Round 10 - Alliance Features

[Makain]

In Round 10, it has been said a many times that a feature would be added making alliances in-game. Now I realize many alliances have network over several games and will continue to go on, but will this truly change anything for Planetarion-only alliances. Some of the named alliances I hear have very sophisticated web sites that rival AH's efficiency. Will they really give that up to use some in-game feature? What I am getting at here is that what about the new in-game alliance feature will persuade/force alliances to use it?

Maybe bonuses for people who join in-game alliances?

[Colt]

cant ppl just b patient???

[Ultramar]

And i wanna know if its gonna be 1 alliance gals etc... How is this gonna restrict the way the game is played?

[Rumad]

Originally posted by Colt
cant ppl just b patient???

you will have too. creators havent finished coding round 9 yet so i doubt they have anything more than yet another GREAT! idea which is doomed to be implemented half assed and unworkable.

[Makain]

Originally posted by Colt
cant ppl just b patient???

No we cant, because some of us are interested in starting our own alliances, because the current decent ones are either disengrating or no longer accepting membership, leaving us with about a choice of 25 n00b alliances with about an average of 10 out of their 30 registered members active. And with an especially reduced membership I think its vital that we have such information as early as necessary to decide if future alliances need to form their own infrastructure or if they can rely on an in-game feature.

[Cochese]

Well yes, there has to be bonuses...and my understanding of the development of an integrated alliance feature is based on that: giving people incentives to register under an alliance.

Without some kind of incentive, there's no good reason for alliances to register in-game, and in fact, most won't do it "for the good of the game" or whatever.

I still believe a larger playerbase would remove the need for hard-coding alliances, but that doesn't seem to be something we should hold our breath for.

[Ultramar]

Agreed, i really cant see how ingame alliances can work in the whole universe...

Yeah, AH was good for the smaller alliances with no coders of their own but for alliances like Elysium with Pilkara its a waste of time!

[Chax]

Originally posted by Ultramar
Agreed, i really cant see how ingame alliances can work in the whole universe...

Yeah, AH was good for the smaller alliances with no coders of their own but for alliances like Elysium with Pilkara its a waste of time!

If you can only defend members of your in game alliance then alliances will sign up in game.
There is no reason why this would stop anyone from using out of game websites, nor from coordinating attacks with others not in the in game alliance, but it sure would make alliances want to sign up to them.

[Maddix]

I would assume their "in-game alliances" will refere to selecting an alliance on sign-up, as we do a race. Then you will be physically unable to attack (and maybe only defend?) people from that same alliance during play. Due to the posibility of pre-determined blocking by current alliances I guess it is also possible that if this is the case you will be 'assigned' an alliance instead of being able to choose. Would be a real change to the way alliances are done in PA, probably not that welcome either tho.

[Judge]

Originally posted by Maddix
I would assume their "in-game alliances" will refere to selecting an alliance on sign-up, as we do a race. Then you will be physically unable to attack (and maybe only defend?) people from that same alliance during play. Due to the posibility of pre-determined blocking by current alliances I guess it is also possible that if this is the case you will be 'assigned' an alliance instead of being able to choose. Would be a real change to the way alliances are done in PA, probably not that welcome either tho.

I doubt that "allocation" of an alliance upon sign up would be at all welcome?

[Rumad]

All limited in game coding will lead to is smaller wings working as an alliance whole.

Its impossible to start expecting alliances to split up groups to pacify the creators. They need to wake up and smell the coffee.

[Rumad]

Originally posted by Judge
I doubt that "allocation" of an alliance upon sign up would be at all welcome?

and what if you really hate the ppl you are with? Good call *sigh*

[waassaa]

Originally posted by Rumad
you will have too. creators havent finished coding round 9 yet so i doubt they have anything more than yet another GREAT! idea which is doomed to be implemented half assed and unworkable.

Planetarion will be returning to the multiplay events and attending i15.Now you might think we'd be doing a run-off-the-mill standard copy of round 9. But no! For the first public viewing ever, i15 and Newbury Race Course will play host to the world preview of Planetarion Round 10.

hhmm, if they are presenting rd 10 on the 14th of March, then coding must be going well. So I kinda think detail such as alliance in game play must either be coded or at least planned out.

