|
23 Feb 2005, 09:12
|
#1
|
Reborn
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: A Galaxy Far Far Away
Posts: 46
|
[Discuss] Alliance Size Compromise
I would of said this on the discussion about alliance size but it was closed.
The idea is to give the Elites and the Noobs what they want by having 2 different alliance sizes one 100 and one 50 have 2 different rank systems. So while us elites are up here battling for top spot in the 100 size. Newer players/alliances could beh battleing each other for top spot in the 50 size. I know this idea needs alot of discussion but i think it has potential. Mehbe make it so your alliance can only join one or the other only once a round so no one could kick 50 members and claim supremacy on the smaller one. Also this would influence more people to start alliances as you could battle it out with noobs at first gain some momentum and mehbe next rnd try for the 100 rank. There is always the problem that top alliances will go own the newbies but whats the pride in that =)
Anyways Dicuss/ Flame/ Whatever it is you do
__________________
A Old Game With a New Vision
A Old Player With a New Mission
Together We Both Claim ~ReViCtIoN~ Conviction, Courage, Control
|
|
|
23 Feb 2005, 09:51
|
#2
|
Punk
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Aberdeen
Posts: 397
|
Re: [Discuss] Alliance Size Compromise
__________________
Rd13 SiNND (12:4:3)
Rd6&7 4D (20:8:6) & (20:2:10) Rd14 ND (2:5:4)
Rd8 Did not play Rd15 Did not play
Rd9 4D/SWaRM (13:4:10) Rd16 ND (14:1:6)
Rd9.5 SWaRM (42:7:4) Rd17 ND (13:10:8)
Rd10 SWaRM (21:4:7) Rd18 ND (13:6:8)
Rd10.5 SWaRM (5:5:10) Rd19 ND - HC (1:9:3)
Rd11 ND (32:2:10) Rd36 ND 7:9:7
Rd12 ND (30:10:1)
|
|
|
23 Feb 2005, 14:04
|
#3
|
Inactive peon
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 6,050
|
Re: [Discuss] Alliance Size Compromise
i don;t actually see how this would help anything unless u prevent the people in one ranking attacking the people in the other - but split universes result in boring play and early stagnation due to a lack of targets
|
|
|
23 Feb 2005, 14:09
|
#4
|
Reborn
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: A Galaxy Far Far Away
Posts: 46
|
Re: [Discuss] Alliance Size Compromise
The noobies want sumtin to play for give um a rank. Think of it as basketball there are 1a 1aa divisions yet they still play everyone. This idea could make way for wings of sort. The bigger alliances while making thier 100 alliance division. Could recruit noobies for the 50 alliance division therefore giving noobies the chance to have top rank HC's, tools, organization, learn the ropes from the veterans playing in the 100 division.
And also if weh division 100 alliances are bashing them to oblivion still there will beh a battle between them for the ranking spot =) therefore giving them a incentive also while learning them the basic workings of an alliance.
Also on the flip side this could beh a real proving ground for recruits. To prove that they can hang in the 100 division next rnd. Also no worrying from the HC's if they are recruiting a good person or not as they will all ready know the recruit. They know his behavior, activity and skill levels.
__________________
A Old Game With a New Vision
A Old Player With a New Mission
Together We Both Claim ~ReViCtIoN~ Conviction, Courage, Control
Last edited by ~RevictioN~; 23 Feb 2005 at 15:41.
|
|
|
23 Feb 2005, 15:26
|
#5
|
Inactive peon
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 6,050
|
Re: [Discuss] Alliance Size Compromise
or alliances would just have 150 players and compete in both leagues
|
|
|
23 Feb 2005, 15:45
|
#6
|
Reborn
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: A Galaxy Far Far Away
Posts: 46
|
Re: [Discuss] Alliance Size Compromise
Well these players will have to come from somewhere =) as were running out of Elite/Average players as it is.
Also the alliance gets no def bonus from the divisions.
Why would they put thier good players in the "NOOB Division".
Also it would actually pay off to recruit noobs and teach them so next rnd you can move them up to mehbe take a shot at winning the "Elite Division" .
Im not saying this is a perfect idea. What I am saying is some sort of teir rankings so noobies stay around for more then 1 rnd because they have a chance to win something. To have pride in thier alliance and want to come back next rnd to claim top rank ( Much of which keeps us coming back ) and also a more structured way to move from Noobie to Average player. So that the top alliances want you . Since if the wing thing goes, your noobie recruit will already have a rnd under his/her belt on how top alliances work such as Attacking/Defending/Polotics.
__________________
A Old Game With a New Vision
A Old Player With a New Mission
Together We Both Claim ~ReViCtIoN~ Conviction, Courage, Control
Last edited by ~RevictioN~; 23 Feb 2005 at 16:09.
|
|
|
23 Feb 2005, 16:20
|
#7
|
Aria's TeddyBear :p
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Rhode Island, USA
Posts: 516
|
Re: [Discuss] Alliance Size Compromise
as it is alliance size should come down..not be made greater. but that a diffrent dicussion already
__________________
Proud to be have been Fyre, NewDawn, NoS - The Illuminati, [ 1u p]
R3 [Acid] peon
R4 - R7 [Fyre] HC
R7 - R8 [ND] HC
R8 - R13 [NoS] MC
R14 - R16 [ 1u p] MO
R17 Retired
|
|
|
23 Feb 2005, 16:21
|
#8
|
Reborn
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: A Galaxy Far Far Away
Posts: 46
|
Re: [Discuss] Alliance Size Compromise
Also it helps in creating a new alliance. As most people realize if they start an alliance they cant compete with most of the top alliances. So why not get some much needed Command experience by going into the lower division to start your alliance. After a few wins or a dominate preformance in the lower division you could then move your alliance up while already having a good core memberbase, Command knowledge and much needed publicity to recruit more players.
