Rules change poll

[Bob De Quatre]

Hi there,

Some points were raised that could change some of the rules. So we decided to ask you opinion on these questions before taking any action (or not).

The poll will stay open until Saturday, and any change will be made before week 5 scoring.

Should the control on a planet be calculated after every builds are scored?

Right now weekly builds are scored in the order they were posted, and control over the planet is checked after each scoring. This could be changed so that control checks happens only when every builds are scored.

For example: if a corporation A gains 30 DP at the beginning of the week on a planet, and a corporation B gains 40 DP on the same planet at the end of the week, with the actual mechanism the corporation A will have control on the planet since at one time they would have reached 30 DP and other corps have 0, if we change the mechanism, neither corporation A or B will take control of the planet since none has 30 more DP than the other corps.

Should a corporation lose control of a planet if it reaches 0 domination points on that planet?

At this time a corporation A can lose control over a planet only when a corporation B get 30 DP more than corporation A on that planet. A new rule could added so that a corporation that has control on a planet lose it if it reaches 0 DP after some Aliens Civilization builds.

Should build be only allowed on planets controlled by a corporation and adjacent planets only if it can chain back to the home planet through controlled planets?

A new rule could be added so that a corporation can only build on planet it controls or adjacent planets, if that planet can be chained back to the home planet through controlled planets.

[WickNole]

I don't fully understand your first example... If you change the mechanism - neither corporation should not be able to take the planet, as the difference is less than 30 DP, should it?

Fixed.

What about the daily subtotals? Is it too much?

Edited June 17, 2015 by WickNole

[Bob De Quatre]

I don't fully understand your first example... If you change the mechanism - neither corporation should not be able to take the planet, as the difference is less than 30 DP, should it?

[Commander Turtle]

I thought that was how it worked already with the first one, I had no idea that the time of posting made a difference. I was also under the impression that if one company scored 30, another scored 40 in the same week timeframe, then neither would have control. Can you clarify this?

With the second, do you mean the difference between two companies is 0, or a company has 0 outright on a planet?

The final vote is the most interesting IMO. It could be very cutthroat to be able to sabotage a strategy anywhere along the chain. This is fascinating tactically, but it might be more akin to a board game where a loss is over in an hour than a team building game where it's possible to get very emotionally invested. I haven't decided yet what I'll vote, but I'm swaying towards "no" as I think it could occasionally upset people, but the tactician in me wants to vote "yes".

Edited June 17, 2015 by Commander Turtle

[WickNole]

For the sake of discussion, I'll explain why I voted "no" for the first question.

Currently we have a trade-off: post early and try to quickly take the planet, but reveal your plans to everyone; or post late and keep your choice secret until the very end. If the scores are only totaled after the deadline - there's no motivation for posting early other than "I've finished and don't want / can't wait until last moment".

Edited June 17, 2015 by WickNole

[rodiziorobs]

I see no reason to give preference to builds posted early in the week (by awarding domination immediately). If built during that week, it should count toward that week, whether Monday or Friday. Any changes in domination, bonuses, area of control, etc. Should take effect after all of that week's points are tallied.

Does the poll question mean after ALL builds are posted, or after EACH? Its not very clear... Dr. Long's post below clarified it for me, thanks!

If a corporation who controlled a planet goes all the way to zero, they should only lose it if another corp. has at least one point there. If no one else is even on it, they should still have claim over it. I can't vote with that condition in the poll, so I'll answer no because I believe that is an important distinction.

Why would planets need to be chained together? Is there a reason this is even being considered? It would be precisely negating the abilities granted by some of tech tree advancements and personal equipment, which I presume were designed to allow a corp to extend their reach over a distance.

Edited June 17, 2015 by rodiziorobs

[pombe]

1) No. I think builds should be scored in order and domination assessed after each build is scored individually. That way, there is a strategic benefit to posting your build earlier in the week, especially if your corporation and a rival are racing to dominate a planet.

2) Yes. I think it's flavorful since it would mean that your corporation lost control of the situation and had to leave due to being overwhelmed by aliens. It also gives rival corporations a way to break your dominance on a planet, at the cost of increasing their dominance on the planets they want. It is a tool that must be used strategically, since aliens hurt all corporations equally. Finally, it gives non-corporate players an incentive to get involved in the game and build MOCs and join in the fun.

3) No. There are technologies that allow players to jump planets. I think this is an interesting part of the game, and I don't want to see it removed.

[Tomsche]

1. Definitly, placing it right after the start of the week or moments before the deadline shouldn`t be making influence. It should also include Alien`s, that way you might not get the needed 30 when some are posted, grab the bonus, then drop under the 30 again afterwards in the tally.

