|
|
10 Feb 2015, 19:15
|
#251
|
Mordar, Keel, Reip
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: Finland
Posts: 333
|
Re: R60 mid round turmoil
"ND send more fleets than BF" (sent*)
... I'd be tempted to comment, but I shall withhold my tongue this time...
There seems to be a lot of bending of truths, I don't practice that here, as I don't practice that elsewhere, but you others are free to do so if it makes you feel better about yourselves (yes, all of you).
And we didn't go "emo" over you hitting 4 planets, incs are normal, this is a wargame...
We've been friendly with ULT most of the round, it was just later changed to alliance in game... A lot could have gone different too, but those times are past.
We didn't plan to hit you at all, it just came to this due to several things from both sides. We live by the moment more than by some mysterious playbook full of strategies, tactics and plans for taking over the world. Makes things more enjoyable, this is a game after all.
Keep on spinning and twisting, that's how this dance goes
__________________
Wolf in a pirates clothing to the highest degree, standing behind the curtains.
All the war propaganda, all the screaming and lies and hatred, comes invariably from people who are not fighting. - George Orwell
|
|
|
10 Feb 2015, 19:40
|
#252
|
over 9000
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Rotterdam
Posts: 37
|
Re: R60 mid round turmoil
People argueing on internet boards about internet spaceships, lol, some things never change. Good read at work though, keep it up!
|
|
|
10 Feb 2015, 20:26
|
#253
|
Registered User
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 1,386
|
Re: R60 mid round turmoil
Quote:
Originally Posted by Krypton
Also, should probably note that our TP was messed up last night, so that is probably the reasoning behind Black Flag coping so well today.
|
I'm pretty sure we cover 95% of your fleets most nights, as do you with us.
|
|
|
10 Feb 2015, 20:33
|
#254
|
-HotLipS-
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 55
|
Re: R60 mid round turmoil
Quote:
Originally Posted by Krypton
Also, should probably note that our TP was messed up last night, so that is probably the reasoning behind Black Flag coping so well today.
|
So you're contradicting yourself :-p
__________________
"Art of Farming"
R 6 - Olympus
R 7 - Skipped
R 8 - Adelante
R 9 - ViruS, 38:10:7
R 9.5 - RaH, 40:5:9
|
|
|
10 Feb 2015, 20:55
|
#255
|
Shadows and Dust
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: The Black Bastion
Posts: 329
|
Re: R60 mid round turmoil
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rampage
People argueing on internet boards about internet spaceships, lol, some things never change. Good read at work though, keep it up!
|
No ur mumma
__________________
Nick: Swing
R3 or so - Cell/Elysium
Looong break
R20 - Orbit
R21 - Subh (Finished rank 58)
8 year break
R60 - ND -> Ultores (Finished rank 48)
R61 - Rogues
14:05 <Swing> I wear a cape and a burger king paper crown when i play pa
14:10 <Zwanstic> u also talk alot of shit
14:14 <Blue_Esper> you're a weird unit
12:33 <hone> oddr is where we send all the semi retarded and gay bashing ult has beens LOL
12:34 <hone> thats where u should be swing lol
|
|
|
10 Feb 2015, 20:56
|
#256
|
Leader Of The Gang
Join Date: Aug 2014
Posts: 455
|
Re: R60 mid round turmoil
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bane
No ur mumma
|
Immature swing
__________________
Round 60 - Ultores - Rank 67th.
Round 75 - CT - Rank 19th - Galaxy Win.
Round 80 - Ultores - Rank 16th.
Round 81 - Ultores - Rank 73rd.
Round 83 - Ultores - Rank 16th.
Round 91 - Lucky7 - Rank 50th.
Round 92 - Lucky7 - Rank 39th.
|
|
|
10 Feb 2015, 21:14
|
#257
|
mz.
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 8,587
|
Re: R60 mid round turmoil
Quote:
Originally Posted by Willzzz
|
Man, you're just so bitter!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Krypton
We have conceded that they will win. We've already said we wont ceasefire with bf/nd to hit ult during discussions with those two allies - however they choose to spin it.
P3nguins respects Ultores as a great ally and sees them as worthy winners, so unless something changes that's how it will finish
|
At what point did p3nguins decide to give up on the win? And why?
__________________
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.
|
|
|
10 Feb 2015, 21:51
|
#258
|
Registered User
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Internet
Posts: 318
|
Re: R60 mid round turmoil
Quote:
Originally Posted by Krypton
We have conceded that they will win. We've already said we wont ceasefire with bf/nd to hit ult during discussions with those two allies - however they choose to spin it.
P3nguins respects Ultores as a great ally and sees them as worthy winners, so unless something changes that's how it will finish
|
Dear God. Seriously.
Seriously. You are a fag.
