Post-NSF Op Rehash: Discussion

[Grey Death]

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.

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.

My thoughts: Alliances of 5-8 with 1 treaty and 1-2 NAPs. This may work but it really depends on the overall direction we want to go. Do we go small groups but 4-5 of them each teaming up with one other? Or do we go back to larger groups with no official team up?

Personally, having played this game for the past 15 years: I would recommend go smaller groups with a single MOP/MDP/Full Aliiance and say 1 or 2 NAP/PNAPs. If we can get the players back into the habit of seeing things as more than just two sides, preferably 4 or more, then we will see more action and then we will see wars between allainces that last only part of the round so that an alliance can go beat up on another opponent.

For now, the only item I would really discourage is raising the game speed.

[JettJackson]

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.

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.

My thoughts: Alliances of 5-8 with 1 treaty and 1-2 NAPs. This may work but it really depends on the overall direction we want to go. Do we go small groups but 4-5 of them each teaming up with one other? Or do we go back to larger groups with no official team up?

Personally, having played this game for the past 15 years: I would recommend go smaller groups with a single MOP/MDP/Full Aliiance and say 1 or 2 NAP/PNAPs. If we can get the players back into the habit of seeing things as more than just two sides, preferably 4 or more, then we will see more action and then we will see wars between allainces that last only part of the round so that an alliance can go beat up on another opponent.

For now, the only item I would really discourage is raising the game speed.

Right now I'd rather not go with NAPs because I think they'd need to be coded still and that can get messy plus using NAPs forces you to have to team with someone to get the numbers you need else you will be behind everyone else, where as a slightly larger cap (+1-2 people) and restrictions on teaming (turn penalty and/or cooldown) would allow for people to be in individual alliances achieving individual goals. Using NAPs will boil down to 1 team vs another, where as right now we want to achieve multiple teams.

[Warg]

I would like to comment on Jouldax's statement on his current position regarding turn penalty for alliance switching.

"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. "

I fail to see how this addresses the problem we were discussing regarding changing alliances for ops; first, Increasing the game speed while making only a turn penalty effectively accomplishes almost nothing. increasing turns to 700 and requiring a 50% turn sacrifice leaves you with 350 turns left, (i believe i counted 15 ships last Saturday, 15 ships 350 turns? come on.) at a .25%speed increase. I believe this will be largely ineffective, and will not add any element of strategy or gamesmanship to the tactic in question here. In short, i still believe the cooldown is necessary. Furthermore, if the Nap, or Pnap which are being discussed are implemented as well, it will further degrade the negative effects of changing alliances pre-op, as you will likely still be able to land on owned planets and not suffer damage from minefields, and quite possibly still engage as a fleet. I believe there must be a more significant trade off to switching alliances, than a reduction in your current turns. I am excited at the gameplay prospects of Naps and countering alliances who are weakened by the cooldown period, and i would hate for this discussion to leave us with a solution that is really just a half measure.

[seldum]

Joint ops have been around forever they give lesser teams an ability to fight and possibly win. JJ's team has won every round for the past 2 years is it really such a bad thing that he loses? What he says when other people cant compete is normally "you should have recruited better or you should have drafted better or blah blah blah Im better than you". Theres a reason why when JJ asked School of the Pod to clear AoA they gave him lip service and ended up teaming against him think about it.

We have done the cooldown thing and changed it, because the minority group of players isnt having a good time we should regress?

Raise vet cap to 11 and newbie cap to 4.

[Sufex]

Joint ops have been around forever they give lesser teams an ability to fight and possibly win. JJ's team has won every round for the past 2 years is it really such a bad thing that he loses? What he says when other people cant compete is normally you should have recruited better or you should have drafted better or blah blah blah Im better than you. Theres a reason why when JJ asked School of the Pod to clear AoA they gave him lip service and ended up teaming against him think about it.

We have done the cooldown thing and changed it, because the minority group of players isnt having a good time we should regress?

Raise vet cap to 11 and newbie cap to 4.

Lets set the record straight. I was actively talking to JJ about AoA and Scurvy activity, planet parking, op times etc.. basically since the beginning of the game, I had no idea until the night that SOTP cleared AoA that RCK had been talking to Warg.

Also, I think 12vets/4noobs would be good. That would make for 3 teams that could op by themselves. Although, JJ is going to be out of luck unless he wants noobs.

From: JettJackson (23) Date: 24/3/2013 7:33:02 PM
as far as i am concerned, dont ever ask to play with me after this bull;) none of you are welcome in any alliance i run

[JettJackson]

Joint ops have been around forever they give lesser teams an ability to fight and possibly win. JJ's team has won every round for the past 2 years is it really such a bad thing that he loses? What he says when other people cant compete is normally "you should have recruited better or you should have drafted better or blah blah blah Im better than you". Theres a reason why when JJ asked School of the Pod to clear AoA they gave him lip service and ended up teaming against him think about it.

We have done the cooldown thing and changed it, because the minority group of players isnt having a good time we should regress?

Raise vet cap to 11 and newbie cap to 4.

It was changed back because there was 0 activity in the game, now we have 4 alliances. 4 alliances that should be fighting each other and all building. Instead we have 3 fighting 1 to fulfill the need for me to lose apparently. Of course I want activity but the cooldown change wasn't designed for alliances this size it was for 30 men alliances that were not interacting.

As for your first paragraph, you know damn well all of that is hogwash.

