Ally limits
 

Personally I believe the only way to keep the game going at the moment is to cut ally limits in half. Some of you will say that Ult will just create 2 seperate allies or w/e that's fine. Ct can do the same if they wish so could Haven or whoever else. After the first round with lower ally limits though they won't want to ride the coat tails of their joint ally as they will want to win if they lose. This will also make it to where you don't have much ally def which in turn you will have to rely on your galaxy more than you do now. Forting gals also wouldn't be seen as much as you would want your galaxies to be more diverse for cross defending and helping in wars.
This will also make it so smaller allies have a decent chance of defending themselves vs the bigger allies.

35 man allies would be awesome, with 32 members counting towards score leaving u 3 spots for scanners.

Re: Ally limits
 

Please, not this again and AGAIN.

It is a dead horse.

Re: Ally limits
 

tbh, still only way to save this game

Re: Ally limits
 

It's also a dead game.

Re: Ally limits
 

Don't know about most of you all but its been a long time since i enjoyed a round from tick start to end. Usually goes to half way point and you see a clear winner. Recently though its gone to tick 200 and its been everyone hit ult! I don't see how that's fun for anyone, its rather boring on either side imo.

Re: Ally limits
 

The most recent rounds have all been decided late on.

Re: Ally limits
 

It wouldn't change much...

The 35 best of Ult would beat the 35 best of any other ally any given day, and then we're back where we started

Re: Ally limits
 

That it is :(

Re: Ally limits
 

disagree eksero, in most allies its the deadweight like me that drags alliances down.

top 35 in all allies would be interesting!

Re: Ally limits
 

NO!
Dont start this thread again.
Id say the way to save the game is to remove limits!

Re: Ally limits
 

The only practical way to go your route is random shuffle of all players into one of two sanctioned alliances. It might work that way but I dont think it would be any easier to administer than simply creating many small alliances with a lower member cap.

Re: Ally limits
 

The 35 best in most allies wouldnt know how to defend. As from what ive seen most people on top have the most attk fleets and fewest def fleets.
Not to mention you would lose 105 def fleets if alliances got cut in half. So if you had just 2 gals targets in one night you would almost have to ground to defend it all.

Re: Ally limits
 

No? Why would that be the only practical way?
Remove the limits.
I dont understand how it can be more interesting playing with fewer friends than unlimited friends.
We dont want more elitism in planetarion.
Its not one full tag this round, why do we need to lower the limit again?

Re: Ally limits
 

Then try being in one of the smaller tags when there is already a high limit and then see it go unlimited. Why would they want to fight you and your unlimited friends? That's the most idiotic reasoning I've heard yet on why not to change limits, or in your case, raise them.

Re: Ally limits
 

Why dont they appoint some good recruitment officer if they feel like they are too short on numbers?
Or find another alliance who they can work together with, and hit that bad unlimited alliance?
I can see in the topic of 3/10 top alliances that recruitment is closed, 2/10 saying that applications are being taken, and 5/10 not saying anything at all. No alliance is at the limit atm also!

Re: Ally limits
 

If one (or more) of the "top" alliances can't find anyone to DC incs now, how do we expect double the number of alliances to find DCs?

Once again I'll ask the question that stopped this discussion in its tracks on the last two occasions ..... will the people who are willing to set up and run ten new alliances (and are capable of doing so) please step forward?

/me waits patiently

No? What a surprise.

Re: Ally limits
 

i will amnion! me and 34 other slackers! SlackTastic, no tools, no webby, just pure unadulterated slackness!

Re: Ally limits
 

:)

Re: Ally limits
 

Maybe you could move away from that approach, and let people handle themselves? I'm sure people would be more than willing to :rolleyes:

Re: Ally limits
 

Why don't we just try it, as if we have something to lose. It's boring this way, we all know it, give it a shot....

Re: Ally limits
 

And like i said last time, i would be more than willing to, and i know for a fact i am not alone in this. Only reason i am not involved in one now is because it is no use to struggle along with 15-25 players so why would i commit my time to it? But hey at least we allready lost another 3 allies this round so we must be doing something right!

Re: Ally limits
 

That's two so far - and one of those was joking.

The reason I don't just let this drop is that it will be too late to do anything about it if it gets implemented.

Re: Ally limits
 

True, let's wait until there is noone left playing this game before we change anything about something that at least can be easily changed...