2. Yes, if your at 0 domination, your effectively booted off the mudball.

3. No, there are enough sci-fi examples of left behind survivors. It could actually make a nice story, of a single builder for example stuck on a remnant of a colony, bombarded by aliens to get him to 0 and expell him.

[Dannylonglegs]

For the first rule I thought that'that's how it already worked, and that seems most fair to me, personally. Otherwise that rule is ripe for abuse, as it was suggested Mantis do to Gueniveir. It should rely on which team builds better (or for a longer period of time, sneaky Mantis! :thumb_up: ), and not who posts their builds first.

Number two is more of a change in my opinion. I think loss of control at 0 do makes Alien builds more strategically viable, and makes sense. Also I like it thematically too. Like, come on, who doesn't want to watch an Alien rebellion overthrow the oppressive imperialist company that conquered them? Avatar? Battle for Terra? This is a great trope.

3 is a resounding nope. I don't see why that should be changed. I mean.... there's a piece of equiptment specifically designed to produce unchained colonies. Why mess with that?

All and all, Bob, Lady K, Narbilu, you've all done a fantastic job on game creation, and judging, and you really deserve a round of apple sauce, and like medals and shit! Great job!

~Insectoid Aristocrat

[aeralure]

At the start of the week Faction A and Faction B have no domination points on a planet they both have access to. If Faction A posts 10 builds scoring 3 points each on Tuesday and Faction B posts 10 builds scoring 4 points each on Friday, what happens? When the scores are revealed the planet will show that Faction A has 30 points and Faction B has 40 points and then:

1) Faction A dominates the planet because it got to 30 points before Faction B?

I think I want it to work this way, and here is my thinking behind it:

I think I prefer this way too. It does offer a reason to post early, in addition to offering alternate reasons for holding a build late. The second option just makes everyone post at the last possible second, which I think is not a great trend. It would be tempered by having a reason why posting early and posting late are both good - just for different reasons. More meaning and strategy behind doing one or the other. It does indeed open the "every second counts" box, but that isn't maybe so bad.

How it would look is Faction A does indeed control the planet with 30 domination points at the end of that week, even though it also reads that Faction B has 40. How that might play out would be the following week control would switch over to Faction B unless they continued to fight it out.

Problem is, I don't understand the wording of the poll. "After every build is scored" could mean after all are scored, or it could mean after each entry. What am I voting for, yes or no to vote for the scoring to work I describe above in the conversation in the Rules thread? Omg I need more caffeine!

I'll need to think about it as yes, it does slightly encourage rushing builds, too, it's just, by and large, I think having no reason to stop everyone from always posting at the last possible second is worse. It leaves no time to discuss and admire builds etc as everyone is starting to game responding to build posting trends and I fear in the future we will simply see almost all builds being posted right around the deadline for strategic reasons. Think it's better to have a good reason to post early as well as late.

Edited June 17, 2015 by aeralure

[rodiziorobs]

For the first rule I thought that'that's how it already worked, and that seems most fair to me, personally. Otherwise that rule is ripe for abuse, as it was suggested Mantis do to Gueniveir. It should rely on which team builds better (or for a longer period of time, sneaky Mantis! :thumb_up: ), and not who posts their builds first.

Good point. I suppose rewarding early posts would discourage quality building. I, for one, like to see great builds regardless of who posted them.

All and all, Bob, Lady K, Narbilu, you've all done a fantastic job on game creation, and judging

Hear hear!

[Dannylonglegs]

I want it to work this way, and here is my thinking behind it:

Problem is, I don't understand the wording of the poll. What am I voting for, yes or no to vote for the scoring to work this way. Omg I need more caffeine!

I think you want "no." You mean they should be calculated in order, as opposed to after all points are tallied, which would be a "yes" to the rule change. Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.

~Insectoid Aristocrat

[Commander Turtle]

I definitely think that the time of the week shouldn't matter. Otherwise players will be posting builds before the last week's judging is in. Frankly, the reward for posting earlier in the week is that more people see your build and give you feedback...

I believe that each week, corporations should be scored before aliens and then bonuses are rewarded. So Octan score 30, an alien scores 3 and is subtracted, and Octan gets no bonus yet as they did not reach 30 after judging.

Edited June 17, 2015 by Commander Turtle

[aeralure]

I think you want "no." You mean they should be calculated in order, as opposed to after all points are tallied, which would be a "yes" to the rule change. Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.

Rereading it, I think voting no means what you describe. I think. Thanks! Now I just have to think on it a bit.

[Bob De Quatre]

I reworded the first question and tried to explain a bit more how it work.

