|
|
16 Feb 2015, 19:21
|
#401
|
Registered User
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 707
|
Re: R60 mid round turmoil
Quote:
Originally Posted by BloodyButcher
I still dont understand what he is going on about.
|
i still dont understand why you are going on...
one illogical lameass excuse after the other, and those that come latter usually contradict the ones already used.
|
|
|
17 Feb 2015, 01:16
|
#402
|
Shadows and Dust
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: The Black Bastion
Posts: 329
|
Re: R60 mid round turmoil
its ok pals
ill save you
__________________
Nick: Swing
R3 or so - Cell/Elysium
Looong break
R20 - Orbit
R21 - Subh (Finished rank 58)
8 year break
R60 - ND -> Ultores (Finished rank 48)
R61 - Rogues
14:05 <Swing> I wear a cape and a burger king paper crown when i play pa
14:10 <Zwanstic> u also talk alot of shit
14:14 <Blue_Esper> you're a weird unit
12:33 <hone> oddr is where we send all the semi retarded and gay bashing ult has beens LOL
12:34 <hone> thats where u should be swing lol
|
|
|
17 Feb 2015, 04:35
|
#403
|
!!!AMERICA!!!
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Amsterdam
Posts: 793
|
Re: R60 mid round turmoil
Quote:
Originally Posted by Influence
The whole stipulation is funny as shit because ND is a CR/BS alliance in itself (or at least most members opted for CR/BS this round).
I personally will never accept clauses that limit who my alliance can or can't work with when it is not an obvious and direct enemy of both allies. Considering the deal between rainbows and ND started before PT100, there was no such thiing as an obvious and direct enemy.
Furthermore, as a FR ally, if you wanted to hamper other FR allies, hitting them before broadswords became common would have been the way to go. Which voids even the tactical reasoning behind this stipulation.
|
I think it was a clause in BB's head ... made with BB ... personal relations ya know
|
|
|
17 Feb 2015, 06:30
|
#404
|
Propaganda Chief
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Under the Rainbow
Posts: 4,740
|
Re: R60 mid round turmoil
Quote:
Originally Posted by ManiacMagic
I think it was a clause in BB's head ... made with BB ... personal relations ya know
|
Now you are denying it?
I know SoulS is a blatant liar, even though you did not follow the clauses, it was agreed on
__________________
RainbowS
RB Ely MISTU Angel Fusi0n 1up ToF VisioN CT FAnG ROCK
Last edited by BloodyButcher; 17 Feb 2015 at 06:58.
|
|
|
17 Feb 2015, 10:11
|
#405
|
Leader Of The Gang
Join Date: Aug 2014
Posts: 455
|
Re: R60 mid round turmoil
Update:
CT crash value for roids, witch will never return the amount of ship value in many causes
GG
__________________
Round 60 - Ultores - Rank 67th.
Round 75 - CT - Rank 19th - Galaxy Win.
Round 80 - Ultores - Rank 16th.
Round 81 - Ultores - Rank 73rd.
Round 83 - Ultores - Rank 16th.
Round 91 - Lucky7 - Rank 50th.
Round 92 - Lucky7 - Rank 39th.
|
|
|
17 Feb 2015, 10:14
|
#406
|
KK
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 662
|
Re: R60 mid round turmoil
Quote:
Originally Posted by BloodyButcher
Now you are denying it?
I know SoulS is a blatant liar, even though you did not follow the clauses, it was agreed on
|
There something very wrong with you in this thread BB. You've contradicted yourself quite badly, saying you wanted to work with ND because you've had good past relations and wanted to keep that going etc. etc. then accusing their officers of being liars.
Doesn't make a lot of sense to me.
#justsaying
|
|
|
17 Feb 2015, 10:50
|
#407
|
Propaganda Chief
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Under the Rainbow
Posts: 4,740
|
Re: R60 mid round turmoil
Quote:
Originally Posted by Krypton
There something very wrong with you in this thread BB. You've contradicted yourself quite badly, saying you wanted to work with ND because you've had good past relations and wanted to keep that going etc. etc. then accusing their officers of being liars.
Doesn't make a lot of sense to me.
#justsaying
|
SoulS wasnt ND when we worked with em in the past, neither was MM.
I dont think its contradicting myself.
Perhaps they was always liable to try set bows up in the past, but untill this round they certainly didnt.
__________________
RainbowS
RB Ely MISTU Angel Fusi0n 1up ToF VisioN CT FAnG ROCK
|
|
|
17 Feb 2015, 14:09
|
#408
|
Mordar, Keel, Reip
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: Finland
Posts: 333
|
Re: R60 mid round turmoil
This thread becomes more stupid every day, pls continue, the levels of amusement have almost been reached
__________________
Wolf in a pirates clothing to the highest degree, standing behind the curtains.
