Planetarion Forums

Planetarion Forums (https://pirate.planetarion.com/index.php)
-   Alliance Recruitment (https://pirate.planetarion.com/forumdisplay.php?f=37)
-   -   New Alliances for R42... (https://pirate.planetarion.com/showthread.php?t=199370)

budious 17 Apr 2011 03:02

New Alliances for R42...
 
Let's discuss it before R42 gets here, have a few people step up, organize some new smaller tags. Then let's see who still tries to argue against lowering tag size limit?

Donar 17 Apr 2011 03:54

Re: New Alliances for R42...
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by budious (Post 3206260)
Let's discuss it before R42 gets here, have a few people step up, organize some new smaller tags. Then let's see who still tries to argue against lowering tag size limit?

i'm all for lowering tag size, but this is a discussion that will never end.

Killeah 17 Apr 2011 08:48

Re: New Alliances for R42...
 
It´s apparently a delicate topic. But if we look at rnd 41, a tag limit of 50 would leave 8 alliances in direct competition, tag size wise. I´m well aware of the fact that 50 is still the counted score mark, however it would bring a clearer fight for the top 3 alliance spot. Alliances would have to do even more politics than now to steer through and win in the end.

Atm most focus is on CT and Ome them being "big tags", that could be spread out on the top 10 alliances (almost) with a 50 size tag.

The "active" community seems to span 700-800 accounts. One could argue that 80 is perhaps a tad too big, considering that 10% of the player base in one alliance limits the possibility of a widespread mix of alliances and politics in the game - (obviously very few are interested in doing anything but roiding 15 player tags).

The only real disadvandtage I see in limiting the tags is that you´re enforcing the fact that PA is too small, and still shrinking. So limiting would come out as a statement that PA is gone in 3 years.

Kargool 17 Apr 2011 08:50

Re: New Alliances for R42...
 
The alliancelimit HAS to be lowered.

HeimdallR 17 Apr 2011 14:21

Re: New Alliances for R42...
 
Here we go again lol :D

Sebos 17 Apr 2011 14:42

Re: New Alliances for R42...
 
10 man alliances! oh wait thats just gals..... just thought i would speed up the argument a bit ;).

The problem with lowering the tag limits as everyone knows is that people who want to play together will always find a way so we might have smaller tags in the game but the players who want to play together will just make more tags possibly even under the same HC just defence will be a bit different.

Also having a hard limit of 50 would lead to alliances creating scanner tags the current setup of 50 for score and 30 for the rest seems to work quite well although perhaps it could be hard coded to 60 but much lower and we will just see scan tags appearing again even with the alliance fund etc

Zeyi 17 Apr 2011 16:28

Re: New Alliances for R42...
 
If people just bucked up and got in allys of 20-30 though we could seriously have some fun with no a whole load of allys going for top spot.

Rather than thinking you can't play with all your friends, or you can't definitely get the win just consider the all out war of having several smaller tags and how much more amusing it'll be to play!

People complain about not having 50-70 or whatever it normally is, simply because they're not used to otherwise. I don't see how it makes the game seem smaller - if anything it will be more exciting and the game will seem bigger (more allys - more will be happening in terms of politics and war, much more #1 contenders)

Kargool 17 Apr 2011 18:12

Re: New Alliances for R42...
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Sebos (Post 3206267)
10 man alliances! oh wait thats just gals..... just thought i would speed up the argument a bit ;).

The problem with lowering the tag limits as everyone knows is that people who want to play together will always find a way so we might have smaller tags in the game but the players who want to play together will just make more tags possibly even under the same HC just defence will be a bit different.

Who the hell has 80 friends...

Lowering the limit to 60 is quite ok the way I see it.

Not that many alliances that start out with 60 before the round start, I think it is about high time that we approach the whole alliance system from a new angle.

Sebos 18 Apr 2011 11:59

Re: New Alliances for R42...
 
i wasn't saying one person has 80 friends but there are still some communities out there with more than 50/60 members. Maybe not but say 1 person has 10 people he/she likes playing with but he/she also likes someone in another group etc

But i agree 60 would be good since it still gives ample room for scanners etc (although tbh there is no reason now why a scan planet cant be top100) I have to admit it is pretty depressing looking at the universe screen and seeing 1 man bands making up the majority of the alliance rankings screen. I mean that cant really give the best advert to new players :p

Demort 19 Apr 2011 06:16

Re: New Alliances for R42...
 
Not to look on bad side as I'm all for lower tag limits but you lower tag and if ya ally gets gang raped it be over within a week doesn't matter who you are small ally tags will provide mass rappage so an ally who deserves to win gets gang banged last 3 days of round not a chance in hell of defending as you don't have the buffer you currently have unless you impose 40 counted and 60 player tag that might work

Mistwraith 19 Apr 2011 06:50

Re: New Alliances for R42...
 
i'm an advocate of lower tag numbers also, but i can see what will happen if they get lowered drastically.

high number alliances will have 2 tags, if the two are carefully filled and placed into bp's within galaxies then they can have a coverage on defence set up, those two then nap each other, attack together and 1 of the tags may well win a round because 1 tag can act as support for the other

Dark-Strider 19 Apr 2011 10:11

Re: New Alliances for R42...
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Mistwraith (Post 3206305)
i'm an advocate of lower tag numbers also, but i can see what will happen if they get lowered drastically.

high number alliances will have 2 tags, if the two are carefully filled and placed into bp's within galaxies then they can have a coverage on defence set up, those two then nap each other, attack together and 1 of the tags may well win a round because 1 tag can act as support for the other

Don't Apprime already do this, with their second tag being called ODDR...

