Rules change poll

[Boxerlego]

Look If we say yes to the First question this would be disastrous for Alien counter builds. This is due to the fact that our builds would become more selfish and that means we going to prefer to post our builds later in the week probably at the last minute. So unless you have fore thought about where your opponent is going, Alien builds will be a shot in the dark and will be needed to be posted at the last minute for any effect for it being useful as a immediate counter. Question 1 has been Solved.

Edited June 17, 2015 by Boxerlego

[Mark of Falworth]

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.

Oh, Ok. I see it now. I just saw several position changes in the MANTIS member list thing and assumed they had been replaced because they transferred credits.

Either way, I still dislike the idea of personal equipment being bought by the group. Whoever has the biggest team, not the most talented builders, will be at a advantage IMO. Are we trying to encourage a large and active group of fig-on-a-plate builders? Or are we trying to make our MOCs count?

[mccoyed]

Mark, with weekly build requirements and serious consequences if teams don't meet those... I kinda think we already have the problem of an active group of fig-on-plate builders. Except you can see from the builds so far that few people are putting out low-effort builds. There's a variety of skill level and presentation quality thus far and I don't think anyone's been really "phoning it in". If that happens, we're gonna see it later as some of the initial momentum of AG subsides.

Hope that makes sense.

[David FNJ]

Look If we say yes to the First question this would be disastrous for Alien counter builds. This is due to the fact that our builds would become more selfish and that means we going to prefer to post our builds later in the week probably at the last minute. So unless you have fore thought about where your opponent is going, Alien builds will be a shot in the dark and will be needed to be posted at the last minute for any effect for it being useful as a immediate counter. Question 1 has been Solved.

Unless you cannot build alien builds on planets that have 0 domination points at the start of some week.

Say Octan wants to go for planet B during week W. At the start of week W, planet B has no domination points on it. Thus, throughout the entire (W) week, no corporation may post alien builds on that planet. The week after week W, when Octan already has 38 points on the planet, can other corporations build alien builds on planet B.

In fact, I think this new alien rule would be nice so that corporations cannot prevent a planet from being dominated because they feel like posting a bunch of alien builds the same week as a corporation is going for a certain planet. Aliens should counteract after their planet has been invaded.

In sum, new additions to the Alien builds:

1. Alien builds cannot be posted on a planet that does not have any domination points on it on the beginning of the week (Monday).

2. Alien builds cannot decrease a planet's domination points by more than the amount of domination points that planet began with.

(example: planet B has 5 domination points on it at the beginning of the week. A corporation cannot remove more than 5 domination points from that planet that week even if other corporations build normal builds on that planet.)

Edited June 17, 2015 by David FNJ

[Kodan Black]

Lots of fig-on-a-plate doesn't really benefit you that much. If Octan has 3 people that get a 1 or 2, you only need 1 good builder or maybe 2 in order to counter. So I don't think numbers is all it takes.

The problem with not doing credit transfers is that it forces people to participate all the time to ever get anything. Casual players will never earn enough. And maybe that is ok. But I like that I can be part of the team and give my credits to others to have an impact. Otherwise my contribution feels less team based. This is essentially a team game, so I don't want to steer it more towards being an individual thing.

[aeralure]

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.

One of the main reasons I vote no on issue one is early builds need an incentive because otherwise we are simply going to see everything posted on the last day in the last hours (or minutes) before the deadline. We are already headed that way. While I think I prefer leaving it as it is (first to 30 controls it for the week - even if someone brings more forces in that same week but at a later date, it takes time to mobilize and for control to switch over so the battle for control continues into the next week and that is realistic), there is at least still some smaller incentive to post builds early. I'm not sure if it's enough though, since the late posting group gets a reward on switchover of control also and gets control that week, so why bother posting early anyway?

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.

Same. It's not that I mind contributing to the team. It's more that it becomes too easy to get a couple useful things on a side really quickly. I'd like them to have real value and sense of accomplishment as a reward for building well. They are already out there, however, so I'm not sure if it's too late to make a credit sharing rules change.