All the war propaganda, all the screaming and lies and hatred, comes invariably from people who are not fighting. - George Orwell
|
|
|
17 Feb 2015, 20:07
|
#409
|
Registered User
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 707
|
Re: R60 mid round turmoil
isn't this Rainbows 3rd appearence ?
So technically your first official round with representatives in #alliances !
(making it sound like you have a decade of history to go by)
|
|
|
17 Feb 2015, 20:43
|
#410
|
Propaganda Chief
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Under the Rainbow
Posts: 4,740
|
Re: R60 mid round turmoil
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheoDD
isn't this Rainbows 3rd appearence ?
So technically your first official round with representatives in #alliances !
(making it sound like you have a decade of history to go by)
|
We are not in #alliances, no.
And your point being?
__________________
RainbowS
RB Ely MISTU Angel Fusi0n 1up ToF VisioN CT FAnG ROCK
|
|
|
18 Feb 2015, 11:32
|
#411
|
Registered User
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 1,038
|
Re: R60 mid round turmoil
hopefully there are some new alliances next round to give some fresh political movements
__________________
Did some stuff, played here n there done just about all there is to do
|
|
|
18 Feb 2015, 13:28
|
#412
|
mz.
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 8,587
|
Re: R60 mid round turmoil
New alliances, old faces. Nothing will change.
__________________
The outraged poets threw sticks and rocks over the side of the bridge. They were all missing Mary and he felt a contented smug feeling wash over him. He would have given them a coy little wave if the roof hadn't collapsed just then. Mary then found himself in the middle of an understandably shocked family's kitchen table. So he gave them the coy little wave and realized it probably would have been more effective if he hadn't been lying on their turkey.
|
|
|
18 Feb 2015, 13:43
|
#413
|
Leader Of The Gang
Join Date: Aug 2014
Posts: 455
|
Re: R60 mid round turmoil
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mzyxptlk
New alliances, old faces. Nothing will change.
|
yeah true
__________________
Round 60 - Ultores - Rank 67th.
Round 75 - CT - Rank 19th - Galaxy Win.
Round 80 - Ultores - Rank 16th.
Round 81 - Ultores - Rank 73rd.
Round 83 - Ultores - Rank 16th.
Round 91 - Lucky7 - Rank 50th.
Round 92 - Lucky7 - Rank 39th.
|
|
|
18 Feb 2015, 13:54
|
#414
|
KK
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 662
|
Re: R60 mid round turmoil
Reduce the tag size significantly. Then there will be 'fresh' alliances
|
|
|
18 Feb 2015, 14:02
|
#415
|
Registered User
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 1,386
|
Re: R60 mid round turmoil
Quote:
Originally Posted by Krypton
Reduce the tag size significantly. Then there will be 'fresh' alliances
|
I don't think the issue lays with the HCs. The issue lays with lack of alliances in the game. We only see 4 main tags.
I understand why smaller tags are reluctant in joining block wars, because they will be subjected to being farmed. So why should they participate?
You cry when there are blocks, and you cry when an alliance is running away with the round. I guess there's no pleasing people!
Last edited by Clouds; 18 Feb 2015 at 14:09.
|
|
|
18 Feb 2015, 14:28
|
#416
|
Paso Leaute
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 919
|
Re: R60 mid round turmoil
Quote:
Originally Posted by Clouds
You cry when there are blocks, and you cry when an alliance is running away with the round. I guess there's no pleasing people!
|
Well we mainly cry when a block is created in order to let an alliance run away with the round.
A block to stop an alliance running away with the round is the natural order of things. Only the Alliance at the top can whinge when that happens.
I think I favour smaller tag sizes, tho not the radical cut to 30 that Krypton has advocated in the past. Perhaps 45 or 50 would be enough to put one or two more allies in contention.
__________________
An optimist may see a light where there is none, but why must the pessimist always run to blow it out?
|
|
|
18 Feb 2015, 15:29
|
#417
|
Registered User
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 1,386
|
Re: R60 mid round turmoil
Quote:
Originally Posted by [B5]Londo
Well we mainly cry when a block is created in order to let an alliance run away with the round.
A block to stop an alliance running away with the round is the natural order of things. Only the Alliance at the top can whinge when that happens.
I think I favour smaller tag sizes, tho not the radical cut to 30 that Krypton has advocated in the past. Perhaps 45 or 50 would be enough to put one or two more allies in contention.
|
Smaller tags will ensure that we see a serious reduction in the player-base, as alliances like NewDawn and CT house players that will only play in their respective alliances.
|
|
|
18 Feb 2015, 15:50
|
#418
|
Paso Leaute
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 919
|
Re: R60 mid round turmoil
Quote:
Originally Posted by Clouds
Smaller tags will ensure that we see a serious reduction in the player-base, as alliances like NewDawn and CT house players that will only play in their respective alliances.
|
Perhaps, but politics being continually shit would put off just as many
In any event, I'm not sure how true that is, since it is well known that if players are determined to stay in a particular alliance a support tag is made. Dropping the tag limit does however bring those currently without a near full tag closer to being contenders.
