User Name
Password

Go Back   Planetarion Forums > Planetarion Related Forums > Planetarion Suggestions

Reply
Thread Tools Display Modes
Unread 31 Jan 2008, 11:01   #1
Kenny
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
For the love of God...

Smaller gals please!

My gal just got a 15th member (we're going to exile him soon, but that's not the point) for the 2nd time.

Which is yay, great... but not really. With the amount of gals decreasing in parallel with the amount of planets decreasing, it's really becoming a rather rubbish game. BC's have limited targets to chose from and the result is a handfull of the few 'fat' gals receiving the attention from all the top alliances.

Which, btw, brings me to my other point.

The top 10 is looking a lot more balanced these days, dont you think? There's still competition for the top spot but there are a lot of other alliances sitting 4-8 that are genuinely worth beating (NewDawn, Ascendancy, InSomnia for example) if you want to put the effort it. This is awesome, competition at it's best.

The way it's going though we're going to have more alliances than gals - so unless we limit the amount of people in a gal to 10 (starting off at 8 ppl), we're going to drive people away due to lack of options.

Also, reducing the alliance cap to 60 has worked wonders this round. The competition is excellent. Go on PA Team - have some balls. Make it 50 next round.

Here's an idea - allow scanners to be included intag, but if they're set to 'scanner' their score wont count towards the alliance total (score) but they can still access the alliance fund to provide - yes, you guessed it - scans. Also as scanner eta def advantages would be removed, to save abuse of this feature.

Just some random thoughts...
  Reply With Quote
Unread 31 Jan 2008, 14:50   #2
Zaejii
This Space for Rent
Speedy Thief Champion, Turbo Turtle Champion, Cop-For-This Champion
 
Zaejii's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 583
Zaejii has much to be proud ofZaejii has much to be proud ofZaejii has much to be proud ofZaejii has much to be proud ofZaejii has much to be proud ofZaejii has much to be proud ofZaejii has much to be proud ofZaejii has much to be proud of
Re: For the love of God...

Quote:
Originally Posted by kenny
Smaller gals please!

My gal just got a 15th member (we're going to exile him soon, but that's not the point) for the 2nd time.

Which is yay, great... but not really. With the amount of gals decreasing in parallel with the amount of planets decreasing, it's really becoming a rather rubbish game. BC's have limited targets to chose from and the result is a handfull of the few 'fat' gals receiving the attention from all the top alliances.
its because all of the scanner / cov op / noob galaxies keep disbanding making the bottom 10% higher and higher. if people kept it up we could theoretically have ~10 galaxies at tick stop.

and changing the alliance limits and the way scanners work won't change the amount of people in each galaxy
__________________
When in doubt, blame Ascendancy.
#pastats
Zaejii is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 31 Jan 2008, 15:19   #3
Kenny
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Re: For the love of God...

Quote:
Originally Posted by Zaejii
its because all of the scanner / cov op / noob galaxies keep disbanding making the bottom 10% higher and higher. if people kept it up we could theoretically have ~10 galaxies at tick stop.

and changing the alliance limits and the way scanners work won't change the amount of people in each galaxy
Believe it or not, those points I was making were not connected.

I said we should lower gal sizes AND alliance tags AND change the way in which scanners are incorporated into the game.

Like you said, at this rate we could end up with 9 gals at the end of the round. Try covering one of those in an alliance raid. Remove 'disband' feature (self-exile still works, right?) because it's ultra-lame and start gals of at the size of 8, expanding to a maximum of 10. at the moment there's 90~ active gals... in theory creating 9~ active clusters (worth of planets). Limit gals to 10-a-piece and you've got yourself 140 gals and 14 clusters. And yes, that's a big difference by today's standards.

The alliance tag limit being reduced to 50 is also a good idea. The notion of 'not enough people willing to HC' is applicable only to the extent that there aren't enough players to fill up the tags we have at the moment. Reduce member limit to 50 from 60 and instantly we create room for 2 more alliances. Are 2 more alliances really going to make a difference? Yes, because again acheiving 'top 10' in alliance score is no real acheivement for the alliances trying to win. Alliances trying to win the round are happy with top 3 only. Why? Because there isn't enough competition for the top spots to give any merit to lower ranks. Solution? More alliances.

