Paid random vs. Buddy effect on fence sitting

[Rinoa]

Since the new buddy pack sysytem was announced, been trying to decide which route to take for gal setup rnd 13, as there is a slight change from last round. Last round had 5 private spaces which 80% of the time meant 5 of your gal were from 1 side (block) and prob a high chance u had 1 other alliance mate with you. This round however as buddy packs are made up of 2 or 3 people, the number of different alliances represented in a gal will surely increase, as no alliance will want to put 3 members in 1 pack, let alone even 2.
So Options are :
1)Buddy with people from same block/side/nap etc and if u land in gal with 2/3 packs from same block effect = a good honest fighting gal
However chances are you will land with 1 or even 2 packs from other sides ,effect = more fencesitting gals than last round

But Since you know fencsitting is going to happen anyway, i think a lot of players will try to make the best of fencesitting gals with the following options :
2) create a pack with friends from enemy block and hide it from alliance, meaning that at least if u are gonna have to share, may as well b e with people u like.

3) Go paid Random , and even further Increaser the chances of gal protection through fencesitting, as if u have say 5 alliances represented through 3 packs, 1 more paid random means the gal will be pretty well protected.

Ii guess what im trying to say is i think all alliances should have a clearly defined stance on shared gals/ fencesitting etc BEFORE the round starts and make sure all members know what they are and are not allowed to do, as this could be the messiest round yet.

So what option do u think alliances should get players to use to best make use of the alliances strength and what option do u think players will ACTUALLY use?

[TheRat]

I see your concern, fencesitting is really crap. I will, like last round, not fencesit no matter what gal I end up in. I was ingal with 2 LCH HC (brillaint choice, eh?), and yet was one of the most hostile planets to LCH there was until I got killed. I wont to the same mistake again, chosing enemy players for my pack, but chances are I will (as you say) end up with oposition in my gal.

No matter what happens, I will not fencesit, nor will I allow my fellow buddies to do so (nor would they want to), as it is counterproductive alliancewise. Fencesitters, imho, work for personal rank and we all know that alliance is all that matters :-)

May the best alliance win and the best fencer get to #1 :-)

[Jonas]

I went with 1up in buddypack, and since I did that, I stayed away from them all round until Insomnia decided to attack 1up. I dont know if you'd call it fencesitting or not. It was a deal between the 2 1up and 3 Insomniacs in the gal to stay clear of eachother so that the gal could stay strong. As alyways, nomatter what gal im in, I will attack whoever my alliance needs me to attack. However staying off 1 alliance personally(as a planet) is easy, and should not be considered fencesitting UNLESS its a full war situation.

[TheRat]

As long as insomnia did not have hostile feelings towards 1up, I wouldnt call that fencesitting. Especially not since you did attack once your alliance decided to.

[Proxi]

As long as members know that their alliance wont stand for fencesitting, it shouldnt be a bigger problem than it was last round.

So ohnes on the alliance HC aswell as the individuals

[TheRat]

The problem seems to be just that, (some) alliances wont enforce their rules on their bigger members, in fear of loosing them.

[noah02]

Originally Posted by TheRat

The problem seems to be just that, (some) alliances wont enforce their rules on their bigger members, in fear of loosing them.

I know an alliance that did
Evil_Noob the cheater

[Forest]

Originally Posted by TheRat

The problem seems to be just that, (some) alliances wont enforce their rules on their bigger members, in fear of loosing them.

So, they just lose the round again

[Proxi]

Originally Posted by TheRat

The problem seems to be just that, (some) alliances wont enforce their rules on their bigger members, in fear of loosing them.

yeah i know, it was a subtle nudge nudge wink wink at a **certain** allaince

[Kal]

i'm convinced people kepe saying there is no blocking anymore, in which case having 3 from 1 alliance in a pack is fine..

[Seth Mace]

Whatever happens, policing your own alliances buddy packs is only damage limited from a gal politics pov. 2/3 buddy packs per gal, there will be few 100% friendly gals about and for the few that end up like this, will be bashed:/

I dont think this round will be a good round for fence sitters, mainly because the choice of nice targets will be so few and far between (nice in terms of no friendlies), that hitting galaxies containing your own alliances is something most allies will have to do eventually to keep growing.

Welcome Planet naps, this will certainly split the Alliance Loyal, from the Alliance Jumpers.

[Rinoa]

Originally Posted by Seth Mace

hitting galaxies containing your own alliances is something most allies will have to do eventually to keep growing.

Welcome Planet naps, this will certainly split the Alliance Loyal, from the Alliance Jumpers.

Yeah i agree but how many of the top 10 alliances are actually prepared to do this , and have members loyal enough who dont mind their gal benig attacked by own alliance? Not many i think...

[jerome]

go random.

