Milky Way 68 and UA

[I_like_pie]

You guys are kicking ass here. Awesome!

@Goddess_of_the_Dead

Correct me if I am wrong on my interpretation of this, but the potential alliance drama everyone is crying about happening in UA was already going on in IA regardless of the ‘rules’ set in place.

Yep, that’s spot on. The difference is, before, players would focus on accusations and bans, which would be particularly painful for players who didn’t cheat but were impacted by the blocked players’ decision.

This happened 3 out of the last 3 rounds, which I think some players are forgetting. If you’re curious and/or bored:

• Milky Way 65 Cheating and Deletions
• MW66: Illegal Coordination Evidence and Defense
• Milky Way 67 Cheating: Multis and Illegal Market Aiding

What’s interesting there is the responses. You don’t have to look far in those threads for people who defend IA, and suggest that the rule is bad and we are too harsh on the offenders.

Some of those same people are now saying that we should re-institute the rule. I know of several players who have been both for and against the rule depending on the round, whether or not they themselves were guilty, and whether or not they were impacted by somebody else’s block and deletion.

We should be careful not to look back at prior rounds as if they were some ideal scenario we abandoned; they weren’t. It may feel worse now because it is different, but that is part of the acclimation we have to go through.

@Goddess_of_the_Dead

those who actually have an open mindset about the possibilities this will create for the game will be able to have a truly enjoyable gameplay experience

I do believe this will be the case. I am cautiously optimistic that most players will adapt over time. It may not feel like that when you’re in the middle of it, but it helps to think about the big picture. I remember my first UA round in SN being downright infuriating, but also thinking about what it allowed us all to see.

@Airwing

none of these things will stop 2-3-4 fams from coordinating together which is the core issue that takes the fun away from this fantastic game.

I’d argue that the core issue isn’t that at all. It’s another layer above the core issue. See Root cause analysis for the approach I’m taking.

• UA is a problem because it allows people to coordinate
• Allowing people to coordinate is a problem because 2-3-4 fams work together
• 2-3-4 fams working together is a problem because… ?

There is something underneath what you perceive the root problem to be. This is why I am also skeptical that changing family sizes will help. IC should ideally play well in any family configuration.

@Airwing

UA not alowed is the solution

This is a solution to a problem that is itself only a symptom.

It’s not easy to figure all this out by any means, but our biggest gains are to be had by solving the lowest root problem we can possibly identify. One that stands out as a common issue is how players treat each other, which we can code and design against to some extent.

@SunTzu

Galactic Congress are created to oversee rules.

After seeing the chat council that formed, I do think there is a lot of potential here. I am going to look at what is possible to finally link game accounts to Discord accounts.

If we can do that, we could have an automated galactic council on the main server that is not controlled by any single player, and thus would in theory be more trusted by all players and free of a bias from a “leader” (server owned by a player).

This, along with Galactic Congress Forums having returned, will hopefully become more and more useful for players as they get used to it being there for them.

@SunTzu

All Market trades are published or if not possible market closed.

I love this idea! I thought we had a “Public Market Ledger” idea somewhere but I can’t find it. I added it to #roadmap:to-do here: Public Market Ledger.

Disabling the market is less appealing to me, but I’d be open to trying it.

As for all the “guilty” stuff, I am hesitant to punish players in ways that aren’t regular empire actions. Stuff like losing race bonuses and such is drifting more into the game itself being discriminatory based on subjective qualifiers, which feels dangerous.

It seems a safer bet to just let the GC green-light some kind of mass punishment via attacks. It’s important to remember too that we don’t necessarily want to forbid dishonorable behavior, partially because it’s impossible to define but also because we don’t want to say that you can’t play as “a bad guy”.

I do agree though that GC actions would be great to show on profile histories. Regardless of what “honor” means, it would allow us to see players who acted against agreed upon social norms, which may even change round to round.