__________________
An optimist may see a light where there is none, but why must the pessimist always run to blow it out?
|
|
|
18 Feb 2015, 16:05
|
#419
|
Finally retired
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 788
|
Re: R60 mid round turmoil
Quote:
Originally Posted by [B5]Londo
Perhaps, but politics being continually shit would put off just as many
In any event, I'm not sure how true that is, since it is well known that if players are determined to stay in a particular alliance a support tag is made. Dropping the tag limit does however bring those currently without a near full tag closer to being contenders.
|
Rainbows, HR, and this ND will never be contenders tho. They don't aim for that, and never will.
__________________
don't be an arse, join [TiT]
In the absence of the good old TiT alliance, look me up in VGN
|
|
|
18 Feb 2015, 16:06
|
#420
|
KK
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 662
|
Re: R60 mid round turmoil
Who's crying? Why do you say this, im confused.
This is something I've wanted for 4 rounds now. It's boring. Why anyone thinks 60 is a reasonable limit is beyond me.
And hello Clouds, in case you didn't realise, the player base is already drastically shrinking. If everyone is subjected to a smaller tag limit, surely there will be a reduction in the 'farming' you speak of rather than an increase. I'm not sure anyone is still playing this round, just like the round before.
|
|
|
18 Feb 2015, 16:19
|
#421
|
Paso Leaute
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 919
|
Re: R60 mid round turmoil
Quote:
Originally Posted by Influence
Rainbows, HR, and this ND will never be contenders tho. They don't aim for that, and never will.
|
If you are simply saying that whether you are a contender or not is a matter of preference then you can add BF to your list there as they clearly have no wish to be contenders.
There can be no in game fix for an alliances' will to fight. All that can be done is to level the playing field and make it as open as possible. I believe a slight reduction in tag sizes makes things more open than they are.
__________________
An optimist may see a light where there is none, but why must the pessimist always run to blow it out?
|
|
|
18 Feb 2015, 17:10
|
#422
|
Finally retired
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 788
|
Re: R60 mid round turmoil
Quote:
Originally Posted by [B5]Londo
If you are simply saying that whether you are a contender or not is a matter of preference then you can add BF to your list there as they clearly have no wish to be contenders.
There can be no in game fix for an alliances' will to fight. All that can be done is to level the playing field and make it as open as possible. I believe a slight reduction in tag sizes makes things more open than they are.
|
I didn't mean to imply it is only a matter of preference. It is much more a matter of skill and activity. In BF the average member definitely has enough skill to at least try for ally win, however, in my opinion they lack the fortitude to actually do. Their HC's know this and as such they have little need to create a political environment in which they submerge as the winners, and even if they had that need I doubt they had the pull to be able to create such an environment for the full length of a round.
__________________
don't be an arse, join [TiT]
In the absence of the good old TiT alliance, look me up in VGN
|
|
|
18 Feb 2015, 17:16
|
#423
|
Retard0r
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Norway
Posts: 1,164
|
Re: R60 mid round turmoil
Quote:
Originally Posted by Krypton
Reduce the tag size significantly. Then there will be 'fresh' alliances
|
Let's say you take a 60 man alliance with a 6 man hc team, and break it down to 3 20 man tags/alliances. What do you think the odds are that those 3 tags will be ruled by someone from the old HC, and that they'll cooporate tightly in future rounds? Thing is, you can't make a fresh alliance without fresh people or new constellations. For what i consider a new alliance to emerge, you rely on equal amount of members from either side of the current powerhouses, and that only happends when one of both sides disband at the same time(wich won't happend). This means(for a game with a decreasing playerbase) that you rely on people like mm, gm, agar3s, zwanstic, monroe, clouds, munkee, santa, bbutcher, nelito, cardi etc to actually step down permanently and let someone not indoctrinated with all the old blood take over. And the likelyhood of that happening is close to none existant. These people feel a responsibility(or an obligation if you will) to their own piece of the community to provide a "home" for their kin.
Let's face it. For good or for bad; this is planetarion and without a complete change of the game itself or it's playerbase, this is how planetarion will be for the rest of it's life. There will allways be bad rounds or good rounds(depending on where you stand politically), but it's not static. It actually hasn't been static since someone won 3-4 rounds in a row through domination.
__________________
-Chimpie
* We do not exist *
* G-II * NoS * VsN * Ascendancy * Osiris * xVx * Ultores *
|
|
|
18 Feb 2015, 17:27
|
#424
|
Propaganda Chief
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Under the Rainbow
Posts: 4,740
|
Re: R60 mid round turmoil
Id love to have some sort of dynamical tag limits.