Personally I'll be reapplying to ct next round. You all deserve to have your best players poached by ult. Your lack of personality to resist a clique, and spine to fight the top dog, is............... pretty repulsive.
fag4lyfe.
|
|
|
10 Feb 2015, 21:56
|
#259
|
Registered User
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Internet
Posts: 318
|
Re: R60 mid round turmoil
Also I've missed every post since forever, but assassin can you give us some back story on your distinctly progressed ethics surrounding blocks and getting friends to hit your enemy? Thanks.
|
|
|
10 Feb 2015, 22:53
|
#260
|
Paso Leaute
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 919
|
Re: R60 mid round turmoil
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mzyxptlk
At what point did p3nguins decide to give up on the win? And why?
|
Well I don't know there was a decision as such. However, it was surely pretty clear as soon as P3n lost the war with Ult that saw us drop from first to third.
I don't think we actually gave up at that point but to use a cliche the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over again and expecting a different result.
So to do a different thing in order to get the alternate outcome it was clear after that defeat that any win we might have had would obviously rely principally on politics rather than principally upon strength.
Sure a win based on securing the bigger block would still be a win, and however you win there is always politics involved, but having to rely on a gangbang of Ult coming about puts P3n at the mercy of events rather than controlling them.
As events turn out Ult has the bigger block.
If you want a decision point, i guess P3n spurning CT's offer of a block against Ult is the point to choose. This decision seems to have been based partly on spite 'they didnt help us (actively attacked us) when we fought ult, why should we help them now they are fighting ult'. Perhaps more importantly on a misjudged pragmatism, the presumption that in any coalition with CT P3n would suffer the majority of the incs and just be restoring CT to their lead. Regardless of whether this was a true reading of the situation, had CT been put back in first it would have opened a route for p3n to first that would surely have been rather easier than fighting through BF to get at Ult!
Disclaimer: I'm just an ordinary p3on with my ear to the ground, giving my opinion of how things looked. For all I know CT's offers may not have been serious at all.
__________________
An optimist may see a light where there is none, but why must the pessimist always run to blow it out?
|
|
|
10 Feb 2015, 23:20
|
#261
|
Registered User
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 898
|
Re: R60 mid round turmoil
Every offer we made was serious. P3ng refused to help us when Ult/ND was warring us... they were annoyed we wouldn't hit ults on our own while ND hit us. given the help we would of ignored nd incs and taken down ults together. The last two nights we put over 90 incs on ults each night, PL broads stopped us dead, wasting out time.
Ults has locked up the uni politics well.
__________________
R4-5 DDK
R6 Vanx
R7-R10 FAnG
R10 Eclipse
R10.5-R13 FAnG
R20-23 CT
R23 (CT BG) ToF
R24-R82... CT
|
|
|
10 Feb 2015, 23:45
|
#262
|
KK
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 662
|
Re: R60 mid round turmoil
Quote:
Originally Posted by Clouds
I'm pretty sure we cover 95% of your fleets most nights, as do you with us.
|
I'm 'pretty sure' this is untrue on both accounts
Quote:
Originally Posted by SoulS
So you're contradicting yourself :-p
|
Please use logic, reasoning and evidence to support this
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mzyxptlk
Man, you're just so bitter!
At what point did p3nguins decide to give up on the win? And why?
|
At the point we realised that uni politics had transpired against us - which was pretty early on. Although we didnt/haven't conceded in such a word (that was wrong of me to say), it's just very unlikely anyone will change their position before rounds end to majorly influence the outcome. As it is, we are playing out round before revamping for next round.
Quote:
Originally Posted by oil
Dear God. Seriously.
Seriously. You are a fag.
Personally I'll be reapplying to ct next round. You all deserve to have your best players poached by ult. Your lack of personality to resist a clique, and spine to fight the top dog, is............... pretty repulsive.
fag4lyfe.
|
And they are lucky to have you. I cant really recall a recent time when anyone has ganged up on ct to rape them, but then I'm just a spineless cretin without any logic or thought process behind decisions made, done, divulged.
Quote:
Originally Posted by [DDK]gm
Every offer we made was serious. P3ng refused to help us when Ult/ND was warring us... they were annoyed we wouldn't hit ults on our own while ND hit us. given the help we would of ignored nd incs and taken down ults together. The last two nights we put over 90 incs on ults each night, PL broads stopped us dead, wasting out time.
Ults has locked up the uni politics well.
|
Ults has locked up the uni politics well, I concur. I do however feel the problems lie within the current game limits. What is the point in 60 man tags when there's 800 players and decreasing each round...seriously. It's a stupid limit that the admin team have continued to adhere to over previous rounds. There's no flexibility...what so ever between alliances now. So what you see after the first 200 ticks, pretty much dictates how the entire round will evolve.
Everything over the course of the round is settled within the first 200 ticks by political decisions - and then allies want to maintain their word and integrity and stick to it for the remainder of the round. Why? Because there aren't enough allies to make the difference. It's stupid how insignificant and boring the game is now, and a lot of it comes down to the stagnation in alliance politics. Tag limits should be halved and I've said this for many rounds to no avail. At least this will give some flexibility in decisions rather than just opting for the notion 'to survive is better than to conquer'.
Sure, people may feel that it wont solve anything - halving tag limits, but I dont see any other suggestion put forward that can stop the same shit, round after round after round.
|
|
|
11 Feb 2015, 00:05
|
#263
|
Registered User
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 1,386
|
Re: R60 mid round turmoil
Quote:
Originally Posted by Krypton
I'm 'pretty sure' this is untrue on both accounts
|
I DC your incoming every night and I always prioritise p2nguins. We drop roids due to letting your flak alliances land. We defend quite efficiently which is why we don't send out many attacks fleets at night.