__________________
A Old Game With a New Vision
A Old Player With a New Mission
Together We Both Claim ~ReViCtIoN~ Conviction, Courage, Control
|
|
|
23 Feb 2005, 17:58
|
#9
|
deserves a medal
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 1,211
|
Re: [Discuss] Alliance Size Compromise
Does that mean Ill have to signup twice?
__________________
"I have with me two gods, Persuasion and Compulsion."
|
|
|
23 Feb 2005, 21:13
|
#10
|
Choice of Whacker sir?
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Ireland
Posts: 679
|
Re: [Discuss] Alliance Size Compromise
I think this is a good idea.
__________________
* thanos sets mode: -brain The_Shadow_Man
|
|
|
24 Feb 2005, 01:09
|
#11
|
Doh!
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Nemo Mortalium Omnibus Horis Sapit
Posts: 1,720
|
Re: [Discuss] Alliance Size Compromise
Who would determine which alliance was in each division?
Past History is nothing to go by, as when 1up came on the scene and won there first round as 1up, they were a brand new unproven alliance.
Perhaps the idea should be turned on it's head, the top 10 previous alliances should be limited to 50 members and the rest allowed 100?
How you would do this remains a mystery (whether it is top alliance with 100 members or the lower ranked/new ones)
All you would need to do to circumvent it is rename your alliance every round and gain whatever advantage you could.
|
|
|
24 Feb 2005, 01:09
|
#12
|
Registered User
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 1,081
|
Re: [Discuss] Alliance Size Compromise
Why? Everyone will still know which alliances are more powerful, which alliances are stronger, which alliances have higher average scores.
Just because the alliances are in two separate leagues does not mean that the 'winner' of the lower league is actually good, or able to compete. Between rounds, they would have to double their memberbase to survive in the top league.
You say it will be easier for smaller and newer alliances to compete with the bigger alliances. It won't. they are still worse organised, more vulnerable and less technologically and tactically advanced/capable and so they are still rivals.
Nobody would look at the lower league.
|
|
|
24 Feb 2005, 01:41
|
#13
|
Black Power MotherF*ckas!
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: JAPAN
Posts: 1,812
|
Re: [Discuss] Alliance Size Compromise
I think "handicapping" people who have been playing for years is a silly idea. Why limit gameplay for some. Everyone should have the same PA experience.
__________________
Ascendancy
When Doves Cry
|
|
|
24 Feb 2005, 06:41
|
#14
|
the Sacred Pervert
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: San Diego, CA
Posts: 1,492
|
Re: [Discuss] Alliance Size Compromise
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kal
or alliances would just have 150 players and compete in both leagues
|
this is very similar to the idea being implied on this thread
and it's a bad idea, i think - like 100 isn't enough..
__________________
"....some might say, we will find a brighter day...."
-Oasis
Veneratio | Insomnia | F-Crew | Subh
|
|
|
24 Feb 2005, 10:43
|
#15
|
Reborn
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: A Galaxy Far Far Away
Posts: 46
|
Re: [Discuss] Alliance Size Compromise
Its not hadicapping anyone or saying that the noobs will fair any better its simply saying lets give the noobs something to play for as weh know they arnt going to win are on lvl lets make them thir own lvl while still playing in the same universe as us . Your friend or you or even your alliance might not look at the lower league but mr jo blo noobie may, and this may keep them interseted in the game more then 3 weeks and actually pay. Im not saying all the wing stuff has to happen just ideas and further elaboration of a topic not just dismissing it all together because you dont fully understand the idea or have come to a conclusion to fast instead of read what i wrote think about it let some ideas pop into your head and maybe expand on the idea where my idea has faults you make corrections.
I chose the 50 players league compared to are 100 league because noobie alliances always have fewer members and so no top 5 alliances would even think ( Unless at a wing capacity to recruit top noobies for next rnd ) about playing in the lower league cause of the ovious disadvantage of half the players.
and if this does seem to bring on a new base of members Recruiting/Training out of this lower league would beh crutial to keep most of the top alliances full fo members
__________________
A Old Game With a New Vision
A Old Player With a New Mission
Together We Both Claim ~ReViCtIoN~ Conviction, Courage, Control
Last edited by ~RevictioN~; 24 Feb 2005 at 10:51.
|
|
|
24 Feb 2005, 11:02
|
#16
|
Reborn
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: A Galaxy Far Far Away
Posts: 46
|
Re: [Discuss] Alliance Size Compromise
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Real Arfy
Why? Everyone will still know which alliances are more powerful, which alliances are stronger, which alliances have higher average scores.
Just because the alliances are in two separate leagues does not mean that the 'winner' of the lower league is actually good, or able to compete. Between rounds, they would have to double their memberbase to survive in the top league.
You say it will be easier for smaller and newer alliances to compete with the bigger alliances. It won't. they are still worse organised, more vulnerable and less technologically and tactically advanced/capable and so they are still rivals.
Nobody would look at the lower league.
|
1. Of course everyone would know who the stronger alliance was. The one in the top ranking system. but doesnt mean noobies wont beh syked that they roided 1000 roids from some other noob alliance and claiming victory in the lower league therefore making him want to play again without hindering the top league at all.