[JettJackson]

Joint ops have been around forever they give lesser teams an ability to fight and possibly win. JJ's team has won every round for the past 2 years is it really such a bad thing that he loses? What he says when other people cant compete is normally you should have recruited better or you should have drafted better or blah blah blah Im better than you. Theres a reason why when JJ asked School of the Pod to clear AoA they gave him lip service and ended up teaming against him think about it.

We have done the cooldown thing and changed it, because the minority group of players isnt having a good time we should regress?

Raise vet cap to 11 and newbie cap to 4.

Lets set the record straight. I was actively talking to JJ about AoA and Scurvy activity, planet parking, op times etc.. basically since the beginning of the game, I had no idea until the night that SOTP cleared AoA that RCK had been talking to Warg.

Also, I think 12vets/4noobs would be good. That would make for 3 teams that could op by themselves. Although, JJ is going to be out of luck unless he wants noobs.

From: JettJackson (23) Date: 24/3/2013 7:33:02 PM
as far as i am concerned, dont ever ask to play with me after this bull;) none of you are welcome in any alliance i run

I stand by what I said, why would you or anyone else think I would want you on my team after you all decided it was much better to team me versus fighting each other. You and everyone else just think that the rest of us are just going to invite you guys into our alliance next game after you chose to team us? This isn't just me talking, I may be the most vocal but you better bet that the rest of this alliance wants nothing to do with you guys after this. Hell almost all of you have been a part of my teams previous and I never would expect you guys to stoop to having to team all together like you have, it is a cheap tactic which is why we are having this discussion.

[JettJackson]

I would like to comment on Jouldax's statement on his current position regarding turn penalty for alliance switching.

"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. "

I fail to see how this addresses the problem we were discussing regarding changing alliances for ops; first, Increasing the game speed while making only a turn penalty effectively accomplishes almost nothing. increasing turns to 700 and requiring a 50% turn sacrifice leaves you with 350 turns left, (i believe i counted 15 ships last Saturday, 15 ships 350 turns? come on.) at a .25%speed increase. I believe this will be largely ineffective, and will not add any element of strategy or gamesmanship to the tactic in question here. In short, i still believe the cooldown is necessary. Furthermore, if the Nap, or Pnap which are being discussed are implemented as well, it will further degrade the negative effects of changing alliances pre-op, as you will likely still be able to land on owned planets and not suffer damage from minefields, and quite possibly still engage as a fleet. I believe there must be a more significant trade off to switching alliances, than a reduction in your current turns. I am excited at the gameplay prospects of Naps and countering alliances who are weakened by the cooldown period, and i would hate for this discussion to leave us with a solution that is really just a half measure.

I agree with all of this, raising the turn cap and game speed and then imposing a half turn penalty does not solve this issue. Realistically the cooldown time is the best solution. Also only raising 1 vet doesn't do a lot, for example most alliances right now have newbies who have made vet or will make vet before the end of the game, there is a chance that they will have to be cut because your alliances have hit the vet cap and only adding one more vet will not be enough with the newbs who have become vets. We don't need recent vets going homeless and possibly quitting the game, that is a bad direction for the game.

[XDemonX]

I skimmed through most of this and took some time before I replied to this.

As you have noticed I haven't moved since the op. This game was discussed prior to being made. It wasn't one person deciding to make the game like this it was a group of people agreeing on it. I do still agree with the setup of the game. The only thing we have discussed prior to this op was the planets should be a little more deadly.

I like this game because there are 4 solid alliances. Each alliance is fully capable of opping. Sure it is a pain to try to find a time to get everyone on, but it is possible. After the op it honestly ;) me off. Not because we all died (definitely was our mistake for dying) and not the fact that we lost a couple planets. It was the fact that the entire game targeted us by using a LOOPHOLE to get around the alliance cap. What made it worse, is the people who originally came up with this idea of a game was apart of it.

SMR can be time consuming. Especially, when you have alliances working together to constantly clear/op you. It was fine when they were doing it separately it just required me to put a little more time into the game but it was quite fun.. But like I said, as soon as they starting opping TOGETHER and not even just 9-10 people.. 15+ people with rotating people in and out of a alliance is disrespectful to the design of the game. To be honest, I am quite disappointed in Jouldax especially for being apart of it because this whole game idea was seeded by him. There really shouldn't even be a discussion on what changes should happen because it is quite simple to figure it out.

A) Bring back the 24h waiting period for leaving/joining alliances
or
B) End the game and start a new game with higher alliance caps.

Again just to state again because I know people like to read selectively. I am not mad about the entire game going against us, I am mad that a loophole was used to do it. But i am mostly done playing this game. It has lost interest to me.

[silverx2]

Step 1: Change how fed works or remove it. right now people can get blanket protection. Change it so that You're only protected if you are federal player, in a federal ship.

Step 2: Lower the penalty for deaths. Right now the biggest reward for killing someone in most cases is the grief factor of knowing you just ruined their day and wiped out days worth of effort, Change the penalty for dying to promote more interaction. increase insurance reimbursement on ships, lower the exp loss.

Step 3: remove planet galaxies and have planets scattered randomly in one large neutral galaxy

step 4: remove mines. Mines are ANTI fun. The only thing mines do is prevent players from interacting with each other, oh you want to actually fight other players? well you better spend 5 days saving turns to clear a single path through thousands of mines, and then another 5 days saving turns to see if they refilled that path, and in the slim chance they didn't you can try and attack a planet, but in all likelyhood you are going to just clear mines again.

Step 5: combine all of the steps above to make it so that players are more likely to engage in combat with each other, they wont hide in fed, and planets will be easier to find, easier to attempt to bust, and in the event people die, it wont set them back days.