User Name
Password

Go Back   Planetarion Forums > Planetarion Related Forums > Planetarion Discussions

Reply
Thread Tools Display Modes
Unread 17 May 2010, 02:27   #201
Zotnam
Over the moon
Stans Ski Jumping Champion, Ollie Skates Champion, Sperm Wars Champion
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Deeeeenmark
Posts: 547
Zotnam has a brilliant futureZotnam has a brilliant futureZotnam has a brilliant futureZotnam has a brilliant futureZotnam has a brilliant futureZotnam has a brilliant futureZotnam has a brilliant futureZotnam has a brilliant futureZotnam has a brilliant futureZotnam has a brilliant futureZotnam has a brilliant future
Re: Alliance player limit

Certainly a topic that people care about with this many posts in a short time.. I've not read all of them, but I would like to see 30 man tags for a round, just to mix it up. Maybe a private gal round wouldn't be the best for that though, a full random round with it would be PHUN.

Anyway, I doubt 30/50 man tags would work since there are
a) not enough people willing/capable of hc'ing these tags

b) the bad tags will lose value/roids insanely quickly, and the good tags gain equally fast

c) should another alliance run away, it will take even more effort to organise a responds to counter them, this is already a very tedious process. (simply because you need to get more alliances involved)

All I can see happening in this scenario is an alliance like Apprime kicking everyone's ass, whoever they pick to nap will do reasonably well also and the rest will have a boring round. A truely fluent round with lots of quality small tags that has a chance of winning? Never going to happen sadly I'd be rather pro a "world cup" of sort with gals vs gals and fast ticks, but appoc said the speedgame server can't even support that so..
__________________
Golan - Ascendancy

Planets.
Zik: 3rd(r30), 4th(r52), 7th(r27), 9th(r26), 31st(r51)
Ter: 3rd(r50), 4th(r53), 4th(r37), 5th(r31) 7th (r58)
Xan: 3rd(r36), 40th(r57) 54th(r33), 104th(r29)
Cat: 8th (r54), 9th(r48), 12th (r55), 20th(r32), 77th(r23), 103rd(r38), 150th(r34), 152nd(r24),
Etd: 14th(r28)

Those damn emp races..
Zotnam is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 17 May 2010, 02:33   #202
Sun_Tzu
Arrogant Fck
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Helsinki, Finland
Posts: 1,031
Sun_Tzu is a glorious beacon of lightSun_Tzu is a glorious beacon of lightSun_Tzu is a glorious beacon of lightSun_Tzu is a glorious beacon of lightSun_Tzu is a glorious beacon of light
Re: Alliance player limit

Quote:
Originally Posted by HaNzI View Post
This is my list of 20 alliances that i think can operate in the same round if tags are only allowed 50 people. In this imaginary world, having all those tags on 50 members will certainly change this game a lot, especially politically. I am convinced that each individual will be nursed and treated more as a community member rather then one of the masses.

So many posters here forget what really matters. You need the customers to like this game enough to stay for another round, and currently the game is all about the metagame (communities and irc)

I therefore suggest a user-friendly approach to the alliance limit.
- Tag limit of 50
- Announce it as soon as possible so alliances have a lot of time to prepare.
- Increase the tag limit with a certain size every round, for instance allowing 55 members the following round. Given there are 20 functional alliances, everyone like it enough to stay in their tag, and noone gets kicked out, 100 new spots will be open for new or returning players.

The reason i believe in this system is because Planetarion is a business, depending on how much each individual wants to keep paying to play. No business get new customers, or keep their old ones, unless they get something in return. In this case they will leave if they are bored or bullied out. In a business, the most important thing is to expect an increase in customers, or keep all of your current ones. Changes has to be made according to the current amount of players, and then adjusted as the game grows.

A final point though, if any large changes are done at all, plan to stick with the changes for atleast 3 rounds so the playerbase can adapt.
Quote:
Originally Posted by HaNzI View Post
The point was that those alliance COULD exist, i am fully aware of that some are currently not existing, they couldnt with 100 man limit.
As I've stated earlier, 100 is an upper limit, there's nothing preventing any of the alliances you suggested from re-forming, assuming they wanted to do so, and recruiting as many members as they could convince to play for them. Some of them would indeed be able to poach members more easily from the top alliances than current tier2 alliances, and would be better capable of luring to them some of the players forced out of the top alliances if limits were reduced.

However, these alliances nor their leaders will magically appear and start forming these alliances, even if a change was announced and it was given several rounds to take effect. The leaders are gone, in most cases not because they lack followers, but because they have no interest in playing. If, for example, Jurgen decided he wanted to play with Dragons again, one word would get him close to 100 pm's with people asking to join him. The thing is, he's got fiancée and a career ahead of him, and even as it comes up again and again every time we have a Dragons meet, he's not going to return to PA in the foreseeable future. The story is the same for many others, this is just the one I know best.