Re: Ally limits
 

You'll lose them far quicker by splitting up the few remaining groups and making half of them play in non-viable alliances.

Re: Ally limits
 

Over the last 36 rounds, I have yet to find any evidence that either dropping the limits or raising them has had any evidence on player numbers. I have said so repeatedly, but then again, who ever listens to anyone on PS, right?

Re: Ally limits
 

That's true (and I have listened). :)

I once asked (in yet another of the threads on this topic) what people thought was the absolute minimum number of members needed per alliance. I'd planned to extrapolate from this the number of people who would be needed to be active at peak times to ensure 24/7 coverage for all the new alliances. People didn't want to play that game either.

Re: Ally limits
 

Seconded, stop the useless thread pls, been onver this a tons of times, it's not even funny anymore

Re: Ally limits
 

1)No matter how many times you can crunch numbers on a topic you wont know for sure until you try it.
2)Unless PA is gaining in number of players currently there is no reason not to try this. Making the alliance smaller would encourage people to try to bring their friends in more imo. I know I would be more interested in talking to my friends about playing a game where the alliance is smaller rather than bigger where they are overwhelmed with people spamming channels and shit during peak times for incs. As well as people talking down to them cuz they build the wrong type of ship for the ally.
3)I personally along with other people that like smaller allies better are pretty much sick of playing to get fat then get farmed by big allies(As DLR isn't even playing currently). With smaller alliances 1 ally cant bash another and handle incs themselves from another ally. It would make wars not be as 1 sided as they are now as well as making them more fun imo.

But like I said if PA is growing and I don't know about it by all means don't change a thing!

And to Amnion, I would attempt to make an Ally with some DLR people if Grog didnt choose to come back.

Re: Ally limits
 

Excellent.

That's 1 HC for each of three new alliances - which is a much better response than we've had previously. :)

But I can't agree with the argument that we should try something just to see if it will work - especially as no one has come up with any rational explanation as to why it would improve the game.

(Sorry Remy, I'll stop now).

Re: Ally limits
 

You cant agree with the argument that we should try something new when something that we've been doing doesn't really bring new players to the game?....

That would mean you could also say:
Let's not try to explore the world because we don't if we will live.
Let's not try to create new things because we don't know if people would buy them.

The world as a whole functions on the basis of trial and error, to say you need a good argument to see if you should try to do something is retarded.

Show me your calculated prediction of the difference of lower ally limits compared to ally limits where they are at now. If thats what you want to go by, show the reason why allies should stay in the current numbers they are in.

Personally I can't think of any way to show that data without having past data available to compare it to. And you can't really take data from 5-10 years ago and use that and say it is viable now. Trends change with time.

Re: Ally limits
 

We've already covered all these points (many times) in the previous threads on this subject. In deference to Remy (and because I'm tired of repeating myself) I'll content myself with suggesting that you read them all. You might want to start with this one http://pirate.planetarion.com/showpo...&postcount=112 which was my last "serious" attempt to apply some rationale.

Re: Ally limits
 

You could of lead out with that link to start Amnion. I agree with some of your points as well. You would need HC's scanners BC's etc. I can't speak for Grog but I know many DLR that would take 16 of those people in to compete for a round. I left DLR because I wanted to actually compete for #1 ally #1 gal and #1 planet which is very difficult to do in DLR most rounds. Especially when wars end and truces are made and people focus on the fatty DLR planets for easy roids. I always like VGN as well, and if VGN decided to come back I would love to play there. I know people are out there that would step foward even if it meant me making my own ally and recruiting my friends to fill those difficult spots and taking in some of those members that are casted out of the top allies due to no room.

I do see your point your making though. Its possible it wouldn't work as well as I believe. But worst case scenario is it gets changed back after 1 round. The round where they decided to randomly limit the +times to your attk/def fleets...no one like that shit really so they changed it back and the game moved on.

I just dont see much interest in seeing the same 3 allies fight for #1 while 2 of them ally each other and bash 1 then stop and ally different one and bash the other and so on.

The alternative which I would say would also work is 1 more top alliance competing for #1 making 4 top allies instead of 3. So when wars start their could potentially be 2v2 every time to balance out the power houses in war and make it more interesting and not 1 sided. Which would take some of the mediocre allies with 50~ish members to merge with each other and become a competing alliances instead of a go to ally when help is needed.

