Game Supported Alliances

[Kalonis]

I think that alliances and naps should be supported in game. This would serve several purposes: it would increase the amount of interaction between countries, it would make it harder for such alliances to be broken, it would also make it harder to acquire such alliances.

Here are my theories on how advantages/disadvantages could be implemented for alliances:
-a player would suffer a 50% penalty for attacking their allies and a 20% penalty for attacking NAPs (added to the bonuses that are already established)
-Members of an alliance would have a 20% defensive bonus.
-Alliances would function as a sort of right of passage agreement. Members of alliances could use other member's star systems to move troops. Another part of this is that allied troops that are stationed at a planet that is being attacked would aid in the defense of that planet, thus making the alliance fully functional.
-Alliances and NAPs would cost money to support. Perhaps $10 per day for an alliance and $5 for a NAP.
-In order to break an alliance or NAP, you would have a 1 day waiting period before no penalties are suffered for attacking.

Anyway, tell me what you think about this. Maybe we can work it into a decent idea and get it implemented. ;)

[galidia]

I really like the right of passage idea... wonder how hard that would be to implement.

I would also like to see some sort of "joint-invasion" dealy if you did all of that other stuff.

[Thoras]

Great idea's, although I'm usually one to spend all my money, so this would be difficult :p

[Marnevel]

right of passage: yes.

joint attack: yes.


difficulty to breach? nah..

why shouldn't an insane warlord be allowed to attack whoever the hell pisses him off?

[galidia]

On this subject *because I can't find where I last read a comment on it* I think there REALLY needs to be an option to turn around ships once they are mid-flight. It's kinda tough when your ally or a player you are friendly with takes a star after a chunk of your ships are already on their way there. No good. Oh wait I think I remember reading about it in some post about death probes and ships... anyways.. yah..

[Morhk]

I am absolutely against any 'in-game' options of alliance and NAP treaties. One of the most thrilling and interesting aspects in this game is diplomacy and the problem, that at the very end of the galaxy, it is YOU who will get the rating, and not Your ally.

There are some player out there who like very intense cooperation and share their recources to the best, but they always look after that both players take a good share of the bounty.

The

- strategic movement problems
- treaty breaking
- the solo win

are a very important part of game balance and game feeling for me and many other old players. You have to deal with Your partner, You have to know Your neighbour, that is the fun of it. There is no 100% security, there is no perfect partner.

If we talk about a joint invasion we talk about coordination and communication - that is the key.

Moreover, the introduction of in-game alliance could end in what I would call 'super alliances' in other online games, which of course could profit immensely from 'allied victory' and 'free territory passing' attributes. The game is too short to have any offensive mali or boni when it comes to diplomacy.

Bah! I say play this game a while and then decide what might be better for the balance and gameplay. Yes, I am old fashioned.

my 6 gc,
Froboz

[compguy]

I think that alliances and naps should be supported in game. This would serve several purposes: it would increase the amount of interaction between countries, it would make it harder for such alliances to be broken, it would also make it harder to acquire such alliances.

I don't like it. (What Morhk said applies.)

My thoughts:

One of the things I like about this game (and my primary complaint about most other online games) is the simplicity. You can learn Hegemony pretty quickly.

That isn't true for other online games. Every once in a while, I try one of the games that is popular on MPOGD.com and find that it is so complicated that I don't even want to try to learn it.

Having taken care of my rant...

I don't think it will increase the amount of interaction between countries. If you haven't discovered it yet, there is a lot of interaction between countries. If you find there isn't, you'll probably find you don't survive long.

The ability to break an alliance is as much part of the game as anything else. Enforcing that takes some of the element of diplomacy (or the lack thereof for some players) out of the game.

Now you agree to an alliance and it costs you money (yuck!) and enforces something that might be a valid tactic. There have been plenty of times that someone has pulled some low tricks and one of their allies decided it was time for a change. Forcing that person to wait some predesignated time would pretty much destroy the turncoat tactic. (Which is sometimes, although rarely, justified.)

What happens if you actually need to launch for and take an ally's star? There are valid reasons you would want to do that within the terms of an alliance. You would have to provide a mechanism to do that in game, which would provide a method for someone to break the alliance. He just launches for the stars and tells the game that its OK.

It doesn't work to have the destination player have to confirm that the launch is OK. Part of the power of this game is its disconnected nature. It doesn't work if you need to launch (and your ally has agreed to it) but you have to wait six hours for him to get to a computer and say it is OK.

The right of passage has a serious affect on game play and is something that should be studied and discussed carefully before implementing. One of the things that affects the game is the range you have.

Everyone starts with the same range, but you don't see whether someone has increased theirs unless you see them using it. If someone wants to attack you across another player, he has to spend the money on range (hindering his growth in other areas) or take a star from someone to reach you.

Right of passage would allow him to travel much further than his range undetected. Some might say that's a benefit and it might be. It is also a SERIOUS adjustment to game strategy and play.

Steve

[Garrik]

Why not allow the joining of forces from two different players if their within an alliance?

I mean, when exterminating "sleepers" you don't always have the 250 ships to blow them out of the water.

Yet, if you had 100-150 and your neighboring ally had 100-150

that's 200-300 ships with higher battle power.

Speaking of battle power. I'd wager that when you take over another star, your battle power would grow a little, without having to spend the cash on it. Could we implement say... 1/10 battle power point per star rating?

so if you capture a star with a rating of 6, your ships raise 6/10 of a battle power point?

