Planetarion Forums

NitinA · 2 Feb 2006, 02:56

So I have a new player who joined my galaxy (woohoo an active). Anyway, the galaxy member hadn't played in an alliance for many rounds and just returned to PA. My galaxy has shown him the basics of the game so far, and he's doing great! He's about average score for one of the alliances in the 6-10 rank category at the moment, and for someone who still doesn't know a lot of things and is being taught, he's doing wonderfully. He's also from the United States, spends a good amount of hours on IRC, and learns fast, all of which alliances typically take into consideration for recruitment.

So the process began, to find him an alliance. We didn't expect him to join one of the top "rated" alliances in the game (generally 1up, LCH, etc. are considered alliances for people who have a bit more expierence under their belt). So we started looking around at the top 15 or so alliances in the game for a home for him. Just about all the top 15 alliances are full to the limit of 50 imposed, and can only add players once-in-a-while. After I suggested several "training" alliances, such as F-crew, Vgn, and several others over the process of a few days, he was turned away from one after another after another--not because they didn't want him, but rather because they didn't have the space.

We continued working down the list to find an alliance, but eventually the alliances list ran out! In fact, I realized that *none* of the top 15 alliances are recruiting at the moment--and several (8-9) said they had members out of tag which were waiting for them to be able to be added to tag, 1 by 1 according to the non-top5 alliance tag formula. It dawned on me that out of the IRC-active alliances where you stand a decent chance of learning to play, getting defence (not always, of course, but at least some coverage), and making friends, all of the "major" alliances are full and can't take any more.

So HOW can the memberbase grow if there's no alliances for people who wish to rejoin PA to play in? It's literally a physical limitation on the growth of the playerbase--which I would imagine was against the growth of PA that PA Team wanted. There's no more space in training alliances, in medium alliances, or in large alliances. The alliances that *are* recruiting are so selective that a new member can not join. Out of talking with 13 alliances, a new member can't find a place to play at all, nor get into the community because of these imposed restrictions.

Sure, you can argue that people should take the inititive to create new alliances, but not everyone has time to do that. That's proportional to the size of the commuity, and at the moment those with the knowledge and initiive to build an alliance have done so--except that's not proportional to the number of people who *want* to get into the game... How is the community and playerbase supposed to grow if it's stright-up impossible given the current limitations!

Anyway, that's my short-ish rant, and feel free to post any ideas/comments/etc. in this thread.

-NitinA

P.S. Sorry to the mods, this is an alliance dicussion, but also related to PA suggestions, so I didn't know where to post. Also, I don't mean any disrespect towards other alliances by not considering you a "major" alliance or anything of that sort. Some alliances are just smaller than others and not preferable due to factors such as very low average score, small number of members, not based on irc, etc.

Alessio · 2 Feb 2006, 03:02

Make alliances below rank 10 able to recruit faster

Rikard · 2 Feb 2006, 03:02

the alliances ranked 15, 16 and 17 arent bad imho and they are still in need of members, but besides that i tend to agree with you. in a round where you try to attract new members, limiting the alliancesize to such a small number might not be the smartest of ideas

NitinA · 2 Feb 2006, 03:03

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rikard

the alliances ranked 15, 16 and 17 arent bad imho and they are still in need of members, but besides that i tend to agree with you. in a round where you try to attract new members, limiting the alliancesize to such a small number might not be the smartest of ideas

We tried those alliances Rikard :/

-NitinA

Rikard · 2 Feb 2006, 03:04

oh... how mean of them :/

Spiraa · 2 Feb 2006, 03:14

i think this is a good start of a very usefull discussion!!!
Like NitinA i dont think there is a place for new players to join the comunity neither any alliance so the question is should we raise the member count or not.
I think we should because we all want the comunity to grow and want the players base to grow and give new comming or returning players a chance in the universe by joining an alliance.
So my thoughts are we should raise the Alliance limit to 60 members.

furball · 2 Feb 2006, 04:35

My apologies for not being able to take in your friend, NitanA.

We've been deluged with applications for the last week or so, and it's only since we closed recruitment that things have quietened down in that department. I count 16 applicants in the last week, and this is for an alliance that already had 53 members ready to play the round. I'd say that we accepted those we could, but mainly they've had vouches or come with other alliances' recommendations. Certainly the top 5 alliances have had to turn away some great players (by our standards) due to the limits and we've picked up the pieces.