Re: Ally limits
 

just for record before round started haven was actually 2 alliances my group and santacruz group we both had officers and members if there was smaller tags we could easily split back into our former groups would mean my officers would actually have to do some work unlike this round where its been santacruz his boys and me doing the work and my guys slacking it off naming no names hehe

to be honest there is plenty of people out there who could run and would run smaller tags they just dont read these forums thats why they dont step forward id welcome smaller tags to be honest would make things interesting

and before anyone says anything about punctuation ive just finished work im shattered but before sleep i read forum and decided i respond as id forget by time i woke.

Re: Ally limits
 

It comes down to cost too and effort.

I considered starting a new alliance to challenge at the top but discounted it for 2 reasons

1) getting tools working is too much hassle and I dont have the skills and
2) cost of hosting + sms bot makes it impossible

Re: Ally limits
 

running tools is something mPulse can do for you (if you ask nicely), so the only cost you have is the smsbot... Considering he has been running tools for a number of allies since r42, it might be a good idea to ask him what the avg cost for a sms bot is too.

Re: Ally limits
 

well seeing as i am willing to spend even 1p, its a 'moo' point

Re: Ally limits
 

You might not be willing to spend 1p forest but some people are willing to help donate and fund for smsbot's like myself. one person doesn't have to carry everything into a new ally. and TBH as far as the tools go, planetarion as done a pretty good job of giving you everything you really need in the alliance page.

And I agree with Demort's post about people willing to step foward dont read forums. I rarely even click the forum link. To me mIRC is live forums. I have 10 posts(now 11) and have played this game off and on since round 20ish and this is the first time ive ever posted on the forums.

Re: Ally limits
 

If I may just pick up on one point (nothing to do with reducing alliance sizes Remy - relax). :)

The "same 3" (or 4) allies fighting for top spot isn't affected by the number of members. It has always been the case (I seem to remember saying "t'was ever thus" in a previous thread). :)

And Ult (or whoever is the dominant alliance of the moment) has always won (and will always win) every round unless "the rest" block against them. So it wouldn't be 2v2, it would be 3v1 - or Ult would win - again!

(BTW - making alliances smaller would just make the top ones even more "elite" and reduce those people relegated to the "new" ones to farm status). Sorry Remy. ;)

Re: Ally limits
 

VenoX (yes VenoX) set up Ultores bot and webby in like 15 mins and he has special needs... mpulse hosts it all and as truhatred said there are always people will to contribute to sms credits.

Tbh with smaller tags as someone said you end up not being able to gang up on someone with risking getting wiped out yourself, it would deter that negative gameplay i feel.

On a personal notes if all tags were 35-40 then maybe some alliances could still compete without sms bots and so on, depends on your definition of competing (most players launch an attack every night and use apps like whatsapp for galaxy communication (which is free) also most players are around from 4-7am to check their attacks and offer defence. In a smaller tag you would find covering incs easier and less of a need for smsbots maybe...)


Smaller tag would also push the need to have a decent galaxy more too, and maybe stop the exiling to form an uber galaxy (something which would also be stemmed by the removal of the latestart option)

Re: Ally limits
 

Since I am completely out of touch with things by now, I have a couple of questions:

What are the main reasons to join an alliance today? The main benefits, as it were...

What are the drawbacks of being in an alliance, if any?

What limitations is placed on alliance-size, the ways they can work together and the information they can share?

What is the membercount in the top 10 alliances? Am I right to assume the Universe-page is correct, with the largets being 70-80 members, and then dropping a bit from there on?

Is there any kind of "cost" involved with being in a big alliance? Like diplomatic upkeep etc?

Re: Ally limits
 

Defence (-1 eta) and attack cooperation would be the benefits. There aren't any real drawbacks to being in an alliance. Alliances are limitted to 80 members, with 50 counting towards score. There are no limitations to working together. The universe page is correct in the current sizes. There are no costs to being in an alliance, other than a 0-5% alliance tax. Alliance tax goes into the ally fund, from which it can be donated back to members below the avg score and value.

Re: Ally limits
 

Amnion I believe your wrong in the sense that ult would just become more Elite if alliance sizes dropped. As some of ults benefits is they have quite a bit of active people and people willing to log on and send def fleets whenever sms'ed. The draw back for them is that dropping your ally # in half you would lose a lot of people that are there to pretty much "support" the top of the ally. Being in Ult i see how things work. They are a solid ally and i see why they win. But I also see flaws which can be fixed but will be common in most Big allies. Such as: People dc for themselves not really for anyone else during big attacks. There isnt anything taken into account like "cover this person because it takes 50% the fleet and the roid loss is more". Its more like who you know in the ally and who you have in your pocket that will save fleets for you. They also get quite a few gals that fort pretty well with 6-8 Ult's in one gal. Doing this in a lower tag round would hurt you more than benefit you as there is more people that can attack you, less defence fleets within the tag and practically none within the gal except the ones recieving incs as well.

