r66 - The Random One
It's not exactly scientific, but it's something.
Change is good, I'm tired of eating chicken. *This is by no means official, but hey let's get the ball rolling. **I'm an idiot, by the way. |
Re: r66 - The Random One
I didn't even know we could do polls. Neat.
Anyway, sure, why not. Give it a go for a round. |
Re: r66 - The Random One
Is this something that would 'actually' improve the game or is it something that would ultimately be detrimental.
I understand those that who are against BPs, those who hope to get big players in their galaxy to help them get a better rank, who don't like that there can be groups of players who when together are better than 90% of the playerbase but please think of the other side of the coin. Would some of these people play if they couldn't be together, how abusable is the exile system still? We have seen in the past from the shaz/dav etc gal that it's more than possible to sit idle for 500 ticks exiling into a gal together and then suddenly burst up the ranks. Gals like this would ultimately dominate in a full random round with no organised competitors. As someone who has gone random and who has forted I can safely say that overall forting is a vastly more enjoyable experience. Having a few players you can rely on for defence makes a massive difference when you get incs, hoping on randoms can make people give up quickly if you get the short end of the stick in shuffle. Also another point is would this lead to very mixed alliance galaxies? In the current environment of a small number of galaxies and alliances being extremely pissy over naps would we end up with no galaxies available to raid or galaxies that are only half raidable causing easy coverage and more disagreements on a galaxy level due to do not defend rules by alliances. Food for thought before you vote |
Re: r66 - The Random One
You fool, I already voted! HA!
|
Re: r66 - The Random One
I don't know what alliance Cochese is in btw but in my honest opinion this thread has the feel of 'ult forts and we need another way to curb their ability to play better than us'
|
Re: r66 - The Random One
According to Bram's data from this round, Ultores does not have a much bigger part of their members in forts than other alliances, and the bigger the forts, the smaller the difference.
|
Re: r66 - The Random One
Aye but there is a big difference between an Ult fort and a CT fort no?
|
Re: r66 - The Random One
Ah, I see. Fair point.
|
Re: r66 - The Random One
Quote:
I like the idea to have BP sizes of 2, and then random mix 2 BPs together, and keep the rest like it is today. |
Re: r66 - The Random One
I have voted for random galaxies but I believe that the exiling system must also be examined to avoid the "usual culprits" forming their "uber-galaxies" and "everyone else" being stuck with inactive players.
|
Re: r66 - The Random One
Quote:
And exiling 3 + whatevertheyareexilingatm sounds very costly? |
Re: r66 - The Random One
Quote:
In-game, Heroes...though totally inactive alliance-wise. I could care less about Ult or anyone else for that matter, I hate everyone equally. Simply an off-shoot from the other thread I linked in the OP after re-reading it and noticing a fair few replies were basically "I wouldn't mind a random round". Whiz bang, I threw this poll up for fun. |
Re: r66 - The Random One
I choose the write in option but I am fine with the random option.
I like the idea of 2 BP's and 2 of them coming together to form a galaxy. Means your with at least 1 other person that you can count on to cover you when you are asleep or give you last minute ships in galaxy. If its a random round I am fine with that but what I would like from the admins is a better system for gals to be disbanded or helping "unlucky" planets that end up in dead gals and the exile cost is very expensive. Maybe have the admins be proactive for the first X ticks (250 maybe) in disbanding/removing galaxies that are truly dead and forcing active planets to exile and inactive planets to end up in c200. I dont know how feasible that is but I know from previous rounds that some people left the game due to being in crappy gals and the exiling was just not working. Note I am talking about 5 people in the last 14 rounds so its not a huge number as far as I know. |
Re: r66 - The Random One
Quote:
|
Re: r66 - The Random One
Quote:
If we keep having private gals instead of the current system OR random gals, in the end it will only be you and your friends left :rolleyes: If we have 2-man BPs, atleast you wont be alone. |
Re: r66 - The Random One
Quote:
|
Re: r66 - The Random One
Quote:
|
Re: r66 - The Random One
Quote:
If that means sending fleets daily, or logging in daily, then im sure there will be very few inactive gals around. |
Re: r66 - The Random One
Quote:
|
Re: r66 - The Random One
For gods sake PA do something radical, something that brings about change instead of round after round of dwindling playerbase.