Before I move on, I'd also point out that increasing the tag limit by 5 each round would not mean 100 new players, as some alliances would not be willing or able to recruit more players, especially as the majority of recruits available in a healthy game should be new players, not returning ones.

As to the business side of your argument, I understand it very well. It is, after all, the point behind my own argument. However, you seem more inclined to hold the current position by basing your argument around the current playerbase. A healthy game however needs new blood to grow, as people will leave even the best of games over time.

Now, it's not as simple as say making room for 100 new players each round, because not every new player will stick around. It's the Pareto principle, the vast majority contribute very little to any given activity, and a minority make up the vast majority of the contributions. In this case, successfully integrated players who stick around for multiple rounds are a part of that minority. You have to "lower" the bar so that becoming part of an alliance is a "lesser contribution", which is to say that it becomes a easier task and something which happens earlier during a players introduction to the game. This, incidentally, also means you need more space in the recruitment alliances, so they have more room to take on players who do not pan out.

Sorry, I need to do other stuff, I'll pick this up later if nobody else does.
__________________
[OLMIT] / [TreKronor]
Sun_Tzu is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 17 May 2010, 02:52   #203
HaNzI
Apprime Troll HC
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 853
HaNzI has a spectacular aura aboutHaNzI has a spectacular aura aboutHaNzI has a spectacular aura about
Re: Alliance player limit

Thats the thing, alliances that proves round after round they can not handle a big tag, recruit everyone who asks. I believe its better to not let them have more then 50, and the player can join a different tag with room, where he/she can be a priority.
__________________
My name is Troll Troll Troll, commander of the Troll forces of the north, General of the Felix Trolls, loyal servant to the troll emperor, Marcus Troll. Father to a troll son, husband to a troll wife. And I will have my troll vengeance, in this life or the next.
HaNzI is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 17 May 2010, 03:20   #204
Abort
Dumb Yankee
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 89
Abort has a little shameless behaviour in the past
Re: Alliance player limit

Quote:
Originally Posted by HaNzI View Post
Thats the thing, alliances that proves round after round they can not handle a big tag, recruit everyone who asks. I believe its better to not let them have more then 50, and the player can join a different tag with room, where he/she can be a priority.
You say this as if you have any idea what other allies are doing...

ND has tons of applicants... i say 40-70% actually get in. We get A LOT of no's.



And to your other post... I think it's VERY clear that 700 players could theoretically make 14, 50 man alliances. But have you put a shread of thought into how impossible that is? Not just anyone can start up an ally and sort a bot/webby/server in a week. That's one of the dumbest things i've read on this thread yet.

So ND had what... 92 members last round? Put in that 50 member limit and 42 member are left stranded, and would likely be our worst 42 members... You expect one of them to lead, organize, and "prepare" an alliance?

Please be serious in the rest of your posts... as I'm certain you must be joking around...
__________________
Abort is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 17 May 2010, 06:15   #205
Kaiba
Valle is my hero
 
Kaiba's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 2,569
Kaiba has much to be proud ofKaiba has much to be proud ofKaiba has much to be proud ofKaiba has much to be proud ofKaiba has much to be proud ofKaiba has much to be proud ofKaiba has much to be proud ofKaiba has much to be proud ofKaiba has much to be proud of
Re: Alliance player limit

altho HanZi's post is a bit of an ideal world scenerio wouldn't this overspill of ND members still be cobbled together into a semi decent allaince.

Also on the lack of HC's front, im always surprised on the vast number of HC's some alliances seems to have maybe by splitting down some of the bigger alliances some of these HC could come out of the shadows and run there own allies again as most have been intergrated into their current HCing structure after an alliance merger (ODDR has 6 HC's!!)

Probably a bit of an ideal world scenerio again but might solve some of the lack of HC's issues
Kaiba is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 17 May 2010, 07:14   #206
Membrivio
Leader of the Membrivians
Curveball Champion, Snowboard Slalom Champion, Sober Santa 2 Champion
 
Membrivio's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: The Netherlands
Posts: 412
Membrivio is a splendid one to beholdMembrivio is a splendid one to beholdMembrivio is a splendid one to beholdMembrivio is a splendid one to beholdMembrivio is a splendid one to beholdMembrivio is a splendid one to beholdMembrivio is a splendid one to behold
Re: Alliance player limit

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kaiba View Post
altho HanZi's post is a bit of an ideal world scenerio wouldn't this overspill of ND members still be cobbled together into a semi decent allaince.

Also on the lack of HC's front, im always surprised on the vast number of HC's some alliances seems to have maybe by splitting down some of the bigger alliances some of these HC could come out of the shadows and run there own allies again as most have been intergrated into their current HCing structure after an alliance merger (ODDR has 6 HC's!!)

