Re: R72 discussion thread
 

Tbh It is like the fkin news

PAthetic propoganda morons

Everyone fight

if Ult get fat hit until they aint fat. don't do a tick 999999 deal with anyone

if App get fat, hit app, if BF get fat him them

it fkin war game

whoever wars the most should win - damage dealt & value saved :banana::banana::banana::banana:

let's have a fight

Re: R72 discussion thread
 

You are not going to have a war at this stage unless you're absolutely confident of blowing your opponent out the water this early. Hits to growth at this stage are still quite damaging to your long term prospects.

Re: R72 discussion thread
 

If it's a war game why is it viable to play and rank well (even win) without seeing any combat??

Re: R72 discussion thread
 

Talk is cheap.

Re: R72 discussion thread
 

gimme ur coords and ill come at u with all i've got :devil:

Re: R72 discussion thread
 

well, any war is made of decisions and politics, sometimes it counts a way more then army or firepower. And sometimes, if u tell ppl "i have a nuke" no1 will mess with u, making u win without any combat!

but thats a newb point of view =)

Re: R72 discussion thread
 

come at me bro

Re: R72 discussion thread
 

So looks like FAnG is merging into the kittenz support tag.
Does this make KittenZ 120 planets? and what will the new name be? Furious KittyCatz next Generation?

Re: R72 discussion thread
 

How is 60 + 40 120?

Re: R72 discussion thread
 

Your right, i was just assuming that those 20 planets that was kicked/left has nothing to do with the merger limit on 40 total planets.
Your quick eksero, no wonder you always winning

Re: R72 discussion thread
 

You know what they say

Re: R72 discussion thread
 

Support?

Re: R72 discussion thread
 

Omg

Irvine gonna win this round!!!!

Re: R72 discussion thread
 

What, isnt it a KittenZ support tag? :rolleyes:

Re: R72 discussion thread
 

It's only a measure to counter ND and it's support tag.... CT!

Re: R72 discussion thread
 

look as if Irvine would ever be a support tag get serious and Catz was never a sup tag was an extension of Kittenz just i couldnt be arsed with the extra work so they joined with Fang so both smaller tags could have a more enjoyable round enough said on the matter

Re: R72 discussion thread
 

duck extension, like a nice car or a big dog!

Re: R72 discussion thread
 

So if an alliance decides to declare war on Fang/Catz, will it be a straight war, or will kittenz miraculously decide to get involved?

#askingforafriend

Re: R72 discussion thread
 

Would be more interesting to hear if FAnG/CatZ would ever hit KittenZ, but i guess that aint possibole seeing they are allied ingame anyways.
But as Demort said CatZ = KittenZ

Re: R72 discussion thread
 

Does it matter? Combined they're still smaller than any block I've ever heard of...

Re: R72 discussion thread
 

Least I'm still bringing players to pa Kittenz has recruited more people to pa in the last 2 rounds then every ally combined still playing pa in last 10 we thought we try get friends to give it ago and some oldies giving it another chance

Re: R72 discussion thread
 

On top of that chimpie is right if we classed as block its a small one compared to previous rounds but we have different politics but yes to your earlier question butcher you touch fang I'll come for you I'll openly state that we allied I wouldn't be a good ally if I didn't

Re: R72 discussion thread
 

So the blame go on kitten now??
Seriously???

Re: R72 discussion thread
 

The tag sizes are far too small to encourage alliances to recruit old/new players to PA.
Its about time they increase the tag limits so most other alliances can compete numberwise with KittenZ/Ultores.

Re: R72 discussion thread
 

Or alternatively other tags should suck less so that people might consider joining them?

Re: R72 discussion thread
 

Even a team of Brazilians can be moulded into a highly efficient force with the right hc team. Unfortunately this is what most have been missing for a long time.

More effort put into your communities ability and the less put into backstabbing will get better results

Re: R72 discussion thread
 

Point being that most alliances wont bother putting up a "support" tag, its kinda silly if its 3-4 tags that have recruited beyond the 60 man limit, why not increase the limit to 80?
Its 7 tags thats more or less full, this is silly.
Go look at the PA history page from earlier rounds, wich round had 7 tags that was 90-100% full?

