@thisyearsmostopen’s frustration is understandable. NAPs are too useful and lead to stalemates. We’ve know this for some time. Although it isn’t a new problem, the effects are stronger now given fewer fams per round.
We are in the midst of a battle rewrite, so now’s a great time to think about how we can address this.
We can experiment with a complacency factor that makes units less effective over time if they go unused. This will penalize large families that NAP themselves to the top, and will reward smaller families that continually scrap.
This can also be combined with Fleet Efficiency for an overall “battle readiness” type bonus.
This is just an idea for now, but thoughts are welcome.
I like the idea, however that doesn’t stop top fams from napping to the top, it would probably be more likely to encourage farming/raiding on lower ranked families to maintain the battle readiness.
What’s the bigger perspective, that this bonus could ramp up for bigger families so much that it will enable lower fams to eventually fight bigger ones, despite the nw/size gap?
Coming back to my original point though, it might be an idea to add a modifier that works in a similar way to the 35% rule, attacking someone, or arguably better, attacking a certain family thats below a certain percentage of your/your family’s NW will give diminishing returns.
Like say I would attack someone/a fam half my (family’s) size, my troops wouldn’t get challenged enough to become more battle ready.
You could possibly also base this on the total number of units in each fleet so that an equal force would benefit more than a lopsided one. I specifically said total number of units, so a split up fleet (to raid or whatnot) cant bypass the rule for a bigger fam/player to profit from the rule regardless of their size.
The more I think about it the more ideas I come up with, I like the idea and I hope it evolves in something permanent.
Yeah, it would definitely need to be hashed out to not create more reasons to farm.
The diminishing returns bit sounds similar to what we’re suggesting with Fleet Efficiency here:
Your suggestion would be the same effect but on a different modifier, and makes a lot of sense. In both cases, farming could become inefficient enough such that the opportunity cost compared to fighting upward actually becomes a liability.
This would be true for each modifier independently of each other, and compounded when taken in combination with each other. In other words:
Fighting upward = become stronger
Fighting nobody = become weaker
Fighting downward = become much weaker
I think there’s lots of potential here, not just to deter passivity generally, but also to prevent farming, and even discourage large alliances.
Oh yeah sorry I hadn’t read the fleet efficiency snippet.
I’m not just trying to make things more complex just for the hell of it, but I’m overflowing with ideas, it’s the dormant game designer in me I think.
Anyway, how about a sort of tactics system, where you get access to or get more efficient in using certain tactics that you can set giving specific bonusses to a unit type and maybe a negative bonus on some of the other unit types.
If history taught us anything is that the underdogs were often times forced to come up with new tactics, strategies, formations whatever to overcome superior numbers. And have the efficiency/readiness modifier influence the tactic bonusses given.
Or a limit to the amount of naps, like there was a limit on alliances/wars, possibly a limit per nap duration on account of ‘Your people want the empire to grow, we need to keep our options for expansion open so we cannot sign a NAP of x duration at this moment’
There’s no practical way to enforce a no-NAP policy. Without any changes to the game mechanics, players are likely to make their own unofficial NAPs.
We did try limited NAPs before (Feature: 2 NAP Limit) but it didn’t really solve much, so we removed the limit. No matter what we do, players will make their own deals. It’s very similar to our UA issues.
It’s already a setting though, so we could try it again, but resolving the underlying issue will give us the best bang for our buck.
You may find this bit below exciting. I know I do!
What you’re describing is very soon going to be possible, even without Fleet Complacency/Efficiency. Combined with them though, this may very well open up the possibility you describe: creative underdogs can out-wit larger enemies.
This may very much empower small families and shift the game back towards rewarding strategic skill over activity alone.
The changes there are already in motion, and the new logic is written in a way to support any number of modifiers. So, if we can figure out how we want a complacency modifier to work it will literally be a matter of plugging in a hook as a galaxy setting.
So that’s our task here if we really like this idea: running some numbers and getting a sense of what the math should actually look like.
It will take a lot of discussing but i see this very critical.
I do not believe naps are the issue and some sometimes it may look like a family napped there way to the top but I handed out naps out of kindness rather then walking away with the round when my family was so much further a head then everyone else. We gave out naps and punished ourselves by not expanding and allowed other families to attack everyone gain the planets portal and catch up.
If we gave those naps out for free and were punished for not attacking then we would be punished twice for being kind rather then making it a short round for everyone.
Trick i think will be finding a balance because i don’t think we do not want to punish a family for napping a smaller weaker family
(Even 76 and 79 a week and a half ago would not have survived a war with us we were so far a head. It would not have been fair, we waited until they had they chance to gain strength then fought 79 and have yet to fight 76 but if we fought them when they were not portaled and we made two to three times more then either it would not have been a even war.