Don't see a poblem releasing this information either. Its not like someone will steal the idea, all clones are currently around rd 6.

[waassaa]

Originally posted by Rumad
All limited in game coding will lead to is smaller wings working as an alliance whole.

Its impossible to start expecting alliances to split up groups to pacify the creators. They need to wake up and smell the coffee.

hhm mmm, alliances are smaller now anyways, due to player base, I think coding will be used to stop mass blocking and therefore stagnation.

If gals are 100% alliance based, yes u can nap and allie, meaning wings will form and blocks made, but then they are more likley to be broken/discarded when a war is won. For political PA it will be alot more interesting. Will the guy u hand HC of a wing to, one day turn against u......you know it will happen

[Rumad]

Originally posted by waassaa
hhm mmm, alliances are smaller now anyways, due to player base, I think coding will be used to stop mass blocking and therefore stagnation.

If gals are 100% alliance based, yes u can nap and allie, meaning wings will form and blocks made, but then they are more likley to be broken/discarded when a war is won. For political PA it will be alot more interesting. Will the guy u hand HC of a wing to, one day turn against u......you know it will happen

not if you have 160 members. You will have 1 alliance set in two wings.

Its unworkable.

Unless youa re gonna limit things so severely that you cna only defend in alliance and then you have the problem that if one alliance gets big you cannot addequately cover any of your members.

These idea's may seem kewl and hip, but in my view they are practically unworkable, but hey whats new, I haven't seen that too much in 9 round sof playing

[systemshok]

for one thing, i dont think that AH would be used by big alliances purely for security reasons..
Its easier to maintain security when your PA passwords etc dont allow you access to alliance aswell, its mroe sensible to keep it off AH and onto private web server where monitoring is easier..

[waassaa]

Originally posted by Rumad
not if you have 160 members. You will have 1 alliance set in two wings.

Its unworkable.

Unless youa re gonna limit things so severely that you cna only defend in alliance and then you have the problem that if one alliance gets big you cannot addequately cover any of your members.

These idea's may seem kewl and hip, but in my view they are practically unworkable, but hey whats new, I haven't seen that too much in 9 round sof playing

I think the idea is to keep alliances smaller and a max amount would be set, thus ur alliance can not become "too" big.

As for the defend only alliance being a problem, I don't see it. Every alliance would have the same ruling...so same for all.
You have to defend with what you have.

Rummie u seem to be against any changes mate.

The player base didn't only drop because of p2p, but also because of l33t alliance domination. PA needs to change to move forward.

[Rumad]

Originally posted by systemshok
for one thing, i dont think that AH would be used by big alliances purely for security reasons..
Its easier to maintain security when your PA passwords etc dont allow you access to alliance aswell, its mroe sensible to keep it off AH and onto private web server where monitoring is easier..

They are talking about making it a necessity for alliances to use it.

So whether they want to or not is irrelevant.

[Rumad]

Originally posted by waassaa
I think the idea is to keep alliances smaller and a max amount would be set, thus ur alliance can not become "too" big.

As for the defend only alliance being a problem, I don't see it. Every alliance would have the same ruling...so same for all.
You have to defend with what you have.

Rummie u seem to be against any changes mate.

The player base didn't only drop because of p2p, but also because of l33t alliance domination. PA needs to change to move forward.

SO you cap alliances? OK now look at it like this.

10% of this game prolly control 60% of the score and roids. You start limiting an alliances size, especially with members who play with a lot more of a less intense style you begin to limited there ability to operate as an alliance.

Limiting wont help the small guy unless you are able to implement some sort of capping systemn distributing good players. Then you might be forcing ppl to be with ppl they really dont wanna be with.

In an ideal world this would be ok, but the world is far from ideal and pa is even less so.

[Gerbie]

Originally posted by Rumad
SO you cap alliances? OK now look at it like this.

10% of this game prolly control 60% of the score and roids. You start limiting an alliances size, especially with members who play with a lot more of a less intense style you begin to limited there ability to operate as an alliance.

Limiting wont help the small guy unless you are able to implement some sort of capping systemn distributing good players. Then you might be forcing ppl to be with ppl they really dont wanna be with.