2. again a given this lower league is for NOOBIES to let them rank against other noobies and see which is the best noobie
3. If i thought this idea would make noob alliances compete with top alliances WHY would i put them in 2 different leagues im just merely reconnizing that they cant compete with us and instead of trying to tweak the game mechanics so that noobies have a edge over us i simply made them there own end game what weh are alll here for no matter if its in a PLANET/GALAXY/ALLIANCE/DO BETTER THEN MY BUD form but here for a ranking and to claim #1
The key to a bigger Playerbase
Is not thinking up ways to bring newbies to are lvl of skill. Which is only attained by playing Round after Round. and as far as i know the problem is getting them to play those rounds.
Weh start thinking outside of the box and give newbies thier own lvl of skill and thier since of alliance pride even though it may beh in the lower league. As if i were a newbie and choicies were a chance to Win in a lower division specifically made for meh or Lose with no chance of winning in a ranking system fit to the elite. I would choose 1 answer no matter how many times you asked meh
__________________
A Old Game With a New Vision
A Old Player With a New Mission
Together We Both Claim ~ReViCtIoN~ Conviction, Courage, Control
Last edited by ~RevictioN~; 24 Feb 2005 at 11:51.
|
|
|
24 Feb 2005, 11:27
|
#17
|
Reborn
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: A Galaxy Far Far Away
Posts: 46
|
Re: [Discuss] Alliance Size Compromise
Judge i know this is hard to believe but the HC's of the alliances would choose and i know your thinking ohh why not just choose the one thats easiest and to this is say weh might have some sad souls out thier like this but i have faith that most people who play have a certain pride about thier Alliance and so playing where the equal in skill alliances were would in itself beh enuff IMO as youll prolly just get flamed to hell in back if your were a major allaince playing in the lower league and also the disadvantage to top alliance only being able to have 50 members.
Also before anyone jumps to another conclusion im not suggesting they get a whole ranking system just an alliance one. As are goal is to teach the newbies that alliances are a key to this game as the faster they learn that the faster they arnt newbies anymore, then leading to us top alliances wanting to recruit them.
Also I think telling a recruiting officer for a Top Ten Alliance
" I was in NooB23 Alliance and weh won #1 rank in the "50" Beginner League Standings last rnd " seems like a better resume then " I was in NooB23 alliance last rnd "
__________________
A Old Game With a New Vision
A Old Player With a New Mission
Together We Both Claim ~ReViCtIoN~ Conviction, Courage, Control
Last edited by ~RevictioN~; 24 Feb 2005 at 12:06.
|
|
|
24 Feb 2005, 12:39
|
#18
|
Lost
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Scotland
Posts: 413
|
Re: [Discuss] Alliance Size Compromise
I think i understand ware RevictioN is coming from.
When ur in a nooby alliance its not fun trying to aim for top 25 or top 30. You want to aim for somthing better.
Splitting the alliances into different leagues woudnt split the universe it would just give these smaller alliances aiming for a more reachable goal. Like top10.
If the bigger alliances wanted to play in this league then more fool them as their woudnt be so much glory for them.
And if they did decide to do it then they would have to take on more members to do it and finding good members isnt always easy. Meaning that they would have to recruit the newer players. What experianced player wants to play in a lower leugue. So this alone would mean that the newer players would benifit from the organisation and tools of an older 'established' alliance.
u could basically have the universe page with top 15. Dottom 15. (the numbers here arnt important) Have it split on 2 pages and have rankings top 1-15 and on the other page bottom 1-15 that way players would be able to see more realistically what they can aim for.
|
|
|
24 Feb 2005, 12:55
|
#19
|
Reborn
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: A Galaxy Far Far Away
Posts: 46
|
Re: [Discuss] Alliance Size Compromise
To explain how weh would moderate this is simply on the back of HC's.
When you click to create your alliance it would ask the creator.
Are you a New / Small Alliance and want to see where you stand against alliances like yours ? "50" member Alliances
or
Do you want to test your resolve against the ELITE players of Planetarion ? "100" member Alliances
Also since weh are all playing in the same UNI the Lower league only having 50 members would have little affect on the outcome of the Higher league with 100 members
__________________
A Old Game With a New Vision
A Old Player With a New Mission
Together We Both Claim ~ReViCtIoN~ Conviction, Courage, Control
Last edited by ~RevictioN~; 24 Feb 2005 at 13:01.
|
|
|
24 Feb 2005, 13:01
|
#20
|
PA Support - Grafknd
Join Date: Jul 2001
Posts: 18
|
Re: [Discuss] Alliance Size Compromise
Quote:
Originally Posted by demiGOD
this is very similar to the idea being implied on this thread
and it's a bad idea, i think - like 100 isn't enough..
|
ummz, he is collaborating it together, so for instance, 100 members in the noob division and 50 in the elite, see together
I dont think it is a good idea at all, we have enough trouble as it is keeping players in one game, why worry about two?
Sorry ReViCtIoN, but as good as the idea might seem to you, i dont think it is feasible under the circumstances of higher alliances, tbh there isnt that many alliances out there, a lot of people play solo (although might not get anywhere) they still play solo, and therefore limits alliances, how would u group the leagues? who would say who goes where? who would decide where to put solo gamers?
Just some questions for ya, probably answered, but i quoted that upthere ^^
G|afk
__________________
·[EVIL]Virgil· I have a spoon in my ear :gollum:
·[EVIL]Virgil· I know a bunch of nurses,I am sure they can fill me in :gollum:
<@Woady> everton are from london u muppet <--- this IS THE BEST EVA quote!!!