If you think you're able to roid us with ease, then you are greatly mistaken. We are at the stage of the round where we have quite big FR fleets that can cover your Siege attacks with less fleets. It's the same with us attacking you, p2nguins have quite some hefty FI fleets to cover against us too.
p2nguins and Black Flag will just demolish each other as both are too stubborn to work things out, and I got the impression from past communications that p2nguins will not stop unless we hit Ultores.
Last edited by Clouds; 11 Feb 2015 at 00:14.
|
|
|
11 Feb 2015, 00:17
|
#264
|
Registered User
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 1,038
|
Re: R60 mid round turmoil
Quote:
Originally Posted by Krypton
Everything over the course of the round is settled within the first 200 ticks by political decisions - and then allies want to maintain their word and integrity and stick to it for the remainder of the round. Why? Because there aren't enough allies to make the difference. It's stupid how insignificant and boring the game is now, and a lot of it comes down to the stagnation in alliance politics. Tag limits should be halved and I've said this for many rounds to no avail. At least this will give some flexibility in decisions rather than just opting for the notion 'to survive is better than to conquer'.
Sure, people may feel that it wont solve anything - halving tag limits, but I dont see any other suggestion put forward that can stop the same shit, round after round after round.
|
if anything tag sizes need to be increased
__________________
Did some stuff, played here n there done just about all there is to do
|
|
|
11 Feb 2015, 00:24
|
#265
|
king of carrot flowers
Join Date: May 2012
Location: 'Ampshire
Posts: 101
|
Re: R60 mid round turmoil
Err I just checked and there is 405 ticks left still (a third of the round).. In case anyone is interested you can see this sort of information as well, its on the overview page pretty much at the top..
BUTCHER FTW!
__________________
I finished high once, not as high as you, but then I ain't talking about rankings..
|
|
|
11 Feb 2015, 00:25
|
#266
|
Propaganda Chief
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Under the Rainbow
Posts: 4,740
|
Re: R60 mid round turmoil
Quote:
Originally Posted by Krypton
I'm 'pretty sure' this is untrue on both accounts
Please use logic, reasoning and evidence to support this
At the point we realised that uni politics had transpired against us - which was pretty early on. Although we didnt/haven't conceded in such a word (that was wrong of me to say), it's just very unlikely anyone will change their position before rounds end to majorly influence the outcome. As it is, we are playing out round before revamping for next round.
And they are lucky to have you. I cant really recall a recent time when anyone has ganged up on ct to rape them, but then I'm just a spineless cretin without any logic or thought process behind decisions made, done, divulged.
Ults has locked up the uni politics well, I concur. I do however feel the problems lie within the current game limits. What is the point in 60 man tags when there's 800 players and decreasing each round...seriously. It's a stupid limit that the admin team have continued to adhere to over previous rounds. There's no flexibility...what so ever between alliances now. So what you see after the first 200 ticks, pretty much dictates how the entire round will evolve.
Everything over the course of the round is settled within the first 200 ticks by political decisions - and then allies want to maintain their word and integrity and stick to it for the remainder of the round. Why? Because there aren't enough allies to make the difference. It's stupid how insignificant and boring the game is now, and a lot of it comes down to the stagnation in alliance politics. Tag limits should be halved and I've said this for many rounds to no avail. At least this will give some flexibility in decisions rather than just opting for the notion 'to survive is better than to conquer'.
Sure, people may feel that it wont solve anything - halving tag limits, but I dont see any other suggestion put forward that can stop the same shit, round after round after round.
|
Last round p3ng, Ult and BF had locked up the Univers politics, they were blocked together for majority of the round.
How dare you come now and critize other for doing the same?
It seems to me that p3ng lost fair and square to BF, Ult and CT for reasons outside of politics.
Your ship strat was dismysal, i wonder if you had IsildurX consulting you when you decided to go for siege hulls?
Im pretty sure many alliances in addition to RainbowS did their politics early round based on ship strats of the diffrent allies, and since p3ng was the only alliance without FR out of the big alliances, you prolly were left alone with the FI/CO/CR/BS tags to work with.
When ND and Ult was targetting CT, i dont remeber seeing p3ng comming to help CT out
__________________
RainbowS
RB Ely MISTU Angel Fusi0n 1up ToF VisioN CT FAnG ROCK
|
|
|
11 Feb 2015, 00:26
|
#267
|
KK
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 662
|
Re: R60 mid round turmoil
Quote:
Originally Posted by Clouds
I DC your incoming every night and I always prioritise p2nguins. We drop roids due to letting your flak alliances land. We defend quite efficiently which is why we don't send out many attacks fleets at night.
