couldn't spot the thread this was in so decided to start a new thread,

i'd like a meeting this saturday at a time to be decided based on times ppl post on here (prob some time late monring/early afternoon).

The main topic i'd like to talka bout is putting time limit on allocating defenders/taking turns, i'm looking towards a 3 day limit for both of these. Mael has also suggested instead of this a system where we monitor how quickly players take their turns, with faster players being given more games.

I'm available morning to noon or so GMT

well the meeting never happened due to lack of responce but i have a suggestion to encourage faster games, once a player has 6 games he is no longer available for games until he finishes 1 of them.

This would allow more active ppl to ahve more games and allow people engaged fights on large maps more time to spend on these dificult games wihtout forcing them to have tons of other games as well.

Should all members in a clan be on 6 games then the limit raises to 7, 8 etc.

Views? Ideas?

I think this is a sensible suggestion. None of us are yet at this level although some of the others are getting close - although this is mainly due to some slow defences (not complaining - OK just a little bit ).

I've been thinking about this, and I'm a little skeptical, as it doesn't necessarily address the problem. The problem is that some people don't have as much time to play, and therefore can't play as many turns. That means if they get more games than they can handle, all of their turns will slow down, as they will only be able to visit a certain number per day. So those players that reach their six game limit because they don't have as much time, will bog others as they just have too many games going to keep them all up to date.

So basically we need to find a way to tailor each individual to how many games they can juggle and still be able to keep up with their turns. I can't see a simple way, other than having the same idea of limiting each person to a set number of games based on their level of activity. It will have to be tailored to individual people, however, so that could get complicated.

Another thing we could do is remove the active list, and just let the clan leaders choose who gets to play what. I'd hate to do this, though, as a lot of the clan war's strategy is based on seeing which opponents are available when you attack.

I know I'm not a part of the Clan War (yet ), but here's an idea that might be able to help: scale the cost of using a certain player by activity and skill. That would make it easier to use both fast players and less experienced players. For example, if a commander had Tiger and Joe Newbie available, he'd obviously choose Tiger...unless Tiger cost $15 to Joe Newbie's $1. This would also make big planets tend to cost more to attack than little ones: if I were a commander, I'd send Tiger to Wasserland and Joe Newbie to Emerald, not vice versa.

Also, if the cost of using a player increases according to how many games he or she has, then faster players would be cheaper to use, making games automatically sort themselves towards the faster players. For example, if Tiger takes turns 3x as fast at Joe Newbie, it'll take 3x as long for him to get too expensive to keep using.

All this would give a commander more options, too. Like if your planet Antarcticus is attacked, do you assign Tiger and make it more expensive to attack with him the next week, or do you give the game to Joe Newbie so that you can afford to counterattack the other clan's Rust with your best player? And so on and so forth.


I hope all was coherent enough to follow, and I hope gives you ideas for what to do, even if you don't use this one.

Our clan's members vote for time limit for delaying of turn.
Variants:
2-3 days for all planets;
2-3 days for small planets and 3-5 days for medium/large planets;

Additionally, we suggest penalty - 5 credits for the first delay and lost battle after next ones.

We didn't establish agreement about number of battles, but we have "fast" players and "slow" or busy players, so some players are ready for additional battles and some can't start new one until end of current games.

I think we could establish limit for minimal number of battles.
For example, 3-4 battles on the small planets are equal 2 battles on the medium planets. If player have these battles, he can stop new games.

I agree with Tiger's points.

I think 2 days for the small maps and 3 days for the medium/large. I think if we have this rule then there should be an opt out if you have more than 4 games (where medium/large counts as 2 like Tiger said). This way players/clan leaders can control how many games people play - if you take on two many you end up hurting your clan not helping.

I like Tiger's proposal, -5 credits for first offence, forfeit the second.

Mike

I'd go with Tiger's proposal too, though I'd rather have the limit at least a day longer for each type (I know some people can't play as much on weekends).

I disagree on the credit rule... I don't think a clan should be punished for having a player choose to go inactive. The forfeit might be necessary, but I don't like the credit docking.

I agree with Maelstrom...
Another delicate issue is if a person must be away some days, or if for some motive (private or professional), he as a week or 2 with a very litlle time to make his moves, and he's in the midle of a few games? What criteria shall we use?
May i suggest something maybe in the midle? I agree with Maelstrom about not to punish the all Clan, but delaying batlles, preventing the other Clan to gain credits, it's not correct either. We all agree that it's important to keep some pace in the batlles and that something must encourage players to make their moves in time. So, why not insted of giving penaltys for delaying, give credits to the other Clan?
For example, if a player becomes inactive for a period of time (like the ones that were suggested) the active player's Clan gains 5 credits (for example) in the next week. Like this, it would be like if there are no enemy activity, a planet starts giving credits to the active force on the field
By the way, i think that Artanis proposed a very interesting concept, that should be studied more profundly.

ok we're holding a meeting on saturday 24th July at 6pm london time over msn (if u don't have it it's free to download and use. All you need is an email address.

Suggested topics for discussion..