In an ideal world this would be ok, but the world is far from ideal and pa is even less so.

Ok, call me stupid, but the problem is that the small guy in a bad alliance won't win the game? Hmm, damn, nowadays the small guys in crappy alliances always win.

There will still be winners and loosers. That's what this game is about. And about having fun. I think the game will be very fun in the new system. At least till we get used to it again. So for like half a round.

[Rumad]

Originally posted by Gerbie
Ok, call me stupid, but the problem is that the small guy in a bad alliance won't win the game? Hmm, damn, nowadays the small guys in crappy alliances always win.

There will still be winners and loosers. That's what this game is about. And about having fun. I think the game will be very fun in the new system. At least till we get used to it again. So for like half a round.

no

70% dont play the game to win anywya, but at least if they are attacked enmasse most alliances can cover. Some because they have the mass to cope.

I have played a fair amount of clones and if you get into a dominant position there is little you cna do to cahange things. By forcing the better players down the routes of having to play together you limit even more the chance of doing well. without the supprot of being in those alliances.

If it was possible to regulate this properly I would agree, but alliances willa lways find ways around this. There is no exception.

[waassaa]

Originally posted by Rumad




If it was possible to regulate this properly I would agree, but alliances willa lways find ways around this. There is no exception.

then lets find the way to stop alliances "getting round " it.

ofc would be good if alliance hc's would support such a move, who knows, u "l33t HC" players (not pointing at you rumad) might even have fun again.

[Rumad]

Originally posted by waassaa
then lets find the way to stop alliances "getting round " it.

ofc would be good if alliance hc's would support such a move, who knows, u "l33t HC" players (not pointing at you rumad) might even have fun again.

There is no way to stop it.

You send alliances underground and they arent visble, but they will still be there.

there is too much opportunity to abuse the system here - the more you push the more ppl will dig in to stop going anywhere.

The real problem is teh playerbase and the fact new players just dont come in.

Thats the real issue, not that some alliances do quite well.

[The_Fish]

Originally posted by Rumad
The real problem is teh playerbase and the fact new players just dont come in.

[Scouse]

Originally posted by Rumad

70% dont play the game to win anywya

I think that estimate is too high. My guess would be that 60% of people do play this game with the aim of winning it (anyone in a major alliance).

[MAdnRisKy]

The bigger problem that MUST have been mentioned, I can't think of how it hasn't yet, is that by forcing people to join alliances at start up, it would have to be like races: once made you can't change, otherwise this discussion is all accademic as you could change at will and the whole thing becomes a farce.

IF it becomes a forced choice, then you are only furthering the lack of political flexibility. There will be no option to back stab anyone, and the situation will become much worse than the restrictions mixed galaxies placed upon us.

[Gerbie]

60% playing with the aim of winning? Hmm so 60% of 6k = 3600 people thought they could win last round? Hmm, i thought at most a few 100 players ever had a chance. I know i wont win next round (whatever the sig says). There's at most 10% of the playerbase with a reasonable chance of winning:
- you have to be a member of a major block;
- you have to have prominent friends there;
- you cannot have a real life or parents making sure you don't login in the middle of the night.
(Unless you cheat your way to the top, but at most 1% of the players are major cheats.)

[waassaa]

Originally posted by MAdnRisKy


IF it becomes a forced choice, then you are only furthering the lack of political flexibility. There will be no option to back stab anyone, and the situation will become much worse than the restrictions mixed galaxies placed upon us.

you join alliance a,
alliance a allies with alliance b to destroy alliance c and d.
alliance c and d die
due to forced non mixed gals
alliance a is now free to attack alliance b, be it alone or with c or d.
as much backstabbing as u want,
plus alliances being equal in numbers if not in quality, its about better playing rather than lets all join this alliance cause they win a round and have more members than this other alliance..

[Scouse]

Originally posted by Gerbie
60% playing with the aim of winning? Hmm so 60% of 6k = 3600 people thought they could win last round?

No, either you misunderstood me or I misunderstood Rumad. Rumad said "70% dont play the game to win anywya". Which I took as mean winning in general, alliance wise and galaxy wise. Not personally getting #1 planet.