Edited June 17, 2015 by aeralure

[Kodan Black]

It should be noted that a lot of the issues being brought up are going to have a VERY short life. Things like "planets with no domination points on them" is going to last a few weeks and then never really be present again except rarely. So I don't want to invest a ton of time and effort into ironing out a few kinks that really is only going to be an issue for a couple weeks. I'd rather tackle longer term issues that will have far reaching balance implications.

[Kai NRG]

1. No. I'm not completely sold on this vote, but I do want to see some incentive for early posts (other than just, more time on top) and less posts at the very last minute. That incentive could perhaps be offered some other way however.

2. Yes. What are the current rules on losing control, if going down to 0 doesn't do it and if having less domination points than a rival is unimportant? I can't tell how on earth a planet is able to switch hands ATM. Shouldn't whatever corp has more Domination points ipso facto control the planet? In which case the above question is practically unnecessary too, as it's merely a question of how many times each corp gets the bonus (that could be rather sneaky, actually).

3. No. Doesn't make much sense at all to me! Maybe - and I'm not sure I would favor this - but maybe you should not be allowed to build on adjacent planets if the planet they are adjacent to is not connected to the home planet, but otherwise I don't see what sense it makes to lock away planets like that!

[LordDan]

Oh, Ok. I see it now. I just saw several position changes in the MANTIS member list thing and assumed they had been replaced because they transferred credits.

Either way, I still dislike the idea of personal equipment being bought by the group. Whoever has the biggest team, not the most talented builders, will be at a advantage IMO. Are we trying to encourage a large and active group of fig-on-a-plate builders? Or are we trying to make our MOCs count?

The judging system of 1-7 points already takes care of this issue. If a team is larger but they are building all fig on a plate builds they will only earn 1 or 2 points per build. Say a team has 30 members and 1/2 of them get 1 point and the other half get 2 points. This large fig on a plate team will only earn 45 points. However a team 1/2 the size ( 15 people) with the most talented builders would still beat them. For this example, say the smaller team earned a total of 70 points ( 7 fours, 7 fives, and 1 six point build). The smaller team would dominate!

Realistically the scores on both teams would be far more varied, since there are builders of all skills on every team. But the main point of the example was to show that the size of the team doesn't matter, its the skill of its builders

One of the main reasons I vote no on issue one is early builds need an incentive because otherwise we are simply going to see everything posted on the last day in the last hours (or minutes) before the deadline. We are already headed that way. While I think I prefer leaving it as it is (first to 30 controls it for the week - even if someone brings more forces in that same week but at a later date, it takes time to mobilize and for control to switch over so the battle for control continues into the next week and that is realistic), there is at least still some smaller incentive to post builds early. I'm not sure if it's enough though, since the late posting group gets a reward on switchover of control also and gets control that week, so why bother posting early anyway?

I am very irritated that people keep saying that there is something wrong with last minute entries. Sometimes it takes an ENTIRE WEEK to make a good MOC, and it should not be frowned upon if builders work their @$$ of at the last minute to finish a build before the deadline.

[Commander Turtle]

I am very irritated that people keep saying that there is something wrong with last minute entries. Sometimes it takes an ENTIRE WEEK to make a good MOC, and it should not be frowned upon if builders work their @$$ of at the last minute to finish a build before the deadline.

I agree strongly with this. The results could come in any time from Monday to Weds or even Thursday if the judges have real lives outside of here. If you're waiting for the results to see if you can build on a desert world or an ice world, and then make a 1000+ piece scene... it shouldn't be a surprise if you're submitting at the last minute! Plus, 90% of the time it is obvious (or at least not important) where teams are going and there is no advantage to last minute builds.

[Kai NRG]

Just to clarify, there is of course nothing wrong with last minute entries! But it's also nice to see the entries spread out a bit, so I don't have to scroll through a whole three pages Monday morning!

[Kodan Black]

Just to clarify, there is of course nothing wrong with last minute entries! But it's also nice to see the entries spread out a bit, so I don't have to scroll through a whole three pages Monday morning!

