26horses Forum
0 Members and 1 Guests are viewing this board.
  • Shadowing
  • Devoted
  • 1220 posts
  • Reputation 226
  • Honourable
    Dishonourable
  • Captain of the boat or captain of the Sea?
Jan 26 2016 8:36 pm

Alright I've been sitting here thinking of ideas on a protection system and also running ideas by small players, large players, spenders and non spenders.

It is for sure that something needs to be done. Good players have left since the game reset. Good really active players. Spenders and non spenders. I've decided to take a few weeks off working on Ancient Squadron to port System Lords to Unity. Its going to be a lot of work but I want to get this done so the game is finally native to mobile and I can start running expensive advertising again. I also don't want to do this if my player base is leaving to easily. Its really hard just getting a player here let alone them leaving. With spenders and non spenders leaving that really shows there is quite a problem and its not even totally targeted to a single person spending.

There is always going to be one alliance really strong then the rest but for how much is the issue.


So after kicking several ideas around. I think I finally got an idea that will work and suit all players for the most part.


Any player can hit any player of any networth or size.

When a player receives so much aggression from a player the aggressor will no longer be able to attack the player in question.

When players from two alliances are aggressive with each other a war meter will exist in politics. The alliance with the less aggression will be able to declare war. Only one side will have the war button or not. Only way to end the war is for one side to surrender.

An alliance can only be at war with a single alliance at a given time

An alliance can not attack others out side of war.

This should still allow top players to gain status from smaller players that are not active enough. This hasn't really changed though since even now a player can choose to move his fleet away before getting his fleet wiped out.
It does how ever limit larger players from pursuing a single target to long.
So an larger attacker would need to get the shortest flight times as possible by sending to a near by planet before attacking.

Infiltration and operation missions on players will raise aggression too.


Another perk is multi players that are true multi's won't be able to do any feeding off of other accounts as often since aggression will trigger.


Give some constructive thoughts on this.
If its not constructive or related to this post. Your post will be removed.
This includes fighting or complaining about someone in game.



What ever you can do or dream you can always begin it because boldness has genius, power and magic in it
  • Canshow
  • Irregular
  • 74 posts
  • Reputation 24
  • Honourable
    Dishonourable
  • I love 26horses Productions
Jan 26 2016 9:06 pm

So basically you are just slowing down the destruction of other players.

What about outside alliances hitting alliances in wars?

What about an alliance declaring war with a fake alliance just so they can be in protection from everyone else? Or a mutual war so that both alliances become protected from outside intervention?

Is status really an issue?

So if two players fight eachother long enough, they are both going to be locked out throwing punches at eachother? What about when one players is locked from attacking the defender, can the defender still throw his remaining punches in or is he refrained from attacking the attacker with the full aggression meter?

So,
You would rather players hit more players, with less intensity, than players hit less players with more intensity? Is this assertion correct?

How much aggression is too much aggression? Is it relative to the dominion size (planets, army, buildings, etc) of the player, or is aggression capacity the same against every player? Clearly the aggression meter only benefits towards delaying a reset of a smaller player, and protecting the larger player from losing everything that they've made from a single player.

However, might not this cause alliances to constantly be at war with other alliances because they might want to reset 1 player? It sounds like to very war-like alliances this can become tedious because the other alliance members are essentially locked out of being able to farm players other than the 1-8 they are at war with.

What about members leaving an alliance during war, and joining an alliance? Are mercenaries and cowards allowed?

Oh, here's a low-salt treat for some of you that may need it. I have plenty to go around;



  • Shadowing
  • Devoted
  • 1220 posts
  • Reputation 226
  • Honourable
    Dishonourable
  • Captain of the boat or captain of the Sea?
Jan 26 2016 9:32 pm

So basically you are just slowing down the destruction of other players.

*Ya and keeping them from being hit all the time by the same large player. Several times ive seen the same player being reset by the same person over and over*

What about outside alliances hitting alliances in wars?

*Won't beable too. While in war no one out side of war can hit you and you can only hit the alliance you are at war with*

What about an alliance declaring war with a fake alliance just so they can be in protection from everyone else? Or a mutual war so that both alliances become protected from outside intervention?

*This is a issue I haven't totally worked out. Needs to be some negatives on something.*



Is status really an issue?

So if two players fight eachother long enough, they are both going to be locked out throwing punches at eachother? What about when one players is locked from attacking the defender, can the defender still throw his remaining punches in or is he refrained from attacking the attacker with the full aggression meter?

*When each side are providing aggression then the protection doesn't exit. So the player will need to stay passive in order for protection to trigger*

So,
You would rather players hit more players, with less intensity, than players hit less players with more intensity? Is this assertion correct?

*yes correct except while in War then they can do as much as they want till one side surrenders*

How much aggression is too much aggression? Is it relative to the dominion size (planets, army, buildings, etc) of the player, or is aggression capacity the same against every player? Clearly the aggression meter only benefits towards delaying a reset of a smaller player, and protecting the larger player from losing everything that they've made from a single player.

*The damage you do won't matter. Will just be based on sieges and offense mission count*

However, might not this cause alliances to constantly be at war with other alliances because they might want to reset 1 player? It sounds like to very war-like alliances this can become tedious because the other alliance members are essentially locked out of being able to farm players other than the 1-8 they are at war with.