I think 60% of the people playing PA play it so that their side, whether it be alliance or gal, wins.

Not playing to win is just having a planet and having fun.

[LORD-NIKO]

Originally posted by Maddix
I would assume their "in-game alliances" will refere to selecting an alliance on sign-up, as we do a race. Then you will be physically unable to attack (and maybe only defend?) people from that same alliance during play.

Hmm

would been cool tho.

that way u need to be in a alliance with just m8s hehe

[Rumad]

Originally posted by Scouse
No, either you misunderstood me or I misunderstood Rumad. Rumad said "70% dont play the game to win anywya". Which I took as mean winning in general, alliance wise and galaxy wise. Not personally getting #1 planet.

I think 60% of the people playing PA play it so that their side, whether it be alliance or gal, wins.

Not playing to win is just having a planet and having fun.

U misunderstood.

Individually and as galaxies I would say only 30% play to be in the top 10% of players.

I think that by forcing alliances down this route is a big disaster - I agree's with mad's post the politics are already inflexible, by forccing ppl to limit the amount of ppl they are with the politics become more inflexible. You as a hc should understand this scouse.

The more rigid the game becomes, the more useless the game becomes.

They really need to think long and hard before in game coding for alliances. It could be the last nail in the pa coffin.

[MAdnRisKy]

Originally posted by waassaa
you join alliance a,
alliance a allies with alliance b to destroy alliance c and d.
alliance c and d die
due to forced non mixed gals
alliance a is now free to attack alliance b, be it alone or with c or d.
as much backstabbing as u want,
plus alliances being equal in numbers if not in quality, its about better playing rather than lets all join this alliance cause they win a round and have more members than this other alliance..

it is more likely that alliance a and b will create tag X however....

(because I can't think of a single round where allies put themselves in the position that they would NEVER defend each other for the whole round, even if it's only for the big battles)

[edit] and I should add that so far it's a b and c versus d e and f (and g, h i, j and all their third cousins twice removed) which means that either at start up you have to predictate the splits (dull and boring, round would be carved up before the first tick) or decide not to have any splits by creating one joint tag.

I mean if a b and c win which one would you have them turn on, because it means that two of them have a seperate tag to the third (unlikely). If d e f and the rest have pre determined tags which split them the only interesting thing is that they won't trust the other half of their own block (a rnd 6 FOS syndrome) and thus probably won't work co operatively which will mean they lose. This whole thing is a joke the idea works on paper but you're expecting the community as a whole to behave in a fashion for which there is absolutly no track record. [/edit]

Originally posted by Rumad
I agree's with mad's post

news flash

[waassaa]

Originally posted by MAdnRisKy
This whole thing is a joke the idea works on paper but you're expecting the community as a whole to behave in a fashion for which there is absolutly no track record.

erm isn't that the whole idea....rd 10 isn't being coded to suit the hardcore "we know exactly how each round will go" PA l33t players.
Its being coded to attract and hold a new generation who care little for our track record.

it is more likely that alliance a and b will create tag X however....
because I can't think of a single round where allies put themselves in the position that they would NEVER defend each other for the whole round, even if it's only for the big battles

It was mentioned that the game would/could be hard coded to stop cross defending. Thus making tag x not worth very much.
If ppl open up to the fact things are changing and that allies at start of round will not remain so, then fun could be had by all.
If we continue with "we played like this for 9 rounds and it works"
then we won't have much fun.
We lived in caves for thousands of years.....good thing that changes happen.


BTW, I don't agree with all the preposed changes that I have heard of, and I am not sure that this coding for alliance capping will work. However I am 100% sure that some type of change must take place because pa is dying and without new players and a major shake up it is doomed. Therefore I am quite willing to take changes and let the game develope in the hope new players come and stay in the pa community.

