Alliance size
 

With ever decreasing player base, is 60 alliance size to large?

Re: Alliance size
 

Enough planets to create 11.5 full alliances with 60 members limit. Decreasing the limit would increase the cap between "pro" and "the rest" alliances, IMHO. And tbf, we'd prolly just fill 2 tags where both compete, but on the same side, same would prolly happen with CT/Ult/FL(/p3n) as well, the communities are quite tightly knit and would prefer to stay together even if the limit was lowered. OR if not 2 tags, just leave the extra OOT and BP them into forts. 50 might be possible, but definitely nothing below that should even be discussed atm.

Re: Alliance size
 

I do not agree with Noxious for reasons previously stated. I would actually like a drastically different round where tag sizes are halved...even if it is a speed round.

I have been campaigning for reduced tag sizes for 5/6 rounds now. You wont ever get the admins to listen. They are both proud and ignorant and never provide an argument to support it. They just say, for reasons previously stated they wont do it. Well I've never seen their reasons. Personally, I believe it's just their motive to sit on their asses and continue doing nothing but allowing the game to drift to a point of no return. They get their free money, they do nothing, they are happy

Re: Alliance size
 

There's no point voicing your argument on the forums. The Admins don't read it. Your best bet is to get a representivie from your alliance into #alliances because Admins do discuss ideas with you in there.

Re: Alliance size
 

A post I made a couple of months back on this is copied below. I agree we should reduce.

--

You're fundamentally missing the point that by shrinking tag sizes it would change the dynamics of alliances. There wouldn't be a 15 on 1 situation with all the old larger tags teaming on 30 planets. There would never be the need for it. Every alliance would have it's own agenda.

This round, there's under 750 planets. That's shocking, and although it's a summer round, it's still terrible. This game needs to be turned on it's head and seen as a growth opportunity, not as a means to satisfy the few that remain who are entrenched in tags they don't want to leave (me included).

And how do you build a business? By adding new users. And how do you add new users? You create a positive user experience, you find ways to do marketing cheaply and encourage your existing user base to spread the word.

Most of us started playing Planetarion when it was borderline complete embarrassment to tell people you played a game on the internet. Now, you sit on the train to work in the morning and you see 50% of people playing games. Yet PA is decreasing in players. That's an ugly fact. Real ugly.

So my question (and challenge) is, what's the worst that could happen by giving it a go? Or, do we play another round of Best Alliance vs 2/3 Other Alliances with 2 or 3 alliances sticking their oars in along the way whilst PA team take revenue from the 300 planets that bother upgrading? If it flops, you revert back to 60 man tags and play Initarion again.

Re: Alliance size
 

Players of this game dont want more competition.
Everyone seek to only attack and only get incs that one can cover.
If tag limit was lowered further, it would perhaps mean the death sentence for alliances like HR/ND/BowS.
I want tag limits to be raised to 80 planets.

Re: Alliance size
 

Raising the limits to 80+ might also mean death for the smaller alliances as the "bigger" alliances would fill up from the (possibly) better parts of their members.

Re: Alliance size
 

These tags can barely make it to 50 members, so they are probably not the best example to use.

I don't understand your logic behind this. How will raising the tag limit to 80 improve the gaming experience? All it will do is promote one dominant tag (possible two).

The current 60 limit is manageable when smaller alliances are experiencing heavy hostilities from the larger tags, but 80 is a significant difference to 60.

Raising the limit to 80+ will mean less alliances, which is not what the game needs. It needs more tags.

Re: Alliance size
 

Butcher seems to think just two competing tags would be an enjoyable game. He is wrong and its pointless using logic with him on this subject

Re: Alliance size
 

Why don't all alliances have a full tag of "pro" players then? Because they want to help less active players, or just to fill out the ranks?

As it stands most alliances are napping each other anyway, and each alliance is left with 1-2 other alliances to attack.

I think 40 is perfect in the current conditions, there "were" around 500 out of the 700 players in an alliance, which gives around 12 potential alliances.

I think while short term, alliance NAPs will be common, due to the usual drama within alliances and members, splits will become common.