*The alliance that wants the war to end will have to hit surrender. The point of this is to raise player base so there are more players to attack*

What about members leaving an alliance during war, and joining an alliance? Are mercenaries and cowards allowed?

*Not sure about this. Maybe just prevent it during war*


What ever you can do or dream you can always begin it because boldness has genius, power and magic in it
  • Shadowing
  • Devoted
  • 1220 posts
  • Reputation 226
  • Honourable
    Dishonourable
  • Captain of the boat or captain of the Sea?
Jan 26 2016 9:43 pm

Another idea.

Instead of all that I mentioned.

When a player is being hit by an aggressor the player has a option to pay the aggressor to prevent the aggressor from pursing him anymore for a period of time.

This is actually how pvp will work in Ancient Squadron

That be a bit more like stargate too in a way.


What ever you can do or dream you can always begin it because boldness has genius, power and magic in it
  • Kaguli
  • Irregular
  • 87 posts
  • Reputation 43
  • Honourable
    Dishonourable
  • Power in a refined form
Jan 26 2016 9:59 pm

Now THAT^ is actually an interesting idea. Also in flavor of the game pretty well.

Would there be an effective minimum payment of (naq, I'm assuming) to buy protection for x amount of time?

Could this scale based on the difference between the players' networth/status/whether they're in an alliance?

If this were scaled appropriately, this could be a good fix that still allows a supreme player/alliance to farm others without having to cripple the weaker players.


  • Shadowing
  • Devoted
  • 1220 posts
  • Reputation 226
  • Honourable
    Dishonourable
  • Captain of the boat or captain of the Sea?
Jan 26 2016 10:33 pm

Maybe also the player can't pay unless enough aggression is done too.

Naqahdah amount probably will be based on the aggressors networth


What ever you can do or dream you can always begin it because boldness has genius, power and magic in it
  • Kaguli
  • Irregular
  • 87 posts
  • Reputation 43
  • Honourable
    Dishonourable
  • Power in a refined form
Jan 26 2016 11:11 pm

As long as it ends up being an inconvenient amount, rather than a demoralizing amount, it sounds good. If the point here is to retain new players, then watching half your naq get shipped off just to avoid bloodshed won't help.


  • Brian
  • Irregular
  • 37 posts
  • Reputation 16
  • Honourable
    Dishonourable
  • X Men
Jan 27 2016 9:55 am

its good that you are finally thinking about making changes to better the game. paying off aggressive players may be a bit of a problem if they are constantly sabotaging or farming naq. also if a smaller alliance goes to war with a larger alliance, how are they supposed to fight when you removed explosives? surly explosives were meant to be "over powering" that's what explosives are. also by removing advance tech plunder earning naq in game is much more difficult. both services were enabled by buying advanced tech.


Gambit
  • Moneyseal
  • Irregular
  • 58 posts
  • Reputation 36
  • Honourable
    Dishonourable
  • Defeating a sandwich only makes it tastier!
Jan 28 2016 1:11 am

I still think you might want to consider making it so that players 75% or more in networth then a player beneath them cannot attack them. Maybe you could make this apply to only active players if you can find a way to determine activeness some how. They are eligable for this protection, but it has to be renewed. Just an idea, probably should not since your mechanics make much more sense.

I really like all the ideas for the war mechanics. This might just be the solution we have been looking for. I have thought about some of these ideas myself in the past, but the way you planned and layed everything out works way much better.

I like that an alliance can only be at war with a single alliance at a given time and that an alliance cannot attack others outside of war. I also think though that maybe others not involved should not be able to attack alliances at war. This way you do not get multiple alliances teaming up on one small one. The war button and surrender button makes sense. Now will these buttons be on vote of the alliance or will the leader/coleader have control?

I also like that top players can still gain status from smaller players that are not active enough. I do think that infiltration and operation missions should deffinately raise agression. Does that count spy drones or no? I also think that this could really help with the multi situation.

Overall I think this is a really good plan. There might be a few issues to work out as it is tested. However, I think it will go really well and I am looking forward to its future potential application.

I hope you can also make it so that in the future it will show official allies and naps of alliances on the profile page, but one thing at a time I suppose. Just wanted to put that idea out there.


Lord Money$eal
  • Zirnitra
  • Irregular
  • 129 posts
  • Reputation 45
  • Honourable
    Dishonourable
  • Black Dragon of Death
Feb 11 2016 3:44 pm

Protection should be 7 days for accounts under 3 months old.

After that you get 2 x 48 hr protection per week. In this time you cannot attack AI planets, cannot spy or infiltrate. Also, players cannot spydrone them or do any attacks. You are truly in protection. After using the 2 x 48 hrs , then you cannot use it until the following Monday.

This makes it fair, as 7 day protection should be for new players only.


  • Thanatos2222
  • Irregular
  • 11 posts
  • Reputation 4
  • Honourable
    Dishonourable
  • I love 26horses Productions
Mar 28 2016 10:51 am

1. protection should last 10 days
2. player could have option to remove protection anytime they wants
3. attacking should be based on networth so player with 10k netwoth cant attack players below 5000 networth and player with 5000 networth will not be able to hit below 2500 networth and sush this way new players will not be farmed by high-end playerbase after their protection decays if low-networth player attacks high networth player the high networth player can retaliate otherwise see above