Our problem has been that as a community, we already had 53 people playing this round. We've now had a lot of applicants and for the first time ever, closed recruitment. I warned about this limit being a bad idea pre-round, and now I'm proven correct.

Fyodor · 2 Feb 2006, 04:44

I like the fact that it is hard to get in an alliance. Reason being is im seeing the rise of cluster allies again for people who cant get into a regular alliance. Plus there is more of a chance of the smaller alliances getting some decent players to fill their ranks and therebye creating a new element to the game.I dont think upping the alliance count to 60 will solve anything thats happening now, but mebbe 75 might be a good high tide.

Teargas · 2 Feb 2006, 06:46

I've noticed the oddity aswell. Perhaps members should put more faith into the lower ranking alliance (15-25?) that isn't reasonably low, but not insanely high priority. Would at least get some newer members into the flow of an alliance. As of looking at the top 30 list, 17 of those are under 50 members. What it needs to come down to in my opinion is experienced members taking the initiative and joining a smaller alliance and spreading their experience. That'll bring back some nice fun to go around.

Also about the cluster alliances, hm... I was sitting around earlier on PA and was thinking that could be possible. I even considered getting ahold of other galaxies to consider such a thing. The only downfall is that I don't particularly like the idea of announcing myself and becoming a target for other galaxies in the cluster, let alone their alliances. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying all would give negative feedback, but I'm willing to guess quite seriously that someone would.

NitinA · 2 Feb 2006, 07:12

furball: It's all-right--not you're fault. Thank you, though, for illustrating with numbers a sample of the problem

I hope some other alliances are willing and able to post similar stats to gague the issue.

Fyodor: The point is though, at what point does the saturation of members to officers -slash- HC become too low? Meaning, I think we've reached the point that the dropping of the maximum membercount has become too low for the number of *capable* and *willing* people who have the time to run alliances. On a ratio basis, we've come too low (otherwise other alliances would be appearing). Granted a few new alliances did appear this round (possibly as an effect of the lowered limit), but it's become ovbious to me recently that the number of current alliances to recruit Average Joenoob isn't enough to cope with the number of Average Joenoobs in order to facilitate growth in PA's playerbase. In fact, I would figure that if the community had some more of these capable HC/BC/DC people ready with the time allotted, that more alliances would have been created to keep up with the number of people searching for them.

Teargas: Many of those top 30 alliances are, in my opinion, too IRC inactive to function as a stable decent alliance. Alliances with 15-20 members who don't have tools, no website, officers with expierence, no attacks, and bearly any defence, won't exactly be the best place for any player of PA to grow and gain expierence to move on to better alliances. While, at the same time, other alliances such as G-II don't recruit newbies and simply reject them stright off. Problem is, teargas, that what you stated (expierenced people who came down the ladder) *HAPPENED* already, to the maximum extent of the community to cope with the drop in alliance limit. Several new alliances were created, several old members from other alliances such as NewDawn and eX stepped back and created/rehashed alliances such as DOS, RoA, and SiN. But that ovbiously wasn't enough since the community suffers from this now.

In any case, I'm glad to see that I'm not the only one who has noticied that this is a problem that needs to be addressed, or else will contribute to the decline -slash- non-growth of the game.

-NitinA

Vikman · 2 Feb 2006, 07:55

I totally agree with everything that has been said. At F-crew we currently have 13 people waiting to get in as well as countless others we have told to come back in a few days. I'm not even sure if a few days is enough. Being able to only accept one applicant every 12 ticks is killing us. I don't think completely taking the time limit off is good but shorten it to half or less would greatly alleviate the problems people as well as the alliances are facing. It's not only the new players we are losing, but also players coming back. When I see the interviews for the applicants, many of them played a few rounds ago or many rounds ago. In either case, we are losing players who could help draw back more of the old timers as well as bring in new players. Theres my two cents...

Sir Mordred · 2 Feb 2006, 08:06

completely agree.
a limit of 50 is definately too low.

Stoom · 2 Feb 2006, 08:29

Though I agree, Apocco already said alliance limits will be higher next round again.

NitinA · 2 Feb 2006, 08:35

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stoom

Though I agree, Apocco already said alliance limits will be higher next round again.

I'm not an advocate of mid-round changes; but if they wish for the new/returning players who return this round to continue playing next round, or just not quit, I fear that'll be too late.