. All the top5 alliances are filled up, or above say 55, increase the limit to 65-70.
Smaller tags is not the answer, it will just make the game less tempting to play for the average joe.
RainbowS aim to be contenders, but this round we clearly did not have the right amount of players preround, and was trailing all after this. ND have won several rounds, so they clearly can be contenders too.
BF dont wish to win rounds, ODDR, Vikings, faceless are far from having enough players atm.
If people wish to play in a smaller tag, they should leave their tags in order to try set up a alliance and make it last longer than a couple of rounds.
__________________
RainbowS
RB Ely MISTU Angel Fusi0n 1up ToF VisioN CT FAnG ROCK
|
|
|
18 Feb 2015, 17:40
|
#425
|
Paso Leaute
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 919
|
Re: R60 mid round turmoil
Quote:
Originally Posted by BloodyButcher
Id love to have some sort of dynamical tag limits.
. All the top5 alliances are filled up, or above say 55, increase the limit to 65-70.
|
This would surely increase inequalities significantly, this round the top 5 have had 55+ so the limit goes up to 70 how many could then fill it? I don't really have a clue who has what out of tag but probably just Ult.
However if we are to run with that principle would it not be a better idea to have a 'late sign' section to the tag, in theory allowing the alliances to recruit allianceless noobs that turn up in their gals... tho in practice presumably used by late sign ups.
__________________
An optimist may see a light where there is none, but why must the pessimist always run to blow it out?
|
|
|
18 Feb 2015, 17:58
|
#426
|
Propaganda Chief
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Under the Rainbow
Posts: 4,740
|
Re: R60 mid round turmoil
Quote:
Originally Posted by [B5]Londo
This would surely increase inequalities significantly, this round the top 5 have had 55+ so the limit goes up to 70 how many could then fill it? I don't really have a clue who has what out of tag but probably just Ult.
However if we are to run with that principle would it not be a better idea to have a 'late sign' section to the tag, in theory allowing the alliances to recruit allianceless noobs that turn up in their gals... tho in practice presumably used by late sign ups.
|
Problem being that tags such as CT/P3ng/Ult this round could fill their tags pretick, and now im sure they have around 65 players each.
Certain allies such as p3ng/BF/vikings/FL dont seem to be wanting to take in new players(just from my view), and they are the ones that should be punished by having a bigger tag limit.
Its pretty funny that i always got accused of turning every thread into a discussion about tag limits, but now someone else have jumped the bandwagon.
I think this round is a result of last round, p3ng/BF/Ult was happy to stay blocked together for 99% of the round, and now i see a lot of p3ng people realising that their tactics last round is being used against them.
If you dotn want BF to stagnate the round every time, just keep attacking them from pt24, and atleast you wont risk that anymore?
__________________
RainbowS
RB Ely MISTU Angel Fusi0n 1up ToF VisioN CT FAnG ROCK
|
|
|
18 Feb 2015, 18:01
|
#427
|
KK
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 662
|
Re: R60 mid round turmoil
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrunkenViking
Let's say you take a 60 man alliance with a 6 man hc team, and break it down to 3 20 man tags/alliances. What do you think the odds are that those 3 tags will be ruled by someone from the old HC, and that they'll cooporate tightly in future rounds? Thing is, you can't make a fresh alliance without fresh people or new constellations. For what i consider a new alliance to emerge, you rely on equal amount of members from either side of the current powerhouses, and that only happends when one of both sides disband at the same time(wich won't happend). This means(for a game with a decreasing playerbase) that you rely on people like mm, gm, agar3s, zwanstic, monroe, clouds, munkee, santa, bbutcher, nelito, cardi etc to actually step down permanently and let someone not indoctrinated with all the old blood take over. And the likelyhood of that happening is close to none existant. These people feel a responsibility(or an obligation if you will) to their own piece of the community to provide a "home" for their kin.
Let's face it. For good or for bad; this is planetarion and without a complete change of the game itself or it's playerbase, this is how planetarion will be for the rest of it's life. There will allways be bad rounds or good rounds(depending on where you stand politically), but it's not static. It actually hasn't been static since someone won 3-4 rounds in a row through domination.
|
It's pretty hard to play for fun with the tag size limits as they are. You're speaking from a purely elite perspective.
I would much rather the game brought some of the fun back into it by giving people to opportunity to play for fun by being able to create smaller tags with a group of friends, even taking on some others who are either new or returning to the game...without them being turned into farms.