Completely this. The other point here is that we aren't saying last minute builds are bad. We are saying that early builds should be good. Why even bother posting an early build and tipping your hand if there is no benefit and only a negative. There should be some reason to actually post early.

[aeralure]

I am very irritated that people keep saying that there is something wrong with last minute entries. Sometimes it takes an ENTIRE WEEK to make a good MOC, and it should not be frowned upon if builders work their @$$ of at the last minute to finish a build before the deadline.

My build last week just about killed me. Between multiple 2-3 am nights working on it and delaying other life activities with ramifications still being felt this week (and two builds to do!) I'm definitely not saying there's something wrong with taking the time you need to make a good build. I'd be the last one saying that and I'm not sure anyone is. I am, however, saying there should be something good about posting early and it would be nice if gaming the system to post late for strategic advantage also had a counter strategic consideration in balance, otherwise no one has incentive to post until the wee hours of Monday morning. I don't wish to see it go down that road, personally. Two things to consider and weigh between posting early or late would be nice in my opinion, that's all. It's not my desire to put undue pressure on builders or discourage taking your time, since I'm going to be one, given my nature, that always needs more time than there is. I just think it would be nice to have a little balance and some options to weigh so we don't only sit on builds until the last minute - it would still happen, and it would still have strategic value, and the time would still be there for anyone who needs it.

Edited June 17, 2015 by aeralure

[kabel]

Seriously, why would you want to change the rules everybody had agreed on ( at least technicall) in the first place just because some people think things are not going as they would like? That doesn't make sense! It's like 'Hey lets play a game of Poker - oh no, we're loosing - lets change the rules'

[David FNJ]

Seriously, why would you want to change the rules everybody had agreed on ( at least technicall) in the first place just because some people think things are not going as they would like? That doesn't make sense!

Well, we do agree to them now. It seems that these specific circumstances were not originally thought of with how they would work with the current rules (and that is reasonably expected with any game), so now Bob (and I assume other staff) decided to make a poll to see if the members think a rule change would be beneficial :)

That's all this is really - seeing if a rule change would be good for the game.

[aeralure]

Seriously, why would you want to change the rules everybody had agreed on ( at least technicall) in the first place just because some people think things are not going as they would like? That doesn't make sense!

I don't think that's what's going on... I think most people agree an incentive for earlier posting to balance late posting would be ideal and the poll is simply asking if we wish to consider this rules amendment as one option to address it, since the way domination actually worked in practice came up this morning and was a surprise to some in the Rules thread. I don't think it has anything to do with anyone wishing to change things in their favor. It's simply exploring one option regarding the issue and there are likely other options as well, all in the interest of game balance and strategy. And really David FNJ hit the nail on the head above: the rules weren't anticipated to be working the way they are now in actual play on this point, which is why discussion came up now a few weeks in.

That said, I actually voted not to change anything. It's a very interesting topic though and there's definitely points on both sides.

Edited June 17, 2015 by aeralure

[EpsilonEta]

No – I don't want all the build in the end. I understand there will instead be a lot of build just after deadline and after domination is awarded but I still think that's better. Rushed build will get lower score, for a good result you need to plan ahead. Also, if you do work your @ss of and still don't make it for the deadline you can post it early next week for almost the same effect.

As I understand it, if company A get 20 domination on Monday, company B or aliens can still counter with 20 domination on Tuesday which means company A never had 30 points more than B and can't get domination or reward (unless they get another 30 on Wednesday).

Yes – And this is interesting because you don't know how mush your build will score. To be sure to crush the companies domination you will have to “waste” points (as domination can't be negative)

Yes – I like the supply chain idea. Maybe the home planets have connections with the milkyway galaxy. It is a way to hurt companies that build in a long line for fast domination. This won't be a problem later when the map is full.

About personal items, how do you expect to dominate a planet with spying and piracy? It can hurt a present corporation or pave the way for your expansion (like MANTIS did on Guinevere) but you shouldn't be able to use it as a point off expansion. But I do think that players with the items should still be able to expand from the “island” and would then be vary valuable if someone cut a supply line as they could still fight at the front. All players can off course go home, no one will be trapped on a island.

