User Name
Password

Go Back   Planetarion Forums > Planetarion Related Forums > Planetarion Discussions

Reply
Thread Tools Display Modes
Unread 3 Oct 2006, 19:00   #51
Crowly
Orbit HC
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 184
Crowly is a splendid one to beholdCrowly is a splendid one to beholdCrowly is a splendid one to beholdCrowly is a splendid one to beholdCrowly is a splendid one to beholdCrowly is a splendid one to beholdCrowly is a splendid one to beholdCrowly is a splendid one to behold
Re: Alliance size

Night Sky's offensiveness is rivalled only by their inability to command the English language.
Crowly is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 3 Oct 2006, 19:57   #52
Marka
xVx
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 165
Marka is just really niceMarka is just really niceMarka is just really niceMarka is just really niceMarka is just really nice
Re: Alliance size

Quote:
Originally Posted by Crowly
Night Sky's offensiveness is rivalled only by their inability to command the English language.
You know that Night-Sky is only one person right?
__________________
xVx ftw
Marka is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 3 Oct 2006, 20:05   #53
NRG-izer
aka Night-Sky - xVx HC
 
NRG-izer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: somewhere out there
Posts: 116
NRG-izer is a splendid one to beholdNRG-izer is a splendid one to beholdNRG-izer is a splendid one to beholdNRG-izer is a splendid one to beholdNRG-izer is a splendid one to beholdNRG-izer is a splendid one to behold
Re: Alliance size

Quote:
Originally Posted by Crowly
Night Sky's offensiveness is rivalled only by their inability to command the English language.
a: im dyslexies

b: it was just an example.. not ment to be offensive
but if u love to take it that way.. go ahead :P
__________________
A Proud Tribute Member

past alliances :
r 01 - r 02 none
r 03 - r 04 TFD / ToT
r 05 - r 10,5 WP
r 11 LCH
r 12 - 90 Vision / xVx
r 91 - 100 Wave Zero / Syndicate

present alliances :
Tribute
since mid round 101
NRG-izer is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 3 Oct 2006, 20:32   #54
Fiery
PA Team
 
Fiery's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 904
Fiery has much to be proud ofFiery has much to be proud ofFiery has much to be proud ofFiery has much to be proud ofFiery has much to be proud ofFiery has much to be proud ofFiery has much to be proud ofFiery has much to be proud ofFiery has much to be proud ofFiery has much to be proud of
Re: Alliance size

I just want to make sure I understand the problem here. The alliance limit has been 80 for the last few rounds with the top 50 or 60 planet scores counting towards the alliance score. It has been open to everyone except the top 5. The only change is that the top five will now be able to have the same amount of people as every other alliance and include their scanners/cov oppers in tag. This means 100 more people into the top 5 alliances. So, just to clarify things, you are concerned because the rules no longer discriminate against the top five?
Fiery is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 3 Oct 2006, 21:12   #55
Tietäjä
Good Son
 
Tietäjä's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Finland
Posts: 3,991
Tietäjä single handedly makes these forums a better placeTietäjä single handedly makes these forums a better placeTietäjä single handedly makes these forums a better placeTietäjä single handedly makes these forums a better placeTietäjä single handedly makes these forums a better placeTietäjä single handedly makes these forums a better placeTietäjä single handedly makes these forums a better placeTietäjä single handedly makes these forums a better placeTietäjä single handedly makes these forums a better placeTietäjä single handedly makes these forums a better placeTietäjä single handedly makes these forums a better place
Re: Alliance size

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fiery
So, just to clarify things, you are concerned because the rules no longer discriminate against the top five?
Don't hit the nail too hard, you'll make someone scream.
__________________
"Oh, wretched race of a day, children of chance and misery, why do ye compel me to say to you what it were most expedient for you not to hear? What is best of all is for ever beyond your reach: not to be born, not to be, to be nothing. The second best for you, however, is soon to die". Silenus, tutor to Dionysos, speaking to King Midas.
Tietäjä is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 3 Oct 2006, 23:14   #56
Kargool
Up The Hatters!
 
Kargool's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Kenilworth Road
Posts: 3,012
Kargool is a pillar of this Internet societyKargool is a pillar of this Internet societyKargool is a pillar of this Internet societyKargool is a pillar of this Internet societyKargool is a pillar of this Internet societyKargool is a pillar of this Internet societyKargool is a pillar of this Internet societyKargool is a pillar of this Internet societyKargool is a pillar of this Internet societyKargool is a pillar of this Internet societyKargool is a pillar of this Internet society
Re: Alliance size

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fiery
I just want to make sure I understand the problem here. The alliance limit has been 80 for the last few rounds with the top 50 or 60 planet scores counting towards the alliance score. It has been open to everyone except the top 5. The only change is that the top five will now be able to have the same amount of people as every other alliance and include their scanners/cov oppers in tag. This means 100 more people into the top 5 alliances. So, just to clarify things, you are concerned because the rules no longer discriminate against the top five?
No.

Quote:
Originally Posted by pawiki
1 exilition 63
2 Omen 65
3 1up 61
4 xVx 68
5 Tides of Fire 75
6 Subh 61
7 ROCK 75
8 F-Crew 75
9 Vengeance 51
10 Hidden Agenda 72
If u notice here you see that the highest membercount last round was 75. And that was the alliance ranked 5th in r18. The rules prohibeted anyone in top 5 to take in more than 65 membes while being in top 5. You might call it unfair, but it helped balance the game and make it a much closer game to call. Also, with the old system all members counted for score. I see no reason to have 80 members in the alliances because there isnt any alliance wich is capable of having 80 members in it atm because of the low turnout in players. There might be a small surge due to it being a autumn round, but I dont think it will be much of an increase.

The last 25 doesnt count towards alliancescore, that means that bigger alliances can keep members who goes inactive longer. And that they can live with the fact that the players that leaves another alliance after being poached doesnt count off in score (they do in activity however) That way u can actually have alot more active players in a top 5 alliance.

Being in a smaller alliance is the other way around. You have to live with the members u get, but the bigger members u will prolly not be able to keep because they will be tempted to move into bigger alliances.


I think that the bigger the alliancelimit will be, the harder will it be for smaller alliances to keep active. And well, I guess its just a question of what do we want for Planetarion. Do we want to remove the small communites and make everyone pack themselves into the bigger alliances.