The only way i see this happening is by a severe cut in the ally tag limits., because the mods aren't willing to make significant changes to the game. They've shown this for countless rounds. I probably wont be signing up again next round and if I do it'd be just an exceedingly idle planet again. Pointless really.
|
|
|
18 Feb 2015, 18:08
|
#428
|
Paso Leaute
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 919
|
Re: R60 mid round turmoil
Quote:
Originally Posted by BloodyButcher
Problem being that tags such as CT/P3ng/Ult this round could fill their tags pretick, and now im sure they have around 65 players each.
Certain allies such as p3ng/BF/vikings/FL dont seem to be wanting to take in new players(just from my view), and they are the ones that should be punished by having a bigger tag limit.
|
This is clearly nonsense.
Sure P3n has had more than 60 players this round but that is as a process of recruiting and people leaving/being kicked... now in case you have not noticed we are not full tag, and even an inactive like Wilzzz is in tag.
Equally P3n has taken in new people in the course of the round.
BF has also clearly recruited as the round has gone on.
If by unwilling to take on new players you mean genuinely new to the game I admit that is limited. I only know of one p3n recruit who was a genuine new player. But how many genuine new players are there anyway?
__________________
An optimist may see a light where there is none, but why must the pessimist always run to blow it out?
|
|
|
18 Feb 2015, 18:11
|
#429
|
Propaganda Chief
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Under the Rainbow
Posts: 4,740
|
Re: R60 mid round turmoil
Quote:
Originally Posted by Krypton
It's pretty hard to play for fun with the tag size limits as they are. You're speaking from a purely elite perspective.
I would much rather the game brought some of the fun back into it by giving people to opportunity to play for fun by being able to create smaller tags with a group of friends, even taking on some others who are either new or returning to the game...without them being turned into farms.
The only way i see this happening is by a severe cut in the ally tag limits., because the mods aren't willing to make significant changes to the game. They've shown this for countless rounds. I probably wont be signing up again next round and if I do it'd be just an exceedingly idle planet again. Pointless really.
|
Why dont you just create your own little tag, or try join the smaller tags to get a feel of how it realy is?
Im sure ODDR would take you in next round, and im sure they can get up to 30 members.
They are a small group of old friends, lets you see how enjoyable it realy is after all?
With only 30 or less in each tag the chance of getting punished by solo waves are far higher than now. And getting roided dry is far easier than before by being targetted.
Back in the days the only chance of having allie def was if your gal was reporting your incs, with the new self report function PA has changed a lot.
__________________
RainbowS
RB Ely MISTU Angel Fusi0n 1up ToF VisioN CT FAnG ROCK
|
|
|
18 Feb 2015, 18:20
|
#430
|
Paso Leaute
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 919
|
Re: R60 mid round turmoil
Quote:
Originally Posted by BloodyButcher
With only 30 or less in each tag the chance of getting punished by solo waves are far higher than now. And getting roided dry is far easier than before by being targetted.
|
That surely is the very reason Krypton is advocating a reduction of all tag sizes rather than a voluntary decision by people to play in small tags. At least in theory if all tags are 30 they all suffer from the same problems.
Since, as you say, it is easier to roid a small tag dry then that just makes the situation much more fluid which is exactly what Krypton is advocating.
__________________
An optimist may see a light where there is none, but why must the pessimist always run to blow it out?
|
|
|
18 Feb 2015, 18:26
|
#431
|
KK
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 662
|
Re: R60 mid round turmoil
Yes, but apparently BB is back at his old self where he doesn't in fact read posts at all. Just highlights them and makes some sort of counter argument when in reality, he's just argued the very point I was making.
BB, I think you should just take a moment and read all posts carefully and thoroughly before posting, because your nonsense is really tiresome
|
|
|
18 Feb 2015, 18:28
|
#432
|
Propaganda Chief
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Under the Rainbow
Posts: 4,740
|
Re: R60 mid round turmoil
Quote:
Originally Posted by [B5]Londo
That surely is the very reason Krypton is advocating a reduction of all tag sizes rather than a voluntary decision by people to play in small tags. At least in theory if all tags are 30 they all suffer from the same problems.
Since, as you say, it is easier to roid a small tag dry then that just makes the situation much more fluid which is exactly what Krypton is advocating.
|
There is not enough active command to split all the top tags into two.
Unless you have run several alliances through your history of PA, you are not in any position to have any knowledge of how it is.
Id advice you to try it, start a fresh new alliance, have it run for 2 rounds, and then come back and tell us how it went.
__________________
RainbowS
RB Ely MISTU Angel Fusi0n 1up ToF VisioN CT FAnG ROCK
|
|
|
18 Feb 2015, 18:34
|
#433
|
KK
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 662
|
Re: R60 mid round turmoil
You dont even need active commanders if you are playing for fun BB. I wont be playing two more rounds of this nonsense while the admin team sit on their asses and do nothing
|
|
|
18 Feb 2015, 18:51
|
#434
|
Propaganda Chief
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Under the Rainbow
Posts: 4,740
|
Re: R60 mid round turmoil
Why arnt more people joining the "fun" tags where there is no active command, no tools, no organisation or anything?
