75 members restriction

[Heartless]

75 is going too small, 100 is acceptable in this universe, imho.

On the one hand, you go and force existing alliance to either split or decline new(er) players the chance to join the bigger, in most cases more experienced and organized alliances, thus denying them one of the - for myself - most interesting aspects: playing along with a reasonably sized and stable bunch of dedicated people; where they can establish contacts and so on and maybe make others win interest into continuing the game because they will (hopefully) share their experience later on.

On the other hand, it is no solution to any existing problem, especially not towards the blocking problem.
I think alliances should be less worried about spies when they recruited people - I think nobody will disagree that in such a small universe everyone knows his enemy(s) network pretty fast, at least with the pax game system it is a lot easier to track down who is related to whom etc than with the old one.

The current situation is more coming from the fact that people simply are too paranoid. Instead of recruiting 20 people they do not know most alliances prefer 5 people which play since ages. I don't want to say anything against people's desire to hide themselves to prevent "revenge" (which is seriously one of the shittiest attitudes in a game), but in the end it is leading to blocking, not to play things out on the battlefield with chances of equal numbers. The idea won't be very well liked, but since we have the membercount of alliances publically available already (which was a big no no to reveal in past rounds), what speaks against revealing the coordinates of those alliances right from the start? I think nothing,
revealing all alliances coordinates does actually deliver "water-proof" facts whether alliances are cooperating against particular alliance(s) or not.

Additionally to that point the aspect of blocking should be accepted by the whole community, to a certain degree, and we should simply go and take the 100 member limit of alliances as an acceptable number. The maximum count of people in one alliance should be the number of people that are allowed to cooperate with each other, simple. Whether this is achieved by multiple alliances blocking to total up towards this number or by one single alliance being that size should be absolutely irrelevant.

But basically that would require a change in the thinking-structures of most people, as they don't want to be too active to achieve a good ranking and so on, rather rely on numbers than themselves.

Oh, and I would be happy if certain discussions concerning game aspects could be discussed without always trying to dig at Fury or FAnG or Legion or Xanadu or MISTU or 1Up or whatever.

[The_Fish]

Originally Posted by Kjeldoran

My point was that no HC likes to kick 25 members (which in this case is 25% of the alliance). Obviously some will be inactive but some won't be. what do you tell them? that you like them less then the rest?

You really think that EVERY FAnG member will play R11? I very very much doubt it. I know a fair few in ND wont be playing, probably including myself. You will have to kick 10 at most, imo. And they will be your worst players, and it will be their own fault.

[The_Fish]

Originally Posted by wakey

I think his point may be more that FAnG members know they can probally walk into another resonable quality alliance due to their skill and experiance, the likes of EOV however contain lower quality members and those cut loose would have a harder time finding a new alliance

spot on.

[Kjeldoran]

Originally Posted by The_Fish

spot on.

fair enough, I probably missread it

[DrunkenViking]

Originally Posted by DrunkenViking

Very few alliances already do.... yours for example. And certain alliances will never gain 100 members witch will allways leave them "half the size of the enemy". I got the impression there is a general feeling that blocking = bad around here. And if certain alliances have their 100 members the others with around 40-50-60 will have to block to have a chance.... I think its a good idea to bring max limit down, i'd rather see more small alliances, than a few big ones tbh.

Sorry for quoting myself, just felt i did a mistake attacking any alliance(guess just a reflex from abd round ). However, noone likes to kick 25 members, but if it is done, they can merge with 25 other kicked players forming a new alliance with 25 recruitmentspots. ofc this will mean bad things for some, and good things for others. Tho i am 100% sure that new players, or less fortunate ones, are the ones who will benefit. Many alliances with no strings attached to eachother will bring this game back to skill, military organisation etc. Instead of todays simple rule that the one with the most members(often those alliances with the most experienced and active members making it hard for new ppl to get a chance) wins no matter what. Same goes for blocks. I dont have to say that i sincerely believe a 75 member limit will bring more competition between more alliances making it a more fun and interesting game with a less chance of stagnation. I might be wrong, but if it turns out to be a horrible limit then we can allways make the limit higher next round. In any case, it is worth a try.

[Cayl]

One of the main benefits to this would in theory be that there would be more alliances. Now a quality player stuck in an alliance like 1up or Fang will have to compete with well established and experienced leaders to ever make it to just an officer level position. That same person might be able to go out, round up a few galaxies, do alright, have some fun, round up a few more and call it something ( I dunno, lets say Empire, hypothetically speaking ), and then perhaps merge with a large but inactive alliance, and suddenly be mentioned in the same breath as all the other top 10 alliances in the game.

Morale of the story is that the more people who are not locked up in a top alliance is more people who will have to be more active in determining their own fate and leading some kind of alliance. Quality people tend to gravitate and filter themselves out. I don't think its too late for a brand spanking new player to come into this game and end up leading a quality alliance within a couple rounds.