Think about it, if a company have lost control it mean another company got 30 more or an alien devastated the planet. Only people with items for stealth or speed can pass this planet.

Edited June 17, 2015 by EpsilonEta

[Kai NRG]

@EpsilonEta, that's a good point, if you need 30 points more than the other corp(s), then why are we even discussing 1?

Gaining control of planets

---

When a corporation has 30 more Domination points on a planet than the two other corporation, it gains control over the planet and receive a reward defined for each planet. Controlled areas can be viewed on the Dynamic Galaxy Map.

Wouldn't that make the entire discussion rather a moot point?

What's the likelihood that one corp got a whole 30 extra before the next corp came back with 40, all in the same week?

[Commander Turtle]

@EpsilonEta, that's a good point, if you need 30 points more than the other corp(s), then why are we even discussing 1?

Wouldn't that make the entire discussion rather a moot point?

What's the likelihood that one corp got a whole 30 extra before the next corp came back with 40, all in the same week?

Quite. MANTIS posted a couple builds before Kawashita on Guinevere this week, when they already had a 14 point head start from last week. There is every chance that Kawashita will end the week on par or with more than MANTIS, but depending on those early scores we might end up with a 50 to 40 point planet where the 40 point built earlier and therefore "secured" it. Setting it up as a race just sounds stressful and less fun.

Edited June 18, 2015 by Commander Turtle

[mccoyed]

Seriously, why would you want to change the rules everybody had agreed on ( at least technicall) in the first place just because some people think things are not going as they would like? That doesn't make sense! It's like 'Hey lets play a game of Poker - oh no, we're loosing - lets change the rules'

I get where you're coming from but Bob basically (with help) made the game up from scratch. It's to be expected that there'd growing pains, adjustments, and errata. Even venerable mechanics-based games with teams of experts working on them (Dungeons and Drag for example), have to fix stuff and redo stuff from time to time. I mean, then there's that we have a collection of people with different first languages and different writing/reading comprehension levels and a lot of stuff from the initial rules was misinterpreted. For example, the nuances of how planets could change hands was totally lost on me. That and I think we're all a little surprised at how extensive the tactics are here. I'm not 100% sure that AG is balanced so it's a good idea to massage the game through any growing pains and not stick to an initial set of untested rules if some of them don't work as intended.

That said, I think a lot of the complaints wouldn't exist if more people played Settlers of Catan.

[Kai NRG]

Quite. MANTIS posted a couple builds before Kawashita on Guinevere this week, when they already had a 14 point head start from last week. There is every chance that Kawashita will end the week on par or with more than MANTIS, but depending on those early scores we might end up with a 50 to 40 point planet where the 40 point built earlier and therefore "secured" it. Setting it up as a race just sounds stressful and less fun.

Okay, I see where you're coming from, my bad.

Personally, if you ask me its a strategic thing at that point. Somewhere along the line there will be a race anyways.

[aeralure]

Setting it up as a race just sounds stressful and less fun.

Wouldn't wish that either. I'm hoping a happy balance can be found, one that gives an incentive for early builds that does not outweigh late builds. Much of what I liked about the rules as they are (and why I voted no) is to somewhat reduce the growing strategic tendency to post all builds really late in the week. If the balance was ideal, with different but relatively equal strategic options for each, we would see a range of posting times based not only on when builders finished but strategic needs for the given week. It would not be my desire to add an additional layer of time-based build pressure into the mix (I feel that already ) and flip the tendency to post everything really late to posting everything really early instead. Fixes one problem and creates 1-2 more.

Edited June 18, 2015 by aeralure

[kabel]

That said, I think a lot of the complaints wouldn't exist if more people played Settlers of Catan.

I'm so loving that game .. didn't you guys in Canada were playing it too

[Dannylonglegs]

I'm so loving that game .. didn't you guys in Canada were playing it too

Mccoyed's statement is so true! My strategy in Catan is to be really nice to everyone as I slowly collect largest road.

Shame there's no benefit for longest road in this game...

~Insectoid Aristocrat.

[Zepher]

Most games of catan when I play get thrown out as everyone competes for longest road an not much else.