Post-NSF Op Rehash: Discussion

[JettJackson]

Let me ask a couple of questions:
1. Why do you think that you should only be able to pop one top level planet in a night?
2. How many planets do you think should be bustable in a full turn team?

I do agree that only 2 deaths is a bit low though.

1. I think you should bust only 1 planet because a high end planet bust is the pinnacle event for a game, it will create interaction and it takes all game to build those planets for them to be half wiped out in one night would be an imbalance.
2. Realistically it should be 1 by a full turn team.

[Incognito]

Let me ask a couple of questions:
2. How many planets do you think should be bustable in a full turn team?

I do agree that only 2 deaths is a bit low though.

2. Realistically it should be 1 by a full turn team.

Normally that would include mine clearing though. Would they have been able to take two planets if they had to actually clear through a minefield themselves? Probably not.

And I would be fine removing some shields and replacing them with drones. Maybe -5 gens and +5 hangers.

[JettJackson]

Personally, I'd rather see a turn penalty for joining another alliance after the first time you have joined one. Most other actions in the game cost turns, so I think this should as well.

As for planets, I think taking the hangers to 90 would improve things. Along with a minefield, I think that should be enough to keep a single alliance from taking more than one planet (if that is in fact what you are trying to prevent with these changes).

Finally, I say leave the vet cap as it is and raise the newbie cap to 5.

The problem with only raise the newbie cap is that there isnt a huge influx of newbies to require 5 newbie spaces. I mean all but 1 alliance has 3 newbies with them this game.

[Warg]

My opinion is to re-instate the cooldown for changing alliances. The point is to prevent multi alliance fleets. With the turn penalty you could still have a 15 ship surprise attack, albiet low turns, but still more than effective. I want to see a return to single alliance play. As far as the planets are concerned, If they are not bustable by a full turn team of 7, then i dont see them being busted at all without mercenary help, which i think we should avoid. iCurrently a team of 9 is needed to bust a level 40, and that is unaceptable with these alliance sizes. The overall size of the planets should be decreased making for possible kills. The problem with this is that they become un-deadly when the size is further reduced. This is compensated for by adding turrets. Finally, there is always the option of alliances to team up together and have one team clear pre-op, there is no way to stop people from joining forces, nor should there be. diplomacy is a legit tactic.

[Holti]

With the turn penalty you could still have a 15 ship surprise attack, albiet low turns, but still more than effective.

I'm not sure a cooldown will do what you hope for - it will still be possible for players to leave an alliance a couple of days ahead of time, build full turns, join the new alliance just in time for an op.

A turn penalty would prevent joint ops with full or mostly full turns.

[JettJackson]

With the turn penalty you could still have a 15 ship surprise attack, albiet low turns, but still more than effective.

I'm not sure a cooldown will do what you hope for - it will still be possible for players to leave an alliance a couple of days ahead of time, build full turns, join the new alliance just in time for an op.

A turn penalty would prevent joint ops with full or mostly full turns.

It would give notice a couple days in advance that something will happen. It would be beneficial

[Warg]

not only give notice, it will force players out of their respective alliances, limiting them on their ability to respond to attacks on their own territory, to mine, to trade in gal routes. When you have a large part of your alliance leave to join a third allince, they are unable to travel in their original alliances minefield. If proper preperation is careless, then damage to ships and turns, or minefield itself can result. It also does not allow them to rejoin their original alliance because of the cooldown in the event they are counter attacked by an alliance who is still whole, and is anticipating this type of maneuver, leaving their fleet at the least divided and unable to identify allies as green faces or to respond to combat as a fleet. This is a serioius detriment to the group who chooses to spend a day fractured in preperation for an attack. The turn penalty does not have any side effect nearly as significant as this, especially if some ideas about increasing turn count are implemented. If a one day cooldown is not thought to be effective enough, then make it 2 days. That should be significant enough to satisfy anyone. I would suggest that the cooldown, rather than the turn penalty, is a necessary step in good sportsmanship to at the least allow an enemy team the chance to prepare and mount thier best single alliance built defense.

[JettJackson]

Just as a note, we had a grand total of 7 again tonight, so you guys are aware of what you are exactly doing.

[Sufex]

I am personally against any restrictions/limitations/penalties for switching alliances. We had about 90% of the active community online for the first time since the game started(and that was because the game was starting)

Also, planets are fine, with the normal 6/7 you can expect the planets will still kill like they should.

Just as a note, we had a grand total of 7 again tonight, so you guys are aware of what you are exactly doing.

none of us have had more than 7 show up for an op either. so your :D is not doing any good. We are very aware of what we are exactly doing. Playing your way, and you're not liking it.. boo..hoo...

[jouldax]

No need to get aggressive here.

I think there is a balance issue right now between ability to defend planets, ability to bust planets and activity. I don't particularly ascribe to the gang-bang philosophy and would always rather have an op succeed when a single alliance can perform at as opposed to the alternative, although I have recognized that this game was originally founded around treaties and pnaps. Maybe the solution is something Hugh offered, which is alliances of 5-8 with treaties and NAPs. That's also a possibility.

Personally, right now, I think I'd rather see alliances of 12-15 fighting it out - I don't think we have enough activity at this time to be able to handle this gang-up mentality because it can be extremely off-putting for the alliance that gets crushed. Many of you have been subjected to JJ dominating a round and this time he was on the receiving end. I don't think anyone believes lopsided rounds are a good outcome, which is what I fear will continue to happen should this type of action continue.

As of right now, I'm leaning towards raising the alliance cap by 1 vet, raising the turn cap to 700, increasing the game speed to 1.75, and swapping 5 gens for 5 hangars. I would like to implement a 50% turn penalty for swapping alliances assuming it's not too hard to code...people can still switch alliances, but they'd have to do so days before an op if they're planning to get active players together. It also allows for some low-turn joint ops in the spirit of teaming up.