#afk (home of the afkness)
#pa - community channel
|
|
|
24 Feb 2005, 13:10
|
#21
|
Lost
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Scotland
Posts: 413
|
Re: [Discuss] Alliance Size Compromise
Take my idea then and just have the alliance page split into top 15 and bottom 15 without changing alliance size split it over 2 pages and u would have the same effect of the little guys having somehting to aim for and it woudnt affect game play as how many of the bigger alliances look below #15
formatt
So bear in mind nothing changes apart from the universe->alliance page this plan would be the easiest to code and woudnt restrict any alliances unfairly. And would achieve the same hting imo
TOP 15
#1
.....
#15
LOWER 15
#1
.....
#15
Last edited by Squshy; 24 Feb 2005 at 13:48.
|
|
|
24 Feb 2005, 13:25
|
#22
|
Reborn
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: A Galaxy Far Far Away
Posts: 46
|
Re: [Discuss] Alliance Size Compromise
ok to clear up some basic misconceptions of my idea
THE UPPER LEAGUE/ALLIANCES ARE VIRTUALLY UNAFFECTED
They still have 100 member alliances
are the BIGGER/EXPERIENCED Alliances
and go for the CHAMPIOSHIP OF PA WIN
THE LOWER LEAGUE/ALLIANCE ARE GIVEN SOMETHING TO FIGHT FOR
Have 50 member alliances
Are the SMALLER/NOOBIE Alliances
and go for more of a ROOKIE OF THE YEAR WIN
There is no split Universe
There are no MUST WINGS [ this is a option that could beh used as a good recruiting tool ( For more info on this just ask ) ]
The OPTION to beh in either League is given UPON creating your alliance
Pls no they will just beh 150 alliances arguements as this is somthing that can beh worked with and is not really discussing the idea and I havnt seen many alliances split in half and do a 200 member alliance as you could do in the current setup.
__________________
A Old Game With a New Vision
A Old Player With a New Mission
Together We Both Claim ~ReViCtIoN~ Conviction, Courage, Control
|
|
|
24 Feb 2005, 13:29
|
#23
|
Doh!
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Nemo Mortalium Omnibus Horis Sapit
Posts: 1,720
|
Re: [Discuss] Alliance Size Compromise
I still think that the Top echelon alliances should be limited to 50 and the lower to 100
It would create an effective level playing field.
Or maybe 75/100 split would be more realistic given that the last alliance round winner had around 70 or so members.
Again how this could be implemented without obvious abuses is a bit of a mystery?
|
|
|
24 Feb 2005, 13:39
|
#24
|
Reborn
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: A Galaxy Far Far Away
Posts: 46
|
Re: [Discuss] Alliance Size Compromise
Judge the problem with that is that no matter if weh give them the ability to go to 200 to are 50 weh still beat them your still looking at it insdie the box trying to change something to make it fit you. Ill list reason why 50 beats 200.
they wont get to 200 members or to far over 100 for that matter and thats being generous
they dont have the Skills/Activity/Tools/HC's weh have
Think outside of it and realise they wont beh as good as us even if they were the best noobie ever to play planetarion so what weh can do is mold are game to make noobies be able strive for first in there League. Until such time as they have got the rounds under thier belt and are experienced like us. As being a noobie in a alliance and your top goal is like 25th position give no incentive to play active to learn the skill and the ways of PA sice its about a " WoW were striving for 25th " . While affecting us very little in my opinion.
So Basically Win/Win weh dont have PATEAM giving advantages to NOOBs by the barrel full
and the NOOBs and 1st Rounders have a chance to claim a win and make the rnd fun as even if your getting bashed to oblivion if your still #1 on that noob league rank your still gonnna beh having fun and i also predict more competition for the Lower then the Higher
__________________
A Old Game With a New Vision
A Old Player With a New Mission
Together We Both Claim ~ReViCtIoN~ Conviction, Courage, Control
Last edited by ~RevictioN~; 24 Feb 2005 at 13:49.
|
|
|
24 Feb 2005, 13:55
|
#25
|
Lost
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Scotland
Posts: 413
|
Re: [Discuss] Alliance Size Compromise
Quote:
Originally Posted by Squshy
Take my idea then and just have the alliance page split into top 15 and bottom 15 without changing alliance size split it over 2 pages and u would have the same effect of the little guys having somehting to aim for and it woudnt affect game play as how many of the bigger alliances look below #15
formatt
So bear in mind nothing changes apart from the universe->alliance page this plan would be the easiest to code and woudnt restrict any alliances unfairly. And would achieve the same hting imo
TOP 15
#1
.....
#15
LOWER 15
#1
.....
#15
|
This acheives the goals set out in this topic but does them without having the major job of sorting alliance limits. This means the the top alliances still strive for number 1 but allows the smallers ones to also aim for a #1 just this one isnt #1 in the game its just a stop gap. And the middles sized alliances can strive for promotion and mabey a 14th place.
This gives everyone the chance to really make a go at gaining posotion and this is what will retain our member base you want poeple aiming for as good a position as they can this will also incourage people and alliances to do better next time resulting in more upgrades/more development of alliance tools for the smaller guys
|
|
|
24 Feb 2005, 13:59
|
#26
|
Reborn
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: A Galaxy Far Far Away
Posts: 46
|
Re: [Discuss] Alliance Size Compromise
Quote:
Originally Posted by Squshy
Take my idea then and just have the alliance page split into top 15 and bottom 15 without changing alliance size split it over 2 pages and u would have the same effect of the little guys having somehting to aim for and it woudnt affect game play as how many of the bigger alliances look below #15
formatt
So bear in mind nothing changes apart from the universe->alliance page this plan would be the easiest to code and woudnt restrict any alliances unfairly. And would achieve the same hting imo
TOP 15
#1
.....