Now whether a lower limit will produce this effect or not remains to be seen. I think its a dubious but not totally improbably proposition.

[ComradeRob]

A likely possible reaction will be the formation of 'wings', 'sister alliances' or 'junior alliances'. These have been in use plenty of times in the past in PA, and may well make a comeback now.

Of course, this will provoke a debate - do these alliances count as seperate entities, or are they considered as part of one alliance? How will this be handled in-game?

This leads inevitably on to the question of blocking. Does an alliance with two 'wings' really constitute a two-alliance block? The answer will have to be determined before the round if there is any chance to avoid false blocking allegations - it either is blocking or it isn't. My personal opinion is that, at the very least, any alliance with a 'wing' should have no other allies whatsoever, but I am also tempted by the view that a two-wing alliance constitutes a block.

The likelihood is that wings would engage in player-swapping to get the top rank for one of the alliances - the weaker wing would 'donate' its top players to the stronger one, to boost its rank. imo this is deeply unfair and is a good reason to class wings as blocking. The fact is that the game now has in-game alliances and a player limit - we should try as much as possible to play in the spirit of the game, and if that means that alliances have to stand on their own then we should do so. We've spent long enough complaining about the state of the game, it is now time for us to play the game the way we all believe it really should be.

For this reason, I think that the player limit should not have been reduced. It does make it harder for alliances to observe the spirit of the game, which is ultimately bad for everyone. 75 members really is highly restrictive and unhelpful.

One possible (if somewhat silly) solution would be to increase the alliance limit as the round went on - say to a maximum of 120 members. 75 would start, with 45 more being recruited as the round progresses. These are unlikely to be defectors from other alliances as the 3-day waiting period is normally not worth risking. They are most likely to be the cream of the unallied players, and this may give them a chance to experience levels of alliance play that they are unfamiliar with. This also fits in nicely with random galaxies, as these new recruits would almost always be galaxy mates of existing alliance members.

[Gerbie]

Raising the limit could work. But it would give us the same problem again next round. I think gradually raising the limit will be great if there is any expectation the limit will be higher next round.

[Kal]

remember its not final yet - spinenr's announcement was merely the current settings for the beta - nothing is set in stone.

[Lord_Thunderball]

Originally Posted by Kal

remember its not final yet - spinenr's announcement was merely the current settings for the beta - nothing is set in stone.

Isn't that why we are discussing it? If it was final, there was no point at discussing, only complaining....

[Zotnam]

25-30 ppl max in an alliance. There will be loads of politics and you will have to choose very carefull who to go with, no-one will be unbeatable. Ofc if fang split into 4 they´d still not attack eachother, but the defence power would be weakened alot.. ofc other allies can´t defend as well either, it goes both ways. Basicly, this feature means a bigger chance of losing roids, I know I didn´t lose roids for 4 rounds in this and some other game like this... Takes the fun out of it tbh, this way you are likely to see even big planets roided 'regularly'. The bigger the alliance, the harder it is to fight against it... more allies, an envolving political envorirment, more fun.. for inactives, well, the game will never be that much fun, just face it, you have the most fun being quite active. Leadership is needed, but there are sooooo many ppl that played for over 5 rounds, tbh most of them could be HC/officers. Maybe make every planet under the average score in the whole game not count to the alliance size? That way alliances could have all the newbie members they want, ofc if they get too big they have to kick or recruit them. Sounds a bit like protecting farms tho I must admit heh

[Gerbie]

I do like the idea of having smaller alliances while allowing smaller planets to join any way. Currently there are 4 k planets with an average score of ~1 mln. As scores will run further apart during the round, the number of members allowed would steadily increase.

And protecting farms would be hard as you can't attack and farm your own members.

[Kal]

Originally Posted by Lord_Thunderball

Isn't that why we are discussing it? If it was final, there was no point at discussing, only complaining....

its often ahrd to tell the difference between discussing and complaining on AD

[Epcylon]

With a low limit, the talent is indeed spread thinner, but I think that's a good thing, as it will give a broader contactarea between skilled and unskilled players. I belive that the players turned away by 1Up, FAnG, WP and others will in most cases filter down to the "lesser" alliances. Even the worst players in FAnG are more experienced than most of the members in the "lesser" alliances like Valhalla and EoV, and will be a valuable resource in teaching unskilled players in those alliances how to play the game.

In a way, you force the worst of the best to become the best of the worst, and that will, hopefully, make them want to turn it around again by teaching their new alliancemates.

Also, putting the preassure on the big alliances like this will make it less likely that they poach the good players out of the smaller alliances, which I think is one of the biggest problems the smaller alliances have when trying to grow big.