If you think you're able to roid us with ease, then you are greatly mistaken. We are at the stage of the round where we have quite big FR fleets that can cover your Siege attacks with less fleets. It's the same with us attacking you, p2nguins have quite some hefty FI fleets to cover against us too.
p2nguins and Black Flag will just demolish each other as both are too stubborn to work things out, and I got the impression from past communications that p2nguins will not stop unless we hit Ultores.
|
We've only given you one night of serious incoming...and that was two nights ago - you didn't do very well then.
|
|
|
11 Feb 2015, 00:27
|
#268
|
KK
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 662
|
Re: R60 mid round turmoil
Quote:
Originally Posted by BloodyButcher
Last round p3ng, Ult and BF had locked up the Univers politics, they were blocked together for majority of the round.
How dare you come now and critize other for doing the same?
It seems to me that p3ng lost fair and square to BF, Ult and CT for reasons outside of politics.
Your ship strat was dismysal, i wonder if you had IsildurX consulting you when you decided to go for siege hulls?
Im pretty sure many alliances in addition to RainbowS did their politics early round based on ship strats of the diffrent allies, and since p3ng was the only alliance without FR out of the big alliances, you prolly were left alone with the FI/CO/CR/BS tags to work with.
When ND and Ult was targetting CT, i dont remeber seeing p3ng comming to help CT out
|
Butcher, are you a retard? Like seriously, I think you are. I'm not criticizing. I've said its been the same for god knows how many rounds and I've been campaigning for this for the past 4 rounds for it to fall on deaf ears - even when we were on the positive end of things it was boring
|
|
|
11 Feb 2015, 00:29
|
#269
|
KK
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 662
|
Re: R60 mid round turmoil
I'm in an ult fort and I'm pretty sure they are all bored too!
|
|
|
11 Feb 2015, 00:50
|
#270
|
Inquisitor
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: England
Posts: 2,207
|
Re: R60 mid round turmoil
Congratulations to Ultores for winning the round
Did Forest do politics for CT or something?
*nudge nudge elbow*
__________________
----------
That uniform you're wearing
So hot I cant stop staring.
Zhil
[Spore] Executive
[1up]
[Fury]
Inquisitorial Lord Protector of His Emperor's Glorius Empire
[20:19:04] <mazzelaar> I have to say a big up to Zhil - without those 8 def calls you covered we would've been screwed. | r12 End Ceremony
|
|
|
11 Feb 2015, 01:03
|
#271
|
Registered User
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 898
|
Re: R60 mid round turmoil
Krypton, tag size is not the issue.
Right now certain alliances are over sensitive to incoming, if someone retals then OMG ITS A PTARGET!!! (hi ND ;p)
This leads to those alliances napping everyone they can and we get stagnation.
There is also the issue of poor political leaders or hc that cant look far enough ahead. some are stubborn beyond belief. some are too hung up on the past to deal with certain others.
smaller tags needs more hc type people, more scanners and will end up like we have with ults right now in a two tag alliances or support groups. smaller tags can lead to people quitting the game because they cannot get in a good alliance.
It would be better to address the politics issues as it is the politics that is suffocating the game.
Then again we have gone from a ultra attacking round to an ultra defence/fort round, we need it to be better balanced without the forts and appoco needs to address the shuffle system, if there are not enough BP's to shuffle reasonable sized gals then there needs to be a different system.
will stop ranting now ;p
__________________
R4-5 DDK
R6 Vanx
R7-R10 FAnG
R10 Eclipse
R10.5-R13 FAnG
R20-23 CT
R23 (CT BG) ToF
R24-R82... CT
|
|
|
11 Feb 2015, 01:18
|
#272
|
Leader Of The Gang
Join Date: Aug 2014
Posts: 455
|
Re: R60 mid round turmoil
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zh|l
Congratulations to Ultores for winning the round
Did Forest do politics for CT or something?
*nudge nudge elbow*
|
Thanks,
and id assume so.
__________________
Round 60 - Ultores - Rank 67th.
Round 75 - CT - Rank 19th - Galaxy Win.
Round 80 - Ultores - Rank 16th.
Round 81 - Ultores - Rank 73rd.
Round 83 - Ultores - Rank 16th.
Round 91 - Lucky7 - Rank 50th.
Round 92 - Lucky7 - Rank 39th.
|
|
|
11 Feb 2015, 01:22
|
#273
|
Registered User
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 898
|
Re: R60 mid round turmoil
no he didn't, he did try talking sense into certain people though but peon only!
__________________
R4-5 DDK
R6 Vanx
R7-R10 FAnG
R10 Eclipse
R10.5-R13 FAnG
R20-23 CT
R23 (CT BG) ToF
R24-R82... CT
|
|
|
11 Feb 2015, 01:27
|
#274
|
Leader Of The Gang
Join Date: Aug 2014
Posts: 455
|
Re: R60 mid round turmoil
Quote:
Originally Posted by [DDK]gm
no he didn't, he did try talking sense into certain people though but peon only!
|
as usual then..
__________________
Round 60 - Ultores - Rank 67th.
Round 75 - CT - Rank 19th - Galaxy Win.
Round 80 - Ultores - Rank 16th.
Round 81 - Ultores - Rank 73rd.
Round 83 - Ultores - Rank 16th.
Round 91 - Lucky7 - Rank 50th.