Type of clan map.
System/playet layout
Income/Invasion Costs

I beleive these will carry us thru the hour we're allowing for this meeting.

Okay, here are the minutes of the 2nd clan war meeting. In short, these are the decisions that were ratified that will affect the current war:

As of a week from Sunday - Sunday, August 1st - the following rules and changes will take effect:

1) In the next war, we will use a variation of Rocklizards plan for the
map layout: Each clan will have a homeworld, some core systems surrounding the homeworld, and some outer systems that connect to other clans. To maintain some semblance of direction, each clan will only be linked to a limited number of the other clans (we discussed using 3).

2) All planetary attacks from this point on will consist of two battles. The attacker will choose one player to play PL on that planet, and one player to play FNU, following standard availablity rules. If one clan wins both battles, they then own the planet. In the case of a tie, the winner is the player that beats the other in the fewest number of turns. In the case that both games take the same number of turns, the defending clan wins the planet. The base cost will be increased as well. The base cost to attack a small planet is now 30. To attack a medium planet it is now 50.

3) Artanis suggested and some members agree to have a mock clan war using Rocklizard's layout to test some ideas out. This will have no bearing on the current war. Details of this will be discussed at the next meeting, in two weeks.

4) We will add the two new MAN maps to the clan war. Twin Islands will be added as a medium map, and Craetus will be added as a small. If a clan only has MA players available when an attack is made on a MAN map, that clan may use up the next availability of one of their MAN players for the MAN map.

The following items were discussed, but they need further discussion before resolving them:

RN would like to have a clan-based round-robin tournament.

Adding addtional planets (more than 3) in some systems.

Use a third designation for planet sizes for New Paradise and Wasserland. They will be considered large, and will have higher income and attack cost.

For those that attended the meeting, please look over these and make sure to point out anything of importance I missed.

I like the idea of two battles attack, but in most cases it will be a draw, and count number of turns in this case doesnt make any sense to me - first - dragging battle when you see it's a lost case for sure is not fun, second - it will really depend on layout - might as well flip coin. I would say lets make it 3 battles with reasonable (whatever you call it) time limit (2 FNU for attackers) or in case of 2 battles attackers should win both to take the planet over.
I'm for idea give the FNU side ability to reject placement once - it worked out pretty good in our internal tournament.
Bizzaria? why not, i think it's fun. Just make it very small (cheaper) and Brimstone too (it's even more lottery to me then Bizz).
One more idea to lower snowball loosing efect - if invasion fails, defender clan gets half of the invasion cost indemnity.

The problem with 3 battles is you are left in the same position as 1 battle: Someone will have 2 PL battles, and we've found that when 2 moderately equal players, PL has a huge edge. So in the case of 3 battles, the players using PL will most likely win, and the player playing FNU will lose. This means the attacker has the advantage, and we have the situation where planets change constantly still, or if we give 2 PL players to the defenders, planets won't change often at all. Before the PL option, only if there was a horrendous setup on PL's part, or a very good player was matched against a poor player, would a planet change hands. Now they change hands with almost every battle.

Thus we are left with using 2 battles to be fair, giving the win to the better players (as it should be). Then comes the problem with arbitration, which was discussed quite a bit for the first MA tournament. A simple solution and without as many problems with others suggested is to go by how quickly the battle is won. Certainly, it can be abused, and it makes for longer games, but a better solution hasn't been proposed yet. Most other solutions involve all sorts of calculations that also are difficult to deal with on a constant basis with so many games going on. So in short, using the least turns rule is imperfect, but it does do a pretty good job, and is easy to arbitrate for.

I dont see much problems with giving PL advantage to defenders - yes, it will be more dificult to take over planets, but it will be completely fair, it will make the war slower, but i dont think we're in a hurry anyway. And it will make our war kinda closer to the real war - defending position, especially fortified is much easier then attacking it. Plus it will give a chance for weaker clans to stay alive for longer time.

We used to have that (Defender always plays PL), but in playtesting it made it seem like there would never be a conclusion to the war. If there's no progress being made unless you have a favorable position or a player mismatch, the War isn't very fun. As a mediocre player, you don't have the chance to ever take a planet, because even not so good players can use PL to an advantage to make things difficult for you. As a good player, you hope you're placed against a mediocre player so you have a chance to overcome the PL advantage. Either that or you hope for a really good setup.

Of course these are all just my opinions .

I agree with you, but i just really dont like the idea of counting turns, it would be ok as rare case, but i'm pretty sure it wont be rare, and it just looks way too random to me. IMHO.

we could use the turn rule but add in an extra rule just for the clan war's view where we set the balance win limit at 200% (at the start of your turn). This will make for quicker fights. Also by saying u only can claim the win if it's 200% at the start of ur turn, it stop u just invading all the enemy countries on turn 1 just to hit it (even tho u'll most likely end up losing the fight if u do this).

The problem is theres no way to independantly find a battle is at 200% balance. This means that this would require extra work by the players and administrators to track a game end like this.

It would definately be cool, it seems like a good solution, just don't see how we can do it without a bunch of extra work.

FAO Devs, any way to get the balance shown on tm?