[lokken]

Originally Posted by ComradeRob

A likely possible reaction will be the formation of 'wings', 'sister alliances' or 'junior alliances'. These have been in use plenty of times in the past in PA, and may well make a comeback now.

Of course, this will provoke a debate - do these alliances count as seperate entities, or are they considered as part of one alliance? How will this be handled in-game?

This leads inevitably on to the question of blocking. Does an alliance with two 'wings' really constitute a two-alliance block? The answer will have to be determined before the round if there is any chance to avoid false blocking allegations - it either is blocking or it isn't. My personal opinion is that, at the very least, any alliance with a 'wing' should have no other allies whatsoever, but I am also tempted by the view that a two-wing alliance constitutes a block.

The likelihood is that wings would engage in player-swapping to get the top rank for one of the alliances - the weaker wing would 'donate' its top players to the stronger one, to boost its rank. imo this is deeply unfair and is a good reason to class wings as blocking. The fact is that the game now has in-game alliances and a player limit - we should try as much as possible to play in the spirit of the game, and if that means that alliances have to stand on their own then we should do so. We've spent long enough complaining about the state of the game, it is now time for us to play the game the way we all believe it really should be.

Considering that alliances are hard coded in the game, one tag should be one alliance. Based on Sid's definition (which people may or may not accept) - 2 alliances up to 150 planets is ok because it's a partnership, yet if it's 3 alliances beyond 100 it isn't OK. I'm not quite sure what he was thinking about here as the 1st scenario is just as bad as the 2nd one, perhaps even worse - it is a bit of a loophole.

For reference:

With that in mind, I'd tend to view any pair of alliances working together as a partnership - and any group of 3 or more alliances with a combined membership of more than 100 as a block

I think if you are to set any ground rules they are going to have to be a bit more clear than they are at the present time.

Surely swapping tags would make people vulnerable for 3 days, and it's a risk you would have to take, btw.

[Kal]

Originally Posted by Epcylon

With a low limit, the talent is indeed spread thinner, but I think that's a good thing, as it will give a broader contactarea between skilled and unskilled players. I belive that the players turned away by 1Up, FAnG, WP and others will in most cases filter down to the "lesser" alliances. Even the worst players in FAnG are more experienced than most of the members in the "lesser" alliances like Valhalla and EoV, and will be a valuable resource in teaching unskilled players in those alliances how to play the game.

In a way, you force the worst of the best to become the best of the worst, and that will, hopefully, make them want to turn it around again by teaching their new alliancemates.

Also, putting the preassure on the big alliances like this will make it less likely that they poach the good players out of the smaller alliances, which I think is one of the biggest problems the smaller alliances have when trying to grow big.

the problem is that some people will quit, we can' t tell how many though. In my opinion the problem with this round was not the size of the alliances but the blocks - thats what needs limiting not the alliance size

[Rocklobster[Dok]]

the 75 limit is the suck

.

[TheACE]

it will do A LOT of harm to the game

[The_Fish]

nice contribution as always ACE

[Kjeldoran]

Originally Posted by The_Fish

nice contribution as always ACE

idd

[Zotnam]

Originally Posted by Gerbie

I do like the idea of having smaller alliances while allowing smaller planets to join any way. Currently there are 4 k planets with an average score of ~1 mln. As scores will run further apart during the round, the number of members allowed would steadily increase.

And protecting farms would be hard as you can't attack and farm your own members.

With protected farms I mean that an alliance would protect certein planets for a time untill they are over the average score, then attack the planet knowing it has no alliance, hence gets no def. I do see this as a radical step, and I won´t join in the whining over that it´s bad, it makes for a different round, if you all truely want those with skills to win, why then complain about this? Less would be even more interesting imo, but ofc that would mean a risk of no def for EVERYONE and it seems like some people can´t live with that. Breaking up alliances is indeed a bad way to try and save the game, but at this point it could be the last option ;/ Random uni rocks, no more relying on the gal to check inc for you, will be alot of sleepless nights..

[wakey]

Originally Posted by ComradeRob

One possible (if somewhat silly) solution would be to increase the alliance limit as the round went on - say to a maximum of 120 members. 75 would start, with 45 more being recruited as the round progresses. These are unlikely to be defectors from other alliances as the 3-day waiting period is normally not worth risking. They are most likely to be the cream of the unallied players, and this may give them a chance to experience levels of alliance play that they are unfamiliar with. This also fits in nicely with random galaxies, as these new recruits would almost always be galaxy mates of existing alliance members.