Round 92 - Lucky7 - Rank 39th.
|
|
|
11 Feb 2015, 02:22
|
#275
|
KK
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 662
|
Re: R60 mid round turmoil
Quote:
Originally Posted by [DDK]gm
Krypton, tag size is not the issue.
Right now certain alliances are over sensitive to incoming, if someone retals then OMG ITS A PTARGET!!! (hi ND ;p)
This leads to those alliances napping everyone they can and we get stagnation.
There is also the issue of poor political leaders or hc that cant look far enough ahead. some are stubborn beyond belief. some are too hung up on the past to deal with certain others.
smaller tags needs more hc type people, more scanners and will end up like we have with ults right now in a two tag alliances or support groups. smaller tags can lead to people quitting the game because they cannot get in a good alliance.
It would be better to address the politics issues as it is the politics that is suffocating the game.
Then again we have gone from a ultra attacking round to an ultra defence/fort round, we need it to be better balanced without the forts and appoco needs to address the shuffle system, if there are not enough BP's to shuffle reasonable sized gals then there needs to be a different system.
will stop ranting now ;p
|
I agree on some level that politics has suffocated the game over the past rounds. But like you said, its gone from uber attacking to uber defensive rounds, so if it's not tag size what other ideas are there on how to change this?
|
|
|
11 Feb 2015, 04:19
|
#276
|
Registered User
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 1,038
|
Re: R60 mid round turmoil
galaxies need to be capped at 10 with the current size of player base a 60 man tag can't put 120 fleets on a 15man galaxy in the top 10
__________________
Did some stuff, played here n there done just about all there is to do
|
|
|
11 Feb 2015, 05:02
|
#277
|
Mordar, Keel, Reip
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: Finland
Posts: 333
|
Re: R60 mid round turmoil
for once we see things the same with BE
Galaxy sizes are an issue during overly defensive/value rounds such as this, 10 would be ideal in my mind too. During last round, anything wasn't an issue as much as the stats, except politics somewhat.
And about Politics (as an issue), I've personally tried discussing with most alliances this round. Seeing if there was a way we could work more or less together in a sensible way... In some cases it has worked better, in some cases not so well. And by this I do not mean forming blocks or anything like that, more a balancing of the dckswinging. Like GM said, there seems to be too much hanging on to old friends and old enemies rather than seeing things differently. Smaller tags would just increase this in my opinion, bigger tags wouldn't really help either, especially when we have so few players. Getting an extreme change to politics would mean that all the "old HCs" and long time officers quit the game all together and are not involved in the alliances at all. Or all alliances and buddypacks are removed from the game itself, but we bring back these "meta-alliances" from the early rounds, having no alliance ETA, no alliance score to play for would drastically change the politics, make it cluster alliances or galaxies or whatnot, just not alliances. That could ofc kill one of the things that's keeping this game alive, the communities within a community.
__________________
Wolf in a pirates clothing to the highest degree, standing behind the curtains.
All the war propaganda, all the screaming and lies and hatred, comes invariably from people who are not fighting. - George Orwell
|
|
|
11 Feb 2015, 08:42
|
#278
|
Registered User
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 957
|
Re: R60 mid round turmoil
Buddy Pack size at 6 (including late signups) is just way too high. That is what is creating these huge galaxies. If you reduce it to 4 the galaxies will be much smaller from the get go and you'll have a much better distribution. Even at 5 (4 starting) you'd see a significant decrease in size.
|
|
|
11 Feb 2015, 10:01
|
#279
|
Registered User
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 1,038
|
Re: R60 mid round turmoil
Quote:
Originally Posted by Patrikc
Buddy Pack size at 6 (including late signups) is just way too high. That is what is creating these huge galaxies. If you reduce it to 4 the galaxies will be much smaller from the get go and you'll have a much better distribution. Even at 5 (4 starting) you'd see a significant decrease in size.
|
even with BP's at 4 there are still galaxies at around 12+
im talking about a HARD cap so if you have 10 at tick 336 you can't get a latesign
__________________
Did some stuff, played here n there done just about all there is to do
|
|
|
11 Feb 2015, 10:06
|
#280
|
Finally retired
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 788
|
Re: R60 mid round turmoil
Quote:
Originally Posted by Blue_Esper
even with BP's at 4 there are still galaxies at around 12+
im talking about a HARD cap so if you have 10 at tick 336 you can't get a latesign
|
late signups should be abolished anyhow.
__________________
don't be an arse, join [TiT]
In the absence of the good old TiT alliance, look me up in VGN
|
|
|
11 Feb 2015, 10:24
|
#281
|
Registered User
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 898
|
Re: R60 mid round turmoil
the shuffle works on buddy packs, each bp combination of 4/5 creates a new gal.
__________________
R4-5 DDK
R6 Vanx
R7-R10 FAnG
R10 Eclipse
R10.5-R13 FAnG
R20-23 CT
R23 (CT BG) ToF
R24-R82... CT
|
|
|
11 Feb 2015, 11:18
|
#282
|
Registered User
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 957
|
Re: R60 mid round turmoil
You cannot do a hard cap without severely harming new players that join mid-round, Blue_Esper. Buddy pack size of 4 would leave galaxies around 11-12 at this time, which is better, while 3 would put them around 9-10 which is perfect in my opinion.
