A Suggestion
 

You gain xx% more roids if you land on someone belonging to the alliance above you in the rankings. Call it "battle tension" or "thirst for victory" or whatever.

Re: A Suggestion
 

The rankings are not always an accurate representation of how alliance power is divided. If the #1 alliance is opposed by a block 2 or 3 or 5 times its value and roids, why should that block be granted a better chance of attacking it?

Re: A Suggestion
 

Only the 2nd-placed alliance (if they are in the block at all) would get the bonus roids. Of course you are right in that it would slightly empower the block more.

However if the percentage is at a decent level, there is a good chance the 3rd placed alliance wouldn't be in the block with the 2nd; if they did that, they would be helping 2nd place widen the gap between themselves (as only 2nd would get the bonus).

It would make more sense for alliance 3 to hit alliance 2 and then they would also get the bonus, therefore making blocks not as valuable as before.


Edit: I would actually believe it would make politics even more interesting as well. Say you had a NAP with another alliance and suddenly you're right behind them in the rankings. Do you take the risk of breaking the NAP and gaining those extra roids to leapfrog?

Re: A Suggestion
 

Im no stranger to add some ingame feature that could make it easier to display alliance politics for the public. A cap gain on alliances u are at war with could be fun, though i dont see how this would effect the other problems the game is facing atm with fenced gals and etc.

Re: A Suggestion
 

I would be open to giving a +% to roids per land if you land on an ally that you are at war with, along with +% xp to go with it that would be a new interested mechanic.

Re: A Suggestion
 

Why would I ever accept being at war with anyone? And why would I ever decide not to be at war with everyone?

Re: A Suggestion
 

It would not allow your members to recive/give def from allies at war with, and it would work both ways.
And you cannot choose to decline being at war :)

Re: A Suggestion
 

Well, guess I'll be farming HR all round then.

Re: A Suggestion
 

Yeah, it would be tempting to go to war against the smaller tags, but then you could risk them supporting the other tags wanting to get you, it could be interesting

Re: A Suggestion
 

You could go into more depth with a "war" page. For example, if a 60 man ally wared a 20 man ally the 60 man ally would gain 10% less xp off of lands, or the 20 man ally could gain 10% more salvage.

If a 60 man ally warred another 60 man ally they could both gain 5% xp on lands but 5-10% less salvage so a longer war would make both weaker but bigger score.

To prevent warring the uni you could put harmful effects of warring more than 2 or 3 allies at a time. So if 1 ally is at war with 3, they gain a debuff which causes the whole ally to gain 5% less salvage or could cost the ally 10% more per scan.

It really isnt difficult to make a balance, but I think there should be a an area for a formal declaration of war that could benefit you or harm you depending how long it lasts. It would make politics more interesting, you could still nap everyone sure, but you will be missing out on some of the benefits.

My numbers are all random, we could figure out more agreeable terms.

Re: A Suggestion
 

Your suggestions about formal war bonuses are good and add to the game. However, the one problem with your suggestions are that you are putting the bonuses too much in the hands of the alliance as it were. You can decide who to war and who to get the bonus off, which may strengthen blocks and smaller-ally farming.

For my suggestion, the aim is to take the bonus out of the hands of the alliance. So saying, youll ONLY get your bonus if u hit THIS ally that is of similar size and count to you (with a good rationale of tension, like US vs USSR superpowers). This will shake up blocks and politics a lot more than if you simply swap from fighting A to B, in which case youd still get your bonus.

There's carrots and there are sticks. If you put control of the carrot in the hands of the people you're trying to tempt, it isn't really effective anymore :)

Re: A Suggestion
 

It is no such things at small alliances today.
Atleast this would give the fencers some more trouble.

Re: A Suggestion
 

why not just have the bonus much like max cap but compared with your respective alliance value. EG a +.5% bonus for every multiple your alliance is under the alliance you're attacking. EG. Ultores had most value last round so if faceless landed an attack on Ultores they would stand to gain around 3% more roids on their lands

Re: A Suggestion
 

So if a 30 man FaNG warred a 60 man HR which chances are would be a FaNG win in normal PA you are willing to give FaNG a bonus for doing it? Sound ****ed imo!!


IF the passport system had been properly put into place what we could have done is have players ranked (like a star system) on their finishes of the 5 previous rounds. For example someone like Armageddeon who is regularly a top 20 finisher would be a 5 star player. Someone like nelito who finishes top 200 at best would be a 2 star player** When joining an alliance all stars are added together giving your alliance a 'skill level' for that round. That skill level will determine what bonus you get in war against another alliance.