|
Re: r66 - The Random One
Quote:
|
Re: r66 - The Random One
Quote:
|
Re: r66 - The Random One
Quote:
|
Re: r66 - The Random One
Quote:
Quote:
Why is it silly to want to play with someone I know will be reliable? |
Re: r66 - The Random One
Quote:
Are you disagreeing that having more "mixed" galaxies makes the chance of new players staying bigger? |
Re: r66 - The Random One
Quote:
|
Re: r66 - The Random One
Quote:
|
Re: r66 - The Random One
Quote:
|
Re: r66 - The Random One
Quote:
What about relying on them to not die at base during incs? Or crash their fleets during attacks? |
Re: r66 - The Random One
Your friends being in your alliance but not your galaxy makes them do that?
|
Re: r66 - The Random One
Quote:
|
Re: r66 - The Random One
Quote:
And unless people agree that 2 + 2 bps + randoms is the way to go this will not resolve into anything. Another major issue is that we got no clue what so ever a change like this will do to the amount of BPs vs amount of randoms a change to BP will result in. Ive allready asked for this number from last round, but someone else should bug Appoco with this aswell. Also i think this expremient should be done at the same time as we have a 100% free round. |
Re: r66 - The Random One
Quote:
|
Re: r66 - The Random One
Quote:
|
Re: r66 - The Random One
You talk about evening the playing field but how does taking the ability to make a competitive galaxy do this?
There is a reasonable chance that in the 2+2 system that 4 decent players will be put together, if for example every Ult player was made to be in a 2 man bp there would be a few 4-5 man ult gals still. This would give the exiles a target to aim for. The problem is that galaxies which could rival these forts are no longer around because this system chucked together 2 great p3n players and 2 200 rank HRs meaning the round of the 2 great players is essentially over before it starts as they are relying purely on alliance cover and some randoms/lesser players whose activity/response can't be guaranteed. What will these great players do when handicapped so badly? Quit the round at tick 200? Play half active and damage their alliances overall 'power'? Yes in your liberal minds everyone is equal and full random or hold a hand 2 man bps is the answer but in reality putting square pegs in round holes does vastly more damage than good. 60% of the universe is mediocre at the game, 20% is useful, 15% is good and 5% is exceptional. Forcing exceptional players with mediocre ones only makes the mediocre ones better if they are interested in improving. Most aren't now and instead you kill the morale of the exceptional players. How about instead of this stupidity you raise BP limits to make properly competitive galaxies and capped exiles to 3 for the round. If people want to create an environment that makes the game enjoyable and competitive then why should they be stopped because someone else isn't good enough or interested enough to do the same. Instead of dragging them down to your level how about you get commited and get to theirs |
Re: r66 - The Random One
I voted for a random round, i am tired seeing the same gal theme's every round.
Also with random galaxies veterans might be motivated more to learn the game to the new players, instead of getting them roided by alliance members and exile them. |
Re: r66 - The Random One
Quote:
While a short random round could be fun, the exile/galaxy disband system will have to be overhauled so galaxies are not stuck with the litter of the band. Even in our current setup it's a huge pain if you don't end up with 3-4 decent randoms from pt12. Although the current bp system isn't perfect, at least you know almost 50% of your galaxy will be up to the task. There is mechanics in this game that force people to play 24/7 if you want to compete. If 2 randoms end up in a gal where 80% does not want to do this, their round is over. The only thing that will happen is, the galaxies that are lucky to get a decent set of players will run of, while a big group of experienced, active and willing players will be disappointed by the round and end up quitting or playing half-arsed In a perfect world, where you have 500 somewhat equally active players (not even talking about skill here), random galaxies would be our way forward. This is not the case, and the active community will suffer for it. Randomness in gaming is a bad thing when it influences your chance of success in comparison to your competition. We already have more then enough of this with the setup we currently have. |
Re: r66 - The Random One
I would love a change for a round.