I would actually say your wrong here. The players who would move in such a system would be the cream of the smaller alliances. If we take F-Crew as an example this round, we took in alot of smaller players who werent getting a chance anywhere else and invested alot of resources into getting them pretty decent scores, but in the last two or three weeks of the round we have had to put up with many big alliances approaching our better players and poaching them. We have lost a goof 10 members with scores well over 1million in this time as the bigger alliances try and boost their end of round scores with players whom they havnt had to invest any time or effort into developing. As it is the 10 or so players we have lost is still pretty low, mainly due to the fact that theres a good limit on how many they can poach but i'm sure the figure would ahve been higher if more alliances could take on additional players as the round progressed. As you can imagine this is a major problem for smaller alliances, not only do they lose alot of points thus making it harder for them to acheive a resonably good position but it also makes the alliance more vunrelable in these last few weeks as theres alot less defence available which makes the position worse, making it harder to recruit replacements and making others consider their position

A likely possible reaction will be the formation of 'wings', 'sister alliances' or 'junior alliances'. These have been in use plenty of times in the past in PA, and may well make a comeback now.

This issue has been discussed alot and the "breaking" into wings is a problem that people always seem to focus on but tbh I've never seen the problem with it that much. The simple reason being theres not ever been that mnay attempts at wings that have ever come off. All too often the wing leaders get a taste of power and break off on their own hence giving us another alliance into the mix. I have to say as well personally it seems a bit of a risk leaving your wing for 3 days to get promoted seeing as your wing is likly to have the exact same political protection as the main wing. Only reason I could see people doing so would be if the wing was really weak and you needed the added protection of the main wing.

HOWEVER the r11 setup does change things a bit, it makes switching wings even less likely but at the same time makes the wing system more of a problem for PA and reduced the effect the 75 member limit has. The simple fact that now any alliance can pretty much defend any attack on any alliance means that co-operation is again an issue. This means where an alliance might split to two wings and there only co-operation would be that they wouldnt attack each other and they would attack together they now have the ability to defend each other. It does in many way make it so any alliance who wishes to get around the limits can do so and not lose too much of an advantage. This is one of the main reasons I''ve been against the reintroduction of the dynamic etas's because it simply allows alliances to get around any limitation the game imposses to keep them in check

[Copie]

This may be the worst idea i've ever had, but how about rather than limiting the alliances on number of members, limit on size/score/value. I have no idea how this would be enforced but it means an alliance of n00bs could have 1000 players whilst a "hardcore" alliance would be reduced to 50 or some such workable number.

[Seth Mace]

I understand what you are getting at copie but that would really punish the bigger alliances more then the 75 limit would. I think the 75limit is fine and it is worth trying out for a round just to see how things develope.

Its been interesting (and not surprising) to see who is for/ against this membership limit, the "against" clearly have their own agenda for success in mind, while the "for" are looking to level the playing field more. My gut instinct tells me its more healthy for PA if the limit is enforced.

[Kal]

i'd say judging on the number of paid planets and the alliances they would be in i'd say overall its going to be about 50% against the limit 25% in favour and 25% don't care. (THey are guesses, i haven;t gone and worked it out)

[Seth Mace]

Originally Posted by Kal

i'd say judging on the number of paid planets and the alliances they would be in i'd say overall its going to be about 50% against the limit 25% in favour and 25% don't care. (THey are guesses, i haven;t gone and worked it out)

Lol, nice comment there kal, u know, 83% of all surveys are biased but then, i just made my one up too so, who knows?

[Kjeldoran]

Originally Posted by Seth Mace

I understand what you are getting at copie but that would really punish the bigger alliances more then the 75 limit would. I think the 75limit is fine and it is worth trying out for a round just to see how things develope.

Its been interesting (and not surprising) to see who is for/ against this membership limit, the "against" clearly have their own agenda for success in mind, while the "for" are looking to level the playing field more. My gut instinct tells me its more healthy for PA if the limit is enforced.

Erm, I made this thread to express my opinion and to here those from the other players. At no point did I state my opinion cause of my own agenda (or FAnG's agenda). It just happens that the alliance I'm in has to struggle with these new restriction.
Don't make accusations on things you can only guess (wrongly).

[Seth Mace]

Originally Posted by Kjeldoran

Erm, I made this thread to express my opinion and to here those from the other players.

It was a statement (and my opinion) based on the observation from this thread and my understanding of how such a rule would affect the alliances of those who posted.

Such as...

Originally Posted by Kjeldoran

At no point did I state my opinion cause of my own agenda (or FAnG's agenda). It just happens that the alliance I'm in has to struggle with these new restriction.

Your opinion happens to be favourable to that of your alliance, there is nothing wrong with that but it does support my arguement, that people are clearly posting from their point of view. Even if this would have been your opinion regardless, it still happens to be in sync with your alliances stance (i assume).

So....

Originally Posted by Kjeldoran

Don't make accusations on things you can only guess (wrongly).

I apologise if it came across in such a hostile manner but my "guess" was clearly proven correct with your reply?

[Zh|l]

Originally Posted by Seth Mace

I understand what you are getting at copie but that would really punish the bigger alliances more then the 75 limit would. I think the 75limit is fine and it is worth trying out for a round just to see how things develope.