My suggestion about the scanners is the one that would be the biggest change to the game (in terms of coding). I'm not going to go over the whole idea again, but the idea of scanners being in tag, without affecting 'alliance average' or total score or contributing towards member limit, but still having access to alliance fund for scans - surely that's EXACTLY what we want for our scanners? (Biased? You decide :P)
  Reply With Quote
Unread 31 Jan 2008, 15:51   #4
Zaejii
This Space for Rent
Speedy Thief Champion, Turbo Turtle Champion, Cop-For-This Champion
 
Zaejii's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 583
Zaejii has much to be proud ofZaejii has much to be proud ofZaejii has much to be proud ofZaejii has much to be proud ofZaejii has much to be proud ofZaejii has much to be proud ofZaejii has much to be proud ofZaejii has much to be proud of
Re: For the love of God...

i wasn't trying to make it sound like i thought the galaxies weren't too big (cause in a way they are atm) and you have a real good point there.

some alliances still have scanners in tag though (Subh) while others have a separate tag (xVx) and others just plain have them floating around solo (insert alliance here). its all preference i guess, but you could argue that its easier for 60 people to score higher than 55 people with 5 scanners score wise.

i wouldn't mind seeing more alliances. i wouldn't mind seeing more galaxies. just remember that by having both it will bring about more politics, more blocking, more pnaps, more cooperation, therefore possibly making it harder for those newer alliances and players to survive on their own.
__________________
When in doubt, blame Ascendancy.
#pastats
Zaejii is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 31 Jan 2008, 15:55   #5
Kenny
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Re: For the love of God...

true, but it's not like any new alliances would magically appear from nowhere. It'd be people that have played before and have contacts within previously existing alliances. I'm not saying adding Subh2 and F-Crew2 would be the way forward, I'm saying that players would come from existing top-10 alliances and therefore have every chance of competing in the top 10.

And some alliances do have scanners intag atm - simply because they don't have enough normal members to fill the 60-limit tag.
  Reply With Quote
Unread 1 Feb 2008, 17:11   #6
Fiery
PA Team
 
Fiery's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 866
Fiery has much to be proud ofFiery has much to be proud ofFiery has much to be proud ofFiery has much to be proud ofFiery has much to be proud ofFiery has much to be proud ofFiery has much to be proud ofFiery has much to be proud ofFiery has much to be proud ofFiery has much to be proud of
Re: For the love of God...

Were you offering us yours, Kenny?
Fiery is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 1 Feb 2008, 17:20   #7
Kenny
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Re: For the love of God...

my what?
  Reply With Quote
Unread 1 Feb 2008, 17:31   #8
Kargool
Up The Hatters!
 
Kargool's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Kenilworth Road
Posts: 3,004
Kargool is a pillar of this Internet societyKargool is a pillar of this Internet societyKargool is a pillar of this Internet societyKargool is a pillar of this Internet societyKargool is a pillar of this Internet societyKargool is a pillar of this Internet societyKargool is a pillar of this Internet societyKargool is a pillar of this Internet societyKargool is a pillar of this Internet societyKargool is a pillar of this Internet societyKargool is a pillar of this Internet society
Re: For the love of God...

Starting out with an initial f.example 8 members in each gal is a probable solution to Kenny's problem. That would though also most likely reduce the members in a bp to 4.
__________________
Planetarion veteran
Kargool is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 1 Feb 2008, 18:25   #9
Kenny
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Re: For the love of God...

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kargool
Starting out with an initial f.example 8 members in each gal is a probable solution to Kenny's problem. That would though also most likely reduce the members in a bp to 4.
It's not my problem, it's everyone's problem. And 8 members in each gal is not a solution to my problem... I think you'll find it was my solution to everyone's problem.

There's no need to reduce BP sizes down to 4, it's proven to work well having 5 people in a BP. Keeping the balance of 5:3 in BP:Random means you don't need to worry about 'private gals' because the people in a BP still outnumber the randoms but still lets randoms in to join in the hilarities.
  Reply With Quote
Unread 1 Feb 2008, 19:20   #10
Kargool
Up The Hatters!
 
Kargool's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Kenilworth Road
Posts: 3,004
Kargool is a pillar of this Internet societyKargool is a pillar of this Internet societyKargool is a pillar of this Internet societyKargool is a pillar of this Internet societyKargool is a pillar of this Internet societyKargool is a pillar of this Internet societyKargool is a pillar of this Internet societyKargool is a pillar of this Internet societyKargool is a pillar of this Internet societyKargool is a pillar of this Internet societyKargool is a pillar of this Internet society
Re: For the love of God...

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kenny
It's not my problem, it's everyone's problem. And 8 members in each gal is not a solution to my problem... I think you'll find it was my solution to everyone's problem.

There's no need to reduce BP sizes down to 4, it's proven to work well having 5 people in a BP. Keeping the balance of 5:3 in BP:Random means you don't need to worry about 'private gals' because the people in a BP still outnumber the randoms but still lets randoms in to join in the hilarities.
The problem with your reasoning here is that you assume every bp will work effectively, which they wont. Ergo, reducing the buddy pack will a gal slightly less dependent on a good buddypack.
__________________
Planetarion veteran
Kargool is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 1 Feb 2008, 19:27   #11
Kenny
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Re: For the love of God...