-NitinA

paolo · 2 Feb 2006, 08:41

Although I'd like to see a change in the limit (60 and a faster recruitment policy), I do see the positive side of this. There are a lot of quality alliances out there at the moment. The round will be exciting for longer because of this (at least I think it will).

We'll see a lot of people leaving the smaller alliances when the limit gets up to about 75. This will create about 4-5 strong alliances and a weaker rest. I actually like it like this, although 50 isn't that much. It should be on the same level as the number of players in the game. We're at 2603 now, that would mean 52 full alliances... That's a bit much I think

Stoom · 2 Feb 2006, 08:43

Though, for top alliances this means they'll have to recruit again, thus "stealing" from other ally's which is a bit lame... (if changes will be made mid-round)

The Real Arfy · 2 Feb 2006, 08:50

All I can say is, at this stage in the game, the alliance rankings are quite distorted due to the fact that alot of cores have less members, thus less score. As I'm sure you already know. What I'm trying to say is that its not just the t15 that are "good" in this first week or fortnight, and there is no reason not to approach every alliance on the scoreboard - you may be surprised.

Alki · 2 Feb 2006, 09:12

I said this before the round started, why make alliance limits low for a free round where u are trying to attract new players, makes 0 sense, cant change it now though

NitinA · 2 Feb 2006, 09:20

Quote:

Originally Posted by Alki

I said this before the round started, why make alliance limits low for a free round where u are trying to attract new players, makes 0 sense, cant change it now though

No you can't, but I would advocate a change in the time it takes for the non-top 5 alliances to recuirt to their 100 limit from 12 hours to perhaps 6. This would alleviate the problem quite a bit, in my opinion.

-NitinA

Mistwraith · 2 Feb 2006, 09:43

sadly we also have had to turn people away because we concidered that the waiting time to get them in would be too long - this for their sake - as much as we would like to have them, they would have to sit in the deep dark space outside alliance hq (bit like queuing for the january sales at harrods).. without being able to get adequate defence times (give or recieve).. especially at game start when thats really important.

the amount of alliances cannot hold the amount of applicants, and we too have sent them down the list, we hope we send them to active allies, and wish them luck.

i get the knawing feeling that were sending away prospectively good untried players, something every round we have tried to take in and give a chance to :-(

i'm not so sure .. for the player base which were trying to boost.. that this soloution to curbing alliance power is going to be very healthy.. i was and remain a detractor of the 50 limit, it is .. too low.

the only soloution will be for alliance to create .. wings, battle groups, whatever u want to call them... out of alliance, and thats a road we are prepared to go down.

Mistwraith · 2 Feb 2006, 09:50

adendum thought i will share with u
- for the first time in my many rounds i was actually glad i was sitting there watching us dropping down the rankings, because that meant we could take more people in!

aNgRyDuCk · 2 Feb 2006, 10:16

actually, they could ammend the alliance limit, and it wouldn't be a big deal maybe 60-75 or something... it would effect everyone equally, so not a big deal to make a mid round change

Kjeldoran · 2 Feb 2006, 11:17

The limitation to 50 members is only a good fact for subtop alliances, because let's be honnest. It's not hard to have a solid decent quality core of 40-50 members. The difference last round was that alliances like 1up and Exi had 80 dedicated members and for a subtop alliance, it's alot harder to find that amount of quality players because of the simple fact that most those players are a member of or have applied for exi, 1up, nd, lch, angels ...

At this point, most top alliances don't even consider giving new players a chance. Why? Because the main concern for e.g. Angels is ... Who of our core will be allowed to play with us in this new 50 members limitation. I assume other top alliances have the same issues.

Also Alki got a very valid point. You don't attract new, inexperienced players when you make such limitations on the amount of members per alliance. Even recruiting alliances like F-Crew probably have to deny alot of applicants, pple that they might have added if they had more room.

cypher · 2 Feb 2006, 12:03

Quote:

Originally Posted by Alessio

Make alliances below rank 10 able to recruit faster

quite dangerous as it would be 'easy' for a top alliance to play very laid back for a week or maybe even 2 and then work their way up to the top really fast with 60/70 guys. And let's face it... someone would try heh.

cypher · 2 Feb 2006, 12:05

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kjeldoran

The limitation to 50 members is only a good fact for subtop alliances, because let's be honnest. It's not hard to have a solid decent quality core of 40-50 members. The difference last round was that alliances like 1up and Exi had 80 dedicated members and for a subtop alliance, it's alot harder to find that amount of quality players because of the simple fact that most those players are a member of or have applied for exi, 1up, nd, lch, angels ...

we had 80 quality members?:P that should be on fun quotes forums :P

I am Idler · 2 Feb 2006, 12:11

Any reason why a alliance cant accept a member and simply keep him out of the tag? If he is new and willing Im sure he'd accept the drawback of -1 eta for def for the time being until a spot opens..