So for example in the above mentioned war FaNG (littered with t50 players) would have a 'skill level' close to or above that of HR (who's players are normally t200-300 finishers for the large part) therefore the war bonus for a small tag attacking a bigger tag would be negated in this instance.


** Maybe your star ranking could be based on your round progress and not just your final rank, so players dont crash out in last week to artifically drop their star ranking. IE if you were ranked 40th for 900 ticks and then crashed your way down to 400th then you would atleast achieve 3 stars for that round and not the 1 star awarded to a player ranked 400th. But not the 4 stars award to t50 finisher.

5* - Top 20
4* - Top 100
3* - 101-200
2* - 201-300
1* - 301-400
0* - 401-last

With an average taken to determine your overall star ranking.


Maybe as a side idea you could get a bonus star if your planet won Top Galaxy which would be added to your chosen alliance cumulitive score the following round, T3 planets also gain an extra star and winning alliance gains 20 stars automatically the next round.

Re: A Suggestion
 

It's would be entirely based on the combined value of the alliance. if your def is shit you deserve to lose roids

Re: A Suggestion
 

sign up every round with a new email address is the obvious way around your star system

Re: A Suggestion
 

Yes ofc, but everything is exploitable. Like people with multi accounts. I would like to think that having the passport which is basically a record of achievements would be something people would want to hold onto tho

EDIT: Also yes this could be done by a few, i think we all know the kind of player, but if its made a faff to do so then it might be off putting. Things like tying a paypal account to one PA account, making each account linked to people's PNick on iRC (i would like to see iRC accounts intergrated into PA passports anyway) so that you cant log into P if your PA account has a different email to what your PNick was registered with, or the ability of the PA Team/ MH Team to attribute the stars of a player to the alliance they are playing for if they find players have changed email addresses solely to avoid this.

People who are determined to get around this will regardless, look at multi's and other exploiters for examples. But they are a small number (10-20) at most and wont have a huge impact on things (the difference of 5-6 stars in an alliance wouldnt do anything of note)

Re: A Suggestion
 

Its a silly idea Kaiba, just stop it right there.
A formal war bonus would be good, cus it would get the fencing tags and the smaller tags to take action when they are being targetted instead of just going for easy roids all round long.

Re: A Suggestion
 

How is giving fang a roiding advantage over hr a better idea if they war???

Re: A Suggestion
 

It works both ways? Top alliances rarely wants to war alliances beside the ones they are competing against.

Re: A Suggestion
 

if its based on value then i dont see the problem, it wouldn't be bashing because it would only work if you were hitting up

Re: A Suggestion
 

Did something ive never done before. Read a whole thread with the page scrolled over so i couldnt see who posted anything, just what they posted. Was schocked to see after that Kaiba posted the thing about the stars, as i like that idea and truth be told, its no secret i think Kaiba is a bit of a muppet.

If a star system was introduced would it give rise to a new alliance structure.. Instead of a player limit cap you could have a star cap much the same as an nfl salary cap, forcing alliances to make tough decisions on who could be in tag and who couldn't. Do you go for a very small tag of all 5* players, a medium sized tag of some 5* player, a layer of 3*s and some 1* players, or a large tag with 1 or 2 flagships and lots of padding (1* / 2* support planets). You also could have a star cap on buddy packs / gals and hardcode it into the randomiser of the exile to determine which gals a person exiling can land in, to stop ppl jumping till they get that gal with their mates

Of course theres ways around any such system, have multiple tags, people switching nicks / email accounts etc. Normally i'd argue systems can be put in place to try and stop that but after reading what spinner would of done if he had got control back of the game (simplify signups to a one click affair) then i'd have to defer to that experience, he does this for a living i don't. Which is a shame as it could have been an interesting dynamic

Re: A Suggestion
 

I actually like Kiaba's Idea. Except I think it should be based on the PREVIOUS rounds final rankings, so it can change round to round. This ranking system should only effect Waring alliances, and something more along the lines of Increased or Decreased Roid Caps based on the Ranking differences.

Re: A Suggestion
 

It sounds nice in theory, but it would punish you for doing well.

Personally if I didn't end anywhere noteworthy (for me, that's top10), I'd just crash last day, as that would give me better chances next round and would be less of a burden to my alliance (if a 'star limit' were in effect).

Re: A Suggestion
 

Well there should be some reward for doing well with the system

Re: A Suggestion
 

Oh, I don't oppose the idea of awarding stars/badges/etc for achievements at all - I just don't think that doing well in one round should limit/hinder you in the next.