I've been a HC for both big and small alliances and I can only say that when you are in a smaller alliance you are able to give more to the player who joins your alliance because you will have more time for him. That is better than cramming everyone into one alliance..
__________________
Planetarion veteran
Kargool is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 4 Oct 2006, 00:10   #57
Fiery
PA Team
 
Fiery's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 904
Fiery has much to be proud ofFiery has much to be proud ofFiery has much to be proud ofFiery has much to be proud ofFiery has much to be proud ofFiery has much to be proud ofFiery has much to be proud ofFiery has much to be proud ofFiery has much to be proud ofFiery has much to be proud of
Re: Alliance size

So ToF could have had 80 members if they had continued to play poorly and kept themselves out of the top 5. (No offense to ToF, of course, cos I 'dore you guys) And it's not that difficult to recruit to 80. Also, I openly admit that maths are not my strong suit but 100 players out of 3k is what? 3.33%? In addition, now those top 5 alliances can have their scanners/co oppers in gal. Which is why the limit was raised for the top 5. So they won't have/need support alliances.
I also believe the reason for the closer scores was all the blocking that went on which kept the scores down. I've only played seven rounds but I hadn't really seen any blocking until the last couple rounds. But that is just my opinion.
As for giving time to the members in your alliance.... pffft.... maybe if you spent less time posting on the forums you'd have more time for your alliance.
Fiery is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 4 Oct 2006, 00:37   #58
Heartless
CRASHING BEATS 'N FANTASY
 
Heartless's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Cold Country.
Posts: 1,912
Heartless is an inspiration to us all and we should try to be more like himHeartless is an inspiration to us all and we should try to be more like himHeartless is an inspiration to us all and we should try to be more like himHeartless is an inspiration to us all and we should try to be more like himHeartless is an inspiration to us all and we should try to be more like himHeartless is an inspiration to us all and we should try to be more like himHeartless is an inspiration to us all and we should try to be more like himHeartless is an inspiration to us all and we should try to be more like himHeartless is an inspiration to us all and we should try to be more like himHeartless is an inspiration to us all and we should try to be more like himHeartless is an inspiration to us all and we should try to be more like him
Re: Alliance size

3k players? wtf, did I miss that round?
__________________
Ià! Ià! Munin F'tagn! - [*scendancy]
Heartless is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 4 Oct 2006, 00:47   #59
Kargool
Up The Hatters!
 
Kargool's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Kenilworth Road
Posts: 3,012
Kargool is a pillar of this Internet societyKargool is a pillar of this Internet societyKargool is a pillar of this Internet societyKargool is a pillar of this Internet societyKargool is a pillar of this Internet societyKargool is a pillar of this Internet societyKargool is a pillar of this Internet societyKargool is a pillar of this Internet societyKargool is a pillar of this Internet societyKargool is a pillar of this Internet societyKargool is a pillar of this Internet society
Re: Alliance size

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fiery
So ToF could have had 80 members if they had continued to play poorly and kept themselves out of the top 5. (No offense to ToF, of course, cos I 'dore you guys) And it's not that difficult to recruit to 80. Also, I openly admit that maths are not my strong suit but 100 players out of 3k is what? 3.33%?
Honestly, thats an somewhat absurd opinion. First, the number 3000 is a very vague number, out of all thoose you have all the inactives that creates an account then doesnt play it. You have the freebies who seldomly have an alliance and then you have players who play active but doesnt have an alliance/isnt on IRC.

The relative number you really gotta work with is not anywhere NEAR 3000 players, and if you dont see that then Im afraid I honestly have to say that I dont think you really have a clue about this at all.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fiery
I also believe the reason for the closer scores was all the blocking that went on which kept the scores down. I've only played seven rounds but I hadn't really seen any blocking until the last couple rounds. But that is just my opinion.
Indulge me, tell me, what were the powerblocks of round 18 as I seem to have missed them all being the alliance HC of the alliance that ended in second place.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fiery
In addition, now those top 5 alliances can have their scanners/co oppers in gal. Which is why the limit was raised for the top 5. So they won't have/need support alliances.
Erm, im sorry, but didnt you know that supporplanets werent allowed and that all the scanners and covops are more or less forced to be in alliance starting the round before this? I belive it was a multihunter ruling on this some time ago.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fiery
As for giving time to the members in your alliance.... pffft.... maybe if you spent less time posting on the forums you'd have more time for your alliance.
Ah well, I guess thats the answer you would expect coming from someone who is nda'ed by jolt and active in the game. Here I go out of my own shoes to write an constructive and decent post and someone comes along and thinks its funny to flame me.
__________________
Planetarion veteran

Last edited by Kargool; 4 Oct 2006 at 01:01.
Kargool is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 4 Oct 2006, 03:38   #60
Fiery
PA Team
 
Fiery's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 904
Fiery has much to be proud ofFiery has much to be proud ofFiery has much to be proud ofFiery has much to be proud ofFiery has much to be proud ofFiery has much to be proud ofFiery has much to be proud ofFiery has much to be proud ofFiery has much to be proud ofFiery has much to be proud of
Re: Alliance size

Kargool, you're the one on here posting about how allowing a mere 100 players in the top 5 alliances is going to ruin Planetarion. You asked for the reasoning and opinions from smaller alliance HC's. I happen to be an HC in PATSA. So I qualify to answer. Which I did. I do see that I said gal when I meant alliance.

Originally Posted by Fiery
In addition, now those top 5 alliances can have their scanners/co oppers in galThis should be alliance. Which is why the limit was raised for the top 5. So they won't have/need support alliances.
Originally posted by Kargool
Erm, im sorry, but didnt you know that supporplanets werent allowed and that all the scanners and covops are more or less forced to be in alliance starting the round before this? I belive it was a multihunter ruling on this some time ago.

And by your reply here I see that you do understand why the top 5 alliances have had their alliance limits extended to 80. So they can have their scanners and covoppers in tag and won't need to have a support alliance. By the way, if you had bothered to actually read what I posted, you would have seen that I said support alliance and not support planet. There is a difference. Although... I do wonder... if you were still an HC in Omen with the chance to win... would you still have made this post? Or is it just because you're back in TGV now? Interesting concept, isn't it...

By the way, I think it's really cute the way you go off topic and switch to personal attacks when someone disagrees with you. And you know me well enough to know that I did not flame you. I answered your post in a constructive manner. You just didn't like my answers. By the way, don't be a tease. What kind of shoes were you wearing?
Fiery is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 4 Oct 2006, 04:43   #61
Kargool
Up The Hatters!
 
Kargool's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Kenilworth Road
Posts: 3,012
Kargool is a pillar of this Internet societyKargool is a pillar of this Internet societyKargool is a pillar of this Internet societyKargool is a pillar of this Internet societyKargool is a pillar of this Internet societyKargool is a pillar of this Internet societyKargool is a pillar of this Internet societyKargool is a pillar of this Internet societyKargool is a pillar of this Internet societyKargool is a pillar of this Internet societyKargool is a pillar of this Internet society
Re: Alliance size

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fiery
Kargool, you're the one on here posting about how allowing a mere 100 players in the top 5 alliances is going to ruin Planetarion. You asked for the reasoning and opinions from smaller alliance HC's. I happen to be an HC in PATSA. So I qualify to answer. Which I did. I do see that I said gal when I meant alliance.