And yes, let's please get rid of late starters. The intentions for it were good but in application it's just used to make strong galaxies even stronger.
|
|
|
11 Feb 2015, 12:05
|
#283
|
Registered User
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 1,386
|
Re: R60 mid round turmoil
Please stop blaming the game mechanics how politics has played out this round. I do however agree that due to the small number of players the game houses, alliances are limited, but it is not the mechanics of the game that is at fault here.
There are plenty of alliances who could block Ultores, who aren't directly friendly with them, but they choose not to. You're flaming Black Flag which is one alliance. Why do we need to hit Ultores and not the others? There's still CT/p2nguins/Vikings/Faceless/Howling Rain.
The only ones at fault are the alliances listed above who seem to be incapable of working together.
|
|
|
11 Feb 2015, 12:20
|
#284
|
-HotLipS-
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 55
|
Re: R60 mid round turmoil
Quote:
Originally Posted by [DDK]gm
Every offer we made was serious. P3ng refused to help us when Ult/ND was warring us... they were annoyed we wouldn't hit ults on our own while ND hit us. given the help we would of ignored nd incs and taken down ults together. The last two nights we put over 90 incs on ults each night, PL broads stopped us dead, wasting out time.
Ults has locked up the uni politics well.
|
I think we dished it out pretty good, gm :-D Obviously you kicked our asses, this is known, but we still had a proper slugging.
CT is one of the few non-lame allies left in PA (no sarcasm involved).
__________________
"Art of Farming"
R 6 - Olympus
R 7 - Skipped
R 8 - Adelante
R 9 - ViruS, 38:10:7
R 9.5 - RaH, 40:5:9
|
|
|
11 Feb 2015, 12:22
|
#285
|
-HotLipS-
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 55
|
Re: R60 mid round turmoil
Quote:
Originally Posted by Influence
late signups should be abolished anyhow.
|
Prly the only smart thing written on this thread :-D
__________________
"Art of Farming"
R 6 - Olympus
R 7 - Skipped
R 8 - Adelante
R 9 - ViruS, 38:10:7
R 9.5 - RaH, 40:5:9
|
|
|
11 Feb 2015, 12:39
|
#286
|
KK
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 662
|
Re: R60 mid round turmoil
Quote:
Originally Posted by Clouds
Please stop blaming the game mechanics how politics has played out this round. I do however agree that due to the small number of players the game houses, alliances are limited, but it is not the mechanics of the game that is at fault here.
There are plenty of alliances who could block Ultores, who aren't directly friendly with them, but they choose not to. You're flaming Black Flag which is one alliance. Why do we need to hit Ultores and not the others? There's still CT/p2nguins/Vikings/Faceless/Howling Rain.
The only ones at fault are the alliances listed above who seem to be incapable of working together.
|
No one's flaming anyone. We are coming up with suggestions on how to stop it being the same bore round after round beyond 400 ticks
|
|
|
11 Feb 2015, 12:42
|
#287
|
Paso Leaute
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 919
|
Re: R60 mid round turmoil
Quote:
Originally Posted by Clouds
There's still CT/p2nguins/Vikings/Faceless/Howling Rain.
|
Ult and its ingame allies = 506 mil value
That fearsome five you mention = 444 mil value
Have you ever seen a gangbang work when the gang bangers are trailing like that? Pretty sure its usually a 2 to one advantage that is required.
__________________
An optimist may see a light where there is none, but why must the pessimist always run to blow it out?
|
|
|
11 Feb 2015, 12:42
|
#288
|
mz.
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 8,587
|
Re: R60 mid round turmoil
Quote:
Originally Posted by [B5]Londo
Sure a win based on securing the bigger block would still be a win, and however you win there is always politics involved, but having to rely on a gangbang of Ult coming about puts P3n at the mercy of events rather than controlling them.
|
This strikes me as strange. Wouldn't it be better to take a chance on 'at the mercy of events' than to deliberately pick the worst possible outcome those events might bring about? At worst, you'd be just as bad off as before.
Quote:
Originally Posted by [B5]Londo
Disclaimer: I'm just an ordinary p3on with my ear to the ground, giving my opinion of how things looked.
|
You're more coherent than many of the so-called HCs I see posting in this thread, low though that target may be.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Blue_Esper
if anything tag sizes need to be increased
|
I see Butcher has a new nick.
Quote:
Originally Posted by [DDK]gm
Right now certain alliances are over sensitive to incoming, if someone retals then OMG ITS A PTARGET!!! (hi ND ;p)
This leads to those alliances napping everyone they can and we get stagnation.
There is also the issue of poor political leaders or hc that cant look far enough ahead. some are stubborn beyond belief. some are too hung up on the past to deal with certain others.
|
I've said this before, but it's a sad state of affairs when the epitome of political prowess is "if you don't join us, we'll attack you!".