[Ace]

Originally posted by waassaa
*snip*


BTW, I don't agree with all the preposed changes that I have heard of, and I am not sure that this coding for alliance capping will work. However I am 100% sure that some type of change must take place because pa is dying and without new players and a major shake up it is doomed. Therefore I am quite willing to take changes and let the game develope in the hope new players come and stay in the pa community. [/b]

I agree with Waassaa.
Things need to change one way or the other.
The way things are now we will not see a lot of new players (don't like the word n00b so will not use it)

Some changes will not be liked but then again we can get used to em

[MAdnRisKy]

Originally posted by waassaa
erm isn't that the whole idea....rd 10 isn't being coded to suit the hardcore "we know exactly how each round will go" PA l33t players.
Its being coded to attract and hold a new generation who care little for our track record.

no no no, I don't actually even play PA any more so try not to tar me with that brush please All I;m saying here is that based on previous efforts it's unlikely that the player base will use any device for the way the creators intended it (rnd 4 salvage / piggiebacking roid cap formula that was nice on paper but SOOO blatently open to abuse over burn attacks used mainly for easy farming and zik steal ships used primary only by farmers and not by players actually trying to build a varied fleet)

It was mentioned that the game would/could be hard coded to stop cross defending. Thus making tag x not worth very much.
If ppl open up to the fact things are changing and that allies at start of round will not remain so, then fun could be had by all.
If we continue with "we played like this for 9 rounds and it works"
then we won't have much fun.
We lived in caves for thousands of years.....good thing that changes happen.

hard coded by this very tag system (unless you can think of another way to hard code against cross defendin without labeling players into groups, if the groups don't exist then how can it be called "cross defending") so tag X would seem to be the first of many solutions used by players. infact the only thing it would stop is that you wouldn't be able to include your farms in your official alliances (that's a naughty comment I know lets not turn this into a farming conversation though pls).

I agree with you, that the only way this game will start to work again is if the attitudes of the players change, but such actions won't be facilitated by this hard coding, it does nothing to aid it, and btw if such an event was achieved then there is no need for this hard coding, so just what are you trying to say?

BTW, I don't agree with all the preposed changes that I have heard of, and I am not sure that this coding for alliance capping will work. However I am 100% sure that some type of change must take place because pa is dying and without new players and a major shake up it is doomed. Therefore I am quite willing to take changes and let the game develope in the hope new players come and stay in the pa community.

sure point conceded but what makes this change a helpful one? it is going to make little to no positrive difference, unless as I already pointed out such a change has already occured. If said change hasn't it's going to make things worse not better.

[Ace]

[i]

*snip*


sure point conceded but what makes this change a helpful one? it is going to make little to no positrive difference, unless as I already pointed out such a change has already occured. If said change hasn't it's going to make things worse not better. [/b]

Well problem is: we all don't know what the changes will be atm so how can we say they are worse??

They may make the game intresting to new players and that's what this game needs new players.

[MAdnRisKy]

because we're discussing this proposed change.

I haven't mentioned any others, just pointed out why I don't see this one as being a positive one.

For the record I'm not against change, I've been a beta tester rnd 7 and 8 and have put forward rather a lot of ideas, some of which could be seen as coming close to the badness of this one ;/ and unfortunatly some of them came true

[waassaa]

Originally posted by MAdnRisKy

hard coded by this very tag system (unless you can think of another way to hard code against cross defendin without labeling players into groups, if the groups don't exist then how can it be called "cross defending") so tag X would seem to be the first of many solutions used by players. infact the only thing it would stop is that you wouldn't be able to include your farms in your official alliances (that's a naughty comment I know lets not turn this into a farming conversation though pls).

I agree with you, that the only way this game will start to work again is if the attitudes of the players change, but such actions won't be facilitated by this hard coding, it does nothing to aid it, and btw if such an event was achieved then there is no need for this hard coding, so just what are you trying to say?


not sure if we understand eachother correctly, the idea here is that on sign up, u sign up to an alliance (yes there will be problems if u want to leave said alliance and so on), then you choose a gal (private gal where only alliance mates can join).

Ok, now we have..
1. no mixed alliance gals.allowing alliances to back stab without worrying about gal mates
2. easy to control (from size) alliances. allowing a more even spread of numbers

Ofc this brings problems with it, will all vets join vet alliances, what if an alliance doesn't recruit enough players and so on and so on. However it would be a major shake up to the game, and if the vets played a part interesting for rd 10.
If they do as I think they will and run together to hold the domination of the game, then 2 things can happen.
1. all new players get killed and stop playing.
2. new players get killed, but stay with it, form strong alliances and fight back, over a few rounds game improves.