Originally Posted by Fiery
In addition, now those top 5 alliances can have their scanners/co oppers in galThis should be alliance. Which is why the limit was raised for the top 5. So they won't have/need support alliances.
Originally posted by Kargool
Erm, im sorry, but didnt you know that supporplanets werent allowed and that all the scanners and covops are more or less forced to be in alliance starting the round before this? I belive it was a multihunter ruling on this some time ago.

And by your reply here I see that you do understand why the top 5 alliances have had their alliance limits extended to 80. So they can have their scanners and covoppers in tag and won't need to have a support alliance. By the way, if you had bothered to actually read what I posted, you would have seen that I said support alliance and not support planet. There is a difference. Although... I do wonder... if you were still an HC in Omen with the chance to win... would you still have made this post? Or is it just because you're back in TGV now? Interesting concept, isn't it...

By the way, I think it's really cute the way you go off topic and switch to personal attacks when someone disagrees with you. And you know me well enough to know that I did not flame you. I answered your post in a constructive manner. You just didn't like my answers. By the way, don't be a tease. What kind of shoes were you wearing?


I honestly have to say that your reply here does not cover the post I wrote at all. Stop avoiding my questions and just answer them please.. Oh, and yes, I would have meant the same if I was in TGV or if I was in Omen or any else god damn alliance around. There is actually alot of players around who think that the alliance limit should be alot lower both in high ranked alliances and low ranked alliances. Stop making this about what motives other than that the people wants whats best for Planetarion. I dont intend to play PA again, and Im only discussing this because I really thought that the next round looked like a one to get players back until someone decided to put a rope around alot of the small alliances whom are the ones that most often take in new players to the game. And I can also reveal something SHOCKING *GASP* for you. Omen did not have an support alliance last round...
__________________
Planetarion veteran
Kargool is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 4 Oct 2006, 05:32   #62
Fiery
PA Team
 
Fiery's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 904
Fiery has much to be proud ofFiery has much to be proud ofFiery has much to be proud ofFiery has much to be proud ofFiery has much to be proud ofFiery has much to be proud ofFiery has much to be proud ofFiery has much to be proud ofFiery has much to be proud ofFiery has much to be proud of
Re: Alliance size

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kargool
I see not advantages in having a all 80 limit for the game atm.

The importancy of giving the smaller alliances atleast some backup is important for the game and for the game's survival. With the limit to 80 players that means that the bigger alliances always will have a spot up for anyone who might want to change and it makes it even harder for the smaller alliances to keep a relativly stable core of players.

I just wonder what was the reasons for having such a high limit, and what other smaller alliances HC's thinks of this limit.

I believe this is your post. Unless I am misunderstanding you, you are saying that you do not see the advantages in having an 80 limit for all alliances in the game and are asking why the top five are no longer being discriminated against. This is the topic/post I am replying to. You are the one who keeps going off topic and making personal attacks. I have explained to you more than once in this thread that the purpose of allowing the top five alliances to have the same 80 person limit as the rest of the alliances is so they may have their scanners/cov ops in tag. Now, if you would like to stick to the topic that you posted, please, continue to do so and I will reply, even though I see no reason to since I answered your question. I would also appreciate it if you would refrain from sullying this discussion with your foul language. It is difficult to have any respect for someone who can not even have a discussion without being vulgar.
Fiery is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 4 Oct 2006, 06:05   #63
Travler
Bona Fide Jesus Freak
 
Travler's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: In the Word of the Lord
Posts: 765
Travler is a name known to allTravler is a name known to allTravler is a name known to allTravler is a name known to allTravler is a name known to allTravler is a name known to all
Re: Alliance size

An alliance limit of 80 is great. This gives players the freedom to Choose an alliance to play for since there seems to be some room in most alliances. I personally like having options and new players might be given a chance by the more established alliances.

Once again another dumb thread started by an agenda that does not equal the same agenda that is best for this game.
__________________
Matthew 24:9 (New International Version) "Then you will be handed over to be persecuted and put to death, and you will be hated by all nations because of me."
Who the hell gave you posrep you christian fundamentalist?
god is bollox, mkay and you are not discussing it
You're not the voice of Christianity di**head.

CT R22-20, [1up] R18-16, TGV R15,
The Illuminati - [NoS] - R14-13
Travler is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 4 Oct 2006, 06:32   #64
Kargool
Up The Hatters!
 
Kargool's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Kenilworth Road
Posts: 3,012
Kargool is a pillar of this Internet societyKargool is a pillar of this Internet societyKargool is a pillar of this Internet societyKargool is a pillar of this Internet societyKargool is a pillar of this Internet societyKargool is a pillar of this Internet societyKargool is a pillar of this Internet societyKargool is a pillar of this Internet societyKargool is a pillar of this Internet societyKargool is a pillar of this Internet societyKargool is a pillar of this Internet society
Re: Alliance size

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fiery
I believe this is your post. Unless I am misunderstanding you, you are saying that you do not see the advantages in having an 80 limit for all alliances in the game and are asking why the top five are no longer being discriminated against. This is the topic/post I am replying to. You are the one who keeps going off topic and making personal attacks. I have explained to you more than once in this thread that the purpose of allowing the top five alliances to have the same 80 person limit as the rest of the alliances is so they may have their scanners/cov ops in tag. Now, if you would like to stick to the topic that you posted, please, continue to do so and I will reply, even though I see no reason to since I answered your question. I would also appreciate it if you would refrain from sullying this discussion with your foul language. It is difficult to have any respect for someone who can not even have a discussion without being vulgar.
I dont think you understand the concepts of an discussion.... That was my initial post yes.. Then you made a post, in wich I replied.. And I asked you a few questions in that post.. But I guess you dont read the posts so I cba about this meaningless discussion since you clearly cant even read what other people say after an initial post..
__________________
Planetarion veteran
Kargool is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 4 Oct 2006, 16:00   #65
SpookyVince
The Force of Spookyness
 
SpookyVince's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Sol III
Posts: 122
SpookyVince is just really niceSpookyVince is just really niceSpookyVince is just really niceSpookyVince is just really niceSpookyVince is just really nice
Re: Alliance size

I think it is clear that increasing the alliance limit will inevitably increase the ditch between the 2 different worlds of PA a bit more: the big alliances were already difficult to compete with, but it will even be more difficult now.

This will create more split even between 2 real 'divisions' in the game, whcih I believe is not a good way to attract more people.

