Planetarion Forums

Squidly · 2 Feb 2006, 03:23

So... I was trying to help a couple of newer players... found out they had created a two-person alliance to get going. I suggested they try some of the starter alliances, and they seemed quite enthused to do so. Bonus!

Problem. Once they leave their 2 person alliance, boom. 72 hours.

I can understand that limit being necessary for any of the top 10 to prevent en masse ship jumping... but what about for alliances with say 5 or less players? some of the really low ones who just simply haven't gotten in with a larger alliance yet?

The only problem I can see is perhaps a bunch of bigger players {a very small bg for example} joining together, and then immediately leaving their tag // joining a larger one near round end. However, putting a restriction say average size or average score... could see a way out of that scenario.

This poor guy I was talking to already has a freakload of incs with no help... he doesn't need 3 days more of it too, does he?

Thoughts?

NitinA · 2 Feb 2006, 03:40

Yeah, they should have to wait like anyone else. Plus, whose to say 6 players compared to 5 players have to wait 72 ticks, etc. The system is also abuseable. You're HC and you want to leave your alliance without waiting? Kick all the members to get below 5 then leave and rejoin another alliance immediately.

I'd reccomend, as an alternative, something like we have on Preferences for vacation mode saying "I agree" checkbox, with the conditions--in this case something that "I understand that when I join the alliance I will not be able to leave without waiting a 72 tick period" or something to that effect.

-NitinA

Squidly · 2 Feb 2006, 04:05

Quote:

Originally Posted by NitinA

Yeah, they should have to wait like anyone else. Plus, whose to say 6 players compared to 5 players have to wait 72 ticks, etc. The system is also abuseable. You're HC and you want to leave your alliance without waiting? Kick all the members to get below 5 then leave and rejoin another alliance immediately.

The #5 was just a random estimate. Could be changed to any number, limit, or score

Quote:

Originally Posted by NitinA

I'd reccomend, as an alternative, something like we have on Preferences for vacation mode saying "I agree" checkbox, with the conditions--in this case something that "I understand that when I join the alliance I will not be able to leave without waiting a 72 tick period" or something to that effect.

I must be completely drunk or something... but how would that be an alternative? I swear I must be misreading it.... Could ya elaborate for a poor, braindead squidly?

NitinA · 2 Feb 2006, 04:24

It's an alternative (on second thought, perhaps another word would be better) because it's a check--you have to read and click the I agree button before you go into vacation mode. Several people (in fact, I spoke to one today) went into vacation mode when they were upset at their galaxy, and then wish to get out of it early. Well--too bad. If you read the whole thing under Prefrences and click the "I Agree" button then click to go into vacation mode, then that person doesn't deserve special treatment or shouldn't have the option of gettin out early. Same thing with the alliances situation.

I don't care about a person's score, the number of members in their alliance, or any other variable or factor. If you join an alliance, you should know that there are certain things that come along with joining an alliance--including being counted in the score/value of that tag, getting alliance mails in-game, and the fact that if you leave, you have to wait 72 ticks to join another alliance. That's part of the game.

Now, I'm all for being fair to players--which is why my "alternative" includes the checkbox where it is made clear for those who didn't know about the facts of joining an alliance; The things you have to think about when you do leave or join an alliance such as the 72-hour limit.

-NitinA

Squidly · 2 Feb 2006, 04:43

Still punishing the newbies though that really don't know any better... I can fully understand that you're looking at this from a "what part of this can be abused" point of view... But... the rank 36+ two-three person alliances... is there seriously any problem with helping them around?

What about maybe any player lower than rank X being allowed to alliance 'hop' ? that would stop your concern of HC booting so they can hop easier would it not?

the plot thickens

NitinA · 2 Feb 2006, 04:51

It isn't punishing the newbies. It's fairness for all players. By having the check box (following my suggestion from above) you don't punish the newbies, but rather inform them of the concequences of their actions before they agree to apply for an alliance.

By the way, the rank X suggestion can be abused too!

-NitinA

Squidly · 2 Feb 2006, 04:57

How?!

NitinA · 2 Feb 2006, 05:41

Quote:

Originally Posted by Squidly

How?!

Well, for instance, a mate of mine's strategy initally in this round is to go Ter with low roids and low value to XP whore once he gets DE. It actually went quite great because he was around rank 1500+ a few ticks ago, and now stands in the top rankings. It would be possible for spies to join an alliance, collect intel (coords), leave that alliance right before they land their first big attacks (esp. races which have no fi/co pods), and join another alliance...

-NitinA

Squidly · 2 Feb 2006, 08:08

Quote:

Originally Posted by NitinA

Well, for instance, a mate of mine's strategy initally in this round is to go Ter with low roids and low value to XP whore once he gets DE. It actually went quite great because he was around rank 1500+ a few ticks ago, and now stands in the top rankings. It would be possible for spies to join an alliance, collect intel (coords), leave that alliance right before they land their first big attacks (esp. races which have no fi/co pods), and join another alliance...

-NitinA

Most first big attacks are within the first 200 ticks aren't they? Thus meaning that in the long run, this idea would be null and void. Although I think you're just mocking me now

NitinA · 2 Feb 2006, 08:20

Quote:

Originally Posted by Squidly

Most first big attacks are within the first 200 ticks aren't they? Thus meaning that in the long run, this idea would be null and void. Although I think you're just mocking me now

lol Naa i"m just half-sleeping

-NitinA

Rikard · 2 Feb 2006, 10:34

why is the 72 hour limit there anyway? is it to prevent shipjumping, or is it to prevent alliances from massively kicking and recruiting right before the end to get a higher position in the end ranking?

if its the latter then we can set a limit of 2 weeks before the end when the 72 rule starts to work. if its the first reason, then the system works fine and n00bs chosing the wrong alliance are screwed