[David FNJ]

Voting no for calculating domination after all of the builds are scored means to keep it as is which is calculate domination after each build is scored.

Edited June 17, 2015 by David FNJ

[goatman461]

1 - no, i don't want every post to end up on sunday night

3 - this doesn't make sense from a story point of view, most builders would be on the outlying planets, not the home planet, but maybe resources could be delayed until the chain is restored (that at least wouldn't completely disrupt the game play and builds that are already in progress)

[Dannylonglegs]

I definitely think that the time of the week shouldn't matter. Otherwise players will be posting builds before the last week's judging is in. Frankly, the reward for posting earlier in the week is that more people see your build and give you feedback...

I believe that each week, corporations should be scored before aliens and then bonuses are rewarded. So Octan score 30, an alien scores 3 and is subtracted, and Octan gets no bonus yet as they did not reach 30 after judging.

Even though I totally disagree with your example, I agree with what you're saying from an objective standpoint. Better builds should be more important than faster builds, even if that's not a strategically useful ruling.

~Insectoid Aristocrat

[Big Sal]

On the third question, I assume this wouldn't affect the operation of the black pearl/spying outfit etc, but is intended to allow corporations to essentially cut off planets. For example on the map as it stands now, assuming Kawashita were somehow able to dominate B04, this would mean that MANTIS would be prevented from building on A05 and by extension A06 (which would presumably be Kawashita's goal in this case) until they retook B04.

[Kodan Black]

I really struggle with option 1. I like that early build posts have a purpose, but I agree that if Mantis posts 30 points and Kawashita posts 40 later in the week the planet shouldn't still be in Mantis' control.

I guess I'd like to see the weekly total be the count that matters but some game mechanic where early builds have a purpose. I don't think it should be a flurry of activity at the last second to avoid tipping your hand.

[Boxerlego]

The Game Theorist in me thinks that saying yes to the first rule will basically turn this game into a prisoner dilemma and I don't want that, I want the ability for size doesn't matter because people will come and go and some will stay.

Watch this video

Edited June 17, 2015 by Boxerlego

[Mark of Falworth]

I'm cool with the first two points raised but I personally don't like the third point and voted no. Only because members have been compiling credits in order to buy the expensive equipment which very few could have ever bought on their own. It takes out the ability for an individual to make a difference, and completely screws up the corporate ladder/player standing.

My advice, Stop the ability to transfer credits and equipment will really be valuable and tough to earn. And less sticky situations for Bob to work out. (E.G. the recent Guinevere Incident MANTIS VS KAWASHITA)

Second, if you still want transfers, change the corporate standing so that it is judged by how many points are earned by the member. Not how many they presently have not spent.

[goatman461]

I really struggle with option 1. I like that early build posts have a purpose, but I agree that if Mantis posts 30 points and Kawashita posts 40 later in the week the planet shouldn't still be in Mantis' control.

I guess I'd like to see the weekly total be the count that matters but some game mechanic where early builds have a purpose. I don't think it should be a flurry of activity at the last second to avoid tipping your hand.

This is an issue with the domination rules, not a problem with when domination points are awarded. Whoever has the most DP should control the planet, but the corp that owns it first should get some reward (like the resource bonus). They should also get to build from that planet if they hold it at the end of the week. However, if another corporation has more DP on a planet, the first corporation should not be able to own it/build from it.

Edit: @Mark - corporate ranks are based on earned credits, not unspent credits.

Edited June 17, 2015 by goatman461

[Kodan Black]

This is an issue with the domination rules, not a problem with when domination points are awarded. Whoever has the most DP should control the planet, but the corp that owns it first should get some reward (like the resource bonus). They should also get to build from that planet if they hold it at the end of the week. However, if another corporation has more DP on a planet, the first corporation should not be able to own it/build from it.

This I like. It feels more "real". I land on the planet and mine the heck out of it, then someone else shows up with more forces, they get the planet, but I sneak off with my plunder. I'd certainly vote for that rule. Plus it leaves early builds on the table as valuable.

[Commander Turtle]

This is an issue with the domination rules, not a problem with when domination points are awarded. Whoever has the most DP should control the planet, but the corp that owns it first should get some reward (like the resource bonus). They should also get to build from that planet if they hold it at the end of the week. However, if another corporation has more DP on a planet, the first corporation should not be able to own it/build from it.

I like this idea, or there could be a mandatory difference of 10. So if Kawashita gets 30 first, we dominate, then if MANTIS score 40 the week after, they dominate.

Also, I quite like the idea of removing credit transfers. I've been sucked into it as it has become important for playing, but I do believe that I'd feel more accomplishment if I'd earned a whole item myself.

Edited June 17, 2015 by Commander Turtle