I would prefer that the limit would be set back again to a lower value, that would increase the possibilities of real competition between smaller and less hardcore alliances and the big, very dedicated, hardocre ones.
__________________
[-SPQR-] of course!
Kindly adopted by [HA]
SpookyVince is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 5 Oct 2006, 16:17   #66
frostbeule
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 111
frostbeule has a spectacular aura aboutfrostbeule has a spectacular aura aboutfrostbeule has a spectacular aura about
Re: Alliance size

80 for all is generally bad i belive for one reason:
We got asked by another ally (dont want to name them) if Dark Warriors would like to join them for round 19. I belive this happed to other smaller alliances, too. This shows me that even the big alliances have troubles to fill all their spots in order to compete for the #1 in uni. Therefore Id suggest to adjust the limits to something like 60 for all.

frostbeule, Dark Warriors HC
__________________
Dark HC - find us in #darkwarriors
frostbeule is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 7 Oct 2006, 15:27   #67
Pilgrim
Bline
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Texas, US
Posts: 233
Pilgrim is infamous around these partsPilgrim is infamous around these partsPilgrim is infamous around these partsPilgrim is infamous around these partsPilgrim is infamous around these partsPilgrim is infamous around these partsPilgrim is infamous around these partsPilgrim is infamous around these partsPilgrim is infamous around these partsPilgrim is infamous around these partsPilgrim is infamous around these parts
Re: Alliance size

make the alliance limit 30-40 encouraging more allys to play and create more competition. Alternativvely bring back private gals and abolish alliances
Pilgrim is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 24 Oct 2006, 01:53   #68
Kargool
Up The Hatters!
 
Kargool's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Kenilworth Road
Posts: 3,012
Kargool is a pillar of this Internet societyKargool is a pillar of this Internet societyKargool is a pillar of this Internet societyKargool is a pillar of this Internet societyKargool is a pillar of this Internet societyKargool is a pillar of this Internet societyKargool is a pillar of this Internet societyKargool is a pillar of this Internet societyKargool is a pillar of this Internet societyKargool is a pillar of this Internet societyKargool is a pillar of this Internet society
Re: Alliance size

As I am writing this the 24th of october I still wonder what the PA crew was thinking with this change in alliance size.

I have been very nice and kept quiet about this but the current situation warrant a small "I told you so speech".

We see that the dividing of players in the universe clearly portrays as I predicted and that the alliance size limit is having a great effect on the current game.

I can only hope that the PA crew will have learned from this blooper and that they will adjust the allianse size limit in accordance with the current enviroment PA has.
__________________
Planetarion veteran
Kargool is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 31 Oct 2006, 22:11   #69
Zirikk
Registered User
Bounce Back Champion, TIE Fighter Shooter Champion, Penguin Bashing Champion, War on Terror Champion, Bugz Champion
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 161
Zirikk is a splendid one to beholdZirikk is a splendid one to beholdZirikk is a splendid one to beholdZirikk is a splendid one to beholdZirikk is a splendid one to beholdZirikk is a splendid one to beholdZirikk is a splendid one to behold
Re: Alliance size

I'd like to see a round with alliancelimits of 30-40 and fully random galaxies.

Or no alliances at all, private galaxies and cluster eta -1.
That would encourage cooperating with people unknown to you before. (cluster alliances etc.)

EDIT: ahh just noticed Pilgrim said pretty much the same.
Zirikk is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 31 Oct 2006, 23:46   #70
Wandows
[Vision]
 
Wandows's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: The Netherlands
Posts: 897
Wandows has a reputation beyond reputeWandows has a reputation beyond reputeWandows has a reputation beyond reputeWandows has a reputation beyond reputeWandows has a reputation beyond reputeWandows has a reputation beyond reputeWandows has a reputation beyond reputeWandows has a reputation beyond reputeWandows has a reputation beyond reputeWandows has a reputation beyond reputeWandows has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Alliance size

Quote:
Originally Posted by Zirikk
I'd like to see a round with alliancelimits of 30-40 and fully random galaxies.
What alot of people seem to forget with this 'fantastic' idea is that it will shift power completely to the top players/alliances. Only they will have the members and activity to run a half decent alliance. It will result in alliances being even more strict in recruiting as you need to best of the best (best being those who can use their 3 fleets most efficiently only a daily basis) to be able to compete. Lesser actives are stuck with even worse support as there is less chance they are in a group where ppl can cover eachothers missing online times.

Let alone being able to find a crew to run a alliance effiently, sure there will be less incoming. But that doesn't change anything about the fact that incoming can appear on every hour of the day, meaning you have to have someone (with MO capabilities) on to respond at all times.

Lowering the limits that much might bring more competition at the top, but at the same time it will result in the downfall of most semi-active/top alliances as they won't be able to get the needed support to run a decent military machine.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Zirikk
Or no alliances at all, private galaxies and cluster eta -1.
That would encourage cooperating with people unknown to you before. (cluster alliances etc.)
Although in a way you are right, and i personally would love to have some second level of politics back, removing alliances won't work. Quite a few alliance players stick around cuz they can play together with friends and people they know, which allows them to fall back on a trusted and (usually) reliable group of players. With going in at random without any ties you will rely on luck to land with a group of players that is able to support eachother (and have effective coorperation), and that is not a chance alot of people are willing to take consindering the solid base they play from at current. I think that such a change will only result in people quitting the game because they cba to work out a whole new setup each round they play (sort out tools, command crew, politics etc and just pray you land somewhere where it can work).
__________________
[Vision] in a lost dream, contributing to The 5th Element at present
Wandows is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 31 Oct 2006, 23:52   #71
Wandows
[Vision]
 
Wandows's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: The Netherlands
Posts: 897
Wandows has a reputation beyond reputeWandows has a reputation beyond reputeWandows has a reputation beyond reputeWandows has a reputation beyond reputeWandows has a reputation beyond reputeWandows has a reputation beyond reputeWandows has a reputation beyond reputeWandows has a reputation beyond reputeWandows has a reputation beyond reputeWandows has a reputation beyond reputeWandows has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Alliance size

To add to it:

I do not believe that current limits are bad (between 60 and 80). I do think the current implementation of the limits is crap to say the least. Previous rounds seemed to work out fine with top alliances being limited in their member growth while smaller alliance could recruit anyone who they wanted as long as they were willing to wait the needed tick once the variable limits were reached.

I still don't get why it was changed to a system that basicly benefits the alliance who can recruit 80 'top' players the fastest the most. I guess it shows how far away from the game PaTeam is that they failed to see there is absolutely no reason for top alliances to not recruit the extra 20 members when they have room for it anyway, it only means more support & usable fleets for their alliance overall (no losses, just benefits).
__________________
[Vision] in a lost dream, contributing to The 5th Element at present
Wandows is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 1 Nov 2006, 00:01   #72
Kargool
Up The Hatters!
 
Kargool's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Kenilworth Road
Posts: 3,012
Kargool is a pillar of this Internet societyKargool is a pillar of this Internet societyKargool is a pillar of this Internet societyKargool is a pillar of this Internet societyKargool is a pillar of this Internet societyKargool is a pillar of this Internet societyKargool is a pillar of this Internet societyKargool is a pillar of this Internet societyKargool is a pillar of this Internet societyKargool is a pillar of this Internet societyKargool is a pillar of this Internet society
Re: Alliance size

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wandows
To add to it:

I do not believe that current limits are bad (between 60 and 80). I do think the current implementation of the limits is crap to say the least. Previous rounds seemed to work out fine with top alliances being limited in their member growth while smaller alliance could recruit anyone who they wanted as long as they were willing to wait the needed tick once the variable limits were reached.

