MechHero Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  

Author Topic: Ideas for Diplomacy  (Read 2682 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

meat

  • Puma
  • *
  • Posts: 53
    • Email
Ideas for Diplomacy
« on: November 11, 2014, 12:24:30 AM »

I kick this around again. We got 4 choices. None of them mean anything! Not aligned; NAP; United and At War; can we make them mean something?

At least in the marketplace perhaps; someone with whom you are "at war" should not show up for you to buy from. Someone you are "united with" probably should!

There is a what a X5 infrastructure difference for making attacks; that probably should be like a X2 difference unless you are at war then it is a X3! We don't have enough players and that is part of it! If you don't have a chance as a causal player then why play? You won't! There are guys out there that are very good at this game and I give them their due but a little balancing will bring more players in! Not everyone has the time to play the way that some do!  If we keep losing players it is unlikely we will continue to have a game!

I enjoy this game! I don't have the time some do to play and perhaps I am not as good as some other players are. I do learn from them all the time! I don't give up on it but I would like to see it a little more balanced!

Perhaps NAP's and United should be off limits to attacks by alliance members? I don't know just something to kick around!

Anyone with ideas please share them with us!
Logged

Enneagon

  • SpiderTank
  • ***
  • Posts: 336
Re: Ideas for Diplomacy
« Reply #1 on: November 11, 2014, 01:40:20 AM »

Perhaps NAP's and United should be off limits to attacks by alliance members? I don't know just something to kick around!
I just pick on this single point this time...

There are legitimate cases of "friendly" attacks - even to attack yourself - to name few:
- moving (or "trading") an artifact
- getting out (or helping to get out) of cell-lock

Common practice to farm abandoned accounts without kicking them from alliance immediately isn't a strong argument here, but I should mention it anyway, and, there is reasons for it to be I will not go on about now.

So, if there is reasons to allow attack yourself and your teammates, there is no reason at all to suddenly deny attacking by a fact of any pact, it just don't stand logic of continuity - and regardless of moral questions what can arise because those are just out of the scope of the problem.

Now, what I do think: there should be a warning if you going to attack:
1) one self;
2) teammate;
3) United alliance member;
4) NAP-ed alliance member;

Yes, just a warning you click trough automatically and not reading it because there is already too much warnings in awkward places... but this still is one of those where there should be but is not.

Cases (1) and (2) may easy be just miss-click errors, and in cases (3) and (4) warning is probably even more justified as there can be new information there - the target status may have changed - a new pact you not know about yet for whatever reason may be in effect or the targeted player may have joined alliance you have already in pact currently, so you may indeed want to reconsider your attack now. But there will be cases you attack him anyway, regardless of where he ended up today.

Logged

Enneagon

  • SpiderTank
  • ***
  • Posts: 336
Re: Ideas for Diplomacy
« Reply #2 on: November 11, 2014, 02:08:27 AM »

There is a what a X5 infrastructure difference for making attacks; that probably should be like a X2 difference unless you are at war then it is a X3!

This actually sounds like a good idea, on first glance.

I would rather think that x3 is OK for non-aligned, and it could change then to x5 for a war... but anyway, that's details already.
And, probably, there should be no limit at all inside the alliance (as those should be considered "friendly" attacks anyway).
Maybe it can indeed be x2 for NAP and United, say, you can't sneak an asymmetrical attack without formally breaking pact first.

BUT...

Just one problem, there is this common practice by some alliances (and last time I looked at s2 yours were one of those, I think) that declare war on just any other alliance whenever one exists almost automatically.

Considering this, and fact you can't do just about anything against if anyone decides to declare war on you (and that is just as it is, and is right, I think), being part of an alliance should not come as penalty, there is not that much reasons to be part of one already.

For this reason alone I don't think changing attack restrictions by pact status is viable idea, unfortunately.
Then there should be some substantial penalty as well for declaring war without reason and/or on anyone, but I can't think any non-totally-stupid-and-useless-at-best idea what it could be then. 
Logged

Enneagon

  • SpiderTank
  • ***
  • Posts: 336
Re: Ideas for Diplomacy
« Reply #3 on: November 11, 2014, 02:37:48 AM »

My wish of change in diplomatic system:

- May it be possible to swap order of "United" and "NAP" options in the Propose pact drop-down?

It just that the first is requested first without reading nor understanding what it could mean... Not that senselessly requested NAPs would be less silly or of more value than senselessly requested "United" pacts... still, it could somehow feel better for me if the default option to request first be NAP, and United should be then specially chosen. Then, maybe it would make it harder to recognize few genuine requests within those just send out aimlessly... but a written note should accompany those anyway.
« Last Edit: November 11, 2014, 03:02:24 AM by Enneagon »
Logged

meat

  • Puma
  • *
  • Posts: 53
    • Email
Re: Ideas for Diplomacy
« Reply #4 on: November 11, 2014, 12:25:57 PM »

We normally don't declare war on everybody but we did last server. We figured everyone else does why not. Really didn't work on warring with them much.

Attacking someone in your alliance was not mentioned in my post only someone of an NAP or United. But the warning you mentioned would be nice as well.