Donar 19 Apr 2011 17:50

Re: New Alliances for R42...
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Dark-Strider (Post 3206307)
Don't Apprime already do this, with their second tag being called ODDR...

Wow, must have taken you ages to come up with that stupid remark.

Assassin 19 Apr 2011 19:12

Re: New Alliances for R42...
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Dark-Strider (Post 3206307)
Don't Apprime already do this, with their second tag being called ODDR...

Amusingly that made me laugh lol Well done.

But back on the main topic i dont think you can ever force people to go play in a tag they dont wish to play in even if you lower the tag limit you will still get as people have already discussed just jr tags ie apprime 1 apprime 2 apprime 3 etc. Plus a lot of the 'lower skilled/active' alliances somtimes rely on numbers instead of quality. So if you limit them in that respect alliances such as DLR who have owned with small members for many rounds will just own them even more.

HeimdallR 19 Apr 2011 20:29

Re: New Alliances for R42...
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Dark-Strider (Post 3206307)
Don't Apprime already do this, with their second tag being called ODDR...

really showing you know shit right here, good job numbnuts.

Kaiba 22 Apr 2011 15:43

Re: New Alliances for R42...
 
An intresting point is that in this round there is 15 tags with double figures memberwise (noting some kind of structure) and only 5 of them have gone over 50. With maximum respect to HR and ROCK i would assume most of there overspill is inactive, new or half assed players. Which basically leaves 3 of 15 tags that have managed to recruit more than 50.

if you skimmed these 3 allainces down to the 50 limit and created another alliance out of what was left that would give us 12 allainces with 40-50 members - this is what is making this round quite intresting - cos even now ITS VERY TIGHT. This is what pa needs - if the prizes for winning were better aswell it would help too - im assuming the allainces that care about rank have possibly had to put a bit more effort in this round than normal to acheive there goals

ellonweb 22 Apr 2011 17:25

Re: New Alliances for R42...
 
I feel this thread requires a serious response.

[DDK]gm 23 Apr 2011 00:50

Re: New Alliances for R42...
 
lower limit just means we have to kick the inactives faster or rotate scanners out of tag. if alliance sizes come down then gals need to be easier to hit. seen rounds where it takes 2-3 alliances to hit 1 gal

Kaiba 23 Apr 2011 06:04

Re: New Alliances for R42...
 
gm - in that case all you do is set a round limit on self exiles (ok some ppl will get round it but it will be harder to build forts up) and if your having a 50 limits then you just have to prepare that 5 of your members will be scanners or have them out of tag regardless. There both moot points as they would affect everyone. If you want loads of scanners then you have to accept you will have them out of tag or counting towards ally score.

DrunkenViking 23 Apr 2011 11:32

Re: New Alliances for R42...
 
Smaller tags = more blocks. 40 man tags simply cant take on t10 galaxies without backup(unless you're allowed to grow like DLR a few hundred ticks beforehand). I'm curious as to what one wants to achieve with smaller tags?

Kaiba 23 Apr 2011 13:17

Re: New Alliances for R42...
 
we have 70 man tags at the moment and we still get blocks so lowering the tag and having blocks isnt any different - the lower the tags the more tags you have - the more blocks you can have too. It wilkl make the race for 1st more diverse and fun and the politics are a lot more crucial to the round

nolezy 27 Apr 2011 13:14

Re: New Alliances for R42...
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Demort (Post 3206304)
Not to look on bad side as I'm all for lower tag limits but you lower tag and if ya ally gets gang raped it be over within a week doesn't matter who you are small ally tags will provide mass rappage so an ally who deserves to win gets gang banged last 3 days of round not a chance in hell of defending as you don't have the buffer you currently have unless you impose 40 counted and 60 player tag that might work

Quote:

Originally Posted by _Kila_ (Post 3206365)
I find that reading Demort's posts without taking a breath can make them more bearable


M0RPH3US 29 Apr 2011 12:00

Re: New Alliances for R42...
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Kaiba (Post 3206414)
we have 70 man tags at the moment and we still get blocks so lowering the tag and having blocks isnt any different - the lower the tags the more tags you have - the more blocks you can have too. It wilkl make the race for 1st more diverse and fun and the politics are a lot more crucial to the round

its a common misunderstanding to think more parties make better politics...

instead of lowering the taglimit, i am all for completely removing it
- and if we end with just 2 alliances (i don´t think we will) whats the problem with it !?

remove the taglimit (keep the counting score at somewhat) and allow new players to join a TOP Alliance...
Allow em to play with People ending in top100, allow em to have fun and learn.