Quote:
Originally Posted by Patrikc
Buddy Pack size at 6 (including late signups) is just way too high. That is what is creating these huge galaxies. If you reduce it to 4 the galaxies will be much smaller from the get go and you'll have a much better distribution. Even at 5 (4 starting) you'd see a significant decrease in size.
|
Agreed. Hard caps are a bad idea. You can achieve the same goal (smaller galaxies) by simply creating more galaxies at round start, without the bad side effect of midround newbies having even less chance of landing in a decent galaxy than they already do.
As for late signups, they continue to disproportionally benefit the people who are already on top of the game. I'd rather see BPs of 5 without late signing than BPs of 4 with 1 late signer.
__________________
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.
|
|
|
11 Feb 2015, 13:06
|
#289
|
Seraphim
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 196
|
Re: R60 mid round turmoil
This might merit a thread of it's own, but if you ask me the game doesn't need more HC. It needs less. A lot less.
The entire backroom culture is poison to this game. Virtually every hc knows each other, pretty much. It's all old news and everybody has history between them. The political game is stale and boring, and reminds me very much of old men bickering over the last piece of pudding. No offense to any HC out there, but a little fresh blood might go a long way.
I've seen HC bring entire allies to war because they got insulted by another HC, or LOL LANDED ON, and I've seen people refuse to work together because of history. Hell, I've seen great hate and fear towards certain alliances simply because of past events, but I've posted on this in the past.
Ideally, everybody would have their own opinion, a vote would go up, and then whatever was decided is whatever everybody will commit to 100%. I gotta say respect for p3nguins because in a lot of cases, this is how it works. Sure sometimes somebody gets pissed the vote didn't go their way, but that is my experience of how things work.
It's not always perfect, and sometimes it doesn't work as well as other systems might in certain situations, and we've decided a select group handles politics and that's worked well for us in the past. But it sure as hell beats treating members like drones.
If people are involved, they get invested in the game and the alliance - their ideas matter, their opinions matter. They matter. With heavy HC systems, they're tools. Cogs in a machine. You can't tell me the best way to get people invested in this game, and to keep them interested in it, is to not give a damn about them and put the power even more into the hands of "veterans'.
Sure, you might end up playing better - for a round. But for the longevity of this game, well, the player numbers speak for themselves. Not that I blame all of that on HC, far from, but I certainly think it's a part of it.
---
Also galaxies do seem a bit big for the current playerbase.
Something else, I'd like to see a game without alliance (score), I wasn't active when it was done in the past but the idea appeals to me.
__________________
Seraphim
|
|
|
11 Feb 2015, 13:16
|
#290
|
The brother of Spammer
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Paisley - Scotland
Posts: 2,352
|
Re: R60 mid round turmoil
I take it we are in agreement that the late starter needs to be scrapped?
@Machado ... but I personally blame that there isn't a big enough carrot for alliances to go for the win. I.E. lack of incentive to backstab etc to go for the win.
__________________
Missing Subh (r15-r18)
|
|
|
11 Feb 2015, 13:18
|
#291
|
Shadows and Dust
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: The Black Bastion
Posts: 329
|
Re: R60 mid round turmoil
I started on day 3 this round, wouldnt have returned if i couldnt start late
__________________
Nick: Swing
R3 or so - Cell/Elysium
Looong break
R20 - Orbit
R21 - Subh (Finished rank 58)
8 year break
R60 - ND -> Ultores (Finished rank 48)
R61 - Rogues
14:05 <Swing> I wear a cape and a burger king paper crown when i play pa
14:10 <Zwanstic> u also talk alot of shit
14:14 <Blue_Esper> you're a weird unit
12:33 <hone> oddr is where we send all the semi retarded and gay bashing ult has beens LOL
12:34 <hone> thats where u should be swing lol
|
|
|
11 Feb 2015, 13:21
|
#292
|
Registered User
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 898
|
Re: R60 mid round turmoil
in the past any new alliance was at an immediate disadvantage, no alliance tools.. that has changed somewhat now as in-game alliance is a lot better. That said there is still a lot of room for improvement on attack and intel tools.
__________________
R4-5 DDK
R6 Vanx
R7-R10 FAnG
R10 Eclipse
R10.5-R13 FAnG
R20-23 CT
R23 (CT BG) ToF
R24-R82... CT
|
|
|
11 Feb 2015, 15:49
|
#293
|
Registered User
Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 245
|
Re: R60 mid round turmoil
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bane
I started on day 3 this round, wouldnt have returned if i couldnt start late
|
I'm not sure if you're talking about the same thing..
Did you sign up on day 3 and played since then (i.e. start from tick 72 or so)?
Or did you sign up on day 3 and then resetted at tick 336 (i.e. day 14) to join your favorite galaxy?
|
|
|
11 Feb 2015, 16:06
|
#294
|
Paso Leaute
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 919
|
Re: R60 mid round turmoil
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bane
I started on day 3 this round, wouldnt have returned if i couldnt start late
|
The above discussed changes would have made no difference to you, since you were not a late sign as part of the buddypack, nor indeed were you a planet beyond 10, your planet was simply created in the space left by someone that was exiled.