I still don't get why it was changed to a system that basicly benefits the alliance who can recruit 80 'top' players the fastest the most. I guess it shows how far away from the game PaTeam is that they failed to see there is absolutely no reason for top alliances to not recruit the extra 20 members when they have room for it anyway, it only means more support & usable fleets for their alliance overall (no losses, just benefits).
It was done because stupid people (read up in this thread and similar threads to find out who) decided that the limiting of top alliances was unfair to the poor top alliances and that the system with forcing other smaller less active alliances to quit the game or merge with others to survive was a better option. God forbid that PA has some alternative alliances to the top 5 alliances. God forbid that the PA crew ever uses common sense when thinking of the possible outcomes for the options they go for.

When alliances are having problems filling their galaxy attacks because the galaxies are to big and the alliance is to small, what the hell do you expect will happen to the smaller alliances..
__________________
Planetarion veteran
Kargool is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 1 Nov 2006, 01:07   #73
jt25man
Victim of Marriage
 
jt25man's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: NW Indiana
Posts: 784
jt25man has much to be proud ofjt25man has much to be proud ofjt25man has much to be proud ofjt25man has much to be proud ofjt25man has much to be proud ofjt25man has much to be proud ofjt25man has much to be proud ofjt25man has much to be proud ofjt25man has much to be proud ofjt25man has much to be proud of
Re: Alliance size

The problem is I believe that people in the top alliances pushed for the higher limit because they said that it would draw more people into alliances that went solo. The main problem with this is that it's usually always the same people in Alliances, and new players only join an alliance if there galaxy makes them. By increasing the limit, it just allowed the better players from the smaller alliances to get in the bigger ones, and essentially like Kargool just said, force smaller alliances to quit the game or merge with others.

I could see the 80 limit if there was twice as many players, and enough people wanting to be in alliances that it would actually benefit everyone, but the current limit just creates more elitism for those at the top, and allows more bashing against those who aren't.
__________________
You mean there's life outside the internet...oh man I'm screwed.
jt25man is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 1 Nov 2006, 01:44   #74
GReaper
The BOFH
 
GReaper's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Posts: 463
GReaper has a brilliant futureGReaper has a brilliant futureGReaper has a brilliant futureGReaper has a brilliant futureGReaper has a brilliant futureGReaper has a brilliant futureGReaper has a brilliant futureGReaper has a brilliant futureGReaper has a brilliant futureGReaper has a brilliant futureGReaper has a brilliant future
Re: Alliance size

Normally I'd give an opinion on which way is better (smaller or larger alliances), however I'm not particularly bothered either way.

What I'd like to see is for the alliance size limits to remain the same for a few rounds, instead of changing constantly to please people. It could be dropped to 70, however someone else will always want it increased or decreased. It's resulting in tactics for alliances changing every round, some rounds they can be flexible with recruitment, the next round they might have very few spaces.

Unless it's broken or causing problems then leave it as it is. There are many other things which should get higher priority for balancing.
GReaper is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 1 Nov 2006, 15:22   #75
Zirikk
Registered User
Bounce Back Champion, TIE Fighter Shooter Champion, Penguin Bashing Champion, War on Terror Champion, Bugz Champion
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 161
Zirikk is a splendid one to beholdZirikk is a splendid one to beholdZirikk is a splendid one to beholdZirikk is a splendid one to beholdZirikk is a splendid one to beholdZirikk is a splendid one to beholdZirikk is a splendid one to behold
Re: Alliance size

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wandows
What alot of people seem to forget with this 'fantastic' idea is that it will shift power completely to the top players/alliances. Only they will have the members and activity to run a half decent alliance.
In my opinion activity/skill should win over numbers.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wandows
It will result in alliances being even more strict in recruiting as you need to best of the best (best being those who can use their 3 fleets most efficiently only a daily basis) to be able to compete.
Lesser actives are stuck with even worse support as there is less chance they are in a group where ppl can cover eachothers missing online times.
You can't really know for sure. I myself don't think that would happen. And I think it could be well worth to try atleast.
For example forming a new alliance with current limits and no previous connections is nearly impossible. With smaller alliancelimits it could be possible to draw small playergroups from another games to play and compete in planetarion.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wandows
Let alone being able to find a crew to run a alliance effiently, sure there will be less incoming. But that doesn't change anything about the fact that incoming can appear on every hour of the day, meaning you have to have someone (with MO capabilities) on to respond at all times.
Now you might be underestimating pa-community. Or has it really changed so much during PAX? I know you might be right there.
And you should keep in mind that all alliances don't fight for the top-spot.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wandows
Lowering the limits that much might bring more competition at the top, but at the same time it will result in the downfall of most semi-active/top alliances as they won't be able to get the needed support to run a decent military machine.
Why exactly? Semi-active alliances aren't supposed to be on top anyway.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Wandows
Although in a way you are right, and i personally would love to have some second level of politics back, removing alliances won't work. Quite a few alliance players stick around cuz they can play together with friends and people they know, which allows them to fall back on a trusted and (usually) reliable group of players. With going in at random without any ties you will rely on luck to land with a group of players that is able to support eachother (and have effective coorperation), and that is not a chance alot of people are willing to take consindering the solid base they play from at current. I think that such a change will only result in people quitting the game because they cba to work out a whole new setup each round they play (sort out tools, command crew, politics etc and just pray you land somewhere where it can work).
Well I think making new friends and forming new communities is what planetarion was all about in the first rounds. It's all a matter of which direction pa-team want's to go with this game.
Anyway with private galaxies you can still be with some friends.
Zirikk is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 1 Nov 2006, 16:03   #76
Wandows
[Vision]
 
Wandows's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: The Netherlands
Posts: 897
Wandows has a reputation beyond reputeWandows has a reputation beyond reputeWandows has a reputation beyond reputeWandows has a reputation beyond reputeWandows has a reputation beyond reputeWandows has a reputation beyond reputeWandows has a reputation beyond reputeWandows has a reputation beyond reputeWandows has a reputation beyond reputeWandows has a reputation beyond reputeWandows has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Alliance size

I think you are thinking of it as an easy change that won't have alot of effects apart from creating more alliances. Lets run a short show down for my alliance (as an example, based on wanting to have a good running alliance).

Currently we have some 60 members. While we are nicely in the top 10 i think its safe to say we ain't a #1 contender having a mix of actives (A, lets assume they are online 6+ hours a day also during the critical hours) and semi-actives (B, log on a few hours a day), lets assume the split is 40 A and 20 B players. Now the new alliance limits are announced to be 30 for the upcoming round which will mean a problem for us, since we have to split our alliance in two. Assuming the split will be permanent we won't go into possible allied/block forming between the two as i know those options are there but that is besides the point atm.