Perhaps add a feature that reduces XP (or roid cap based on alliance vs alliance roids) each time you hit alliance, so you must move onto another alliance to get the most profit.

Re: Alliance size
 

BowS is a alliance wich exist cus we have players who enjoy playing with each other(mostly).
The new meta in this game is having troll tags, seeing tags such as HODORS/Asc/Norse/Ultores mainly marketing themself as "troll tags" makes it harder to have a mid tier alliance. Not only do you have to make sure the top dosnt fence it out and roid you, but you also have to fetch of those tags that have no other agenda than trying to FC/SK your planets just because they think it is "fun".
Seeing how Ultores made this round a "personal vendetta" vs CT, realy shows how fragile the balance is with tag limits. Gathering 40-50 people to play for troll seems to be harder than gatherign 40-50 to play the game how its traditionaly being played?
Ofc im just viewing Asc/Ult/Norse/HODORS as a outsider, and im not realy sure how they function.

Re: Alliance size
 

Tag limits bad!
Tag limits good!
Bad!
Good!
No, bad!
No, good!

/thread

Re: Alliance size
 

no, bad!

Re: Alliance size
 

Re: Alliance size
 

FFS!

Not this again!

(Please, please, please read the 70 million* threads on this subject and then give it a rest).

* Slight exaggeration.

Re: Alliance size
 

So if somethings been mentioned before, we cant mention it again?

Re: Alliance size
 

Not when it's been done to death as often as this subject has.

On the other hand if, after reading all the previous threads, you can think of something new to say that would be acceptable (and amazing).

Re: Alliance size
 

I read the thread your posted a link to Arc...and tbh it's outdated. A lot of the arguments dont really apply and the numbers have shrunk significantly since the last post was made.

Re: Alliance size
 

Today its 535 planets in real tags.

Average 45-47 620ish.

15 rounds ago when the normal cap was decreased drasticly(80>60) it was 610.
Average 48-50 610ish.

10 rounds ago it was 515.
8 rounds ago when it was last increased(60>65) 575.
5 rounds ago 525.
Last round 532.
To me it looks like there is no proof of a signifcantly shrinkage in the playerbase.

Re: Alliance size
 

I would love to see the numbers for every round since 15 rounds ago, and indeed where you are getting your figures - because those don't seem accurate to me.

Re: Alliance size
 

http://beta.planetarion.com/history/history.php

Just go there, open up a calc, and start adding it up.

Re: Alliance size
 

Data!

These numbers only include 'real' alliances, which I arbitrarily defined as those with 40 or more members. The ally limit is the upper limit. Counting limits are not included in my spreadsheet.

Graph. Ally limit charted on the right axis, the total player and alliance player numbers on the left one.

Re: Alliance size
 

These type of numbers are based on 40+ player alliances wich almost rules out bows/nd + HR.
Tags like Terra, Norse, HR, GBP, and Cobra have(had) active players too, and HODORS/Asc also have active players in thatvsense they dont get idle deleted.

Re: Alliance size
 

It looks as though your data was incorrect BB. I was hoping Mzy would come in with something like this.

The chart also shows a decrease in the number of planets in an ally and 40man+ tags.

This therefore supports the notion that lower tag limits is what people want

Re: Alliance size
 

Also to note, those alliances you mention in your above post have generally only recently been formed. These players have been playing in other bigger alliances with 40+ members

Re: Alliance size
 

Those numbers have always excluded some small alliances. Nothing new there. I intentionally use a fixed limit to take out any bias that I might bring to the party. That means sometimes a 39 member alliance gets 'unfairly' excluded, but these numbers are not meant to be 100% accurate every single round. They're meant to be accurate over the long haul, when you smooth them out.

Ouch. That hurts. :(

The numbers I posted don't support the notion that people want to be in smaller tags. The number of 40+ tags has been roughly stable for 12 rounds, as has the number of people in 40+ tags. And even if people did want to be in smaller tags, that's not the same as wanting a lower tag limit.