Oooo another one: The ability to capture ships/surrender an attack.
example: I'm attacking rebal star X, yet, my neighbor ally is not far away either. Turns out my ally attacked and won that star first. So, instead of breaking an alliance, I surrender that attack, my friend gains my ships. And he can attack and surrender an attack on one of my planets to return them safely.

example 2: Give rebel stars a % chance of surrendering.
quote "35 ships attacked X at 10:00 (x amount of ships defending) X surrendered during battle, You've won the battle with 38 ships remaining"

You say IRL "I gained 3 ships in an attack? HOLY *#$@! YES!"


Just a few thoughts for Shannon to shoot me over.

[Seidl]

The trouble with partial battle points for taking stars is that it makes it very easy for two allies to minmax themselves to a lot of battle points. Pick a 9 or 10 star on the boarder. Then alternate taking it and leaving it with say, 10 or 20 minute intervals. Get the timing right, and you could do like 10 battle points a day for each of you, for free.

-=- Matt

ps. I may lose, but I can minmax witht he best of them. :)

[Blargg]

I agree with compguy that alliances should not be supported in-game. This game has an entire dimension of diplomacy to it that other games lack, and trying to hardwire it in to control people's behavior would diminish the experience.

One of the coolest things about this game is the interpersonal relationships. You never know for sure whether that unfamiliar player is going to honor his agreements, and that creates tension and suspense. In a game where players are going to suffer severe built-in penalties if they don't do what they promise, there's a lot less opportunity for anything interesting to happen. The mystery will be lost.

Now, here's where the player directory comes in. Players on the previous version of the game would record comments on other players' pages, as a guide for players in later games what to expect. The player discussion board served the same purpose. Players who simply couldn't be trusted quickly developed a reputation. Some reformed, and some continued to enjoy their pariah status. The variety of personalities in the player community, and a certain level of unpredictability, is a big part of what makes the game so fun.

:)

[Genns]

I like the idea of moving through your allies stars without fighting, but loosing stuff cause you broke it, nah... It's part of the game! I would also like to see the following:

If you the members of your alliance are the only ones left, everyone else has been wiped out, those people win as a group, not as single people, and they all get equal credit. I think that would be a neat idea, but there would have to be limits of 3 or 4 people per group so people don't abuse it.

[Morhk]

Still, I do not like the idea - but I know that the 'dinosaurs' were not able to prevent the evolution. I bet the dinosaurs were very happy with their life until nature gave them the brush off. Now there are just stupid Homo Sapiens running who attempt to destroy the planet.

Ack - I am using very strange pictures. I bet there will be many games with many new options, tricks and gimmicks, Team Games, Capture the Flag games. The game will evolve, that is what I am sure, and the paying community of Skotos will influence this greatly. The flexibility of SE/Hegemony will open new paths to play this game.

I see the comet coming, folks.

We are dust.

[ShannonA]

I actually don't currently expect to add any support for alliances in-game. The beauty and simplicity of Space Empires is something that I want to preserve.

Right now my coding work is to:

* Continue the integration of SE with the Skotos community.

* Improve the GUI where possible.

* Later, introduce races.

That's it.

Nonetheless, the comments and thoughts on them are appreciated, as it allows me to constantly consider the possibilities from different points of view.

Shannon

[galidia]

When you say introduce races, do you mean like you are required to pick a race from a list?

[ShannonA]

Originally posted by galidia
When you say introduce races, do you mean like you are required to pick a race from a list?

Yes.

And each should support/suggest slightly different styles of play.

Shannon

[galidia]

I suppose you could do this... But I rather like making my race up for myself as I go along.

[Garrik]

Originally posted by galidia
When you say introduce races, do you mean like you are required to pick a race from a list?

Yes.

And each should support/suggest slightly different styles of play.

I do hope we won't be too limited in our choices. I like having the free ability to choose my own physical attributes and disabilities and such.

[Genns]

Ture that brother :D I would rather choose what my race looks like and acts like rather than pick it from a list and risk looking like 100 other people.

[Blargg]

The races idea is cool, but why let the players pick? Tell them what race they are and make them work with what they've got.

Or, have that be a variation from game to game -- sometimes you get to pick, sometimes you don't.



:cool:

[galidia]

don't like that idea personally. being forced to play a certain way? Perhaps would be interesting, but would get annoying if you get forced to be the same way all the time, or something else like that.
'course everyone has their own ideas ;)

[Blargg]

Perhaps that reflects the difference in role playing aficionados vs. strategy aficionados (I'm making an assumption about you here...) In role playing games you identify with your character and therefore want some say over his/her traits/abilities, etc. whatever you guys call it. Pure strategy is different -- usually the player is presented with a set of circumstances (here's your corner of the map, these are your resources, here's how much information you have) and the player has to play with the cards he's dealt. I guess it's just a matter of what you're used to...

Now, if you've never played a role-playing game in your life, forget I said anything. :D

[galidia]

Bah you have a good point there, I do play rps more than strategy games. :p

It might be interesting to see people having a "mindset" imposed apon them. It would certainly be challenging. Would still be role-playing though, wouldn't it?

[Bolex]

In the interest of Political Correctness (something I usually don't subscribe to) could we possibly use the term "species" instead of race? I think y'all see where I'm going with this....