We have to make a choise between wanting to do well in the ranking (which requires a list of A players) or to try and keep the core together. The last option is impossible as our core is more than 30 members, hence we choose to stick with the most actives. This means we basicly take our ~15 command members (officers and such) and the 15 most active members. Which leaves the 10 other A members and the 20 B members without an alliance and without ppl who are capable or willing to run their group. In other words, the A split from the alliance will have the needed activity and command experience to mean something in a round, where the B split is left with nothing but eachother.

Now back to the top alliance, lets assume each top 5 alliance won't have any problem splitting into 2 well working and active groups of players (thats probably not the case right now i bet, but lets just assume it works). While the lower ranked alliances (#6 - #15) have the same problem my alliance would have. They can only split into 1 A group and 1 B group. This will result in 20 A-groups fighting for the top rank. I think no one would disagree that it would be an incredibly fun and interesting show to watch.

The problem is however that that top 20 took all officer and other command material in, in order to work properly. This leaves all the other splits who didn't make it to the A list without proper support and activity to run even a half-decent alliance (workable raids and defence), as there is hardly anyone in their groups with the time or the experience to run an alliance. In the end it would result in the B-lists to get bored and fedup over never being able to grow due to not being supported and them being unable to join another active alliance (A list) due to those being all filled up to the max already. And that brings you to an even smaller memberbase, where only activity gets rewarded and being lesser active means you are screwed.
__________________
[Vision] in a lost dream, contributing to The 5th Element at present
Wandows is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 1 Nov 2006, 16:32   #77
Zirikk
Registered User
Bounce Back Champion, TIE Fighter Shooter Champion, Penguin Bashing Champion, War on Terror Champion, Bugz Champion
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 161
Zirikk is a splendid one to beholdZirikk is a splendid one to beholdZirikk is a splendid one to beholdZirikk is a splendid one to beholdZirikk is a splendid one to beholdZirikk is a splendid one to beholdZirikk is a splendid one to behold
Re: Alliance size

Have you considered that it is almost impossible for 10-20 member alliances to recruit new players. Most of them join bigger alliances just because they can.

And I believe many people would find it fun and interesting to play in smaller groups. I can't speak for entire community ofc.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wandows
And that brings you to an even smaller memberbase, where only activity gets rewarded and being lesser active means you are screwed.
Well now besides that activity gets rewarded also having bigger memberbase gets rewarded.
and being less active means you are screwed AND also having smaller memberbase means you are screwed.

and
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wandows
only activity gets rewarded
Who else should get rewarded?
Zirikk is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 1 Nov 2006, 17:03   #78
Kargool
Up The Hatters!
 
Kargool's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Kenilworth Road
Posts: 3,012
Kargool is a pillar of this Internet societyKargool is a pillar of this Internet societyKargool is a pillar of this Internet societyKargool is a pillar of this Internet societyKargool is a pillar of this Internet societyKargool is a pillar of this Internet societyKargool is a pillar of this Internet societyKargool is a pillar of this Internet societyKargool is a pillar of this Internet societyKargool is a pillar of this Internet societyKargool is a pillar of this Internet society
Re: Alliance size

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wandows
post

First of all, this is all merely specualtion, and if you think that the current system is the best for this game, then you are solely looking at this from your own alliances view. The object with alliances (and galaxies for that matter) is to have a proper split to make this game as balanced as possible. Allowing 80 members in tag like this is first of all highly illogical.

Lets look at some statistics: There are atm : Planets: 2129 in the universe, out of these: 376 are in c200 (thanks Timeline). The current alliancelimit is 80. If we reduce the numbers of planets in the c200 from the current planetlevel you will get: 1753.

In that number you have about 150 inactive planets. (my guess, not a given number)

You also have 788 free planets.

In alliances atm there are 1,224 planets. That means, an alliance with 80 members will be about 6,6% of the current allied planets. I think that number is to high for PA's best. With 50 members pr alliance: 4,9% of the playerbase that is likely to be in an alliance.

I think that the alliance numbers needs to go down to atleast 50 for the game to be more balanced for alliances all over.

Another thing thats been annoying me slightly is the number of players in each galaxy.
Quote:
Originally Posted by sandmans
Average Galaxy
Size 4,246
Score 9,963,321
Planets 18
The average galaxy consists of 18 planets. This is a very high number for ANY small, medium sized alliance to be able to attack. (ranks 30-15) Infact, I would go as far as to argue that most alliances in this relevant size will not be able to pull off efficent attacks for their alliance with the current alliancesize

My conclusion:
For the game to be properly balanced again, you will need to reduce the alliance size radically. 40-50 is best. You will also need to do something about the galaxy size. Reducing buddypacks to 3 and the initial split into galaxies to about 7 would be appropriate measures to ensure a fair and balanced game in wich the merits: how good you play the game itself, and not how you are able to fill your alliance/galaxy with as many active players as possible.
__________________
Planetarion veteran
Kargool is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 1 Nov 2006, 17:04   #79
Wandows
[Vision]
 
Wandows's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: The Netherlands
Posts: 897
Wandows has a reputation beyond reputeWandows has a reputation beyond reputeWandows has a reputation beyond reputeWandows has a reputation beyond reputeWandows has a reputation beyond reputeWandows has a reputation beyond reputeWandows has a reputation beyond reputeWandows has a reputation beyond reputeWandows has a reputation beyond reputeWandows has a reputation beyond reputeWandows has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Alliance size

Quote:
Originally Posted by Zirikk
Have you considered that it is almost impossible for 10-20 member alliances to recruit new players. Most of them join bigger alliances just because they can.

And I believe many people would find it fun and interesting to play in smaller groups. I can't speak for entire community ofc.
Yes you are correct, the active players generally won't have alot of problems with it as they will do good regardless of the limits set (they will have support of an active group of players whether the limits are set to 80 or 30). They may even encourage is as there is no need for them to 'waste' resoures on lesser actives or dead weigth. And this is exactly my problem with the a change like that. The actives will be left with the actives and the inactives with the inactives. This will leave a huge gap between active and inactives and will eventually destroy what little there is left of the community. Currently inactives still get a chance to play in reasonable alliances due to them being part of their community or because they are able to send a few fleets a day eventhough they ain't online alot, if alliances are forced to reduce in size, those ppl will be the first to be gone.

Also, just because the alliance limit is reduced, doesn't mean its any easier for an alliance to start. If you think you can just create a tag, recruit 30 random players and pwn the ranks you are seriously misguided. It takes planning and hard work, whether the limits are high or low. There well be less officers %-wise to spread over each alliance, which in the end will hurt smaller alliances alot more than it will the top ones. If you want to destroy what little there is left in this game feel free, but i won't give my support to such things . The problem of a boring game is not caused by the alliance limits, its caused by the game, change that, and it will all work out fine. You don't fix a bad game by just changing some limits here and there. By doing that you only limit the options ppl have to find a decent place to play in.