Where is the problem ?

Kjeldoran · 2 Feb 2006, 12:15

Quote:

Originally Posted by cypher

we had 80 quality members?:P that should be on fun quotes forums :P

Hehe, I assume you do but you know what I mean

Kjeldoran · 2 Feb 2006, 12:15

Quote:

Originally Posted by I am Idler

Any reason why a alliance cant accept a member and simply keep him out of the tag? If he is new and willing Im sure he'd accept the drawback of -1 eta for def for the time being until a spot opens..

Where is the problem ?

That happens, it already happened last round with the 80 members limit ...

lokken · 2 Feb 2006, 12:21

how can you judge 50 member alliances when we haven't had any major wars/political action in game yet?

yes there may be problem, but then people can get round it by making their own new alliances.

Tomkat · 2 Feb 2006, 12:36

Exactly as lokken said.

I think the 50 person alliance limit is quite exciting (as exciting as a tick based spreadsheet can get).

People just need to adjust. I think if 50 was kept for the next round, we'd see a lot more alliances springing up around the place, to accommodate people.

The thing that prevents a lot of new alliances is numbers. Noone will start a new alliance when they could only get around 30 people into it, against the 80 of the bigger alliances. This way, it's fairer.

Kjeldoran · 2 Feb 2006, 12:57

Quote:

Originally Posted by lokken

how can you judge 50 member alliances when we haven't had any major wars/political action in game yet?

yes there may be problem, but then people can get round it by making their own new alliances.

Don't get me wrong lokken, I'm not complaining. For Angels and other alliances it's a luxury issue rather then a real problem? I'm just saying for new players or allianceless players, it's harder to get into a top alliance.

Clogg · 2 Feb 2006, 13:38

Hey Nitina, you still haven't tried us! Or is SiN not good enough all of a sudden?

Quote:

Several new alliances were created, several old members from other alliances such as NewDawn and eX stepped back and created/rehashed alliances such as DOS, RoA, and SiN. But that ovbiously wasn't enough since the community suffers from this now.

THink that's quite a statement. As recruiment officier I can say we have gotten a lot of new galamates from other allainces players. Those who know of what SiN is capable of. That in turn has a double effect aswell. Since we don't have 50 members, our alliance score isn't high enough for top 15. Also we still have players in protection (helping them get a good start even in protection) so that accounts for our relative low average atm. But as soon as start attacking, it will rise sharply.

So I do not understand your lack of faith in the community already, since you haven't tried all options yet!

RiXX · 2 Feb 2006, 13:54

As someone who found themselves allianceless at the beginning of the round, I am in two minds.

Firstly, I pretty much chose SiN because I knew a few of the people in it from ND and elsewhere, but mainly because I could see the count was under 50. I personally don't think this is a particularly good way to choose an ally for any player, experienced or other wise. Don't get me wrong, I'm having a blast at the moment where I am, but for new players who have decided to try the round because it's free, who are under constant pressure from galmates to get into an Alliance, getting the knockback from multiple allys for no other reason than there isn't room isn't conducive to keeping them interested in the game. I know that if VisioN hadn't taken me in when I first started playing, I wouldn't have half the (admittedly limited) experience I have now from learning in an alliance with a proper structure, stable leadership and experienced officers.

On the other hand however, it does encourage the dilution of the afore mentioned experienced players into the lower alliances, bringing with them the skills necessary to build up the core base of perhaps slightly newer players. I think personally that this is a very good thing, however why the admins decided that a free round meant to bolster the playerbase was the best time to experiment with this, I'm not sure.

I still think that 50 is too low a number for a round like this. Even sixty would be an improvement, or a more thoroughly thought out sliding scale for top 5, top 10, top 15 could have been implemented with a greater degree of success, so alliances such as F-Crew or Vgn, whom arguably we need the most this round of all, could continue to recruit and train our newbies without damaging themselves in the process, whilst allys such as 1up, LCH etc... could still keep their active playercore.