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kargool
The problem with your reasoning here is that you assume every bp will work effectively, which they wont. Ergo, reducing the buddy pack will a gal slightly less dependent on a good buddypack.
While at broken English first your me offended, even when I understood what you were trying to say you were still wrong.

Here's the situation: A gal, in Planetarion, is dependant on a good buddypack. If the Buddypack sucks, you'll never fluke enough good randoms into the gal that'll see eye-to-eye politically or even personally that will take control of the gal and steer it to great success.

So why lessen the impact a good BP can have on a gal? I want lots of good gals, not lots of crap ones.

And Kargool, if you're really struggling to find 4 people still willing to BP with you, you could always go random, scan or quit.
  Reply With Quote
Unread 1 Feb 2008, 20:00   #12
Ave
Registered User
 
Ave's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 777
Ave is just really niceAve is just really niceAve is just really niceAve is just really nice
Re: For the love of God...

u talk like u would be someone :P
__________________
If the opponent resists, CaRnage there will be!
Ave is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 1 Feb 2008, 20:11   #13
Kenny
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Re: For the love of God...

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ave
u talk like u would be someone :P
You talk like you need lessons. Call it even?
  Reply With Quote
Unread 1 Feb 2008, 21:07   #14
Reese
If not never; then once.
 
Reese's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 190
Reese has much to be proud ofReese has much to be proud ofReese has much to be proud ofReese has much to be proud ofReese has much to be proud ofReese has much to be proud ofReese has much to be proud ofReese has much to be proud of
Re: For the love of God...

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kenny
Also, reducing the alliance cap to 60 has worked wonders this round. The competition is excellent. Go on PA Team - have some balls. Make it 50 next round.
reducing the cap to 60 hasnt created smaller alliances, its created alliances that have 10 or more people playing out of tag. What you see isnt what you get. This is in fact hurting the smaller allies, not helping them.
Reese is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 1 Feb 2008, 21:19   #15
Kenny
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Re: For the love of God...

Quote:
Originally Posted by Reese
reducing the cap to 60 hasnt created smaller alliances, its created alliances that have 10 or more people playing out of tag. What you see isnt what you get. This is in fact hurting the smaller allies, not helping them.
With the exception of xvx who are really pushing the boundaries of sticking to the rules, yes - alliances are smaller this round. I mean jesus, most alliances cant even get 60 people to join their tag.

One of the main reason you see people out of tag supporting those in a top tag is because there is no alternative. They're quite happy to idle out-of-tag because there aren't any decent alternatives (in their eyes).

The support planet rule was put on hold for this round (can't remember what happened last round, I think I was asleep or something) because the MH team cba trying to find support planets. Admittedly, this is because it takes more effort than say.. looking at somebody's account and seeing IPs from all over Europe that have been logging in to it.

But tbh the support planet rule is a completely different topic. I can GUARANTEE you there'll be A LOT of people who wont want to play with an alliance if they're not going to be 'in tag'. I'm sure as hell I wouldn't be happy to play as a 'support planet', and ANYONE who wants to do well will feel the same. They have no eta advantages for def, so they'd get little external support (unless they created a second tag, which would be pure evil) and even then - it's immediately creating a second alliance that just happens to be working very closely to xvx. I mean the former.

Taking tag spots away (10, to be precise) will force a lot of people to go elsewhere if they want to do well, as they'll need to be in a tag.
  Reply With Quote
Unread 1 Feb 2008, 21:25   #16
Gate
;D!
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 1,810
Gate is an inspiration to us all and we should try to be more like himGate is an inspiration to us all and we should try to be more like himGate is an inspiration to us all and we should try to be more like himGate is an inspiration to us all and we should try to be more like himGate is an inspiration to us all and we should try to be more like himGate is an inspiration to us all and we should try to be more like himGate is an inspiration to us all and we should try to be more like himGate is an inspiration to us all and we should try to be more like himGate is an inspiration to us all and we should try to be more like himGate is an inspiration to us all and we should try to be more like himGate is an inspiration to us all and we should try to be more like him
Re: For the love of God...

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kenny
There's no need to reduce BP sizes down to 4, it's proven to work well having 5 people in a BP. Keeping the balance of 5:3 in BP:Random means you don't need to worry about 'private gals' because the people in a BP still outnumber the randoms but still lets randoms in to join in the hilarities.
The current gal setup implies that not enough buddypacks for a 5:3 ratio to work.

More gals seems fine to me, but how do you suggest getting around this?
__________________
[ND]
Kicked from Ascendancy
Proud to have been a Dark Lord Rising.
Gate is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 1 Feb 2008, 21:46   #17
Kenny
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Re: For the love of God...

How does one find out how many BPs there were this round?
  Reply With Quote
Unread 1 Feb 2008, 21:54   #18
Kenny
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Re: For the love of God...