P.S. i used the term inactives for anyone not being on 6+ hours a day or during the nighttime hours when its prime time and help is most needed
__________________
[Vision] in a lost dream, contributing to The 5th Element at present
Wandows is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 1 Nov 2006, 17:44   #80
Zirikk
Registered User
Bounce Back Champion, TIE Fighter Shooter Champion, Penguin Bashing Champion, War on Terror Champion, Bugz Champion
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 161
Zirikk is a splendid one to beholdZirikk is a splendid one to beholdZirikk is a splendid one to beholdZirikk is a splendid one to beholdZirikk is a splendid one to beholdZirikk is a splendid one to beholdZirikk is a splendid one to behold
Re: Alliance size

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wandows
Also, just because the alliance limit is reduced, doesn't mean its any easier for an alliance to start.
Sure that's pretty clear for everyone. I'm only trying to find ways to make planetarion more interesting for new and also old players. And you are right, changing alliance size to 30-40 will not solve it. But it should be clear that current limits are far too high for current playerbase.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wandows
There well be less officers %-wise to spread over each alliance, which in the end will hurt smaller alliances alot more than it will the top ones.
You speak of officers as they are a race near extinction. Sure most active alliances might have best/most active officers. But again not all alliances fight for the top spot. And like Kargool mentioned you are only speculating what might happen.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wandows
If you want to destroy what little there is left in this game feel free, but i won't give my support to such things . The problem of a boring game is not caused by the alliance limits, its caused by the game, change that, and it will all work out fine. You don't fix a bad game by just changing some limits here and there. By doing that you only limit the options ppl have to find a decent place to play in.
I don't want to destroy it I want to change it to a direction that may not suit you, but others might like it. And as you mentioned, there should be more done than just change the limits.
It's up to PA team to decide what type of game they want planetarion to be. At the moment it's not the game I would like it to be.

Last edited by Zirikk; 1 Nov 2006 at 17:55.
Zirikk is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 1 Nov 2006, 20:05   #81
Wandows
[Vision]
 
Wandows's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: The Netherlands
Posts: 897
Wandows has a reputation beyond reputeWandows has a reputation beyond reputeWandows has a reputation beyond reputeWandows has a reputation beyond reputeWandows has a reputation beyond reputeWandows has a reputation beyond reputeWandows has a reputation beyond reputeWandows has a reputation beyond reputeWandows has a reputation beyond reputeWandows has a reputation beyond reputeWandows has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Alliance size

Quote:
Originally Posted by Zirikk
But it should be clear that current limits are far too high for current playerbase.
I disagree. I haven't seen one person come up with good reason as to why a smaller limit would be better for the game. It basicly comes down to 'it being more fun'. Why do you think 30 member alliances will be more fun than 80 member alliances? Is there any effective difference between fighting 80 vs 80 or 30 vs 30? Does it really matter whether 10 alliances can win a round or 5? Why do you think the game can only be fun when fighting for the #1?

The problem is hardly anyone is willing to fight, not that they ain't capable of fighting. And you think that such an attitude will suddenly change by drastically reducing the amount of members that can be in an alliance?

There is so much ppl can play for and have fun with, that is not (or hardly) happening right now is thanks to the game itself. The problem is that the game mechanics and stats are boring, not the amount of ppl that can be in an alliance. I would even go as far as saying there should be no limits to the amount of members that can be in an alliance and let the problem solve itself (apart from perhaps a slowdown in recruitment speed when reaching a certain member count). Personally i had loads of fun in the past with the huge block wars that were fought (eventhough never being on the winning side afaik), all ppl need is an enemy to give them something to fight for and have fun with.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Zirikk
You speak of officers as they are a race near extinction. Sure most active alliances might have best/most active officers. But again not all alliances fight for the top spot. And like Kargool mentioned you are only speculating what might happen.
They are, its is quite hard for any alliance these days to find a skilled and dedicated crew to run their alliance (both in defence and attack). And i think we can agree that is one of the most vital things you need. Currently you have ~60 members to pick ppl from to cover 24 hours, say you end up with 10 of them that means a ~2,5 hours shift for every command member to not mis any action. This is hard enought to achieve for an alliance of 60 member, let alone one of half the size with the new limits. Then you only have 30 ppl to get the 24 hours covered, most likely not a problem for the active alliances, but it will be for the ones who don't have the luxery of all members being on when its needed.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Zirikk
I don't want to destroy it I want to change it to a direction that may not suit you, but others might like it. And as you mentioned, there should be more done than just change the limits.
It's up to PA team to decide what type of game they want planetarion to be. At the moment it's not the game I would like it to be.
Its not that it won't suit me, i can probably find a good place to stay in regardless of the setup chosen by PaTeam. I know there are hundreds of player who won't be able to though. This PA is not the PA i'd like to see either, but i do believe the elitism suggested by small alliances won't be any good as all the power lies with the actives then, and there will be NO way for the lesser actives to combat that (no quality vs quantity, which is imo one of the things that can make a game like this interesting).
__________________
[Vision] in a lost dream, contributing to The 5th Element at present
Wandows is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 1 Nov 2006, 20:23   #82
Wandows
[Vision]
 
Wandows's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: The Netherlands
Posts: 897
Wandows has a reputation beyond reputeWandows has a reputation beyond reputeWandows has a reputation beyond reputeWandows has a reputation beyond reputeWandows has a reputation beyond reputeWandows has a reputation beyond reputeWandows has a reputation beyond reputeWandows has a reputation beyond reputeWandows has a reputation beyond reputeWandows has a reputation beyond reputeWandows has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Alliance size

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kargool
First of all, this is all merely specualtion, and if you think that the current system is the best for this game, then you are solely looking at this from your own alliances view.
True its speculation, but i have quite a few rounds of experience in the lower tiers of the (alliance/galaxy/planet) rankings and like think i am quite capable of understanding their problems and the consequences of changes like this. I never said that the current system is best for this game, if you search through my post i think you'll find me saying that the current system is crap, and i rather go back to last rounds system as that seemed quite nicely balanced (eventhough i think it could be even better).

As for your math I do not look at direct game numbers and stats, i look at available player quality and the possibilties that present themselves giving those players.
I'm sure that % wise you are correct that the limit should be 50 or even lower, i just do not believe that it is managable in any way with the command material available these days. And given that i think that it will hurt the lower tier alliances more than is good for them.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kargool
Another thing thats been annoying me slightly is the number of players in each galaxy.
I agree 18 is far to high for any lower member alliance to properly hit, i think 10 should be minimum, 15 the absolute max (maybe thats even to high).