Appocomaster · 2 Feb 2006, 14:21

What about changing the 20 to something more like 14, which it was before?

Thex · 2 Feb 2006, 14:56

What about alliances like SiN, SaX, Violent Saints etc, they all appear to be in need of members and I believe they are all recruiting.

TSP · 2 Feb 2006, 15:22

I think it's a serious problem. On the one hand, I quite like the limit, because this round has a wider range of alliances and that equals a more exciting game. There's certainly a lot of competition for the top 10.

However, all the alliances in the rankings down to fifteenth are at the moment full or thereabouts, with large numbers of people on waiting lists, and then you've got to cross off the people who aren't accepting newbies / returning players (I'm making assumptions here, but I'm guessing the likes of Ascendancy and Daous Dava aren't). It's particularly disappointing to hear that someone like G-II isn't taking newbies (if I'm understanding the comments of other posters correctly) - that's not really doing the game a service, and they're players that can easily become more useful than an active casual player. I know that I've seen the rawest recruit turned into a great player, and it's not something that should be discounted. From a personal perspective it's tough to see people turned down because of the limit who would normally be accepted. SiN currently looks the best shot for people now, but judging by the sizes of the waiting lists it looks like they'll fill up quickly if everybody is pointed along there. Creating a new alliance isn't really an option because most of the allianceless are people who haven't played in a while.

Also I think it's a long-term problem for the round. I foresee lots of debates on AD about alliances "recruiting" their way into the top 5 towards the end of the round, and the changing limit is easily abusable if you're that way inclined. I think the limit concept should have been left and not used in a free round where the idea is to expand the game's playerbase.

Phrazer · 2 Feb 2006, 15:57

In Orbit we decided early on to take alot of new players to train them up and give them a helping hand. We also have taken alot of "returning" players. Despite out current low position we finished 12th last round and we still have space remaining for this round and are willing to take on most people of any ability as long as they show a willingness to learn, be active and participate.

Im not trying to put a recruitment spin on this but im just saying you can still join some of the lower alliances and still have a productive and enjoyable round, im sure the other 15th + alliances will tell you the same thing.

If anything we should be in favour of higher limits because of our low avg score, but i think this limit is a pretty decent way of making things more even, however i dont see the wisdom in introducing it for a expansion round, but i guess time will tell

Teargas · 2 Feb 2006, 16:48

Sorry this was mentioned quite some posts ago but anyhow...

Quote:

the only soloution will be for alliance to create .. wings, battle groups, whatever u want to call them... out of alliance, and thats a road we are prepared to go down.

Honestly this has been an idea of mine for awhile and it's weird I haven't seen it happen yet. Larger alliances splitting apart a bit and having another tag. They'd still all be in the same IRC channel and run the same attacks the only difference is the tag and they wouldn't be able to get alliance ETA for defense on fellow members. To me, it seems like a good disadvantage for the ability to surpass 50.

Ace · 2 Feb 2006, 17:18

Quote:

Originally Posted by Teargas

Sorry this was mentioned quite some posts ago but anyhow...

Honestly this has been an idea of mine for awhile and it's weird I haven't seen it happen yet. Larger alliances splitting apart a bit and having another tag. They'd still all be in the same IRC channel and run the same attacks the only difference is the tag and they wouldn't be able to get alliance ETA for defense on fellow members. To me, it seems like a good disadvantage for the ability to surpass 50.

The only thing you forget in this idea is defending outside gal/alliance tag is not allowed as of last round.

So if you make a second tag you can't defend those members.

Kjeldoran · 2 Feb 2006, 17:23

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ace

The only thing you forget in this idea is defending outside gal/alliance tag is not allowed as of last round.

So if you make a second tag you can't defend those members.

And it'd be the next step to mass blocking again. Because who defines the difference between 2 alliances that are infact 1 big alliance or 2 very friendly alliances that wanna play together etc ...

An alliance splitting its alliance in 2 teams of 50, in PA terms they are nothing more then 2 allied alliances. So it'd be perfectly normal to see other non related alliances team up to fight this "begin of blocking" phenomenon.

Fyodor · 2 Feb 2006, 17:58

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kjeldoran

And it'd be the next step to mass blocking again. Because who defines the difference between 2 alliances that are infact 1 big alliance or 2 very friendly alliances that wanna play together etc ...