Forcing people to play random for a round wont make them quit the game. I d like to see a random round every year or so, just to avoid all rounds being the same. |
Re: r66 - The Random One
Quote:
You dont chose who attacks you, your gal or your alliance. And yes you can end top10 in a inactive gal, saying you cant is silly. Working with less active or diffrent players has been a basic of this game since the very beginning. If you cant adapt you cant win. I would say lets bigger gals would increase the chances of everyone landing in a active gal, but it makes it harder for smaller tags to attack every gal out there |
Re: r66 - The Random One
Quote:
You believe it's based on luck because you are no good at it. The game is based on skill, activity and tactical/political nous. The more or better you are at these the better you place. Adding random galaxies just dilutes everyone's ability to play to their potential. Yeah vets can play with noob's but with the added pressure of only having ally def have these vets got time to teach? Probably not. Do the noobs wanna be taught? Probably not. Will you even be able to get them on irc? Probably not. Also please find the t10 finishers who played a full or even 2/3rds of a round in an inactive galaxy. Show your proof. And no 'scan links expire' is not an excuse you can use this time |
Re: r66 - The Random One
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
My preference in this is just for a change. This to me does not have to mean random galaxies, I would equally be happy with slotting together two bps of two, having very small galaxies (one bp of two) or even at a stretch I guess fully private galaxies! |
Re: r66 - The Random One
Quote:
Now, PA has tried for years to stop this from happening. Galaxy and self exiles have been made more expensive. Self-exiles take a random amount of time. The number of galaxy exiles has been sharply limited. The number of late signups has been reduced. None of these things have worked because we've always wanted it both ways. One, the ability to create above-average galaxies while barely coordinating ourselves. Two, to prevent people who coordinate flawlessly from creating of top-tier galaxies. Gotta pick one, people. |
Re: r66 - The Random One
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
A complicated system to spread out planets throughout the universe in a balanced way would be a big improvement, but sadly is not on the table because of time and cost involved. |
Re: r66 - The Random One
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
Re: r66 - The Random One
Quote:
It took well over 100 fleets the last day, and BF backstabbing him the last possibole tick to get him down from 3rd. This was his 2nd round playing, ever. And yes, he came into the game wanting to learn it, and yes we were able to get him on IRC. This game is based on activity, but there is a random luck factor in it. You cant decide what other planets/alliances does, the only thing you can controll is yourself. Sometimes you can get roided by 3 alliance at the same time, that is bad luck. This can happend everytime you have good roids, wich would make it even more bad luck. |
Re: r66 - The Random One
Quote:
Was your gal fully inactive the whole round? Once again it is not luck it's ability. If you are stupid enough to get too fat and not protect yourself that is bad play on your behalf. If you get hammered by 3 alliances then that is bad politics by your alliance. If the game was pure luck then the same people wouldn't take the top ranks in all areas every round, luck would mean different ppl occupy those slots. But they don't it's same faces round after round. At what point will you stop blaming luck or Lack there of on your inadequacies and actually admit you just aren't good enough |
Re: r66 - The Random One
Quote:
|
Re: r66 - The Random One
Quote:
It was a below average gal. Once again you cannot decide politics for other alliances, beliving you can avoid getting hit is non-sense. If that was the case ult wouldve changed politics HC long ago. Every alliance out there has daily raids, and all tags beside BowS/Ult last round sent out more hostile fleets than friendly fleets |
Re: r66 - The Random One
Quote:
Ults situation is purely a combination of jealousy and nothing to lose, the fact they still compete is down to politics tho plain and simple. As a final point stop putting bows in the same category as ult for anything it's just plain deception. Bows are also rans, like a diluted CT and your presence caused them more incommings and animosity than every other member they had combined. |
Re: r66 - The Random One
Quote:
I just thought of something else too. For 30+ rounds, we've been trying to prevent the concentration of skill, activity, availability, dedication, whatever you want to call it, in a handful of galaxies. We've done this because, well, well-oiled fortress galaxies are just so damn strong. The reasoning is, if only we could just make it so that people had a harder time creating virtual private galaxies, we can fix that! But that hasn't worked. We know people fort because they need to in order to perform well (that's important to us) and because they think it's fun (that's important to them). We try to stop them because we're trying to create a more level playing field, where less well-connected players have a better chance of doing well. But maybe we've been looking at this all wrong. Maybe, instead of trying to make it impossible for people to create forts, we should just make galaxy defense weaker. Increase ingal defense ETA by 1. Let the ekseros and arcs in this world play in galaxies together! If that's how they like to play the game, what do we care. Just as long as the rest of the universe doesn't have to suffer as a result (in comparison), that's fine with me. |
All times are GMT +1. The time now is 08:29. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.1
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2002 - 2018