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kargool
My conclusion:
I think you are far to optimistic, have galaxies of 7 only increases the chances of landing in completely (or mostly) inactive gals. And trust me, no decent gal activity means a shit round with almost daily random incs regardless of your roidcount. I've been in such positions quite alot and you seriously underestimate the amount of players who are playing that are just no good if you want to have a decent round. You base your suggestions purely on the active players which won't be affected by anything suggested, but the ones who ain't active get all the problems and the fun created by those things (and yes I do know what I'm talking about concering that topic).
__________________
[Vision] in a lost dream, contributing to The 5th Element at present
Wandows is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 1 Nov 2006, 21:20   #83
Zirikk
Registered User
Bounce Back Champion, TIE Fighter Shooter Champion, Penguin Bashing Champion, War on Terror Champion, Bugz Champion
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 161
Zirikk is a splendid one to beholdZirikk is a splendid one to beholdZirikk is a splendid one to beholdZirikk is a splendid one to beholdZirikk is a splendid one to beholdZirikk is a splendid one to beholdZirikk is a splendid one to behold
Re: Alliance size

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wandows
I disagree. I haven't seen one person come up with good reason as to why a smaller limit would be better for the game.
I have seen many people come up with good reasons as to why a smaller limit would be better for the game. Main issue must be that there's not enough players left to this game for such a big alliances.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wandows
It basicly comes down to 'it being more fun'. Why do you think 30 member alliances will be more fun than 80 member alliances?
I'm sure there are many reasons for it to be more fun(you can be with tight group of good friends who you can all trust etc.), but I'm posting here because I think 30 member alliance would be more fun than 10-15 member alliance.
With current limits it is almost impossible for smaller alliances to recruit new players.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wandows
Is there any effective difference between fighting 80 vs 80 or 30 vs 30? Does it really matter whether 10 alliances can win a round or 5?
Yes!

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wandows
Why do you think the game can only be fun when fighting for the #1?
I don't! Pretty much the opposite. I think having enough members in an alliance to cover a galaxy would be fun!

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wandows
They are, its is quite hard for any alliance these days to find a skilled and dedicated crew to run their alliance (both in defence and attack). And i think we can agree that is one of the most vital things you need. Currently you have ~60 members to pick ppl from to cover 24 hours, say you end up with 10 of them that means a ~2,5 hours shift for every command member to not mis any action. This is hard enought to achieve for an alliance of 60 member, let alone one of half the size with the new limits. Then you only have 30 ppl to get the 24 hours covered, most likely not a problem for the active alliances, but it will be for the ones who don't have the luxery of all members being on when its needed.
Well those alliances just won't fight for the top spot. They can still have fun and they can still have an impact to the game.

What about an alliance that is semiactive, provides defence to it's members and occasionally attacks together and doesn't even try to compete with the most active alliances. But is struggling to recruit new players because there isn't much players left in the game and the alliance-limits are so huge.
Do you think everyone should just join bigger-alliances? Or should all 10-15 member alliances merge to have decent attacks and better changes of getting defence?

Last edited by Zirikk; 1 Nov 2006 at 21:26.
Zirikk is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 1 Nov 2006, 21:32   #84
Zirikk
Registered User
Bounce Back Champion, TIE Fighter Shooter Champion, Penguin Bashing Champion, War on Terror Champion, Bugz Champion
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 161
Zirikk is a splendid one to beholdZirikk is a splendid one to beholdZirikk is a splendid one to beholdZirikk is a splendid one to beholdZirikk is a splendid one to beholdZirikk is a splendid one to beholdZirikk is a splendid one to behold
Re: Alliance size

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wandows
They are, its is quite hard for any alliance these days to find a skilled and dedicated crew to run their alliance (both in defence and attack).
I really had no idea that the situation is that bad.
Planetarion will not last many more rounds if something isn't done to get more players.
Zirikk is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 1 Nov 2006, 21:32   #85
robban1
Registered User
 
robban1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 846
robban1 is infamous around these partsrobban1 is infamous around these partsrobban1 is infamous around these partsrobban1 is infamous around these partsrobban1 is infamous around these partsrobban1 is infamous around these parts
Re: Alliance size

damn quotetalkers an other thing you guys havent thought of is that blocking is more effective with big allies as its atm is no 1 vs 1 fights going on really as its little gain to do so etc...
robban1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 1 Nov 2006, 22:17   #86
jt25man
Victim of Marriage
 
jt25man's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: NW Indiana
Posts: 784
jt25man has much to be proud ofjt25man has much to be proud ofjt25man has much to be proud ofjt25man has much to be proud ofjt25man has much to be proud ofjt25man has much to be proud ofjt25man has much to be proud ofjt25man has much to be proud ofjt25man has much to be proud ofjt25man has much to be proud of
Re: Alliance size

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wandows
I disagree. I haven't seen one person come up with good reason as to why a smaller limit would be better for the game.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jt25man
The problem is I believe that people in the top alliances pushed for the higher limit because they said that it would draw more people into alliances that went solo. The main problem with this is that it's usually always the same people in Alliances, and new players only join an alliance if there galaxy makes them. By increasing the limit, it just allowed the better players from the smaller alliances to get in the bigger ones, and essentially like Kargool just said, force smaller alliances to quit the game or merge with others.
I really hate to be redundant, but this is pretty much the main reason that I think that the limit is too high, perhaps you didn't think it was a good reason, or you just skimmed over it because people tend to only read things that support there own agenda.

Also, a smaller limit actually creates more competition, and those in the currently smaller alliances who would like to have some good old fashioned wars would be able too because the playing field would be more even. The big alliances like the current limit because everyone is afraid to go after them for fear they'll be bashed into the ground. I think the real reason those who can fill there ally like the limit is because they're too afraid to actually have that even playing field and heaven forbid have a decent war on a war game.
__________________
You mean there's life outside the internet...oh man I'm screwed.
jt25man is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 2 Nov 2006, 13:24   #87
frostbeule
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 111
frostbeule has a spectacular aura aboutfrostbeule has a spectacular aura aboutfrostbeule has a spectacular aura about
Re: Alliance size

DarkWarriors had actually looses in members every time the limit was raised.
This round was actually worst of all. Ive spoken to a few of those that left us and found that they wanted to go to a well-known, big, top5-contender alliance.
this was possible just because the limit was raised.

And to comment on why not many ppl of smaller alliances did comment:
Not many know about this forum or about #alliances
in fact if Ace wouldnt have told me that there exists an alliance-rep forum and #alliances I still wouldnt have known.
and I wouldnt have known about the boards if not someone would have sent me a link saying "I would like you to comment here"
So before anyone says "They could have said somewhere" you have to make sure they know about their possibilitys!

edit: If you dont want to kill all smaller alliances (or force them to merge) then raise the limit and ask only the HCs of the top5 or top10 about their opinions on limits etc.
Also wakey is most of the time speaking for all small alliances in the important points like limits (if he likes it or not)

frostbeule
Dark Warriors HC
__________________
Dark HC - find us in #darkwarriors
frostbeule is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 00:41.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.1
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2002 - 2018