Its been interesting (and not surprising) to see who is for/ against this membership limit, the "against" clearly have their own agenda for success in mind, while the "for" are looking to level the playing field more. My gut instinct tells me its more healthy for PA if the limit is enforced.

Sid gave pretty good reasons as to why a 75 limit is bad, and he doesnt really care what the limit is since 1up is a new alliance and match whatever is decided upon.

[Rumad]

Originally Posted by ronnie

how can you (FAnG) complain about the limit being brought below your actual member base, then go around asking ppl to come to you, seems a bit of a contradiction

well depends - ou always have some natuarl wastage, to allow us to srengthen the alliance. However we have a gaming wide communiy which encourages others to play more than one game. Why should we have t split our membership which would ultinately resul in some of th members of the gaming community side who play pa having to leave because they no longer use that server (no comments on well hey arent that commited then crap because I know I wouldnt use too many servers cause I cba'd). Why shoul dthe "community being developed suffer for the sake of an arbitrary level imposed on us as an alliance?

In my view alliance numbers was never a driver for the 100 members. Bu now alliances are forced to go d the "1337" route rather than th community route.

Very much a negative in this imo.

[Kjeldoran]

Seth Mace, it's not a coïncindence that my opinion is somewhat in the line of what's best of FAnG. :-)

[Seth Mace]

Originally Posted by Zh|l

Sid gave pretty good reasons as to why a 75 limit is bad, and he doesnt really care what the limit is since 1up is a new alliance and match whatever is decided upon.

Yeha, sid posted his opinions on the positive and possible negative effects of such a ruling but his general sentiment was that maybe the limit should be reviewed, in aid of the bigger alliances who will suffer more. So while his stance may be pretty impartial, his overall opinion matches the cause that would suit 1up best? <- My comment was aimed at this observation.

Again, i'm not saying this is a bad thing, i'm just saying the bigger alliances are replying with their alliance in mind (be that intentionally or not) and again, there aint nothing wrong with this.

As for 1up being a new alliance who wont be bothered by such a limit, well sid already said that you guys will have to turn away possible good members, so it seems your member count will be pushing up towards that barrier pretty quickly?

[Rumad]

Originally Posted by Seth Mace

As for 1up being a new alliance who wont be bothered by such a limit, well sid already said that you guys will have to turn away possible good members, so it seems your member count will be pushing up towards that barrier pretty quickly?

Well from experience with FAnG round 7 I found that u need on average 60 members online to cver incommings during a war (that was a block war and not all members in a random uni).

However I hink 60 is the magical number if the players have the activity the alliance deserves.

My only consideration is that in limiting it in this way yu are cutting off people for whatever reason have decided to become part of a new community. I find i outrageous that any decision like this could be made when alliances should be allowed to dictate there own memberbase.

I never agreed with the 100 member limit - I definitely wont agree with a 75 member limit.

[Seth Mace]

I fully sympathise with you rumad but thats what ive been trying to get at, is the bigger alliances (infact any alliance), will put their own needs > game needs. When infact, the "game needs" greatly effect that of their own alliance and that the 75 limit has been inplaced to benifit everybody, by making it harder for the big allys to dominate & stagnate over a shorter period of time. I think it will provide a more even playing field and in turn improve PA for all invovled but then, only time will tell?

[Rumad]

Originally Posted by Seth Mace

I fully sympathise with you rumad but thats what ive been trying to get at, is the bigger alliances (infact any alliance), will put their own needs > game needs. When infact, the "game needs" greatly effect that of their own alliance and that the 75 limit has been inplaced to benifit everybody, by making it harder for the big allys to dominate & stagnate over a shorter period of time. I think it will provide a more even playing field and in turn improve PA for all invovled but then, only time will tell?

The game is crying out for politics to be included in th game as previously said where i can be policed properly.

75 members is just saying the big alliances are illing off the small alliance - quick do something about it!

Its very reactionary and not very productive.

Still what do I know I am just a old git

[gzambo]

heres a thought how much harder would it be for an alliance of say 50 ppl to rule the universe, pretty hard i reckon so takeing that as a fairly accepted fact imagine this scenario

alliance max number is set at 50 and all alliances must set up minimum of 2 private pure gals
alliance A has 50 members and wants private gals , ok they can have them but they can only put their alliance members into the gal and they cannot set up a priv gal with less than 10 and then open up the gal to randoms
alliance b has 50 members and decides to form 2 priv gals and the rest go random

which alliance is more likely to have most fun within the rd (regarding gameplay and not community)

consider all this and ask yourself would we have a rd of stagnation or would we have fun and be asking for ticks to be exstended

[hinchles]

just setup 2 allinaces one called fang1 one called fang2

simple really

and if you work together people call you a block so what your both the same alliance

[Rember]

You cannot oblige alliances to be either split in two parts (means recruiting up to 150) or kick members.
That's all I have to say.