I certainly have no clue what kind of game you think this would develop into
__________________
RainbowS
RB Ely MISTU Angel Fusi0n 1up ToF VisioN CT FAnG ROCK
|
|
|
18 Feb 2015, 18:58
|
#435
|
Retard0r
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Norway
Posts: 1,164
|
Re: R60 mid round turmoil
Smaller tags will lead to no less bashing. The "elite tags" will just nap and farm the rest, then war eachother when those playing for "fun" is no longer a potential threat(cause as you know, many would pose as harmless funseekers while being wolves in sheeps clothing). History will repeat itself.
You might say i'm seing this from an elite perspective, but take a look around. Most of us have played this game for years and years and are as such elite. I've played in small tags and big tags, elitist tags and n00b tags, and i've been everything between recruit and hc in most of them. My perspective is mine based on who i am, obviously, but there are lots of people that share that perspective. It's a competitive game, and playing for "fun" and discarding the fight for ranks makes you a minority. Truth.
__________________
-Chimpie
* We do not exist *
* G-II * NoS * VsN * Ascendancy * Osiris * xVx * Ultores *
|
|
|
18 Feb 2015, 20:01
|
#436
|
Registered User
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 1,386
|
Re: R60 mid round turmoil
Quote:
Originally Posted by Krypton
Who's crying? Why do you say this, im confused.
This is something I've wanted for 4 rounds now. It's boring. Why anyone thinks 60 is a reasonable limit is beyond me.
And hello Clouds, in case you didn't realise, the player base is already drastically shrinking. If everyone is subjected to a smaller tag limit, surely there will be a reduction in the 'farming' you speak of rather than an increase. I'm not sure anyone is still playing this round, just like the round before.
|
If the PA team implemented the smaller tag limit change, the player-base would shink even more and will probably result in the game closing the following round because players won't be able to play in their 'community' alliances. This game is still alive due to players being loyal to the game and most of all loyal to their alliance.
|
|
|
18 Feb 2015, 21:06
|
#437
|
Fightin-irish for life
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: guinness brewery
Posts: 2,177
|
Re: R60 mid round turmoil
Quote:
Originally Posted by Clouds
If the PA team implemented the smaller tag limit change, the player-base would shink even more and will probably result in the game closing the following round because players won't be able to play in their 'community' alliances. This game is still alive due to players being loyal to the game and most of all loyal to their alliance.
|
Lets call a spade a spade here, the vocal minority want higher tag numbers because they need the safety in numbers or they cant play properly!!!
A smaller universe should mean smaller tags and smaller galaxy's but the cry babies who can't play without their safety net will scream and shout to keep the status quo
__________________
Ascendancy, now with added Irish
"In the absence of orders, find something and kill it."
-Rommel
|
|
|
18 Feb 2015, 21:21
|
#438
|
Propaganda Chief
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Under the Rainbow
Posts: 4,740
|
Re: R60 mid round turmoil
Quote:
Originally Posted by gzambo
Lets call a spade a spade here, the vocal minority want higher tag numbers because they need the safety in numbers or they cant play properly!!!
A smaller universe should mean smaller tags and smaller galaxy's but the cry babies who can't play without their safety net will scream and shout to keep the status quo
|
Well you are correct on smaller galaxies.
Perhaps we should cut the galaxy size in two, 6-7 planets per gal, that would give 30 mans tags a better chance of doing good, so perhaps more people will go for smaller tags
__________________
RainbowS
RB Ely MISTU Angel Fusi0n 1up ToF VisioN CT FAnG ROCK
|
|
|
18 Feb 2015, 21:36
|
#439
|
a bucket
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Chatham, UK
Posts: 1,073
|
Re: R60 mid round turmoil
Quote:
Originally Posted by Clouds
If the PA team implemented the smaller tag limit change, the player-base would shink even more and will probably result in the game closing the following round because players won't be able to play in their 'community' alliances. This game is still alive due to players being loyal to the game and most of all loyal to their alliance.
|
If this is really your concern then you should be able to reduce tag sizes by around 5 per round. All alliances lose a few members each round - some such as p3n seem to lose around a third of their players each round. So a slow reduction would make little difference to anyone.
__________________
Proud to have been TGV!
aargh! died in Jenova! | idled in ROCK | disappointed in Audentes | been Roguish | p-p-previously a p-p-p3nguin
Ascendancy
Otterly an Otter.
|
|
|
18 Feb 2015, 22:18
|
#440
|
Propaganda Chief
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Under the Rainbow
Posts: 4,740
|
Re: R60 mid round turmoil
I actualy lost the point you were making out on how politics would improve with smaller tags.
