Now, what would really make for a dark, scary universe is if there is COMMUNICATIONS with scanned players only. //shiver//
Ooh 
Yea, that would be pretty wild … if it could be fairly enforced.
But players know each other in RL (or hook up in the forums, hangouts, etc.), so them having out-of-game communication gives them a leg up over those that don’t.
1 Like
But isn’t that true of all games?
Yeah, and you can talk all you want, but if you can’t trade, the advantage is pretty minimal.
I’m not sure how game balance would be affected. It’s the psychological isolating impact I think could be interesting. The Dark Spiral I’ve found frustrating enough. Add in this extra level and I think the game dynamic could really change in interesting ways. Heck, don’t let the inteligence screen even suggest how non-scanned players are even doing. The uncertainty of not knowing if you are competative or not is another fun(??) level of stress.
However, clearly out of game comms are pretty much impossible to enforce. Heck, if there was a “Silent” galaxy, players could still communicate on this very forum.
To make it really, really fair, I suppose a lot of work would have to go into the back end. Player names would not be visible even on scanner contact until the players successfully talked to each other. Perhaps the actual colors would have to appear differently to each player (player 1 sees player 2 as a blue diamond, while player 3 sees player 2 as a yellow circle). That, added to a dark galaxy, would make it more difficult (but still not impossible) for out of game plotting. It might be an interesting experiment; but I doubt it would be popular, and therefor the cost:benefit ratio would not be encouraging.
Still…
I previously suggested limiting communications in this very thread. The added suggestion that we don’t see any player names until they are scanned is a good idea, too.
1 Like
The leader board in the emails and in game would only show you and those in scan range and would list their in overall game ranking.
I think some scrambling could do the trick for balancing the scanned-communication. If each player sees different colors, shapes, alias, carrier names and star names, it would be very difficult in a dark galaxy to determine if two players have one common neighbor (so they know their relative position or can combine an attack on two different fronts), even if they exchanged info outside the game. They would only be able to determine each other when they see one another, and even that would be poorly at first, unless of course they send a message in-game.
1 Like
Another option for showing intel would be to list the ranking of the players instead of the actual numbers. If they are in 3rd place for the most ships, their ranking would be 3 for the most ships. If you look at someone else’s weapons level, it would look like rank 5 for weapons level instead of saying weapons 13. This will help hide some of the data that players see while letting players still be able to compare their empire to other players. It would give a general idea on the ranking instead of an exact number. I also think the total infrastructure a player has should be completely hidden. Players should still be able to see the infrastructure on stars that are within scanning range. Anything outside of scanning range should have all data except the number of stars that player has completely hidden.
1 Like
First, I think the “trade with scanned players only” option is great … but I think it needs a very minor tweak … or actually alliance requests do.
I haven’t played in a while, so I forgot that the restrictions on trading affects both tech AND cash. While I agree with that limitation, this causes a “problem” because normally when players align, they split the cost of the $150 alliance. So what happens is the person who initiates the alliance request ends up being out $150 … since the recipient can not send them $75.
I think the “right” solution to address this issue is when someone makes an alliance request, they pony up half the cost ($75) and the recipient has to pay the remaining $75 to accept the request.
Or optionally, the sender can “chip in” as much (as presumably agreed upon), but the recipient has to make up the difference to reach $150.
1 Like
Expanding on @HULK s suggestion, maybe the alliance should still cost $150, but the requester can select how much of the full $150 they want to pay and the accepter has to pay the balance.
(Just reread hulks post and we have said the same thing)
I disagree. Having to pay the full amount puts a factor of trust on who asks the alliance. If they are going to split, the receiver can send cash before or after anyway. This is the same case of “secure trade” request. Nothing should be really secure in this game 
I agree that tech trades in normal games shouldn’t be secure, but I think alliances should be - it’s more integral to the type of game… plus $150 is a lot to get scammed out of if someone was BS-ing you, (not to mention a really low & dirty trick).
I think an escrow style system would work best - the alliance initiator makes the request and $75 gets taken from their account, but only properly deducted when the other member accepts the alliance (at which point they’re also charged). If the 2nd player does not accept the alliance request after 24 hours (or whatever) then the initiator gets his/her money back.
1 Like
I may not have explained it well, but with the current situation, the receiver can NOT send cash … either before or after. I.e. the sender bears the entire cost. That’s a bit onerous/unfair IMHO.
I do agree that things should not be “secure” in this game - once you make the request, your mulu is gone. But I think you should be able to make the request with as little as a dollar … and then it is up to the receiver to chip in the difference to accept.
Mulu? I thought it was “moolah”? 
I would go on the opposite direction: if you don’t have scanner range to trade techs or send money, you shouldn’t be able to make formal alliance.
3 Likes
Yeah, I’d agree. A formal alliance is primarily about securing a border. Why would you make a formal alliance with someone you can’t see if not just to share scanning (which I don’t think should be the reason for a formal alliance)?
Also, I think a secure payment for a formal alliance is silly. If you don’t trust someone to send you back the money, or don’t want to risk it - just don’t ask for a formal alliance.
2 Likes
I agree with you guys, I think if scanned trade is on you should only be able to enter formal alliances with players you can see.
I probably would not want to change this until we have proper support for team games, but after that I think I will change it.
2 Likes
Bumping my comment from above as I think a good idea.
I think a very BAD idea to only allow alliances with players you can see.
1 Like