As far as having the same allies competing for #1. Of course its been the same round after round? In order to even join an ally in this game thats on top you have to know people to get in, and if these allies stick around they will always recruit the top players from other allies as they get better and they need new members. There is enough good members in the universe to make a strong 4th ally though. People just have to have the capability of giving up power and merge with another ally to bring those members together. I tried to talk Grog into merging DLR with another ally because all the players we needed were there, we just never had enough to make a full tag and Grog preferred to only have 30-40 members and tbh I understand why. I enjoyed playing with only 30 members in my ally than 70.

Re: Ally limits
 

And as far as the alliances go for the membercount currently you will see that the top 3 allies have 70+ where as most the 4-8th allies stay around 50ish in numbers. Thats a HUGE difference. these allies have 60 less fleets to fly and defend/attack. 20 planets less to give more into ally fund to help smaller planets boost up. They are also usually the targets for the first 100-200 ticks of the round before wars start because they have mediocre planet values with good roids.

Re: Ally limits
 

Some additions:

There are no hard limitations to working together, but out-of-tag defense won't benefit from the ETA -1 you need, which means you can only defend against fr/de with fi/co and against cr/bs with fr/de. (Actually, I'm not really sure if that's true: wasn't out-of-tag defense made impossible at some point?)

Alliance taxes are primarily used to fund scanners.

Re: Ally limits
 

Can someone please close this thread before the admins actualy start belive in the stupid opinions and arguments the pro elitism group in here is putting forward?
We dont want smaller alliances, and if people think they want smaller alliances they clearly hasnt been around to see the full decline of this game, and therefor should not be able to put their opinions foward, or is mentaly challenged.
I have yet to see one argument that i think is good for enforceing alliances thats been around for many many many many round to cut their member base in two, and there leaving half of their loyal members to try hook up with some new allie wich automaticly will appear, fully equiped with a command chain and tech team on the same standard as everyone else, when we reduce the size to 35 members.
Please some moderator close this thread!

Re: Ally limits
 

I see. Thanks for the info.

In stead of hard caps, maybe some kind of cost could be applied, so the bigger advantages come with a pricetag. NATO is hardly free to join.
The cost would grow with the membercount, ofc, and I am not talking about chucking it all into the fund, but rather taking the resources out of play.

To be a bit radical here (being ignored here allows for all kind of suggestions!) I do belive the whole att / def system needs to be revised. It has been played to death. How about allowing anyone in an alliance, to station a fleet at an alliance-mate...as in "not returning until recalled"...Remove the ETA-bonus alltogether....Shift the combat away from being tick-based, so your fleet may land at 15:41, not 16:00, only fleets present there will defend ofc...And I do find it weird that a small fighter can travel across the universe faster than a destroyer, with it's Warp 9 engines charged and ready to go, due to the puny manouvering-thrusters of a little barrel with a gun? Just thinking way outside the box here...Maybe traveltime should be a shipstat, not bound by the class..
Oh well, too much non-Planetarion perhaps...

Re: Ally limits
 

Spinner if your actually talking about making players pay more $ into the game for the advantages instead of having bigger number allies. I don't think that would work. We already put in 7$(US dollars) a round and sometimes I donate 10$ or more a round for sms credits. I like how the basic functions of the game are now, I just think we need more players or better structure of players in the top allies.(basically more than 3 top allies) Weather that means ally limits lower or two medium allies merge their best people together.

Re: Ally limits
 

He's talking about ingame resources

Re: Ally limits
 

I meant ingame resources, yes, as a "diplomatic upkeep". That grows with the size of your alliance. So if you are in a 30-member alliance, all your income is reduced by 5%. If you are in a 50 members alliance, they are reduced by 7%. Etc. That way, the extra benefit comes with an extra pricetag, for balance.

Re: Ally limits
 

mz, yes out of tag defence was banned ages ago, but you can always ally yourself with a 2nd tag, which would make it possible (but with the no -1 penalty of course :-))