Hi All,

TLDR: Clearly the majority opinion, from both people in favour and against the feature in general, is to disable Clan GDI, at least until it can be tested and bug-fixed a bit more. I will thus do that.


Thanks for feedback on the previous post, especially people like Tertius and Auk for engaging on the complexities. I'd also like to thank the people who answered #4 and gave some suggestions, like "make a classic 1A server", and "make the bots retal".


-----


The problem, as many have pointed out, is the general asymmetry of warfare / netting in the game. Clan GDI was the most obvious, and frankly simplest - idea I had, to formalize the warring system, and at least provide a way out of war.

Clearly, however, there have been some edge cases and loopholes; and given this is a game, everybody minimax'd to those...



So, I'll disable Clan GDI on alliance until I can more easily debug (by getting the IRC server going - hopefully over xmas!!) and getting y'all to test it a wee bit more on alphaffa. However, part of the "fix it" involves the edge cases:

Step 0: Turn off Clan GDI on Alliance for next set.
Step 1: Fix IRC server.
Step 2: Deploy series of changes to Clan GDI on Alphaffa, and have you guys test it.
Step 3: Put it back on Alliance.



So the general purposes of Clan GDI are:

0) Make it so "being at war" is formalized.
1) Prevent solo/small griefers from disrupting other alliances, by making it so there is a relative size required to "be at war"
2) Make it so there is a way to make "wars end", so you don't have a war at week 1, and have the rest of a two-month reset to endlessly die or give up...
2a) ... so that you can surrender, in some way that lets you continue playing the game in some more-meaningful way than described above;
2b) ... or so that you can win, in some way that feels like winning.
3) Nerf the FS, because it is overwhelmingly powerful, and arguably reduces the long-term enjoyment of the war.


Thus my solution was Clan GDI as described:

a) Have to be >=5 members to declare war on clans >= 5 members.
b) You can surrender by giving up money/goods (at any time)
c) You can send a peace offer (that doesn't require giving up money/goods) but that must be accepted (at any time)
d) The "war" does not go "active" until after a certain period of time (24h I believe currently)




Then, the most obvious way the system can be gamed:

i) Clans break into groups < 5 members upon being declared or tag-hop to a new tag within every 24 hours of being declared upon

... and one outcome that I consider to be semi-desirable, as a compromise between viewpoints:

ii) Surrendering before war begins


To solve i), my thought is to make it so countries can't de-tag during the "war is declared, but inactive" period. Seems simple enough? Maybe too simple?

Also, make it so that clans < 5 members can declare on clans < 5 members; seems like it would be a game of chase then, but no problem.



As for ii); I would like people's opinion on this. Part of my thought is that surrendering and giving up a good chunk of money & goods, while not having absorbed an FS, is a "Fair" out for clans that don't want to war.

What do you think?


Am I missing anything else?


Thanks,

qz

----

as a PS: I really like the "make bots retal" bit, but it's harder than you would think. It's still my plan, but I'm not sure when I'll get to it.