If families fleet was weaker for showing this generosity would it be worth it for families to even wait or would this just cause larger bor wars)
I will come back to these points properly later as today has been a really long one.
But consider this as a side note, NAPs promote people not actually being required to actively play the game, you login spend your resources and log out knowing next to nothing will happen, it promotes passive playing which must be considered counter productive to progressing things?
Surely having people thirsty to log in and check their status, their core etc etc. would build a more engaging community and promote people actually staying with the game when they join, but there is a huge market for ‘IDLE’ style games nowadays so maybe it’s a niche.
I like the enthusiasm behind this, but there are loopholes and exploits galore to be had by people who will make side deals in lieu of the fleet efficiency so consider all those dark holes carefully.
Great point @Daylight! There are a few important things that we have working in our favor:
For awhile now, we’ve built nearly all new features in as galaxy settings. This was a hard lesson learned from the 2015 morale SNAFU, but a valuable lesson nonentheless.
If this all blows up in our face, reverting it will be as simple as flipping a switch.
You’re absolutely right about idle-type games. Configurable battle logic will allow us to preserve current settings as “Classic Modern IC” (or some other better name) for those who want it. Imo, current IC isn’t exactly idle-friendly for many players, but we can definitely preserve the current play style for those who think that it is.
We can serve the niche you describe while also moving away from it at the same time. This will re-establish different galaxies as having different cultures, a call back to our earliest days. Isn’t configurability great?
Testing on the dev server
None of this will go out without being tested, and something this significant will be tested with extra care.
This is a really good point too. Interestingly, if we end up in a situation where fighting downward is counter-productive, we may shift the power in NAP negotiations to favor the smaller side. The larger family may see more benefit in the deal, which is completely backwards from what we have now.
So, we wouldn’t be punishing bigger families for napping a weaker family, we would be encouraging them to NAP small targets and deterring them from NAPping similar-sized and larger targets.
That’s really good sportsmanship if you guys handed out NAPs at your the expense of your own rank. Unfortunately, we can’t count on everybody being such good sports. The good news is, this change could make it so that players NAP smaller targets in their own self-interest.
If we make it bad strategy to excessively hit small targets, and empower small targets to benefit from fighting upward, what you guys did this round could become the norm.
At the end of the day you have your familys that run away with it as they are the better or more active players. Most rounds luckily there is 3/4/5 of them to keep it interesting, but most of the time these are Allied or napped for duration. Its finding a way to stop these hitting the much smaller ones and forcing people to quit. I do love the fleet effeciancy idea. I really do think it would stop the farming. It would be like hitting a DS with every hit against a small fam, you cant do that too many times…
I dont know if you can forumulate build costs based on NW lead in comparison or something. Like when your playing a racing sim game and you have catch up mode enabled. The guys in front are limited to 80Mph, while those playing catch up can go 120Mph ad everyone gets back into a pack, haha. Then that hinders the active and skillful players who will say the game is against them…
On a personal note for those that care about my opinion…If your in a smaller fam you should never Nap bigger ones IMO, especially if they are no where near you, you just bring on the bigger fams exploring into your areas and being able to cancel the nap and wipe you out at a later date with great ease. Its much easier to ping pong them and keep big families at arms length without a nap if you actively watch your core.
Main disadvantage to having a cap on OBing is the point that OBing is mainly advantageous to smaller families. The bigger you get in size, the less need there is for OBing and you can keep growing without too much trouble.
So, putting in an OB cap would mean it actually becomes even more important to grab as much planets as you can and be the big family before you get eaten, leaving small families with no real possibility to ever catch up.
Not raining on your parade, just adding to it.
I’d rather see a more steep increase in OB costs. Possibly an exponential increase than the more passive version we have now.
Make it even harder for big families to OB and easier for smaller families to do so.
Might lead to more different strategies where families actively choose to stay smaller at first to gain more later on.
Yea, the argument smaller fams will be even smaller is a decent argument.
But, there is allways gona be smaller families, allways gona be naps that favor some and fucks over another. Allways gona be whining and allways gone be unfair attacks. This is and should not be the issue… you lost, and thats not an issue.
So we are back to the point: that right now we are just sitting and infra whoring and naping everyone because thats the correct way to win the game.
Its better for us to invest in infra and not attack anyone. Who wouldnt? Its the way to win.
3 weeks of infrawhoring, being allmost untouchable and seing no fights at all for a whole round because of good activity, good strategic planning, isnt really that exciting. But hey, at least we are on the path of winning.
This game needs vultures, needs unfairness, smaller fams should be blown to oblivion, killed off, inactivity punished just as bigger fams can be betrayed and ganged up on.
Point is that this game needs the importance of getting planets, that one attack should matter more than going 600% OB.