[Mistwraith]

yer members galaxy is their last line of defence so a strong gal for them is a good plan, most alliances will adopt a planetary nap system with the friendly in the gals, but if they have a member of their own in one they wil attempt to leave that galaxy alone unless it has been overtly hostile or contains people they are at war with.
That is only until later in the game where good targets are hard to get , after that mere planetary naps come into force.

[Sonnenbomber]

nice post, rinoa.
But unfortunaly it isnt that easy. Im still not 100% up to date what changed during our time out but so far as I noticed till yet, it isnt that much basicly.
The buddy groups are a nice idea. And I guess I know what the intention of the creators was when they installed it. In my opinion it has the sense to bring groups of different allys/blocks together and force them to work together if they want to work successfull as gal. So powerblocking and alliances were aimed to be less powerfull.
I guess that was the main idea. The problem is, nearly all top10 allys are long existing communitys. And these guys mostly are more loyal to their ally than any galaxy they are in for 3 months. Especially when the other buddygroup(s) are from hostile alliances.
So they give up the ingal coorporation very often activ and even good galaxys becomes splitted and destroyed at the end.
And outgoing from my expierence of being HC for nearly 3 years now, such a proposed deal is not impossible. But Iam also very sure, when a top5 or top10 ranked ally is in a close war with another, they wont respect the deal anymore and attack the enemys planets in their own gals if that gal didnt join their side.

So what else can be done?

1. pure privat gals: I personally like it, because I like blocking. I always prefered working in a team with other alliances. But PA history showed, that it only works for the top alliances in a p2p game. So that cant be the solution if the game shall survive.
2. Pure random gals: This option will bring us the same problems like Ive told you already about the buddy groups.
And random gals creates another big problem in this more or less small universe:
You need damn much luck to end in an activ and cooperating galaxy. Otherwise you only have a chance as hardcore player. So its a very unattractiv style for noobs, especially when they start midround because they want to try the game and play just for fun.
3. Mixed gals: This means you have privat gals and fill them up with randoms. Outgoing from the current PA situation, I would suggest 6 privat people and 4 random people. Ofc this option allows the allys to block when they get controll over the galaxys.
So what makes it better than the other options?
Well, mixed gals means, you have to include people from other allys into your galaxy if you want to be successfull. But the important difference to the buddy groups is, the randoms players are mostly from small or noob allys. This people have to be included, this people have to be introduced into the game when you want to get your galaxy running. Thats helpfull for newbies and avoids too much influence of the powerblocks. And it avoid the splitting of a shit lot galaxys like its possible with buddy groups.
And yes, thats a proposal for you PA Team!!

Ofc you can have another opinion about that. And yes, there isnt a perfect solution. But when I see all problems and risks together, I think mixed gals would balance the game and alliance structure most.

Regards
Sonnenbomber

[Kal]

private gals force fixed blocking rather than dynamic blocking so are not good, buddy packs should in theory delay the end of any fixed blocking wars

I actually think a fair few players may well go random

you can have a pack of 2 rather than a pack of 3 if u prefer, no one is forcing you to fill the pack (at least in the current code).

mixed gals is something that cna be tried again in the future based around the current buddy code implementation, it would not be hard to modify the code for that - however with mixed gals the private people will all know who they are and ignore the randoms who will be mostly free/new players (unless they have a brain - but its players we are talking about ) With the buddy pack implementation the packs will only know who is in their pack, they will not be able to distingush between the randoms and the other pack meaning the galaxy is forced to coperate at least in the short term in order to survive.

And its really not that hard to have a war when u have hostiles in gal - u simply agree when the time comes that u will hit each others alliances BUT still report attacks on each other - imo that is how a galaxy at war whould behave

[Mistwraith]

with the current member base only fools ignore their randoms, free, noob or paid, its important to the galaxy to keep them active, tho i do concede that some randoms will turn out to be damp squibs.. ( i've been told not everyone knows what a damp squib is - its a firework that doesnt go off when u light it) but that is what exile is for .

[The_Fish]

Originally Posted by Kal

i'm convinced people kepe saying there is no blocking anymore, in which case having 3 from 1 alliance in a pack is fine..

3 faults

1) if an alliance gets hold of who you are, you are far more likely to be constantly hit than a gal of just 2 allied buddies + friend

2) If 2 buddy groups from an alliance land together, thats 6 in one gal, 3 wave that every night and half an alliances defence resources are gone!

3) You are increasing chances of random incs on your galaxy if it's just 1 alliance.

[Alki]

Originally Posted by Rinoa

Yeah i agree but how many of the top 10 alliances are actually prepared to do this , and have members loyal enough who dont mind their gal benig attacked by own alliance? Not many i think...

then those alliances dont deserve to win, nor do the members deserve to be part of a winning alliance

[Zo0f]

Originally Posted by Alki

then those alliances dont deserve to win, nor do the members deserve to be part of a winning alliance

Well said.

[demiGOD]

i like the buddy sys, lets just see how it works.. also fencesitting will still be there, random or not, so its a lose-lose argument bout fencesitting