Re: Alliance size
 

Most small tags this round are active.
Just because. Asc/HODORS/Terra/GBP/HODORS decided to split together in smaller/bigger enteties dosnt mean the playerbase is smaller

Re: Alliance size
 

Me: "These numbers are not 100% accurate every single round."

You: "These numbers are not 100% accurate every single round!"

Re: Alliance size
 

Personal opinion but I believe tag limit makes 0 difference to the number of people playing PA, nor the dynamics of the game itself.

Sweeping statement over.

Re: Alliance size
 

There's one good argument in favour of lowering tag limits, in my opinion: with more alliances, politics becomes more fluid, and the chance of an uberblock appearing are reduced. A block of 4 30-man alliances is less stable than a block of 2 60-man alliances.

Re: Alliance size
 

Exactly. That's my main argument also

Re: Alliance size
 

You had a alliance two rounds running, what dynamics did you bring to the game, beside from "bottom feeding"?

Re: Alliance size
 

I had? I wasn't a HC. Every time i tried to make a decision they went in another direction and took over. Then every time we tried to hit one of the big allies, we got gang banged with Rainbows in tow.

Look at your own ally and stop making excuses to not drop tag limit you failtard.

This contributed to Rogues folding btw. One new alliance isn't enough to change politics dynamics in the current state. Look at inferno. Every round same alliances.

Ct hit ult
Ct and bf avoid each other
P3n and Ult avoid each other
Fl fort and bottom feed then fold under duress when one on one with anyone so nap whoever they can to avoid incs

You need more than one new alliance to change the scope of politics and thats what reducing the tag size limit significantly forces

Re: Alliance size
 

Im sure every alliance out there will say that if there is something BowS is not, its a bottom feeding alliance.
Out usual enemies has been BF and p3guins, and most recently Rogues.
Rogues had a chance to prove to the PA community they could be a alliance that would fight the good fight for a more exciting games, and im sure the smaller alliance right next to bows will feel that the only thing you achieved was to troll all the smaller tags to show them that you could ruin their round.
If you have no interest in running a alliance, then stay away from trying to stop other people wanting to run them.

Re: Alliance size
 

Ah, you speak of things you know nothing of. Classic Butcher.

I would happily run an alliance of 30 members, as previously stated. If tag sizes were reduced significantly/split in half, I would happily run one using the in game tools. It's all you need to be competitive. And it wouldn't be a "troll tag", which is not what Rogues was nor what I signed up for.

Yes there were certain members and HC's who enjoyed sk'ing people to the hills, but at the end of the day Rogues was no better or stronger than Rainbows really.

I don't know why you're singling me out on this, when as previously mentioned I had no say in how it was run or the decisions. I came up with ship strategies which were changed mid round, I was asked to talk to alliances, then the HCs decided to hit the alliances (e.g. BF at round end) which made me look stupid.

It got to the point where I was so sick of the way Rogues was being run that I actually just started to talk to other alliance HC's off my own back to improve relations because there seemed to be little or no dialogue with other alliances once Reaper stepped down as politics man. You can ask Tommy about this if you don't believe me, because I did actually speak to him in pm and my intentions were quite genuine. I'm pretty straight with people

Your post makes no real sense. How am I deterring people from trying to run them? They need to change the limits to enable new tags to survive in the first place or at least give them the recovery time after being hit by these blocks. You cant do that without political flexibility.

Re: Alliance size
 

Also, stop making this about Bows. Honestly, who cares. I feel like you talk like this to feel some kind of self fulfillment because you have so many issues that Bows is the way for you to feel that sense of importance that you so crave.

I care about the game, and I use logic or truth to support it.

Re: Alliance size
 

You want to change some of the basic principles of the game for your own gains.
Alliances like Rogues/Inferno/Asc of last round/ODDR/DeadSoliders/The Fallen/insert name has come and gone for the last 15 rounds, and often failed to establish themself due to what you just explained, internal disagrements.
PA has always been based on numbers, and dedication, going against the nature of the game will kill it completely.
What would stop me from doing a Ultores, and gather 20-30 people to troll Clouds tag for no good reason if tag limits was 20-30?
Look at HODORs/Asc/Norse this round, and imagine the effect they would have if tag limits were 30-40?
Go ahead and start your own tag with 30 people, and have it running for more than 2 rounds, without having multies/scan planets this time, and come back and tell us of your experince.
Untill you got any experince at all running a alliance, the forum mods should just delete all your post in the suggestion forums concerning stuff like tag limits.

