PlanetsCentral

I began to play on this site last August, in Pleiades 9. I've joined some games more, and, until now, I'm viewing the same pattern in all games: coalitions of multiple players changing skills and habilities.

Casually in all of them there is always a same player, I suposse must be the smart one.

Sincerely, I don't like those games, and if this continues this way I won't play anymore in this site. I will finish my games here and bye bye.

Stefan: I know there is more people tired of this situation. I suggest you disable alliances or, at least, disable remote control.

Yup, I do agree. Chain alliances are no fun and are killing games. But it's not the only problem I did encounter. Also this forced endind turn 80+ without real winning condition is annoying. This PTscore is also giving false info about player's strength. Could we create a game like used to be on blutmagie? Old times but games there were epic.

Yup, I do agree. Chain alliances are no fun and are killing games. But it's not the only problem I did encounter. Also this forced endind turn 80+ without real winning condition is annoying. This PTscore is also giving false info about player's strength. Could we create a game like used to be on blutmagie? Old times but games there were epic.

What kind of games they used to be?

Yup, I do agree. Chain alliances are no fun and are killing games. But it's not the only problem I did encounter. Also this forced endind turn 80+ without real winning condition is annoying. This PTscore is also giving false info about player's strength. Could we create a game like used to be on blutmagie? Old times but games there were epic.

I agree totally with Promano and Ygg. I think it is imperative to urgently switch off remote control.

And we need a server-policy concerning "game types",

e.g.

1. understandings of single player with and without diplomacy 2. diplomacy limits in single player games (no turn exchange, one ally, and so on) 3. restricted "givability" of ships like "Constitution Class" or "Gravitonics in general.

With unlimted restrictions every game is easily compromited in the early phase. The "balancing" lies within the combination of shiplist and racial abilities and their limitation. But the racial abilities are not all the same value (who cares about super spy or RGA - everybody rushes for tachyon device and rebel is often bashed in early game).

If you don't want to loose your players as fast as they came something must happen.

1. understandings of single player with and without diplomacy 2. diplomacy limits in single player games (no turn exchange, one ally, and so on) 3. restricted "givability" of ships like "Constitution Class" or "Gravitonics in general.

I think a one-ally game is difficult to implement. Other variants (not-ally and not transferable a speshial ships) make very simle. I propose a vote on these options and implement one of them.

AllanOfDale in Re: (Multiple) Alliances:

1. understandings of single player with and without diplomacy 2. diplomacy limits in single player games (no turn exchange, one ally, and so on) 3. restricted "givability" of ships like "Constitution Class" or "Gravitonics in general.

I think a one-ally game is difficult to implement. Other variants (not-ally and not transferable a speshial ships) make very simle. I propose a vote on these options and implement one of them.

"One Ally" games can be implemented, there's at least two implementations of the concept (the older and proven POneAlly, and my cmlimit).

--Stefan

"One Ally" games can be implemented, there's at least two implementations of the concept (the older and proven POneAlly, and my cmlimit).

--Stefan

Just my two cents, but to prevent me from trading with anybody besides my ally these implementations MUST include a limitation for "give" commands to that ally too. Though there is still no way to prevent non aggression pacts for sure - in my case this would even include no-diplo-games, and to some extent always-war-games (strictly according to the rules - that goes without saying).

Hi,

pone ally is a good tool - you can only have one ally - this combined with no mine alliances allowed heales a lot. (you can still use FCs but is more complicated...). It would be more fair for single players to fight an alliance. No diplomatic games is an unrealistic dream things you can not check should not be implemented. (and the diplomatic part is also kind of fun...) The other problem is the score - in the moment the economic grows you have a lot of freiends or they start to fight you. My propsal is an annonymous battlemass ranking where you can only get your own position - thats it. Winning condition is the amount of planets under your control. Maybe 125 for a single player and 180 for a team - for three consegetive turns. If we do this - the players will stopp building starbases and mines only for the sake of the score. And last but not least more build points for destroying ships this way the active players gets an advantage and the game becomes more a war game and not an economic simulation.

Thank you guys for reading my long mail - all this was already done at the blutmagie server years ago.

Well, there were no diplomacy games at blutmagie and they were the best ones. With anonymous players, battlemass reports, no information about other races (no ptscore, no number of ships and planets - only races with the number of planets equals or exceeds half of the winning condition were visible), no communication ingame allowed (other players couldn't even see the changed names of your race and ships), hidden universe you have to explore and winning condition like keep 120-160 planets for 10 turns. And I remember one open game with some diplomacy, game was not even finished cause players were breaking rules, accusing each other, quarrel and in the end some of them left.

Northstar games as no alliance games are working fine IMO. Just players droping so fast or not being able to properly develope a race before slots are full are causing too many balance issues. Game is designed and balanced for 11 races, if there are 5-6 left just after 30-40 turns it's a mess.

Hi,

pone ally is a good tool - you can only have one ally - this combined with no mine alliances allowed heales a lot. (you can still use FCs but is more complicated...). It would be more fair for single players to fight an alliance. No diplomatic games is an unrealistic dream things you can not check should not be implemented. (and the diplomatic part is also kind of fun...) The other problem is the score - in the moment the economic grows you have a lot of freiends or they start to fight you. My propsal is an annonymous battlemass ranking where you can only get your own position - thats it. Winning condition is the amount of planets under your control. Maybe 125 for a single player and 180 for a team - for three consegetive turns. If we do this - the players will stopp building starbases and mines only for the sake of the score. And last but not least more build points for destroying ships this way the active players gets an advantage and the game becomes more a war game and not an economic simulation.

Thank you guys for reading my long mail - all this was already done at the blutmagie server years ago.

Similar thoughts... I posted this some time ago

No alliance game

Hi,

pone ally is a good tool - you can only have one ally - this combined with no mine alliances allowed heales a lot. (you can still use FCs but is more complicated...). It would be more fair for single players to fight an alliance. No diplomatic games is an unrealistic dream things you can not check should not be implemented. (and the diplomatic part is also kind of fun...) The other problem is the score - in the moment the economic grows you have a lot of freiends or they start to fight you. My propsal is an annonymous battlemass ranking where you can only get your own position - thats it. Winning condition is the amount of planets under your control. Maybe 125 for a single player and 180 for a team - for three consegetive turns. If we do this - the players will stopp building starbases and mines only for the sake of the score. And last but not least more build points for destroying ships this way the active players gets an advantage and the game becomes more a war game and not an economic simulation.

Thank you guys for reading my long mail - all this was already done at the blutmagie server years ago.