[Rumad]

Originally Posted by Rember

You cannot oblige alliances to be either split in two parts (means recruiting up to 150) or kick members.
That's all I have to say.

The alliance limit is too arbitrary anyway and is a direct atcion taken to stop somthing that should not have ben hit head on.

When two cars travel towards each other at 100 miles an hour I think its better to swerve away as much as possible and not hit each other head on. thats what PA makers seem to do round after round after round Hit the oblm head on and cause another 1k-300 ppl to leave every round.

Its a shame that more thought isnt given to an aleady eroding community.

[mist]

what solution would you suggest?

-mist

[wakey]

Yes your right dealing with it head on isnt the best way but at this stage its the only way really. The problems been there for rounds now, it had been raised and later on spinner even did things to try and solve it the problem however is alliances kept abusing their power to get anything they didnt like removed and spinner more often than not let them. If the problems had been dealt with sooner or spinner has simply stood his ground then sucha tough limit just might not have been needed but going into r11 its too late to take the longer solutions, the rot needs stopped quickly to give time for more permanent solutions to be implemented

[Seth Mace]

I think a lot of PAs membership loss has to do with the simple notion, that people just got bored of the game.

It also became harder & harder (as the rounds progressed) to achieve game success without being affiliated with the "right" people. This is ofc related to this thread and trying to spread the quality of players, across more alliances rather then having 2/3 allies with the 1337, so to speak.

I think "heading" into the main problem like this, just may be what PA needs.

[Rumad]

Originally Posted by mist

what solution would you suggest?

-mist

The reason why the member count is being lowered is to cover up te holes everywhere else on the ship. Trouble is it doesnt deal with the problems.

The most pressing of which is the current politics.

I would suggest that the alliance limit stays the same and that politics is moved in-game. All we as a community ever seem to do is paste over the cracks - lowering the alliance limit is just another one of those "bad" decisions.

You give people benefts for using in game politics and people will use them fully. A alliance trading fund (not an alliance fund), give them -1 eta for defending and only allow allies to join your galaxies (reduced to 6 members per galaxy).

You will find this will give you enough hidden agenda items to make 2 alliances go for broke and not worry about other alliances. You might get naps of convenience, but thats what the game is about partly - making and breaking agreements

I think the above would make the game infinitely more exciting than the current environment and would mean that alliances woulnt leave community members who just feel like there is no point playing if they cant play with their and for their mates.

[Rumad]

Originally Posted by wakey

Yes your right dealing with it head on isnt the best way but at this stage its the only way really. The problems been there for rounds now, it had been raised and later on spinner even did things to try and solve it the problem however is alliances kept abusing their power to get anything they didnt like removed and spinner more often than not let them. If the problems had been dealt with sooner or spinner has simply stood his ground then sucha tough limit just might not have been needed but going into r11 its too late to take the longer solutions, the rot needs stopped quickly to give time for more permanent solutions to be implemented

They dd everything except what neded doing rounds ago - now you have the posistion where no one can se anything but the one solution. Alliances will work towards there own goals - they will do everthing within reason to ensure they ge the best position. If you har cde alliances though includng politics its a different state of play. Hard coding alwas was he solution.

The alliance limit was 100, now its 75. What happens in 2 rounds time when there is 500 people bcause things like this keep driving the community down and down? 50 member alliances? 25 member alliances?

Also these limits if are to be imposed should be done as a percentage of the playerbase, not a arbitrary limit imposed cause it looks right.

[Rumad]

Originally Posted by Seth Mace

I think a lot of PAs membership loss has to do with the simple notion, that people just got bored of the game.

It also became harder & harder (as the rounds progressed) to achieve game success without being affiliated with the "right" people. This is ofc related to this thread and trying to spread the quality of players, across more alliances rather then having 2/3 allies with the 1337, so to speak.

I think "heading" into the main problem like this, just may be what PA needs.

ppl do get fed up, but rarely with the game. Its usually they dislike the changes andin fact there are massive amounts of changes every round.

If you look at some of the bigger PA clones - they cncentrae on PA before round 9. They get 3 to 4 times the playebase size and they arely venture away from the good old days. They dont impose such arbirary limits and their communities are flourishing.

I cant hep but hink that thos games which some f PA's own alliances have expanded to hol the key. Simpliciy oft has its own advantages.

All i can see is more disgruntle PA players leaving as their alliances decide they can no longer accodate them. Whether they be big players or small players its a loss to any community of our size.

[mist]

Originally Posted by Rumad

The reason why the member count is being lowered is to cover up te holes everywhere else on the ship. Trouble is it doesnt deal with the problems.

agree with you 100% so far.