Re: Alliance size
 

Butchers tabid fanatacism is reaching religious levels; no surprise that his ability to be logical and makes sense goes out the window at the same time.

The very few arguments youve made about lower tag limits are nonsensical; all the stuff about trolling is already happening in-game with these limits, and theres no evidence or logic to suggest it would get worse with smaller limits. In fact, as smaller limits lower the entry barrier to run a stable competitive alliance, the opposite would probably happen. Drone on.

Re: Alliance size
 

Just so this is documented into the forum history for all eternity:

The only reason p3ng have attack bows is due to bows own doing. Infact I would go as far as saying the only person who ever wanted to hit and war p3ng is butcher as no one else in his alliance can understand why he makes the decisions he does. I've protected bows a number of times from bigger alliances wanting to feed off you but then butcher comes riding in on his rainbows tricycle and completely shafts his own alliance whilst trying to convince them otherwise.

Bows would be a much better alliance without butcher running anything and it functioned way better without him involved than it has with him.

Re: Alliance size
 

As said before, with smaller tag limit it would be close to impossibole for a alliance to fetch off troll tags.
If BowS and say BF/CT/FL had 30-40 members each, bows couldve stopped any of those allies from winning alone basicly.
There is a illusion that there ever was gonna more than 4 alliances ever being in the race for #1 most rounds.

If you cant adapt to play with people who you dislike, you are doomed to fail.
if you dont have enough people to fill a 60 man tag, then you actualy have to go look for them.
If you cant controll 60 members, then put more time into the game.
If you cant work with people who is looking to run your alliance in a direction you dont agree with, either replace them with people who you agree with or learn to become a follower.

Guess what? The alliances like CT/BF/Ult is run by people who put a lot of time and energy into actualy running their alliance round after round. And these people often have disagrements over political moves, race strats, and many other subjects. But they are often teamplayers who know they wont always get their way, so they manage this.

Re: Alliance size
 

For the upteenth time...not my alliance. I do have experience. I pretty much help out and get involved whatever alliance Im in - be it strat deciding, bc'ing, dc'ing, talking to other alllies. Thats all the experience you need.

And they have also nerfed mili centres to the point where troll tags aren't competitive at all at the current limits so your argument is once again void. Its just another reason to welcome a lower alliance limit to give a different game dynamic to think about.

Re: Alliance size
 

Trolltags aint suppose to be competetive, they are built mostly to ruin for people looking to be competetive. Just like Ult vs CT this round.

And if BCing/DCing/strat coordination was all you needed to create a stable alliance runnibg for rounds, why is it so typical for alliance to only last 1-2 rounds?

Vikings, Spore, Innuendo, Apprime, FAnG, ROCK, xVx, TheFallen, Innsomnia, Immortals, ODDR, Inferno, Rogues, 13 alliances gone the last 10 rounds? Why is this?

Re: Alliance size
 

How many times...

Because the current limits cant allow them to be competitive. If they set up to be a fun or training alliance then they could. But they weren't.

Re: Alliance size
 

I meant competitive for planet rankings, rather than alliance rankings relating to troll tags or MC based play in particular

Re: Alliance size
 

Re: Alliance size
 

:d

Re: Alliance size
 

My main reason for not wanting to run spore (and why im fast getting fed up with this game), is the lack of people willing to fight for a win.

The attitude isnt to try and win from MOST players, it is 'we cant win so we will stop you winning'.

If you win a war, then it doesnt help at all cause then that tag does nothing but fc you till end, or keep hitting you. Not to win themselves, but to stop you winning.

Add in the troll tags 'we are playing for our enjoyment not yours' or 'we will lolwave cause you hit one of our planets' and there really is no hope for pa.

PA is dead and wont ever see proper success again, and the blame falls squarely at the feet of the attitudes of the players.