#15
LOWER 15
#1
.....
#15
|
The problem is that it still doesnt give the full affect as the noobies will just look at is as just putting #'s on something and when they think they win they really just move up to elite rank and are last place there.
The ability of being able to choose what you want as a HC for your Alliance and then make a run for that goal is in my mind better as you have total control if you go Experienced League and get crushed it was your decision, or if you go Beginner League and TOTALLY own then you have some momentum trying for the Experienced League next rnd
Also it isnt just the WIN for the noobie its the 6 noobies alliances battling for top spot learning what it takes to defeat his enemy and claim top spots. I am just trying to start teaching noobs how to win from the start of thier PA crew insead of lose rnd 1 and 2 without any chance at all of winning.
Also this is an effort to make it easier to make a ALLIANCE since you could sit in the lower league for 1 or 2 rnds till you got a good member base then move up to elite league. Since the workload at first would only beh minimal sicne only having controll of 49 people
__________________
A Old Game With a New Vision
A Old Player With a New Mission
Together We Both Claim ~ReViCtIoN~ Conviction, Courage, Control
Last edited by ~RevictioN~; 24 Feb 2005 at 14:10.
|
|
|
24 Feb 2005, 14:11
|
#27
|
Down Boy - WOOF!
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Somewhere About Here .
Posts: 530
|
Re: [Discuss] Alliance Size Compromise
This is a war game not a sport and introducing league-esqe systems doesnt help the notion of each alliance fighting for supremacy?
I think you would find this kind of thing being non-productive for those alliances who wanted to play in the "lower" ranking. They would find themselves loosing a lot of recruits and being left with the dregs.
If alliances want success, then they have to realise it takes dedication and time to achieve what they want, not a handicapped ranking.
__________________
R2: -=42=- & [HR] ICD Squad Founding >> [HR] Alliance
R3: -=42=- & ICD Squad [HR] >> [HR] >> Sedition Wing [HR] >> G-II Wing [HR] >> [HR] Alliance
R4: [HR]
R5: [HR] - [DuH] Triad with [BD] & [UV]
R6: [HR] - [HyB] Alliance with [BD]
R7, R8, R9, R9.5: Nos Wing [HR]
R10: [HR]
R10.5: [HR] - [FYTFO] Alliance with ]LCH[
R11, R12, R13, R15, R16, R17: [HR]
|
|
|
24 Feb 2005, 16:44
|
#28
|
Registered User
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 108
|
Re: [Discuss] Alliance Size Compromise
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kal
i don;t actually see how this would help anything unless u prevent the people in one ranking attacking the people in the other - but split universes result in boring play and early stagnation due to a lack of targets
|
couldn't agree more, i think this is silly, the fun bit of starting a n00b alliance to to work your way up... if u keep at it then you'll get somewhere near the top, and people will respect u rather than spit on you....
if your alliance sucks you just gotta deal with it, not join a league specially for n00bs
__________________
Unity is the Greatest Strength
[INS]Goafer
|
|
|
25 Feb 2005, 01:28
|
#29
|
Reborn
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: A Galaxy Far Far Away
Posts: 46
|
Re: [Discuss] Alliance Size Compromise
So your saying that if the noobies want to enjoy the game in the way weh do they have to wait until they become a experienced player. Good great idea as it seems to beh working now. /sarcasm off
this is the exact problem they can start thier alliance in the lower league and bring it up to the higher league to try to win through HARD WORK / and DEDICATION
but what the lower league does for noobies is gives them sumtin to fight for , to battle other noobies for the top spot even if it is a lower league, they might play for longer if they actually see there is sumtin worth playing for. Since weh all know its either gonna take 1up changing thier name to see any newer alliance win.
__________________
A Old Game With a New Vision
A Old Player With a New Mission
Together We Both Claim ~ReViCtIoN~ Conviction, Courage, Control
|
|
|
25 Feb 2005, 02:51
|
#30
|
Reborn
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: A Galaxy Far Far Away
Posts: 46
|
Re: [Discuss] Alliance Size Compromise
Also its a war game but its also a politcial game just because you have a vision in your country persay and may have a few people who beilive in your political view you would never go war all the biggest baddest country's to get to the top would you ?
Nope you would first have to battle the opposing political view in your own country take it over and then battles the bigger countrys.
Which is the same thing im trying to propose give the newer alliances somewhere to shine, somewhere to fight for something, somwhere to gain recognition to recruit enuff to reach the Elite Leagues #'s and learn how to play the game but still have a chance to do(win) something worth that time.
__________________
A Old Game With a New Vision
A Old Player With a New Mission
Together We Both Claim ~ReViCtIoN~ Conviction, Courage, Control
|
|
|
25 Feb 2005, 12:55
|
#31
|
Registered User
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 108
|
Re: [Discuss] Alliance Size Compromise
i do see where your coming from, but splitting the alliance page in 2 makes things un necessarily complicated, the smaller alliances can still have something to aim for without been in a seperate league,
for example,
when i (and some friends) started G.O.A.T last round we aimed for the top 50... as it happened we got up to rank 20 b4 dropping to rank 24 (i think) for the end of round, we acomplished our Goal, and acheived MORE
if we were in a n00bie league we wouldnt have been able to go the extra distance, thus wouldnt have felt as good...i think that the alliance page should be left how it is, yes 1UP WILL continue to pwn us, but 1 day, the alliances will get together and sort it out, then we can have a real alliance war and the alliances used to knock down 1UP will have to worry about each others trust etc, wouldnt that be fun????