An alliance splitting its alliance in 2 teams of 50, in PA terms they are nothing more then 2 allied alliances. So it'd be perfectly normal to see other non related alliances team up to fight this "begin of blocking" phenomenon.

Dont kid yourself, blocking went on last round and just about every round before hand. Just because it wasnt called a block or named, doesnt mean it wasnt. So 2-3 of 50/75 man alliances helping each other on attacks (as def doesnt work) isnt really changing from the way it has always been. If by chance 6-10 alliances cooperate, then you would have a problem.

I play another game with a much larger player base than that only allows 20 people per alliance. (This would be silly in PA but the dynamics of the other game supports it) The 20 peeps per has caused numerous wings and allies but still hasnt hurt the Fluidity. Of the game. In fact I believe it helps it as alliances are constantly swapping allies/stabbing people in the back in the hopes of having a top player/top alliance.

Cannon_Fodder · 2 Feb 2006, 19:06

Quote:

Originally Posted by Clogg

Hey Nitina, you still haven't tried us! Or is SiN not good enough all of a sudden?

THink that's quite a statement. As recruiment officier I can say we have gotten a lot of new galamates from other allainces players. Those who know of what SiN is capable of. That in turn has a double effect aswell. Since we don't have 50 members, our alliance score isn't high enough for top 15. Also we still have players in protection (helping them get a good start even in protection) so that accounts for our relative low average atm. But as soon as start attacking, it will rise sharply.

So I do not understand your lack of faith in the community already, since you haven't tried all options yet!

Being an ex-SiNer I'll be bias and plug them abit more. The alliance rankings really do no justice to them. They have excellent players who have regulary finished in the top rankings, great tools and activity, etc...

OneColourRed · 2 Feb 2006, 23:15

Sorry i havent read the full thread before replying here.

One problem i had with the 50 limit was that although it could be good in theory there was in my eyes one major flaw.

I simply dont think the current planetarion playerbase has enough people who are willing to put the time and effort into running an alliance, or to be officers. I know from personal experience how much hard work this is from my time as HC of various alliances.

The number of people with the potential to run and be a part of a command team of an alliance is small, many have left the game and others just simply dont want the hassle anymore and would prefer to just play the game as a peon.

While we currently have enough such people to run 3-4 top tier alliances and another 10 or so very respectable ones(dependant on aims and how they want to play the game ofc). To be able to provide good alliances for a playerbase of 2300 you need about 40 such alliances which means 40 groups of incredibly dedicated people. This we simply do not have at this time.

The 50 limit needs to be re-looked at imo. I'm not saying its broken but perhaps in need of some modification. More thought should perhaps have been put into it before it was put into practice.

Taken a while to get to my point there sorry.

Appocomaster · 2 Feb 2006, 23:15

http://www.planetarion.com/news.php

Mistwraith · 3 Feb 2006, 00:03

Quote:

Originally Posted by I am Idler

Any reason why a alliance cant accept a member and simply keep him out of the tag? If he is new and willing Im sure he'd accept the drawback of -1 eta for def for the time being until a spot opens..

Where is the problem ?

they would be classed as support planets

Hesekiel · 3 Feb 2006, 00:09

i still think its wrong to change the rules / game play when the round has already began just by the request of a few HC members of different alliances.

I dont really care THAT much where you draw the line but when it has been decided you should stick with it.

Kargool · 3 Feb 2006, 00:12

Yeah, Change the alliance limits, do shit about buddypack exile problems, and sit and watch once again as the PA crew keeps ****ing up things.

NitinA · 3 Feb 2006, 00:13

Quote:

Originally Posted by Appocomaster

http://www.planetarion.com/news.php

Thank You!

Kargool: Instead of sitting there and bitching about it, construct a well thought out arguement (such as I did) and be the catalyst for change.

-NitinA

Kal · 3 Feb 2006, 00:26

Quote:

Originally Posted by Appocomaster

http://www.planetarion.com/news.php

I believe this was not the correct way to solve this problem. I agree with some of the previous posters that there are alliances with spaces that could become good alliances.

Banned · 3 Feb 2006, 00:44

Quote:

Originally Posted by Appocomaster

http://www.planetarion.com/news.php

It's great to see that PAteam still have all the spine of a worm.