Hey guys,
LordRaven, I'm sorry that you've had a bad experience and hope that you consider giving another around a shot at some point. Either way, thanks for taking the time to try out IC again.
It seems there is some disagreement on what had happened, and whether or not MAG7 was lying. I honestly think that it doesn't matter*, and the real issue is here:
Lone Tiger wrote:I had almost a million droids. And then 7 players banged on me until i just gave up.
How is that a game? How is that fun? How is that fair?
The game is too difficult for new players. Regardless of whether or not you were lied to, if players ever feel like their round is ruined it means the game is badly designed. That is the reality of IC: great concept but not balanced and too strongly favors experienced players. We've never had much opportunity to fix this because the IA rule has always been in our way.
This round was going to be inevitably painful for some. Several people, including all of the mods, warned me against allowing IAs for exactly this reason: it causes issues ranging from miscommunication to active deception, and it isn't newbie friendly.
The thing is, we need to feel this pain if we hope to understand and fix the underlying imbalance with the game. Observing this SN round confirms my suspicion that the IA rule is just a band-aid on a set of much bigger issues.
CELLS wrote:Just a question lord raven .... Would playing a trick or lie on Somone not be a strategy itself ? Lol may be a dirty one but it's a strategy...
But that wasn't there intensions I assure you of it 
we have told a few ppl now we will let them be...That is till they screw it up
*This is an important thing to consider. I agree with CELLS here that deception is a valid strategy. I wouldn't say I encourage it, because that's not how I myself play the game, but I would say that the more we try to dictate how *everybody* should play, the more boring the game will become. We're already so far on the end of this spectrum. We need less restrictions, not more.
Here's a story to think about: a long time ago before NAPs were built-in, a fam leader agreed to a 72 hour NAP with another family. Later in the round, he cancelled it and attacked the target family after 1 tick. People were outraged, called him a nap-breaker (which used to be a thing), and dragged his name through the mud.
His response was: he didn't break the NAP. The specified cancellation time was 48 hours not 48 *ticks*. He specifically crafted the NAP terms such that they were confusing and actually represented game time. 1 tick = 1 game-week = 168 game-hours. According to the agreement, the actual inferred cancellation time was a fraction of a tick, and by waiting 1 tick he had given them over twice the amount of required time, which was plenty sufficient.
That made some people hate him even more but a lot of players, including some of the target fam, thought it was hilarious.
That is deception and creativity at its finest. Asshole move sure, but that player built a name and reputation for being cunning, and rightly so. In retrospect it is worth noting that this isn't possible anymore because the game now forces NAP compliance. I am not convinced that this is such a good thing, as the social element of strategy has been somewhat removed. That's a topic of its own, but the point is that freedom to play how you want makes for a game that is more alive. Conversely, too many restrictions can erode the game's experience and reduce it to a competition of who can most efficiently go through a set of mechanical processes.
IC needs less restrictions. Not because we want a game full of assholes, but because we want a game that is interesting, and it isn't interesting to overly restrict players with regard to what they can do. It's not against the rules to be an asshole.
The onus isn't on players to be honorable, it's on the game to be fun even if people aren't. This has less to do with MAG7 than it does with IC's game design which is and has been imbalanced for years.
Regardless, your feedback is a critical part of the process in learning how to improve the game. I know that won't make some of you feel better about this round, but if nothing else know that your frustration is not in vain. This SN round was an experiment and I'm taking this discussion as proof that it's succeeded in as much as it's exposed shortcomings that were otherwise difficult to quantify.
Hathir wrote:That is why I feel having more than two galaxies is important. It has already been mentioned that Virgo used to be a 'starter' galaxy, where new players could meet friendly people and learn the ropes.
Bringing back a hardcore galaxy like SD would also serve to 'soften' the middle galaxies and make things a bit fairer for everyone.
I do not know the mod team in any way so do not know why these galaxies no longer exist, but it seems like bringing them back would make the game fairer, as well as adding depth and variety.
The other galaxies are on hold for now, as I'm working on something that will add some of the depth and variety you speak of. I've been intentionally short on details thus far because I want to focus on actually coding it (and to be honest, to build up some hype), but rest assured some of the larger issues here are actively being worked on behind the scenes.
Got a few bucks? The Imperial Tip Jar is accepting contributions!
