|
21 Nov 2006, 11:13
|
#1
|
thinking, that's all.
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 867
|
Alliance merges
So just to clarify if ascendancy and exilition merge but want to keep all 69 players, can they kick 9 and readd them afterwards without any fuss, is that inkeeping with the spirit of the rules? What's the purpose of the 60 merging limit rule? It's not very clear
It might just be a device to make sure the score gains from merging are limited to the top 60, I can think of tidier ways to ensure that than forcing the alliances to kick an extra 20 players though. Maybe there's a greater purpose, alliances shouldn't be able to merge with 61-80 players as that could make them "too competitive" or something.
Anyway thoughts would be good.
__________________
[1up], Ascendancy Events Organiser & eXilition HC
|
|
|
21 Nov 2006, 13:14
|
#2
|
Hamster
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Crewe, England
Posts: 3,606
|
Re: Alliance merges
Ofc it’s not in the spirit of the rules, its circumnavigating various systems in place to control alliances. Its allowed though because it’s a system that’s only half baked and which concerns were completely ignored
__________________
Wakey
PD and Suggestions Moderator
Co-founder of [F-Crew]
The Farnborough Crew
Cos anything else is just an alliance
Join our public channel at #f-crew
|
|
|
21 Nov 2006, 14:10
|
#3
|
Commodore
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Perth, Western Australia
Posts: 3,176
|
Re: Alliance merges
As an aside, forcing members to quit or kicking members makes part of the alliance more vulnerable to attack for three days before they can re-join.
I'll find some people to give a more accurate reply.
__________________
#Strategy ; #Support - Sovereign
--- --- ---
"The Cake is a Lie."
|
|
|
21 Nov 2006, 14:19
|
#4
|
Jazz Man
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 1,494
|
Re: Alliance merges
Quote:
Originally Posted by bwtmc
So just to clarify if ascendancy and exilition merge but want to keep all 69 players, can they kick 9 and readd them afterwards without any fuss, is that inkeeping with the spirit of the rules? What's the purpose of the 60 merging limit rule? It's not very clear :
|
If what your trying to get at is will we remove the timers for you, then the answer is no. There is nothing to stop you waiting for the 72 hour timer to expire on those members removed and then re inviting them.
The 72 hour period is your penalty for "removing" them.
Many people have come to #support asking about this. Trying to get around the 72 hour timer will not work I am afriad.
__________________
Marv
Ex ROCK HC & PA Team Head of Support.
|
|
|
21 Nov 2006, 14:34
|
#5
|
thinking, that's all.
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 867
|
Re: Alliance merges
Okay, the alliances evading your limit will be GUTTED they can't overcome the 72 hour timer which only applies to 61-80 support planets not the ones that actually count for score.
__________________
[1up], Ascendancy Events Organiser & eXilition HC
|
|
|
22 Nov 2006, 15:40
|
#6
|
.
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 3,382
|
Re: Alliance merges
god bless the pa team
|
|
|
22 Nov 2006, 18:11
|
#7
|
Good Son
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Finland
Posts: 3,991
|
Re: Alliance merges
Why didn't we talk about this when Post|Mortum and Vision merged, for the same effect really?
|
|
|
22 Nov 2006, 18:41
|
#8
|
[Vision]
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: The Netherlands
Posts: 897
|
Re: Alliance merges
Because everyone at this time just agrees that "Furious Omen" is a crappy name and very bad marketing for Planetarion, as others mentioned "Amen" was alot more appropriate.
Edit:
Also, i think enough ppl mentioned how crap they thought the P|M / VsN merge was (in terms of the way the feature was used compared to the way it apparantly was 'designed' to be used) and a logic assumption would be that after that others would understand the impact of the feature and that it should be used with more care. But apparantly it wasn't enough as Omen and Angels proved that you can always do better at messing things up. And that shows that PaTeam (who is responsible for it) haven't learned from the first time and apparantly need a special thread to get the subject through to their HQ.
__________________
[Vision] in a lost dream, contributing to The 5th Element at present
Last edited by Wandows; 22 Nov 2006 at 18:50.
|
|
|
22 Nov 2006, 20:10
|
#9
|
Good Son
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Finland
Posts: 3,991
|
Re: Alliance merges
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wandows
But apparantly it wasn't enough as Omen and Angels proved that you can always do better at messing things up.
|
So, the Vision/Post|Mortum merger wasn't as bad because it "exploited" the game mechanic the exatly same way as Amen did, but because the Amen merger resulted in a higher ranked alliance?
