Parallels>Clusters ?

[-Blue Moon-]

this might sound really pedantic, but um, here goes...

Point 1 - Inclusion
i was wondering, in the nether regions of the universe, there can sometimes be a cluster, say cluster 30 or so, that only has 2 or 3 galaxies because there aren't enough galaxies to make a 'full' cluster. Why should we 'punnish' or 'exclude' those in the highest reaches from enjoying the reintroduction of co-ordinate specific groups (i mean cluster/parallel alliances)

Point 2 - Competition
I also wondered if having 10 parallels with 30+ members would perhaps be better than 30 clusters with 10 members? Sure, it might make them 'unmanageable' by a single parallel 'group', but it would probably lead to less control by single alliances/groups and that would ultimately lead to the formation of opposing competitive groups in-parallels. (e.g. P8, p8a and t8p back in r10.5).

Point 3 - Exclusion
Imagine, if you will, 5 galaxies in a cluster band together and absolutely rape the other 5 who are either new or excluded from the cluster alliance for various reasons (activity? noobism? alliance affiliation? etc...). I think that by having parallels, more groups will be founded, and ultimately more people will enjoy being 'included' (even if it is a 'noob' parallel alliance, hey can still reap some benefits from potentially 3 times as many galaxies)



With this in mind, perhaps, PERHAPS, it might be beter to use parallels than clusters, as the affect on parallels of such an occurance would be less?

It wouldn't involve any more coding (i promise) as the number of focus in travel times would just be switched from X to Y (in an X:Y:Z coorinate)

Thoughts?

-tux

[ComradeRob]

A slightly more descriptive subject line might prompt more replies. Putting a summary of your idea at the top of the post might also help.

The suggestion is a good one, but the bumping isn't. Hopefully you aren't planning on making a habit of it

[Kal]

Point 1, the shuffle doesn;t allow that.

Point 2, I think in parallel peace is entirly unmaintainable and as such the weaker gals will get killed much more easily than with clusters

Point 3, see 2.

[Jester]

Originally Posted by Kal

Point 1, the shuffle doesn;t allow that.

Point 2, I think in parallel peace is entirly unmaintainable and as such the weaker gals will get killed much more easily than with clusters

Point 3, see 2.

Or the cluster peace is just as unmaintainable, but parallels provider wider target selections thus allowing weaker galaxies more breathing room.

Your statement is non-sequitor. It doesn't follow directly from there being more war that weaker galaxies are "more easily killed" (whatever the hell that means).

[-Blue Moon-]

Originally Posted by Kal

Point 1, the shuffle doesn;t allow that.

Point 2, I think in parallel peace is entirly unmaintainable and as such the weaker gals will get killed much more easily than with clusters

Point 3, see 2.

1 the shuffle does allow that. it currently DOES that. whereas the potential for cluster30 could be down 9 galaxies at the shuffle, the potential for a parallel is a maximum of 1 at the shuffle. using parallels also means that if there are 2 or 3 inactive galaxies in a cluster it has a much larger affect on everyone's enjoyment of the in-cluster advantages. whereas if we used parallels, the affect would be much less noticeable (as there would be MANY more galaxies 'available').

2 and 3 the whole point is that the parallel alliances WOULD be unmaintainable, to allow greater breathing space for weaker galaxies, more targets for active ones, and the allowing of the formation of more than one 'dominant'/active parallel alliance. for extremely active alliances it also opens up the potential to hit a parallel a night or the formation of cluster BGs (spreading the focus of thier war efforts across a larger area).

-tux

[Kal]

1) NO the shuffle doesn't - the shuffle balences galaxy count over the clusters so that the maximum difference in number of galaxies in a cluster is 1.

e.g. if there were 3 clusters and 28 galaxies, one would have 10 galaxies and two would have 9 rather than 2 having 10 and one having 8.

[-Blue Moon-]

ok my bad. irregardless of that, the shuffler might not need to be changed because you're still going to get the same number in each parallel unless it is told to specifically 'release' p10. in which case, you should hopefully be able to change the focus of the shuffler from 'x' to 'y' in an x:y:z format to compensate.
only perceivable problem would be if your shuffler distributes score evenly over clusters, in which case this would need to be changed to parallels, or the shuffler would likely need updating.

It doesn't take away from the advantages suggested tho, does it?

[Kal]

I was simply negating one fo your reasons for the change, not saying anything was impossible.

I believe that clusters are a better size to work with than parallels, but we shall see what happens in the round.

[Mighteh]

ok.. as of recent, we had 10 clusters with 10 galaxies each in them (roughly, +-...) the differnce between parra and cluster is almost insignificant. Its only difference is that it goes by either first or second coords number. Maybe target picking for that reason will be harder... for some


but yet again, i fail to see advantage of one over another

[Ultimate Newbie]

I remember Round 4.

Round 4 was the first time parallels were used instead of clusters to spice things up and kind of make alliances like fury and legion more difficult to form*, as they both started from cluster alliances**. The idea was good; dysfunctional cluster alliances became parallel alliances which could draw upon more good people to make them better, stronger, and more able to resist the universal alliances. In this respect, the idea worked.

My main problem, however, was that it effectively split the universe of some 200k planets into 25 (or whatever) seperate universes. The result was that within parallels, various tiers of parallel alliances formed - some set up with the help of top universal alliances, others set up with the deliberate act of not getting others involved. Top tier alliances/galaxies would hit middle tier alliances/gals all night every night all round. middle tier would smash the small galaxies/players who could no longer hide behind the clutter and chaos of the full universe. They were ruthlessly bashed.

Sure, it was fun if you were in a top alliance, just as the game is more or less fun if you're in a top alliance now. however, i was in (indeed, formed) a low/middle tier alliance in R4 and i remember how frustrating it was being hit by the same people day in and day out without being able to assail them, as even by some miracle we actually launched what would have been a successful attack just brought the rest of the parallel and a whole bunch of universal alliances down on me/us. It was very depressing.


Anyway, my point is that parallels make the universe split far too small. tbh, the whole universe as it is right now is too small - subdividing it further is simply silly, imo. Clusters are - due to their size - too small to sustain as farms for a galaxy or small alliance for very long at all, and as such it is probably a better idea to organise the cluster as a last-ditch source of defence, rather than to farm them for every ship and roid there is. Thus, a more positive type of intervention from players results in more communication between players who would normall miss out on this communication and outside help, and potentially result in a broadining of the long-term community a fraction.

I reckon.


*tbh, i dont really remember the reasoning behind it - it might have been merely an excersise in something different. but this idea would have appealed to spinner, i reckon.
** iirc.

[JonnyBGood]

We had parallels in r4 because LDK managed to get pretty much their entire alliance/wing into cluster 46 as can be seen a bit here. Four LDK gals in the t100, four in cluster 46. This same sort of thing had gone on in previous rounds but I guess spinner decided to do something about it this time. Here ends today's Planetarion history lesson.

[jerome]

unfair benefit

[Alki]

Originally Posted by JonnyBGood

We had parallels in r4 because LDK managed to get pretty much their entire alliance/wing into cluster 46 as can be seen a bit here. Four LDK gals in the t100, four in cluster 46. This same sort of thing had gone on in previous rounds but I guess spinner decided to do something about it this time. Here ends today's Planetarion history lesson.

my god just looking at that makes me miss it