__________________
Unity is the Greatest Strength
[INS]Goafer
|
|
|
25 Feb 2005, 13:44
|
#32
|
Down Boy - WOOF!
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Somewhere About Here .
Posts: 530
|
Re: [Discuss] Alliance Size Compromise
Quote:
So your saying that if the noobies want to enjoy the game in the way weh do they have to wait until they become a experienced player. Good great idea as it seems to beh working now. /sarcasm off
|
R11 & R12 had more people playing then recent rounds before, so something IS working. I agree with the notion of helping new players settle in IF its benificial to the community at large but PA is NOT a hard game.
The difficult part is realising and being able to shape your life around it, being able to set alarm clocks at silly times to attack ect. No matter what leagues or systems are introduced, the only true way to allow n00bies to really compete with the best players (or at least even the scores), is to stop PA being a 24/7 game.
Quote:
this is the exact problem they can start thier alliance in the lower league and bring it up to the higher league to try to win through HARD WORK / and DEDICATION
but what the lower league does for noobies is gives them sumtin to fight for , to battle other noobies for the top spot even if it is a lower league, they might play for longer if they actually see there is sumtin worth playing for. Since weh all know its either gonna take 1up changing thier name to see any newer alliance win.
|
This system you suggest would require 2 different universes to prevent 1337 from bashing n00bs. I'm totally against this idea because it would imo kill PA as we know it. They would have to half the round length for one thing because each league would run out of targets. This game survives on the fact that the little fish is always eaten by the bigger fish. If you take one of them away you will drastically change the dynamic of the game. It would decrease the size of the universe by a lot and size does matter, PA needs more players to host the kind of Epic warfare that it once was?
Quote:
Also its a war game but its also a politcial game just because you have a vision in your country persay and may have a few people who beilive in your political view you would never go war all the biggest baddest country's to get to the top would you ?
Nope you would first have to battle the opposing political view in your own country take it over and then battles the bigger countrys.
Which is the same thing im trying to propose give the newer alliances somewhere to shine, somewhere to fight for something, somwhere to gain recognition to recruit enuff to reach the Elite Leagues #'s and learn how to play the game but still have a chance to do(win) something worth that time.
|
Your n00b league would end up with similar designs as PA is now. After 1 round of this the n00bs would know which n00b ally was the best and all would flock there. After the second round (which is dominated by the n00b bashers), the "dregs" would then start making posts about the need for a 3rd League for them to own in.
At the end of the day, success is dictacted by dedication, shortcuts to success like these wont work. If a player wants to play on an even playing field with the "best" in PA, then they will have to join an alliance they feel can offer such a chance.
Rising the ranks i always thought was apart of PAs gameplay?
__________________
R2: -=42=- & [HR] ICD Squad Founding >> [HR] Alliance
R3: -=42=- & ICD Squad [HR] >> [HR] >> Sedition Wing [HR] >> G-II Wing [HR] >> [HR] Alliance
R4: [HR]
R5: [HR] - [DuH] Triad with [BD] & [UV]
R6: [HR] - [HyB] Alliance with [BD]
R7, R8, R9, R9.5: Nos Wing [HR]
R10: [HR]
R10.5: [HR] - [FYTFO] Alliance with ]LCH[
R11, R12, R13, R15, R16, R17: [HR]
|
|
|
25 Feb 2005, 14:28
|
#33
|
The Original Terran
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Afghan atm
Posts: 1,633
|
Re: [Discuss] Alliance Size Compromise
Quote:
Originally Posted by demiGOD
this is very similar to the idea being implied on this thread
and it's a bad idea, i think - like 100 isn't enough..
|
Correct me if I am wrong and I am sorry if I am but think Kal was being sarcastic there.
__________________
introduction-Gramma
The following is a list of problems found in various places throughout the manual and game. We love you Noah!
Written by Kloopy Wed Mar 16 22:06:43 2005
Retired just for a bit....
Proud to have been 1up, SiN, Wolfpack, Bluetuba and the leader of ARK.
|
|
|
25 Feb 2005, 19:17
|
#34
|
Reborn
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: A Galaxy Far Far Away
Posts: 46
|
Re: [Discuss] Alliance Size Compromise
Quote:
Originally Posted by Seth Mace
No matter what leagues or systems are introduced, the only true way to allow n00bies to really compete with the best players (or at least even the scores), is to stop PA being a 24/7 game.
|
I agree that noobies will never really compete with bigger alliances no matter what weh do. Thus why i suggest to give them there own ranking system so they dont have to.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Seth Mace
This system you suggest would require 2 different universes to prevent 1337 from bashing n00bs. I'm totally against this idea because it would imo kill PA as we know it. They would have to half the round length for one thing because each league would run out of targets. This game survives on the fact that the little fish is always eaten by the bigger fish. If you take one of them away you will drastically change the dynamic of the game. It would decrease the size of the universe by a lot and size does matter, PA needs more players to host the kind of Epic warfare that it once was?
|
I never said to split the universe this was suggested by you and others not meh so a very mute point.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Seth Mace
Your n00b league would end up with similar designs as PA is now. After 1 round of this the n00bs would know which n00b ally was the best and all would flock there. After the second round (which is dominated by the n00b bashers), the "dregs" would then start making posts about the need for a 3rd League for them to own in.
