There have been plenty of suggestions in the recent past,...

« Back

17 days, 1 hours, 50 minutes ago
Profile Image
zacha
There have been plenty of suggestions in the recent past,...Write Reply
There have been plenty of suggestions in the recent past, but I would like to come up with one more. Also interested in counter-arguments. Important, this suggestion does not impact balance or Planets mechanics, only the NU-Alliance feature which impact gameplay in a controversial way.

Suggestion is simple: For alliance victories, do not start the 5-turn countdown for x (20?) turns after the alliance has been formed.

Reason: Currently in most games (I've seen), the alliances are not officially formed until the alliance has the required number of planets to win. There is then almost no time for other players to react - and it somehow does not feel like a true alliance, just like a means to quick and dirty get the win.
The incentive to form an alliance earlier, by getting full information shared and one or two minor features enabled, is not strong enough to outweigh the interest to, well, not shout through the whole sector that an alliance is in place - as this always poses the risk that to many other players band together to fight town the alliance.

Alliances should be changed in such a way that they make sense to be created earlier in game, to have real meaning in game. I think the suggestion achieves that, and as a side effect eliminates the "We are now allies and in 5 turns we have won" effect, forcing players to always play in a way "assuming" the top planet count leaders to suddenly anounce an alliance, ending the game in 5 turns.

Of course, one could simply join 0 allies game to avoid this, but generally I like it that it is possible to form an alliance to win, not to have to beat everyone but have a partner through the game to achieve victory together. And that#s what it should be - a long parntership, a long alliance, to be victorious together!
17 days, 1 hours, 37 minutes ago
Profile Image
glynsalternate
RE: There have been plenty of suggestions in the recent past,...Write Reply
"Zacha: The incentive to form an alliance earlier ... is not strong enough to outweigh the interest to win."

@Zacha: Agreed... but...
_ _ _

I bet your suggestion wouldn't change any behaviour at all, and possibly even delay setting Full Alliance.

Sometimes they know they can only hold he winning amount of planets for 5 Turns... I've seen many games where given more Turns the winner would lose and get wiped out. Not something you can predict easily from a PLS, but when Ship Slots locked in, it's much easier to make such predictions with confidence.

Not often, but sometimes the winner throws everything they have at their enemies to get the Countdown and win, and afterwards would get wiped out if the game kept going.

Now that might actually be a more desirable form of the game to you... personally I would be fine without Win Conditions altogether.
_ _ _

I suspect in general all that would change is making it a 25 Turn Countdown in essence.
_ _ _

But yeah, making Full Alliance more attractive so that the 'surprise' setting of Full Alliance right when they have enough planets is not a bad idea at all.
16 days, 18 hours, 22 minutes ago
Profile Image
sirad
RE: There have been plenty of suggestions in the recent past,...Write Reply
Actually 'alliances' get a planetary count bonus for winning the game. Remove that bonus, problem solved.
16 days, 17 hours, 13 minutes ago
Profile Image
jovian goose
RE: There have been plenty of suggestions in the recent past,...Write Reply
GLYNSALTERNATE "personally I would be fine without Win Conditions altogether."

I may be naive but what would be the point. Do we play until we die of old age? This is a game and games have win conditions. That is the fundamental concept of a game, that there are winners and losers. Losers sometimes moan about this or that not being fair but if the rules are announced at the start then everything within those rules is fair.

What you are suggesting is a simulation that runs in perpetuity unlike a game which has a start and finish point.

I do however agree that an alliance should be in place a set number of turns before victory countdown starts. One way to amend this would be to extend the victory countdown by adding 1 turn extra required for each turn below 10 that the alliance has existed with a minimum of plus 5 turns. For example if player A and player B announce an alliance and the combined planets are 250 plus then victory countdown would be 15 turns. If the planet count went to 250 4 turns after the alliance was declared then countdown would be 11 turns etc etc.

15 days, 22 hours, 11 minutes ago
Profile Image
glynsalternate
RE: There have been plenty of suggestions in the recent past,...Write Reply
@Jovian+Goose: Original VGAP3 had no win conditions and that worked just fine for us on the BBS we played on.
15 days, 21 hours, 21 minutes ago
View dazdya's profile
dazdya
RE: There have been plenty of suggestions in the recent past,...Write Reply
There are multiple ways you could achieve the same aim. (The aim would be that an alliance would be unveiled before the countdown starts).

For instance, you could say that an alliance needs to have 500 planets to win, -10 planets per turn that the alliance exists, with a minimum of 250. For some reason, that rule seems more... elegant (?) to me. But I am sure that we can think of several variants.

There have also been suggestions that the diplomatic level with another race can only be adjusted up or down one level per turn. That seems relevant here, but it's not public behaviour, so doesn't directly apply.

Let's see what variables we have:
Duration of alliance.
Number of planets.
Number of ships.
Number of bases.
Military score.
Number of living players.
Number of planets colonised.
Turn number.
... and probably more.
Currently we only use the first two variables to determine an alliance win. Looking at the list, I don't immediately see an obvious solution, but there might be something I missed. Any ideas?
15 days, 21 hours, 11 minutes ago
View gnerphk's profile
gnerphk
RE: There have been plenty of suggestions in the recent past,...Write Reply
I like the present system, but I've no objection to people exploring other options.