This round, and last round alliances such as BF had no intention going for alliance win, therefor stagnating the round, how is this gonna improve with 30 man tags? Wouldnt it be more likely that a 30 man tag would go for planet ranks, in return of stagnating the round?
In bigger alliances there will always be a bigger portion who aint playing for planet ranks, but caring for alliance rank or for breaking down some other alliance, therefor the HCs usualy get pushed into doing what is best for their alliance(members) if they are gonna sustain a alliance over multiple rounds.
__________________
RainbowS
RB Ely MISTU Angel Fusi0n 1up ToF VisioN CT FAnG ROCK
|
|
|
19 Feb 2015, 00:14
|
#441
|
Paso Leaute
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 919
|
Re: R60 mid round turmoil
Quote:
Originally Posted by Clouds
If the PA team implemented the smaller tag limit change, the player-base would shink even more and will probably result in the game closing the following round because players won't be able to play in their 'community' alliances. This game is still alive due to players being loyal to the game and most of all loyal to their alliance.
|
I Believe that this has been proven wrong before:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mzyxptlk
I have not been able to find a correlation between alliance limit and number of people playing in alliances, nor between alliance limit and number of planets in the universe.
It's been a while since I last posted the graphs, so here they are:
http://s3.kkloud.com/gett/10qGRmE/to...ablpkz9f6r.png
http://s3.kkloud.com/gett/10qGRmE/av...qdt3k81tt9.png
Some comments:
All numbers are from round end.
The spikes in number of players rounds 16, 22, 27, and 44 (?) were due to free rounds. Round 30 was supposed to be the last round of PA. PA was bought by Pete before round 31 and by Jagex before round 38.
Alliance limit only shows total number of planets allowed in a tag, regardless of what the counting member limit was.
The "people in alliances" stat is really "number of people in alliances of >= 40 people" and "total alliances" is "number of alliances with >= 40 people"
"Average members" = "number of people in alliances >= 40 people" / "number of alliances with >= 40 people".
"Total" is total number of players. I think I disregarded planets without roids, but I can't be sure.
|
Unfortunately Mz's graphs no longer work for me but everyone should agree that Mz is always right anyway!
__________________
An optimist may see a light where there is none, but why must the pessimist always run to blow it out?
|
|
|
19 Feb 2015, 00:33
|
#442
|
The brother of Spammer
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Paisley - Scotland
Posts: 2,352
|
Re: R60 mid round turmoil
Quote:
Originally Posted by gzambo
Lets call a spade a spade here, the vocal minority want higher tag numbers because they need the safety in numbers or they cant play properly!!!
A smaller universe should mean smaller tags and smaller galaxy's but the cry babies who can't play without their safety net will scream and shout to keep the status quo
|
Gzambo makes a good point...
My experience of PA is the lengths some folk will go to avoid a roiding.
Def whoring (I recall a player called valle going from less than 10 def fleets in omega to top defender in ND),designer "private" galaxies, intel networks to find out landing ticks for prelaunching defence, "support planets" even ship stat manipulation for defensive stats.
The Problem with PA is that it is getting smaller and less new player friendly due to the cliques formed by the experienced players.
Quoting Sun Tzu (from the art of war)
"So the principles of warfare are: Do not depend on the enemy not coming, but depend on our readiness against him. Do not depend on the enemy not attacking, but depend on our position that cannot be attacked."
I get why top players will make their planet unroidable as possible as it makes tactical sense.
Game wise... what is needed is an incentive for a change in culture.
Although reading the changes with war with enemy alliances as per http://game.planetarion.com/manual.pl?page=changes
A step in the right direction but as evident by the politics this round not enough.
I don't think the carrot (incentive) is big enough to encourage war.
One suggestion I do have is having alliance Golden roids like give the orginal alliance a 10-15% mining bonus to all members but only a 5-7.5% mining bonus to the hostile alliance members that to encourage a "capture the flag" mentality instead of the FFA (free for all) it currently is that is called "NAPtarion"
(I'm aware this would need tweaking to avoid bottom feeding the top alliances)
(its been a while since we have had 2+ alliances that have had the hunger to go for the win using CTvAPP R40 as an example)
I'm hoping M0rph does go for more offensive stats than the current ones on the beta server. No offence Isilx but we don't need to use your stats ever again.
__________________
Missing Subh (r15-r18)
|
|
|
19 Feb 2015, 00:52
|
#443
|
Registered User
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 1,386
|
Re: R60 mid round turmoil
Quote:
Originally Posted by [B5]Londo
I Believe that this has been proven wrong before:
Unfortunately Mz's graphs no longer work for me but everyone should agree that Mz is always right anyway!
|
MZ's graphs doesn't have anything to do with my argument..
|
|
|
19 Feb 2015, 01:31
|
#444
|
Leader Of The Gang
Join Date: Aug 2014
Posts: 455
|
Re: R60 mid round turmoil
the reduction of tag sizes could only benefit such a small player base.. maybe reduce to 45 - 50 for a round and see how it goes..this wont effect the "house players" of alliances like CT,ND,HR ect.. and has the potential to create a few new alliances, I think it would be a great idea to reduce tag limits..but some will agree and disagree and nothing will be done about it so instead of ranting on i will end it there o/
__________________
Round 60 - Ultores - Rank 67th.
