play that way. I meant what I said nothing more nothing less smile

Miss Che Vias-Sprite
Yehes ha sowena whath dhewgh why ha 'gas henath

Be Troll Aware!