Yes; I agree you don't have a choice if someone declares war on you but trading with your enemy is still not a good idea. Perhaps if you cannot gain by declaring war on everyone it will stop.

Anyway; good discussion going on let's keep it rolling.
Logged

adamsky

  • Administrator
  • Nova
  • *****
  • Posts: 3781
    • Email
Re: Ideas for Diplomacy
« Reply #5 on: November 12, 2014, 10:02:02 AM »

Hiding marketplace offers is a good idea.
We can also add warnings when you try to attack friendly player. It would look exactly the same as the warning you see when sending a Raptor agains big NPC.

One thing I would add is auto-marking friends and enemies on the map. Currently you have to browse the map looking for enemy alliance members. As far as I see alliances often waste their orange flags on marking enemies and this could be handled much easier.

As for attack imitations, we were discussing about it a lot. Main problem is that players would probably leave the alliance when it's starting to get hot. I'd rather not add any form of punishment for people who are a part of the alliance.
Logged

Enneagon

  • SpiderTank
  • ***
  • Posts: 336
Re: Ideas for Diplomacy
« Reply #6 on: November 12, 2014, 11:52:57 AM »

One thing I would add is auto-marking friends and enemies on the map. Currently you have to browse the map looking for enemy alliance members. As far as I see alliances often waste their orange flags on marking enemies and this could be handled much easier.

This!!!
It almost too good to be true.
I'm holding a huge wishlist about flags, and this is one of the points.
Logged

meat

  • Puma
  • *
  • Posts: 53
    • Email
Re: Ideas for Diplomacy
« Reply #7 on: November 12, 2014, 01:54:51 PM »

I am all for the auto marking  ;D
Logged

pob

  • Raptor
  • *
  • Posts: 6
Re: Ideas for Diplomacy
« Reply #8 on: November 12, 2014, 03:59:49 PM »

Hiding marketplace offers...

...auto-marking friends and enemies on the map...

These two things alone would be great, they've long been on my list of most-wanted improvements. The first stops us having to remind newer players not to put cells on the open-market; the second would allow us to use alliance markers for highlighting strategic points, rather than wasting them on things that ought to be obvious.

If you add these then I'll be happy for ever — or at least until I come up with something else from my wish list...  ;)
Logged

adamsky

  • Administrator
  • Nova
  • *****
  • Posts: 3781
    • Email
Re: Ideas for Diplomacy
« Reply #9 on: November 12, 2014, 05:07:05 PM »

How would you like us to solve it in practise?

1. Use the flag system. Keep current flag colors unchanged and add new colors for pacts. For example: black - war, lime - nap, cyan - united.

2. Use the flag system, but adjust colors from the scratch. For example: red - war, blue - united, green - nap, black+lime+violet - player flags.

3. Keep current flags unchanged. Add some new markers for pacts. In this case we still have to choose colors that will be displayed on the minimap.
Logged

meat

  • Puma
  • *
  • Posts: 53
    • Email
Re: Ideas for Diplomacy
« Reply #10 on: November 12, 2014, 05:21:59 PM »

I like option #2 but I also have a problem with some colors so the more apart in spectrum they are from each other the better I can see them.
Logged

Enneagon

  • SpiderTank
  • ***
  • Posts: 336
Re: Ideas for Diplomacy
« Reply #11 on: November 12, 2014, 06:39:08 PM »

From those, I like #2 just for Red as War color, else it is no much difference. :)

Yes, the mini-map is the issue.

Else, I would like to have 4(+) player colors, and 2 for alliance flags, with self, allied and the new 3 pact flags...  it then becomes to be 11(+) colors. That's hard for one-pixel dots.

For the main map view it would be nice to differentiate the 3 sets of flags:
1) Auto flags - self, allied, pacts
2) Alliance placed flags
3) Player flags
with different images (maybe flags as is for player flags, pennon for alliance, different flag for auto-flagged cities) ideally visible all at once if more than one used on the same spot... still need to have precedence on mini-map, of course.
Yes, that's already way too far  :P ...but I just started ;)


On a side note, there is an almost-bug:
if any other flag exist on your city it can not be found in White list of your flags anymore - this should be exception, your cities should be always listed first (white), even if it create duplicate in the flag list for whatever colored flag is on your city.
For an example, I joined alliance that had alliance flags on my cites... suddenly I can't move units between my cities easily before removing those. But if you think twice there may even be legitimate cases to have alliance flag on your own city, in theory.


« Last Edit: November 12, 2014, 06:45:31 PM by Enneagon »
Logged

Enneagon

  • SpiderTank
  • ***
  • Posts: 336
Re: Ideas for Diplomacy
« Reply #12 on: November 13, 2014, 05:04:36 PM »

3. Keep current flags unchanged. Add some new markers for pacts. In this case we still have to choose colors that will be displayed on the minimap.

Was looking on map thinking about this, and just a feathered idea - you can do something with the city image itself, add colors to walls and/or tower, or colored "navigation lights" - not very realistic, perhaps, but would do the job nicely.
Use this for all 5 occasions of auto-marked cities (self, allied, united, NAP, war) for a total set of 6 different representations (keeping original bleak one for independent and/or non-aligned).
Logged