Quit the hypocricy and don't even post stuff like "the alliance name makes it worse".
|
|
|
22 Nov 2006, 21:36
|
#10
|
thinking, that's all.
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 867
|
Re: Alliance merges
They are both just as bad, it's just I was busy with cheap drink and no one else bothered to question it back then (as far as I can see).
__________________
[1up], Ascendancy Events Organiser & eXilition HC
|
|
|
22 Nov 2006, 23:24
|
#11
|
[Vision]
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: The Netherlands
Posts: 897
|
Re: Alliance merges
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tietäjä
Quit the hypocricy and don't even post stuff like "the alliance name makes it worse".
|
Please, learn to read, or don't bother to reply. Where did i state the VsN / P|M merge wasn't bad? Where did i say the exploited this feature in a different way? And perhaps i may admit my "joke" about the alliance name wasn't great, but if you read other posts from me on the subject you should know that wasn't on a serious note.
As far as i am aware the merger discussion is not so much about the ability of alliances to merge per se, but the fact members are being kicked to be able to dodge the fixed limit of a max of 60 members of the alliances combined and that way get the best deal out of it all. If memory serves me correct VsN and P|M kicked a total of 46 members to be able to merge where Angels and Omen kicked about 6 members more (i don't remember the exact amount, but i know it was more), perhaps even more with Angels and Omen both dropping alot of players the day before already aswell. Angels dropped from some 70 members and Omen from some 42 (after the cleanout) to 30 each, which meant even more members (some 52) were kicked just to be able to merge. And that is what i call "doing even better at ****ing things up" as even more members were thanked for nothing (and apparantly spending their round with the alliance for no reason) in that show down.
__________________
[Vision] in a lost dream, contributing to The 5th Element at present
|
|
|
22 Nov 2006, 23:40
|
#12
|
Good Son
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Finland
Posts: 3,991
|
Re: Alliance merges
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wandows
As far as i am aware the merger discussion is not so much about the ability of alliances to merge per se, but the fact members are being kicked to be able to dodge the fixed limit of a max of 60 members of the alliances combined and that way get the best deal out of it all.
|
Yeah, the numbers still shouldn't make such a difference in your view. Vision is currently on 75 members, we'll see if FOmen makes it above that. Especially if it's six members here and there kicked, I don't see it related into a flamebait you spunked out in your original unedited post.
Quote:
Omen from some 42 (after the cleanout) to 30 each, which meant even more members (some 52) were kicked just to be able to merge.
|
The Omen internal cleanup happened prior to plans of merging, and with or without merging to Angels, it would have happened regardless. So, about 12 members from Omen were kicked, and an odd number from Angels.
It's still the exact same case as with Vision and Post|Mortum. Two alliances merge, avoiding the limits set to the function by more or less orthodox means.
Quote:
Please, learn to read, or don't bother to reply
|
Your original post was rather biased towards the latter merger. Excuse me for largely interpreting according to that one, and checking on the edit later on. Next time, maybe you shouldn't spit out an alliance name related fireball and haul in the rest of the post later, but haul in the rest of the post first, and spit the fireball then?
Yeah, it's exploiting the features.
And no, when Post|Mortum and Vision merged, there was three threads on AD where people felt the need to post about it, and now a thread here. Actually, there were even positive comments (reading Sovereign's) regarding the merger around. A sudden change of impact. Reading your own posts on the single thread regarding it, you don't seem at all fuzzed about the merger, beyond that it's not something "Vision back in the old days" would have done.
|
|
|
23 Nov 2006, 00:06
|
#13
|
[Vision]
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: The Netherlands
Posts: 897
|
Re: Alliance merges
As for my post you are correct, i could have created it in a better state, but as i clicked the submit button the first time i realised (and apparantly was right there) my post could be explained wrong without mentioning the exact problem with the merges.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tietäjä
Reading your own posts on the single thread regarding it, you don't seem at all fuzzed about the merger, beyond that it's not something "Vision back in the old days" would have done.
|
The merges in essence i do not mind, they are imo a nice way for alliances to combine their strengths if they are feeling they can't hold their own anymore. What does bother me however, is the fact that on both these merges a large amount of members have been kicked just to be able to gain most, rather then just be true to your members/alliance and don't screw them over just because it can give you a better rank in the end. And even kicking members in general to be able to merge is a bad thing, as its simply evading the limits set ingame. Rules state you can have 60 members combined total, its obvious that in these cases there were more members, they were just temporarely kicked to be convient and gain most from the situation.