With restricting members to join the Alliance they would like to be in - we restrict PA from growing a memberbase - and thats only partly the problem of the diffrent alliances.
While some would probably stay invite only, others would open up their recruitment...at least if they can manage to manage a huge tag.

There is a ton of Possibilities to handle a huge tag without having to give up the top guys...
for exampel def priorities, def points or other priorities (diffrent Member-Levels)...

And thats where i would start to change the game...add more possibilities to the ingame alliance feature....for a start setting priority defence levels for members...maybe start with 3 diffrent lvl´s (i think more will be needed), but it would be a start...

For Alliances not relying on ingame tools, its even easier. And without having the need to have 20 diffrent tags, you don´t need 20 diffrent coders anymore, which seems to be the biggest problem in running an alliance with external tools...

m0 saying HI, well knowing probably nothing will be changed on PA´s code for a while, if not forever... (hint: i am sure they code a PA2 instead)

Reincarnate 24 May 2011 10:45

Re: New Alliances for R42...
 
any suggestion involving ingame changes is pointless so forget that morpy. however, i am all for no tag limit and see what happens for a few rounds. game is dying anyway so why not try new things.

Reincarnate 24 May 2011 10:46

Re: New Alliances for R42...
 
or rather old things, but bringing them back.

Paisley 24 May 2011 14:07

Re: New Alliances for R42...
 
2 alliance round ... would be a change

Buly 24 May 2011 14:21

Re: New Alliances for R42...
 
Just remove alliance rankings, that's one large reason for politics turning utterly ghey each round!

gzambo 24 May 2011 15:05

Re: New Alliances for R42...
 
Unfortunately removing rankings doesnt remove alliances or the people running them so cant see how that helps

Clogg 25 May 2011 23:33

Re: New Alliances for R42...
 
I'm all for lowering the alliance size. Perhaps even allow a mechanism that lower scoring alliances may increase their alliance size to nivellate the difference between #1 and #last.

But please make a decision and stick with it, not like round 13 when some alliances based their strategy on the smaller tagsize and then having it changed back too 100 all of a sudden.

Blink 9 Jun 2011 14:29

Re: New Alliances for R42...
 
I'll enjoy seeing how the small tags perform :D

Light 9 Jun 2011 18:57

Re: New Alliances for R42...
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Kaiba (Post 3206414)
we have 70 man tags at the moment and we still get blocks so lowering the tag and having blocks isnt any different - the lower the tags the more tags you have - the more blocks you can have too. It wilkl make the race for 1st more diverse and fun and the politics are a lot more crucial to the round

Lets ignore the fact that lowering the tag limit will force alliances to kick members who may not want to find a new home anywhere else (i.e. not resulting in 100% of people still playing and in new organised alliances).

but blocks would be substantially different if you lower the tag limit.

Lets take now
80vs80vs80vs80vs80 seems fair
now a block forms, its 240 vs 160
with 100% participating in attacks, it's 240 vs 80.. that's 3 waves on every planet in a tag when ptargetting.
If we take into account that we don't ever see 100% participation as the round progresses and that they require team-ups rather than solo attacks plus the additional defense available in gals. It becomes a much more sensible 180 vs 110-130 when ptargetting.
Conclusion: current tag size allows an alliance not to get completely owned in one night by a block.

Now lets go with reducing the tag limit to 40 and that everyone that's playing now will be playing then.
40vs40vs40vs40vs40vs40vs40vs40.. fair start.
now a block forms:
240 vs 160.. still seems the same?
240 vs 40 is what happens when the block decides to attack one alliance.
180 vs 70-90 defense available with galaxy's help.
Conclusion: its more than possible to completely own a tag in one night.

Then lets talk about the end of the round? How the hell is a tag with 40 members going to try to defend there #1 planet (or top planets) in the last week? It'll be so easy to overwhelm them, its difficult now but more than possible for an organized alliance.

If the tag limit gets lowed, you'll be turning PA into a clusterf*ck where you've taken any amount of skill out of the game and it becomes a case of having to avoid incomings at all costs which will result in alot more stagnation rather than more competition. You'll be giving blocks more power, not giving them less.

I agree alliance politics should have a place in PA but they should not be everything involved in the game.

but then i can get onto the subject of wither lowering the tag limit will result in many more alliances being created. The best alliances? how will they react to a lowered tag limit? one of two ways, split the alliance in two and work together effectively as one tag (which makes the tag limit obsolete) or they'll keep there best members and kick any casual, inactive, or semi-inactive member.

What will happen then? In your magical world, you're thinking that these casuals, inactives and semi-inactives will suddenly decide they want to play active and step up as HC/DC/BC. In reality, they wont have an alliance to join or at least decent one which could actually fight for #1. You'll effectively be trimming the casuals and inactives out of the game.

Why the hell does this argument come up every round. If you're sitting there wanting to setup a 40man alliance, just go and do it. There are many smaller alliances or BG's which have managed to have fun for many rounds in PA. The only reason i can think of that you havent done it, is that you actually cant be bothered.


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 16:21.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.1
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2002 - 2018