Round 75 - CT - Rank 19th - Galaxy Win.
Round 80 - Ultores - Rank 16th.
Round 81 - Ultores - Rank 73rd.
Round 83 - Ultores - Rank 16th.
Round 91 - Lucky7 - Rank 50th.
Round 92 - Lucky7 - Rank 39th.
|
|
|
19 Feb 2015, 02:14
|
#445
|
Error
Join Date: May 2003
Posts: 359
|
Re: R60 mid round turmoil
I know that for some reason gal setup have know this Way to play.
Can gal setup and/or univeerse clusters interaction change something that makes possíble alliances choice their start without the needing of checking stats?
The class of ships cant influence that much the future of Ana aliance
__________________
#braSilFTW
|
|
|
19 Feb 2015, 02:17
|
#446
|
Error
Join Date: May 2003
Posts: 359
|
Re: R60 mid round turmoil
The aliance that have good dcs can choice gov or something else that helps defending.
In other hand, offensive alliances Should be able to focus on att strats, gaining something in return
__________________
#braSilFTW
|
|
|
19 Feb 2015, 02:58
|
#447
|
Propaganda Chief
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Under the Rainbow
Posts: 4,740
|
Re: R60 mid round turmoil
Quote:
Originally Posted by Adapt
the reduction of tag sizes could only benefit such a small player base.. maybe reduce to 45 - 50 for a round and see how it goes..this wont effect the "house players" of alliances like CT,ND,HR ect.. and has the potential to create a few new alliances, I think it would be a great idea to reduce tag limits..but some will agree and disagree and nothing will be done about it so instead of ranting on i will end it there o/
|
There simply aint enough people with the knowledge, resources and time to set up alliances.
If there was, im sure we wouldve seen way more alliances popping up every round
__________________
RainbowS
RB Ely MISTU Angel Fusi0n 1up ToF VisioN CT FAnG ROCK
|
|
|
19 Feb 2015, 10:44
|
#448
|
mz.
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 8,587
|
Re: R60 mid round turmoil
__________________
The outraged poets threw sticks and rocks over the side of the bridge. They were all missing Mary and he felt a contented smug feeling wash over him. He would have given them a coy little wave if the roof hadn't collapsed just then. Mary then found himself in the middle of an understandably shocked family's kitchen table. So he gave them the coy little wave and realized it probably would have been more effective if he hadn't been lying on their turkey.
|
|
|
19 Feb 2015, 11:30
|
#449
|
KK
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 662
|
Re: R60 mid round turmoil
Lol ikr.
And BB, for the upteenth time, if you're playing in a more relaxed fun environment, you barely need officers other from setting up attacks etc - and you can do all that in game now...convenient really
|
|
|
19 Feb 2015, 11:38
|
#450
|
KK
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 662
|
Re: R60 mid round turmoil
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrunkenViking
Smaller tags will lead to no less bashing. The "elite tags" will just nap and farm the rest, then war eachother when those playing for "fun" is no longer a potential threat(cause as you know, many would pose as harmless funseekers while being wolves in sheeps clothing). History will repeat itself.
You might say i'm seing this from an elite perspective, but take a look around. Most of us have played this game for years and years and are as such elite. I've played in small tags and big tags, elitist tags and n00b tags, and i've been everything between recruit and hc in most of them. My perspective is mine based on who i am, obviously, but there are lots of people that share that perspective. It's a competitive game, and playing for "fun" and discarding the fight for ranks makes you a minority. Truth.
|
These elite tags - there only seems to be Ult, CT, P3ng or BF that could be classified as this (even though BF seems to play for Clouds PR). I'm pretty sure more relaxed alliances would avoid this tactic and even be open to working together to combat it - assuming that the PA team cant come up with resolutions themselves.
Regarding your last passage, I pretty much disagree. Yes there are a lot of people playing competitively - but that's more out of survival (coupled with nostalgia for the game) than enjoyment. In the current state, people simply cant play it for fun without it being all about MC's or getting farmed. If the state of play is level for everyone regarding tag size then you would see a lot more carefree attitude (ala Heroes) based alliances and would help attract people to the game. And this will help them find time to teach new players to in these small alliances. As it is, it's dog eat dog where the round is locked up in the first few ticks by political decisions. I dont see that happening if everyone was capped at 30 members
|
|
|
|
All times are GMT +1. The time now is 23:17.
| |