Re: R72 discussion thread
 

80 isnt enough, it needs to be 120. There are thousands of people that want to play but won't because they cant fit in the current lineup of Planetarion alliances.

Re: R72 discussion thread
 

There have never been as few alliances as there are now. The long term trend decreases by about 10% every 10 rounds. The number of alliance members has gone down about 16% every 10 rounds. The data:

(As always, my definition of 'alliance' is a tag with >= 40 players at round end and my definition of 'alliance member' is anyone in such a tag. I've corrected for higher player numbers in free rounds by taking the average of the number of alliance members from the round before and after.)

Re: R72 discussion thread
 

So after(r47?) they lowered the tag limits, the alliance member numbers dropped?
This round atm is 643 that is either part of a 40+ tag, or part of a support tag connected to a 40+ tag.

Re: R72 discussion thread
 

Oops, didn't notice that, even though that's right there in the spreadsheet. Anyway, no, I don't see a clear deviation from the long-term trend when the tag limits were reduced after r47:
Yes, the numbers go down, but they're always going down.

[edit] Whoa. Another look at the numbers in my previous post shows they were completely wrong. I have no idea how that happened. Fixed:

You're changing the definition to fit your narrative.

Re: R72 discussion thread
 

Just put the max member limit to infinite and lets see how many alliances there are that will/can compete.

Re: R72 discussion thread
 

1. The tag that is made up of app Ult and bf etc.

You can put 1000 people in the other side from p3n, CT, ND (the Ult haters) and they would still lose cos when it comes to the crunch they aren't active or coordinated enough.

At least as it is now the cap prevents a totally lopsided contest and politics actually means something. In a game of 2 huge alliances politics is irrelevant. Either nap and the more active team wins or war and the more active team wins.

Re: R72 discussion thread
 

isn't it pretty much the same now? NAP and bottomfeed and see who wins, or WAR and see who wins?

Re: R72 discussion thread
 

Yes and no. Because the more intricate politics of multiple alliances can create scenarios where better players are isolated and massively outnumbered.

For example say BF were winning and CT created a 3 ally block of themselves pen and ND to war them. Now either kittenz could come to the rescue of bf or join cts bandwagon for cheap rocks. There is many permutations that keep the playing field reasonably level.

If you went down the route of 2 or 3 super size alliances then you will end up with most of the better alliances players in the top100 and opponents corpses in the 150>

There will be no choices to make like what I said there is now because kittenz and bf would be the same alliance .

Re: R72 discussion thread
 

pssh, those aren't permutations, those are what will happen in any case. Whoever is winning gets hit by whoever doesn't want them to win and others join on the fight for easy rocks (no matter the sides). same would happen with 2-3 alliances, one hits another and the third tries to benefit.

Re: R72 discussion thread
 

But potentially with no limit on tags you don't have 3. You just have alliance A and alliance B. And even more so you could end up with just alliance A and no one else.

Re: R72 discussion thread
 

Nobody is saying "no limits on tags".
So if we had one or two less 40 planet tags, would it hurt how the games play out?
Alliances like CT/VGN/BowS is not very diffrent from each other now days, if one of em disapeared it wouldnt hurt the game imho.

Re: R72 discussion thread
 

That's what they said when we had 10k players.....

I don't get your fascination with getting rid of some of the tags. A lot of the tags are communities that want to stay together and independent. They enjoy playing their way.
I wonder if your theory is that less tags means less competition for bows and more chance of finishing t5 :)

Re: R72 discussion thread
 

Of course, PA politice sucks. But do you think there's absolutely no way it could become worse? That there is no way to tweak the game mechanics in such a way as to make PA politics even shittier than it already is? Because unless you believe we live in the worst possible world already, you must acknowledge that things like galaxy sizes, late starters, XP and ship stats can at least influence how alliances choose to behave. And tag limits, too.

When do you think PA politics will be worst, and when will it be best: when there's 2 240-man alliances, 4 120-man alliances, or 8 60-man alliances?