As i said in an earlier post, the kicking of members just to get a better rank is unacceptable, as you may read between all the "old VsN this/that" lines. I just got a bit sidetracked there because of my personal connection with VisioN and what it means/meant to me.
__________________
[Vision] in a lost dream, contributing to The 5th Element at present
|
|
|
23 Nov 2006, 01:27
|
#14
|
Commodore
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Perth, Western Australia
Posts: 3,176
|
Re: Alliance merges
I think one very crucial difference between the two mergers is their timing; Vision/P|M merged relatively early in the round (was it half way through? earlier? i dont really recall ), whereas this merger being done at the 11th hour kinda adds weight to the whole "merging for score" argument rather than as a long-term (ie, multiple round) goal.
I still think that the Vision/P|M merger was more or less legitimate, only a bit dissapointed the way that members of both were treated (so i've heard) due to the lack of notice from HC (though Androx implied that he tried to send a spam mail in-game which only some people seem to have received).
In my opinion, this latest merger seems less justified, though frankly if its within the rules of the game then it has to let fly. Untill the rules change, of course :\.
__________________
#Strategy ; #Support - Sovereign
--- --- ---
"The Cake is a Lie."
|
|
|
23 Nov 2006, 01:48
|
#15
|
Up The Hatters!
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Kenilworth Road
Posts: 3,012
|
Re: Alliance merges
Could prolly be an idea that if you merge an alliance your alliancelimit will be reduced because of it. For example at a maximum of 20% less than other alliances alliancelimit.
__________________
Planetarion veteran
|
|
|
23 Nov 2006, 02:08
|
#16
|
Pedantic hypocrite
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Back and to the left
Posts: 1,488
|
Re: Alliance merges
Quote:
Originally Posted by bwtmc
They are both just as bad, it's just I was busy with cheap drink and no one else bothered to question it back then (as far as I can see).
|
You're right. They're both just as bad, in that there's nothing wrong with either. Angels and Omen have both fought hard this round. What has New Dawn or EXilition done that make them deserve the top spot more than Furious Omen? Nothing. If the alliances had planned this action from tick 1 we would applaud their ingenuity and curse their cunning. But since it wasn't premeditated we should cat call and whine? I think not.
I think you got owned and should take it like a man, not like a bitch.
__________________
I always wanted to be a dancer, but I could never get the shit off my shoes
.......
|
|
|
23 Nov 2006, 02:35
|
#17
|
Commodore
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Perth, Western Australia
Posts: 3,176
|
Re: Alliance merges
Just a quick reminder that this is the Helpdesk Forum, not AD, so from now on i'll be a tad stricter with the moderation to posts that only answer the initial question. All discussion regarding alliances and their motivations etc should go to AD, and methods of improving the mechanism should go to Suggestions.
Thanks for the lively discussion though peoples.
__________________
#Strategy ; #Support - Sovereign
--- --- ---
"The Cake is a Lie."
|
|
|
23 Nov 2006, 07:11
|
#18
|
Good Son
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Finland
Posts: 3,991
|
Re: Alliance merges
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ultimate Newbie
In my opinion, this latest merger seems less justified, though frankly if its within the rules of the game then it has to let fly. Untill the rules change, of course :\.
|
Now you're not making rules interpretations, but personal viewpoint interpretations and value judgements. There's very few if any times when an alliance won a round "fair and just game". Now, call it what you call it, but even the official Planetarion paragons of what's just and right really went funky round 17, for example.
"You may not merge because it's late in the round, naughty boys". To be honest, knowing the state where Omen were, and probably Angels too, prior to the merger, it would have been a good call whether there's 1000 or 200 ticks to roll in.
What I am saying, it's all within the rules, as long as it's even hard-coded into the game, there's little use whining and crying. What comes to changing it in the future, eh, maybe limit it a bit like was done to the alliance fund after 1up mutilated it?
|
|
|
23 Nov 2006, 22:12
|
#19
|
thinking, that's all.
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 867
|
Re: Alliance merges
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jester
I think you got owned and should take it like a man, not like a bitch.
|
It doesn't affect me in the slightest. I just think pateam should either get rid of the 60 limit for merging or put it in place and not let 80 players merge together anyway.
__________________
[1up], Ascendancy Events Organiser & eXilition HC
|
|
|
|
All times are GMT +1. The time now is 07:40.
| |