This genuinally is my last round (yeah I know ive said it before but ive had a big promotion and training which will make it impossible to even try and play) and I wont miss it one little bit.

Re: Alliance size
 

I think you misunderstand why trolltags as you call it FC. 98% of the time we only retal our incomming. But when a full tag ally hits us we can't retal all inc, so how can we try to keep them away? We try to FC them. If you don't hit us, then fine ,95% of your alliance will avoid incs from us. Hit us and we'll hit you.

I myself, at least, don't play to ruin peoples round, but I don't have time to DC at nights, getting called at night or have my alarm om to send def. We play like we do because it's more casual. We send def if we can, but nobody gets up to def. If we got a chance to have a player in the winning gal we'll try that, if we have the possibility to have #1 planet we'll do that. We ended up with #1 roids and #1 avg score, which is some kind of achievment.

Lack of time is also the reason for large waves, ppl don't have time looking for targets, pick out 6-8 planets and just tell ppl where to send, and you know you can land most. I don't think 3-5 planets hitting one planet is a lolwave, but that's me. And this is what we've done most round. This makes it possible to play for more ppl. Most of us started playing when we where 15 and now we're having more commitment so we can't spend all day and night playing PA.

Of course if you make a big deal out of getting hit it gets fun and enjoyable for ppl :) You say you won't have time to play anymore, that's why trolltags work. It doesn't take up much time.

But don't blame the trolltags for ruining the game, top planets gets hit because they are at the top, that's what make them good targets.

Re: Alliance size
 

It turns out that a lot of people think that fighting for the win is not actually as great as you do, Forest. Waking up at ungodly hours to defend, planning your life around checking the game at specific hours, interrupting your work day to run into a bathroom with your phone to respond to someone's inane requests... for many players, that's a 'thanks, but no thanks'. Certainly not everyone, maybe not even a majority of the current player base (which is heavily selection-biased in favour of no-lifers), but definitely a more than a handful of people.

Still, this game plays a big part in our lives, no matter how much we like to hate on it. If you want to keep in touch with the friends you met through the game, the best way to do that is by having a planet and being in their alliance, even if you don't actively play. Once you have a planet, but no real interest to invest the time and effort necessary to perform well, it's natural to engage in lolwaves. The mechanics of lolwaves dictate that only one in of twenty or so people needs to do anything (the BC), so it's perfect for alliances with member bases that have lost interest in high effort strategies. Just launch when and where the BC tells you to, and check (4-6)-(7-9) hours later if you need to recall. And even if you forget to check, whatever, it's not like it's very important.

Your claim that lolwaving hurts the game in the long term could be valid, though it's hard to tell without any numbers. Trolling keeps people at least somewhat interested in the game, but they also chase players away. We don't have data on which group is bigger: the trolls or the quitters. Orthogonal to that, it's definitely possible that they make the atmosphere of the game worse. Quality vs. quantity. Then again, it's not like PA was ever unicorns and teddy bears to begin with.

Anyway, even if we assume you're right (and at a guess, I think you are), you're misplacing your blame. It is up to the game designers to create an environment in which players can have enjoyable experiences. If players are incentivised to act in ways that reduce the amount of enjoyment other people can derive from it, by whatever mechanism, in-game or outside of it, physically, mechanically, psychologically, whatever, then that's 100% the game designers' fault. They should've created a game in which players are given incentives to behave in ways that make the experience for everyone better. That's their job description.

If you're interested in this sort of thing, check out some of the things Riot Games and other multiplayer game publishers are doing to foster a healthy and enjoyable environment for their customers.

Re: Alliance size
 

I'm not going to bother trotting out all the reasons why the "smaller tags would be great" faction is wrong. Please read the earlier threads for that.

However, I'll remind you of two of them:
1/ Who is going to run (all) these new alliances that you think will magically appear when tag sizes are reduced?
2/ What happens to the (suddenly) "surplus to requirement" players from the existing alliances? Bear in mind that these will not be the keenest or most active players in those alliances.

When you can provide credible answers to those questions please resume your call for tag sizes to be reduced. Until then, please, for the love of God, give it a rest.