Originally Posted by Rumad

The most pressing of which is the current politics.

to a point i agree with this. the blocking etc and concentration of all of the good players in to two forces is quite dull, and very bad for anyone who's not in those two forces, as well as all the people in one of them.

Originally Posted by Rumad

I would suggest that the alliance limit stays the same and that politics is moved in-game. All we as a community ever seem to do is paste over the cracks - lowering the alliance limit is just another one of those "bad" decisions.

pls define politics, i'm not quite sure what you mean. as you've probably noticed alliance hosting is in game nowadays, i'm not sure what else you want. ability to ally with other alliances in game? some of the war ideas that've been banded about?

Originally Posted by Rumad

You give people benefts for using in game politics and people will use them fully. A alliance trading fund (not an alliance fund), give them -1 eta for defending and only allow allies to join your galaxies (reduced to 6 members per galaxy).

only allowing allies to join your galaxy...
do you mean people who your alliance is allied with? ie, creating block galaxies and leading to the "oh, we can't break the block up because it'll be too much work" type excuses?
or do you mean only people from your actual alliance - fine for the larger alliances perhaps but rather harsh on the small ones who can't cover a whole galaxy.

what do you see in the significance of an alliance trading ability, particularly if you're going to have alliance galaxies? would it be used, and if it were would it be used in a "moral" way?

Originally Posted by Rumad

You will find this will give you enough hidden agenda items to make 2 alliances go for broke and not worry about other alliances. You might get naps of convenience, but thats what the game is about partly - making and breaking agreements

the only changes i can really see you suggesting are to make private galaxies slightly more restrictive, although this would seem to have little effect on the main problem - alliances forming block galaxies, and to add an alliance trading fund. i'm not sure how this would convince alliances to go out on their own. please explain.

i agree that something other than a limit is the way forward, however i'm not quite sure how your suggestion will get the desired results

-mist

[Sevrok]

reducing the number of players that can join an alliance, makes blocking and the formation of wings more likely! as to gain dominance an alliance needs the upper hand, be that through sheer numbers of through skill! if an alliance can achieve supremacy in both areas they should become the dominant power! i agree with the view point that the politics need to be brought into the game, make bocks offical, that way you can limit the numbe rof alliances in a block, and not the number of members in an alliance!

[wakey]

Originally Posted by Rumad

ppl do get fed up, but rarely with the game. Its usually they dislike the changes andin fact there are massive amounts of changes every round.

If you look at some of the bigger PA clones - they cncentrae on PA before round 9. They get 3 to 4 times the playebase size and they arely venture away from the good old days. They dont impose such arbirary limits and their communities are flourishing.

I cant hep but hink that thos games which some f PA's own alliances have expanded to hol the key. Simpliciy oft has its own advantages.

All i can see is more disgruntle PA players leaving as their alliances decide they can no longer accodate them. Whether they be big players or small players its a loss to any community of our size.

Again though your taking a very restrictive look at things, yes perhaps thats why some of the top players leave, but as I keep saying the numbers of top players leaving is fairly small compared to the smaller players leaving. Thes players leave because they get fed up with the way the game plays and while it may seem like a small issue for those at the top these players elaving do have a knock on effect for them. If the game was free then yes they could probally get away with running a game thats unbalanced as PA is as people are simply less bothered but PA is never going to be free so the game needs improved and made more accessable if its to succeed.

They dd everything except what neded doing rounds ago - now you have the posistion where no one can se anything but the one solution. Alliances will work towards there own goals - they will do everthing within reason to ensure they ge the best position. If you har cde alliances though includng politics its a different state of play. Hard coding alwas was he solution.

The alliance limit was 100, now its 75. What happens in 2 rounds time when there is 500 people bcause things like this keep driving the community down and down? 50 member alliances? 25 member alliances?

Also these limits if are to be imposed should be done as a percentage of the playerbase, not a arbitrary limit imposed cause it looks right.

On the last point I agree, I've said for a long time it should be set at something like 2-4% of the paying customers, per alliance but it gets rejected. People seem more happy with a a figure based on a guessed number of players than one which would adjust istelf to a decent number of players.

And yes I'm not saying a limit is a complete fix, or even something that should be there for ever but its something that witha few other fixes could stablise teh lower end of the game and give PA a chance to be proactive with its future plans than being reactive

Originally Posted by Sevrok

reducing the number of players that can join an alliance, makes blocking and the formation of wings more likely! as to gain dominance an alliance needs the upper hand, be that through sheer numbers of through skill! if an alliance can achieve supremacy in both areas they should become the dominant power! i agree with the view point that the politics need to be brought into the game, make bocks offical, that way you can limit the numbe rof alliances in a block, and not the number of members in an alliance!