The other solution could be, vets see that by forming cores of many alliances, recruiting new players and then fighting against one another, everyone has fun, new ppl stay and pa is saved.

Malcom X "I have a dream"

[MAdnRisKy]

so three alliances create allaince name X and sign up into galaxies (lo mixed hard coded private galaxies).

whilst both you and I might not want it to happen it's going to, and it's also going to mean that unless pre sign up you are part of one of these groups, you're buggerd (lo dead new folks within 2 weeks and back to square one).

[waassaa]

Originally posted by MAdnRisKy
so three alliances create allaince name X and sign up into galaxies (lo mixed hard coded private galaxies).

whilst both you and I might not want it to happen it's going to, and it's also going to mean that unless pre sign up you are part of one of these groups, you're buggerd (lo dead new folks within 2 weeks and back to square one).

nice point, bet lets use an example.

virus, eclypse and ToT do as u suggest. (<== alliance names used cause i like VeT and rough number guide)
they form an allie.

1st problem
would be numbers. we r talking at least 300 ppl here without even recruiting. This would then be the vets joining together scenario.
So this depends on how many members allowed. (I think 200 tops)

2nd problem
Once they have joint under a joint alliance tag, and are in gals together, they can't change, and they can't l8er attack each other.
So no , Virus won the round, or eclypse or ToT.
It would be VeT won the round....not really what the alliances want me thinks. there would be no way the could change that fact, as gals and planets would only be tagged VeT.

now the second problem alone would stop many alliances doing as u suggest(would stop me at least). However, even if they form such an allie, with the numbers limited, I don't see the this as biggest problem, each alliance can have the same numbers, the rest is down to player quality.

[MAdnRisKy]

My guess is that allies such as vom could be under 200 without much effort.

secondly everyone will still talk about which alliance had the top planet irrespective of what group tag, just the same as in previous rounds, the fact that the tag is now official instead of unofficial is irelevant.

what it would fk up is BG *IF* a joint attack option was implimented whereby only those of the same allaince could attack a single target, with a first come first served rule.

although that in itself is open to abuse, with some crappy planets using a solitary alliance tag hitting the big players day in day out whilst actually being controlled by the alliance of said big planet.

hard coded member limits would make it more interesting yes, but it wouldn't stop people making 2 or 3 geroups and then napping anyway (though it would allow back stabbing within those groups at least at the expense of weakening co-operation). the other problem this would make is that it pits skill against skill, and removes the option of using overwhelming numbers (fos rnd 6), ensuring that newbies never get anywhere (still that's no big chnage).

[MAdnRisKy]

Originally posted by waassaa


2nd problem
Once they have joint under a joint alliance tag, and are in gals together, they can't change, and they can't l8er attack each other.
So no , Virus won the round, or eclypse or ToT.
It would be VeT won the round....not really what the alliances want me thinks. there would be no way the could change that fact, as gals and planets would only be tagged VeT.

didn't seem to bother titans ldk and dta (plus virus towards the end) last round

[waassaa]

Originally posted by MAdnRisKy

My guess is that allies such as vom could be under 200 without much effort.

wouldn't be hard for Virus or mad cows or Oly to push up to 200 players for a single alliance either ?

Originally posted by MAdnRisKy

secondly everyone will still talk about which alliance had the top planet irrespective of what group tag, just the same as in previous rounds, the fact that the tag is now official instead of unofficial is irelevant.

let them talk, after 2 rounds its forgotten anyways, if they formed allies like this, then some alliances would lose thier identity. something most are ver proud of.

Originally posted by MAdnRisKy

what it would fk up is BG *IF* a joint attack option was implimented whereby only those of the same allaince could attack a single target, with a first come first served rule.

although that in itself is open to abuse, with some crappy planets using a solitary alliance tag hitting the big players day in day out whilst actually being controlled by the alliance of said big planet.

to lose bg's ? u just have bg's formed from 1 alliance. And if ppl wanna "play with friends" as they all cry, join or form 1 alliance and stop fence sitting between 3 or 4.