Is there a way of finding out what %age of current players (or the ones that start at PT0) that started in BPs?

And one way of handling the influx of new players to the game is to set up cluster 100. When you sign up (post shuffle), you join not a random gal, but cluster 100 - which automatically distributes planets into gals of 8, 9 or 10 (depending how far into the round it is) every -x- ticks.

This system couldn't really be abused because if you're going to try to create a fully private gal, you can bet your ass there'd be a lot of people trying to do the same, so you'd end up randomly mixed in with other people who were also trying to abuse the system, thus negating any need for trying. And plus, if it only applied to people who sign up AFTER the shuffle, there'd be few people willing to miss that many ticks at the start of the round.

The very most important thing to remember is that we can not let gals grow to any size larger than 10. Yes, it may be 'convenient' to keep dumping new planets into existing gals, but it's making the game suck.

Stop doing it.
  Reply With Quote
Unread 1 Feb 2008, 22:30   #19
Gate
;D!
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 1,810
Gate is an inspiration to us all and we should try to be more like himGate is an inspiration to us all and we should try to be more like himGate is an inspiration to us all and we should try to be more like himGate is an inspiration to us all and we should try to be more like himGate is an inspiration to us all and we should try to be more like himGate is an inspiration to us all and we should try to be more like himGate is an inspiration to us all and we should try to be more like himGate is an inspiration to us all and we should try to be more like himGate is an inspiration to us all and we should try to be more like himGate is an inspiration to us all and we should try to be more like himGate is an inspiration to us all and we should try to be more like him
Re: For the love of God...

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kenny
How does one find out how many BPs there were this round?
I'd guess that the number of gals = number of BPs.

Average bp size I'd guess at 4ish, but I could be wrong.
__________________
[ND]
Kicked from Ascendancy
Proud to have been a Dark Lord Rising.
Gate is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 1 Feb 2008, 23:50   #20
Mzyxptlk
mz.
Space Invaders Champion, Alien Invasion Champion, Mosquito Kill Champion, Squid Hunter Champion, Tiger Punch Champion, Barts Watersports Adventure Champion
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 8,456
Mzyxptlk spreads love and joy to the forum in the same way Jesus wouldMzyxptlk spreads love and joy to the forum in the same way Jesus wouldMzyxptlk spreads love and joy to the forum in the same way Jesus wouldMzyxptlk spreads love and joy to the forum in the same way Jesus wouldMzyxptlk spreads love and joy to the forum in the same way Jesus wouldMzyxptlk spreads love and joy to the forum in the same way Jesus wouldMzyxptlk spreads love and joy to the forum in the same way Jesus wouldMzyxptlk spreads love and joy to the forum in the same way Jesus wouldMzyxptlk spreads love and joy to the forum in the same way Jesus wouldMzyxptlk spreads love and joy to the forum in the same way Jesus wouldMzyxptlk spreads love and joy to the forum in the same way Jesus would
Re: For the love of God...

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kenny
With the exception of xvx who are really pushing the boundaries of sticking to the rules, yes - alliances are smaller this round. I mean jesus, most alliances cant even get 60 people to join their tag.

One of the main reason you see people out of tag supporting those in a top tag is because there is no alternative. They're quite happy to idle out-of-tag because there aren't any decent alternatives (in their eyes).

The support planet rule was put on hold for this round (can't remember what happened last round, I think I was asleep or something) because the MH team cba trying to find support planets. Admittedly, this is because it takes more effort than say.. looking at somebody's account and seeing IPs from all over Europe that have been logging in to it.

But tbh the support planet rule is a completely different topic. I can GUARANTEE you there'll be A LOT of people who wont want to play with an alliance if they're not going to be 'in tag'. I'm sure as hell I wouldn't be happy to play as a 'support planet', and ANYONE who wants to do well will feel the same. They have no eta advantages for def, so they'd get little external support (unless they created a second tag, which would be pure evil) and even then - it's immediately creating a second alliance that just happens to be working very closely to xvx. I mean the former.

Taking tag spots away (10, to be precise) will force a lot of people to go elsewhere if they want to do well, as they'll need to be in a tag.
You're wrong.
__________________
The outraged poets threw sticks and rocks over the side of the bridge. They were all missing Mary and he felt a contented smug feeling wash over him. He would have given them a coy little wave if the roof hadn't collapsed just then. Mary then found himself in the middle of an understandably shocked family's kitchen table. So he gave them the coy little wave and realized it probably would have been more effective if he hadn't been lying on their turkey.
Mzyxptlk is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 1 Feb 2008, 23:52   #21
Kenny
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Re: For the love of God...

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mzyxptlk
You're wrong.
Thanks mz, I was worried people would be vague.
  Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 07:58.


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