How does is encourage blocking any more than the game already encourages it, your view just doesnt make sense. And its not the number of alliances in a block thats the problem, its the alliances involved and the length of time they block that make blocks so powerful.If the limit was 3 we could have alliance a, b and c blocked, each of these has 75 members giving a block of 225, if we then have alliance u,v,w,x,y,z who between them might have 225 members but the limit means they have to form two blocks. Now basically you have given more power to the top block and made everyone else weaker.

This is even more apprently if you then remove the alliance limit also like your suggesting, a,b and c might have 120 members each giving 360 members in total. These additional members come from somwhere, most likly some come from u,v,w,x,y or z. The additional amount of top players and recuded number of smaller players then means to be on a level plaiyng field they might need q,r,s,t as well. But again they are limited to three alliances per block so we have 3 blocks and 1 left over making each of these alliances in a weaker position.

Limiting alliances in a block really isnt a solution, if anything blocks need to be made to diversify so rather than being the top 3 alliances they are a top alliance, a meduim alliance and a small one

[mist]

didn't your alliance manage to beat both fury and legion though, even when they blocked against you?

if people want to form blocks of the same size, then yes a lower alliance size will mean that they need more alliances to do it, so people might well form blocks of more alliances. however, the only change that makes is that the blocks find it a little harder to work together. is that a bad thing?

as for bringing blocks in to the game rather than alliances, how do you propose to do this? if people use the alliance system and then form blocks outside it, how will you stop them using the blocks system and then forming larger blocks outside of it?

-mist

[Rumad]

Originally Posted by mist

1) agree with you 100% so far.

2) to a point i agree with this. the blocking etc and concentration of all of the good players in to two forces is quite dull, and very bad for anyone who's not in those two forces, as well as all the people in one of them.

3) pls define politics, i'm not quite sure what you mean. as you've probably noticed alliance hosting is in game nowadays, i'm not sure what else you want. ability to ally with other alliances in game? some of the war ideas that've been banded about?

3) only allowing allies to join your galaxy...
do you mean people who your alliance is allied with? ie, creating block galaxies and leading to the "oh, we can't break the block up because it'll be too much work" type excuses?
or do you mean only people from your actual alliance - fine for the larger alliances perhaps but rather harsh on the small ones who can't cover a whole galaxy.

what do you see in the significance of an alliance trading ability, particularly if you're going to have alliance galaxies? would it be used, and if it were would it be used in a "moral" way?

4) the only changes i can really see you suggesting are to make private galaxies slightly more restrictive, although this would seem to have little effect on the main problem - alliances forming block galaxies, and to add an alliance trading fund. i'm not sure how this would convince alliances to go out on their own. please explain.

i agree that something other than a limit is the way forward, however i'm not quite sure how your suggestion will get the desired results

-mist

1) glad you agree

2) Politics is everyting that alliance hosting doesn't include. All the political agreements we make and it becomes easier to regulate and harder to impose stagnatory politics upon he game itseff. Basically if the agremenets could be bought into th gae i wil bring a whole new level of politics. you have 1 ally and you may have other agreements bu ou have to recognise that to pummel the other alliances into the ground or being obnoxious will result in another alliance having a better chance of winning than you. Also take the Phraktos exale 3 strongest alliances allied in the game. If only 2 were allowed to be allied in game then you make 2 of the four get closer ties and as such would want to ensure that there members did not run out of roids and/or alienate th community.

3) idea is simple youa nd your memebrs sign up in game. You also pick your ally at this point. ou then construct private galaxies from this playrbase of 2 alliances. ou can agre anything yu want outside of your 2 alliances but at th end f the day only those 2 allies have any obligations to finish the round together. No other alliance will have the depth of ties that you share wih your ally in game.

I see e trading fund as just that. It would work in the same way as the current trade fund but only available through your alliance. The more benefits you can receive in game t better for alliances. Could it be abused? Probably no as its"just" a trading fund - not a donations service.

4) Well it would mae privae gals more restrictive but u get te bes of both worlds. You get your private galaxy and you ge allies you can trust to make a galaxy with. In return you make external agrements have no benefit and you and you lower the number of players in a private galaxy which in reaity is probably needed anyway.

I am assuming alliances will never go it alone. Even in sid's definition he saw a need for a "partner". Go it alone is never the best option, however you can make the conditions for arranging superblocks and keeping them in place harder to do. Essentially thats what you are doing with wha I am uggesting - creating a forced environment whereb yu can only have 1 ally. Creating an environment were naps are more for cnvenience than as a stratgic planning decision and making it easier to whittle allies down and make HC's think about timings of decisions.

My suggestion is only that a few loose ideas I thin would have ben better than arbitrarily lowering the limit and thus driving more out of the community. I think its more needed to add excitement and limit what people can do in the game. If you do that then you are half way to solving he prblem in my view. i think what I sugges goes some wa towards achieving that, but its a bit off topic anyway