|
I do like the thought of the winning noob ally getting many members therefore allowing them to move up and play on are lvl.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Seth Mace
At the end of the day, success is dictacted by dedication, shortcuts to success like these wont work. If a player wants to play on an even playing field with the "best" in PA, then they will have to join an alliance they feel can offer such a chance.
|
The problem is a noobie has nothing to dedicate to. Since his alliance is 25th and has no sign of going to top ten or above so whats the point.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Seth Mace
Rising the ranks i always thought was apart of PAs gameplay?
|
Yes it is and will still beh so i dont see what point you are making
__________________
A Old Game With a New Vision
A Old Player With a New Mission
Together We Both Claim ~ReViCtIoN~ Conviction, Courage, Control
|
|
|
25 Feb 2005, 21:16
|
#35
|
the Sacred Pervert
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: San Diego, CA
Posts: 1,492
|
Re: [Discuss] Alliance Size Compromise
Quote:
Originally Posted by noah02
Correct me if I am wrong and I am sorry if I am but think Kal was being sarcastic there.
|
kal, it seems, is not capable of sarcasm so you have to read him by face value
being bombarded daily by random suggestions from a very loud and opinionated community probably dampened his ability of sarcasm and might very well vaporized his wit and even his sense of humor -
if i'm wrong, then i apologize as well heh
-as for the topic, since it's been cleared that the universe is not gonna be split - it might introduce the 100 mem-base alliances to creative bashing of the 'little leagers'
__________________
"....some might say, we will find a brighter day...."
-Oasis
Veneratio | Insomnia | F-Crew | Subh
|
|
|
26 Feb 2005, 15:13
|
#36
|
Inactive peon
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 6,050
|
Re: [Discuss] Alliance Size Compromise
Quote:
Originally Posted by demiGOD
this is very similar to the idea being implied on this thread
and it's a bad idea, i think - like 100 isn't enough..
|
it was sarcasm
|
|
|
26 Feb 2005, 15:52
|
#37
|
Down Boy - WOOF!
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Somewhere About Here .
Posts: 530
|
Re: [Discuss] Alliance Size Compromise
Quote:
Originally Posted by ~RevictioN~
I agree that noobies will never really compete with bigger alliances no matter what weh do. Thus why i suggest to give them there own ranking system so they dont have to.
|
So they dont have to? The whole point of this game is to become the biggest planet in the universe, that is THE point of PA. Becoming the #1 planet and being in the #1 gal and being in the #1 alliance. Your suggest would just give n00bies reasons not to push themselfs that extra half mile, they could sit back and enjoy relative "success" in Division 2.
Im sure its frustrating for the smaller alliances but if you remove that frustration, you take away their hunger to prove to every1 they can play with the "big boys". Im all for helping n00bies get there but i just feel this idea could be counter-productive for PA on a whole.
Quote:
I never said to split the universe this was suggested by you and others not meh so a very mute point.
|
Yes that is right, you didnt but your suggestion would have similar effect anyway, certainly from a politics point of view. You would have 10 alliances on table and 10 on another, all ignoring the wars on the other side (altho there wud possibly be some cross-allies) and this would create a poilitical situation that was akin to 2 Universes.
Quote:
I do like the thought of the winning noob ally getting many members therefore allowing them to move up and play on are lvl.
|
This happens anyway, the best "n00b" allies get the most n00bs.
Quote:
The problem is a noobie has nothing to dedicate to. Since his alliance is 25th and has no sign of going to top ten or above so whats the point.
|
If hes good enough to play higher, then he will probably leave that alliance for a better one, if it doesnt show signs of improvement.
__________________
R2: -=42=- & [HR] ICD Squad Founding >> [HR] Alliance
R3: -=42=- & ICD Squad [HR] >> [HR] >> Sedition Wing [HR] >> G-II Wing [HR] >> [HR] Alliance
R4: [HR]
R5: [HR] - [DuH] Triad with [BD] & [UV]
R6: [HR] - [HyB] Alliance with [BD]
R7, R8, R9, R9.5: Nos Wing [HR]
R10: [HR]
R10.5: [HR] - [FYTFO] Alliance with ]LCH[
R11, R12, R13, R15, R16, R17: [HR]
|
|
|
26 Feb 2005, 16:25
|
#38
|
Insomniac
Join Date: May 2003
Posts: 3,583
|
Re: [Discuss] Alliance Size Compromise
I'm inclined to agree with SethMace
Splitting the universe, by any means :- be it seperate universes, exponentially growing score gaps or seperate ranking schemes etc is not in my view a good idea.
|
|
|
26 Feb 2005, 18:42
|
#39
|
the Sacred Pervert
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: San Diego, CA
Posts: 1,492
|
Re: [Discuss] Alliance Size Compromise
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kal
it was sarcasm
|
__________________
"....some might say, we will find a brighter day...."
-Oasis
Veneratio | Insomnia | F-Crew | Subh
|
|
|
26 Feb 2005, 20:23
|
#40
|
Reborn
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: A Galaxy Far Far Away
Posts: 46
|
Re: [Discuss] Alliance Size Compromise
Im sure its frustrating for the smaller alliances but if you remove that frustration, you take away their hunger to prove to every1 they can play with the "big boys". Im all for helping n00bies get there but i just feel this idea could be counter-productive for PA on a whole.
Hmm .... nice point Sethmace. Well whats the next idea that could beh implemented to addict noobies to the game at a far greater pace ?
