Quote:
Originally Posted by ellonweb
The suggestion that the public galaxies in the top 10 are "fortresses" or hard to hit or anywhere near competitive is a horrible misconception.
Let's look at 8.9 for example, a galaxy which has been a mainstay in the top 2. Not a single planet in the t100. Of the 25 planets, only 2 make the t200. That's pretty poor. Check out their roid graph on Sandmans, lots and lots of dips. Fact of the matter is, these high ranking public galaxies are getting roided fairly regularly and fairly easily by whatever alliance feels like an a-political gal raid. The galaxy is just made up of a lot of small planets.
|
I think we are having in part a communication problem. My definition of a fortress galaxy is not the traditional one, where the galaxy is made up primarily of one ally. My definition of a fortress is a galaxy controlled by a single ally with a number of non ally members in the gal to help support the team (not necessarily primarily mind you).
As appoco points out the reason my plan works is because of an artifact of this round, namely how BIG public galaxies could get. If this advantage is removed then the plan falls apart and a fenced private galaxy is probably the best solution.
My real argument is not that the buddy pack system or pure randoms is the way to go, but that any system that has galaxies with different rules is inherently unbalanced, and in my opinion cannot be balanced in a fair way and so therefore should not be attempted. What the right solution is I don't know, but the current system ain't it. I know I may be in the minority on the forums regarding this, but I think the facts this round, and the facts next round if the current system is not modified will bear that out.
One other question for those that disagree with me. Pick the top private galaxy, with 28 publics they could have all easily exiled into a public galaxy together early in the round when the cost is low and then played together just like they have now. They would have totally dominated in my opinion.