Originally posted by MAdnRisKy

hard coded member limits would make it more interesting yes, but it wouldn't stop people making 2 or 3 geroups and then napping anyway (though it would allow back stabbing within those groups at least at the expense of weakening co-operation). the other problem this would make is that it pits skill against skill, and removes the option of using overwhelming numbers (fos rnd 6), ensuring that newbies never get anywhere (still that's no big chnage).

u have seen the goiod points here.
as for skill against skill, this can only be resolved by vet players playing with not against new players. And as u say "n00bs getting killed" is nothing new. Its also the hardest thing to stop, could only be resolved with a 50k player base.

[waassaa]

Originally posted by MAdnRisKy
didn't seem to bother titans ldk and dta (plus virus towards the end) last round

up to them.
sometimes more honour is to be found in losing/not winning

/me thinks of RaH

[Andy_r]

Titans and LDK had different ideas of what 'winning' meant. LDK wanted #1 planet, Titans wanted to have the most top 10, top 100 and top 250 planets. Both were where they wanted to be when 5th season let us down.

In a non-random round, a third alliance could set their sights on having the #1 galaxy, and with hard coded alliance sizes, you could also interpret highest average score as a definition of winning, so it's possible for 4 different alliances to work together, and all claim 'victory' at once.

[waassaa]

Originally posted by Andy_r

*snip*
and with hard coded alliance sizes, you could also interpret highest average score as a definition of winning,
*snip*

interesting thought.
what if pa actually announced the winning alliance of a round based on the avarage score of an alliance.

now that is a good thing.

[MAdnRisKy]

Originally posted by waassaa

to lose bg's ? u just have bg's formed from 1 alliance. And if ppl wanna "play with friends" as they all cry, join or form 1 alliance and stop fence sitting between 3 or 4.

BG's are designed to be independent of alliances, your proposal nullifies that important characteristic. (although the whole point ios accademic).

let them talk, after 2 rounds its forgotten anyways, if they formed allies like this, then some alliances would lose thier identity. something most are ver proud of.

who won round 6 officially? answer Nos / WP

though I doubt that's the way most people remember it, not the way the round's history is often written.

[MAdnRisKy]

Originally posted by waassaa
up to them.
sometimes more honour is to be found in losing/not winning

/me thinks of RaH

sure but I wasn't really commenting on that. More that you see a joint group as feeling that they didn't win, and that they value this the most. Firstly actually as andy points out, those in the winning group of round 7 seemed quite happy actually, and secondly it's often only the losers of a round that like to point out that the block won and not the individual alliance that actually did. call it an ego defence mechanism if you like...

[waassaa]

Originally posted by MAdnRisKy
sure but I wasn't really commenting on that. More that you see a joint group as feeling that they didn't win, and that they value this the most. Firstly actually as andy points out, those in the winning group of round 7 seemed quite happy actually, and secondly it's often only the losers of a round that like to point out that the block won and not the individual alliance that actually did. call it an ego defence mechanism if you like...

fact is, as you first stated, players will find ways around hard coding, pa can make it hard for them or easy (as it is now).
imo the harder the better.

as for alliances blocking, I see np here, thats rl realism coming into the game. What however i dislike is mixed gals, which are only a sign of inter allie nontrust anyways. And this would then be a thing of the past. Thus allowing an easier splitting of naps and allies l8er in round.

To finish my part in this debate, I think this alliance capping is a good idea, it has bugs that will be brought out and hopfully removed in time.
But, if the alliance HC and vet players would wake up to what they are doing to the game, and make decisions on a long term basis, then this hard coding could do wonders for pa.

The ball is in the court of players to improve pa, as well as the owners.

waassaa finished

[Gerbie]

Originally posted by waassaa
as for alliances blocking, I see np here, thats rl realism coming into the game. What however i dislike is mixed gals, which are only a sign of inter allie nontrust anyways. And this would then be a thing of the past. Thus allowing an easier splitting of naps and allies l8er in round.

Its possible that priv gals will be one alliance only. But since most smaller alliances aiming for the new players will recruit during the round, i bet joining one of these alliances will be made possible for random players.

Its not unlikely that a lot of alliances (or alliancemembers) will go random so they can join mixed gals, with galmembers being able to draw defence from different alliances. And so they can recruit new members (most alliances have lost a lot of members). Fun is about to happen again.