For sure it should include a plan to get noobies closer to Alliances who have Command/Tech/ExperiencedPlayers/ActivePlayers. Cause i bet PA is horribly boring if you have no one to talk to.
anyways nice post Sethmace
__________________
A Old Game With a New Vision
A Old Player With a New Mission
Together We Both Claim ~ReViCtIoN~ Conviction, Courage, Control
|
|
|
27 Feb 2005, 19:29
|
#41
|
Down Boy - WOOF!
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Somewhere About Here .
Posts: 530
|
Re: [Discuss] Alliance Size Compromise
Thx reviction! Your idea isnt without merit though, you core ideal to give n00bies some form of gratification would of course increase the likely hood that they would carry on playing.
PA needs a few facelifts on a few important places (omg the portal & more importantly the homepage are currently as dull as sh1t - BAD first impression), it leaves nothing to the imagination and wouldnt entice me to play it.
The game itself is better then ever imo (the browser game) but as you said, entering the game with few/ no contacts would be hard. However, if they really want to get deeper into the gave, they wont have to look far for a recruiting alliance.
You should check out the post i wrote here, will give you a chance to slag my ideas off!;P
__________________
R2: -=42=- & [HR] ICD Squad Founding >> [HR] Alliance
R3: -=42=- & ICD Squad [HR] >> [HR] >> Sedition Wing [HR] >> G-II Wing [HR] >> [HR] Alliance
R4: [HR]
R5: [HR] - [DuH] Triad with [BD] & [UV]
R6: [HR] - [HyB] Alliance with [BD]
R7, R8, R9, R9.5: Nos Wing [HR]
R10: [HR]
R10.5: [HR] - [FYTFO] Alliance with ]LCH[
R11, R12, R13, R15, R16, R17: [HR]
|
|
|
27 Feb 2005, 19:44
|
#42
|
Registered User
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 108
|
Re: [Discuss] Alliance Size Compromise
so basically, we've decided that the universe is NOT gonna be slpit in ANY way, which leaves the question:
How big will the allinaces be???
50
75
100
200??
and do we force 1up to have a smaller alliance because there all gods?
i say 100
and no....
__________________
Unity is the Greatest Strength
[INS]Goafer
|
|
|
1 Mar 2005, 16:09
|
#43
|
Aria's TeddyBear :p
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Rhode Island, USA
Posts: 516
|
Re: [Discuss] Alliance Size Compromise
atm it is 100 which i would like to see go down a bit and there reason to force 1up apart. if you want to beat them you have to hit them not there allies
__________________
Proud to be have been Fyre, NewDawn, NoS - The Illuminati, [ 1u p]
R3 [Acid] peon
R4 - R7 [Fyre] HC
R7 - R8 [ND] HC
R8 - R13 [NoS] MC
R14 - R16 [ 1u p] MO
R17 Retired
|
|
|
2 Mar 2005, 21:36
|
#44
|
Fat *******
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 271
|
Re: [Discuss] Alliance Size Compromise
right... i understand the reason for giving noobs sumthing to aim for... but messing with alliance sizes and so forth isnt needed. why not leave the rankings as they are... but at the end of the round, announce the highest placed noobie alliance. when alliance is created, Founder clicks a little box marked "is this a new alliance?" or sumthing similar. that way they are just another alliance among many, without the size restrictions and stuff, and if they are the best of the noobs then they get a mention at the end of the round.
__________________
Keg and Rocko's Theory of Reincarnation
<Keglomaniac> something u remember, but dont remember remembering
<Keglomaniac> u know it happened, but u dont know y,where,when or how
<Rocko> so reincarnation is like getting ABSOLUTLEY wankered when u die
[F-Crew] - You known when youve been [FC]ucked
|
|
|
3 Mar 2005, 09:48
|
#45
|
Registered User
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 108
|
Re: [Discuss] Alliance Size Compromise
precisely, couldn't say it better
__________________
Unity is the Greatest Strength
[INS]Goafer
|
|
|
3 Mar 2005, 10:49
|
#46
|
The Original Terran
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Afghan atm
Posts: 1,633
|
Re: [Discuss] Alliance Size Compromise
Damn this took me 30 minutes to read this thread and I still Did'nt work out what every one has decided
I know that a n00b league is a bad idea and universe split in 2 is a bad idea and that 1up will probs win next round unless they all quit and then change to another alliance that will probs win instead
And lowering alliance size might be better but then again got to give all them ppl with 99 members to 1ups 67 members a chance maybe make it 150 sized alliance so they can defend each other from them l33t 67 peeps in 1up (joke)
__________________
introduction-Gramma
The following is a list of problems found in various places throughout the manual and game. We love you Noah!
Written by Kloopy Wed Mar 16 22:06:43 2005
Retired just for a bit....
Proud to have been 1up, SiN, Wolfpack, Bluetuba and the leader of ARK.
|
|
|
7 Mar 2005, 20:22
|
#47
|
Fat *******
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 271
|
Re: [Discuss] Alliance Size Compromise
lol or we could enlist the help of a team of hackers to get rid of 1ups access and im glad u like my idea goafer
__________________
Keg and Rocko's Theory of Reincarnation
<Keglomaniac> something u remember, but dont remember remembering
<Keglomaniac> u know it happened, but u dont know y,where,when or how
<Rocko> so reincarnation is like getting ABSOLUTLEY wankered when u die
[F-Crew] - You known when youve been [FC]ucked
|
|
|
|
All times are GMT +1. The time now is 12:15.
| |