__________________
An optimist may see a light where there is none, but why must the pessimist always run to blow it out?
|
|
|
11 Feb 2015, 18:14
|
#295
|
Propaganda Chief
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Under the Rainbow
Posts: 4,740
|
Re: R60 mid round turmoil
Quote:
Originally Posted by Clouds
Please stop blaming the game mechanics how politics has played out this round. I do however agree that due to the small number of players the game houses, alliances are limited, but it is not the mechanics of the game that is at fault here.
There are plenty of alliances who could block Ultores, who aren't directly friendly with them, but they choose not to. You're flaming Black Flag which is one alliance. Why do we need to hit Ultores and not the others? There's still CT/p2nguins/Vikings/Faceless/Howling Rain.
The only ones at fault are the alliances listed above who seem to be incapable of working together.
|
CT/p3nguins for sure would not hit you if you hit Ult.
For everyones concern BF seems to go for planet ranks, and not care about Ult winning alliance.
I dont blame the other alliance who were in a position to win that they are taking down BF planets just for the reason they play how they seems to be playing this round, and last round.
__________________
RainbowS
RB Ely MISTU Angel Fusi0n 1up ToF VisioN CT FAnG ROCK
|
|
|
11 Feb 2015, 18:35
|
#296
|
Leader Of The Gang
Join Date: Aug 2014
Posts: 455
|
Re: R60 mid round turmoil
the rounds not over alot can happen over the next few weeks, but the only reason Ultores look like they have already taken the win is mainly because the other alliance HC`S have grudges towards each-other and refusing to work with one and other.
__________________
Round 60 - Ultores - Rank 67th.
Round 75 - CT - Rank 19th - Galaxy Win.
Round 80 - Ultores - Rank 16th.
Round 81 - Ultores - Rank 73rd.
Round 83 - Ultores - Rank 16th.
Round 91 - Lucky7 - Rank 50th.
Round 92 - Lucky7 - Rank 39th.
|
|
|
11 Feb 2015, 18:45
|
#297
|
Registered User
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 898
|
Re: R60 mid round turmoil
sad but true
__________________
R4-5 DDK
R6 Vanx
R7-R10 FAnG
R10 Eclipse
R10.5-R13 FAnG
R20-23 CT
R23 (CT BG) ToF
R24-R82... CT
|
|
|
11 Feb 2015, 18:53
|
#298
|
Leader Of The Gang
Join Date: Aug 2014
Posts: 455
|
Re: R60 mid round turmoil
Quote:
Originally Posted by [DDK]gm
sad but true
|
If the HC`s of alliance like BF,CT,ND,VIK,FL ect.. could put the past behind them PA would be a much funner game to play all that happens is BLOCKS left right and center sucks imo..
__________________
Round 60 - Ultores - Rank 67th.
Round 75 - CT - Rank 19th - Galaxy Win.
Round 80 - Ultores - Rank 16th.
Round 81 - Ultores - Rank 73rd.
Round 83 - Ultores - Rank 16th.
Round 91 - Lucky7 - Rank 50th.
Round 92 - Lucky7 - Rank 39th.
|
|
|
11 Feb 2015, 19:24
|
#299
|
Shadows and Dust
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: The Black Bastion
Posts: 329
|
Re: R60 mid round turmoil
Quote:
Originally Posted by [B5]Londo
The above discussed changes would have made no difference to you, since you were not a late sign as part of the buddypack, nor indeed were you a planet beyond 10, your planet was simply created in the space left by someone that was exiled.
|
Sweet
__________________
Nick: Swing
R3 or so - Cell/Elysium
Looong break
R20 - Orbit
R21 - Subh (Finished rank 58)
8 year break
R60 - ND -> Ultores (Finished rank 48)
R61 - Rogues
14:05 <Swing> I wear a cape and a burger king paper crown when i play pa
14:10 <Zwanstic> u also talk alot of shit
14:14 <Blue_Esper> you're a weird unit
12:33 <hone> oddr is where we send all the semi retarded and gay bashing ult has beens LOL
12:34 <hone> thats where u should be swing lol
|
|
|
11 Feb 2015, 19:34
|
#300
|
Propaganda Chief
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Under the Rainbow
Posts: 4,740
|
Re: R60 mid round turmoil
Quote:
Originally Posted by Adapt
the rounds not over alot can happen over the next few weeks, but the only reason Ultores look like they have already taken the win is mainly because the other alliance HC`S have grudges towards each-other and refusing to work with one and other.
|
I dont belive BowS are holding grudges to anyone.
Yet it is alliances that i rather not lay my trust in due to certain things in the past, and certain things thats happend this round.
How ever we are, and never were in any position to win this round, and it is we that was suppose to lead the charge on what ever ally was #1.
And if certain alliances hadnt been bashing us down early, declaring war on us, politics couldve been diffrent, yet the alliances in the top4 seems to be more interesting in attacking the alliances outside top4, apart from Ultores, wich is the reason why they are looking so strong now.
Instead of blaiming it on grudges and what not, perhaps the other alliances should look to Ultores what they did right this round compared to last round, theyve had the balls to take the fight against the competitors, yet has managed to keep them away from being able to harm them back.
__________________
RainbowS
RB Ely MISTU Angel Fusi0n 1up ToF VisioN CT FAnG ROCK
|
|
|
|
All times are GMT +1. The time now is 23:32.
| |