Probably a bit of an ideal world scenerio again but might solve some of the lack of HC's issues
Indeed an ideal world scenario. For one, I used to be a (proud) HC of Orbit. We also had about 5 or 6 HC's. The reason for that is time management. People weren't able to or not willing to put in more than an X amount of time in HC'ing.
Nevertheless, Orbit collapsed. Simply due to the fact that these HC's made a contemplation (timecost vs utility) which showed to be negative for at least 3 of them.

So, from my experience this never is going to happen. Alliance HC's won't split their team to run another alliance. They will probably keep the same and spread teh workload some more. I think that is exactly the case in ODDR. Correct me if I am wrong ODDR people.

Another point that you make concerns cobbling down of members in an overspill situation. The question is: do these players wish to participate in another alliance than ND?

I am more and more reconsidering my earlier viewpoint, namely that limits should be set. I'm starting to see advantages to the 'no limit at all'-viewpoint.
__________________
R1-5: Unaffiliated / R19: Zik Union
R20-27 & 30-31 Orbit DC/BC/HC (Intelking!)
R29: Rock Member/Intel Officer
R35/36: p3nguins
R37: Evolution
R48: ODDR
R49: CT
[KB] [Mercenaries] [p0ny]

The intelligent man finds almost everything ridiculous, the sensible man hardly anything. (J.W. Goethe)
Membrivio is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 17 May 2010, 08:26   #207
t3k
Theoretical Scientist lol
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 1,275
t3k has a reputation beyond reputet3k has a reputation beyond reputet3k has a reputation beyond reputet3k has a reputation beyond reputet3k has a reputation beyond reputet3k has a reputation beyond reputet3k has a reputation beyond reputet3k has a reputation beyond reputet3k has a reputation beyond reputet3k has a reputation beyond reputet3k has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Alliance player limit

Quote:
Originally Posted by BigGayAl View Post
If any of you chaps that are against small tags can honestly say that you started out pro-small tags, but have since been dissuaded by these arguments.... I might eat my own words
Quote:
Originally Posted by Membrivio View Post
I am more and more reconsidering my earlier viewpoint, namely that limits should be set. I'm starting to see advantages to the 'no limit at all'-viewpoint.
I love it when a good plan comes together.

And, for the record, can I suggest that we write hanzi off as a lost cause on this particular matter? It's not that I have anything against him personally, it's just that - from experience - he rarely listens to anyone else's opinion, and it can get frustrating when he starts to repeat himself in different ways trying to get his own point through to people.
__________________
Writing lists and taking names.
t3k is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 17 May 2010, 14:05   #208
Sun_Tzu
Arrogant Fck
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Helsinki, Finland
Posts: 1,031
Sun_Tzu is a glorious beacon of lightSun_Tzu is a glorious beacon of lightSun_Tzu is a glorious beacon of lightSun_Tzu is a glorious beacon of lightSun_Tzu is a glorious beacon of light
Re: Alliance player limit

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kaiba View Post
Also on the lack of HC's front, im always surprised on the vast number of HC's some alliances seems to have maybe by splitting down some of the bigger alliances some of these HC could come out of the shadows and run there own allies again as most have been intergrated into their current HCing structure after an alliance merger (ODDR has 6 HC's!!)
Well, if you look at the structure of a well-rounded traditional alliance, they would ideally have the following:
-Military HC
-Political HC
-Intel HC
-Tech HC
-Internal Affairs HC

This is disregarding issues with timezones and such, so you may want to have additional HC's to ensure there's always someone around who has the authority to call the shots.

A good alliance also probably needs the following:
-2-5 BC's, depending on how the alliance structures attacks and the preferences of the Mil HC.
-4-6 DC's including one Head DC, to ensure constant coverage.
-3-4 Scanners/Cov-Oppers.

Now, that's a pretty hefty amount of people you would ideally want just to make sure a normal sized alliance runs smoothly. In reality, many alliances have to make do without some of these specialized HC functions, especially good Intel HC's have been extremely rare in the history of PA(I can name two, spanning a career of 10 years).

I'll gladly admit that some alliances have done very well with far less HC's and officers. However, these are usually some of the most skilled alliances, Asc being a prime example. There's hardly any need for officers and JBG is capable of filling most HC functions to the extent that they are needed, and there's no lack of capable people to step up if he doesn't.

Perhaps the most common "superhero officer" is the Head DC, and there have been several insanely good people who have basically DC'd a whole alliance. Some names that come to mind are Carnis (FAnG), IRVINE(FAnG), BaDD(VtS), Heartless(FAnG?), safe(Dragons), Tuhoaja(Dragons), JBG(Asc).

However, these people are all extremely rare on the grand scale, and they do not venture far out of the top alliances. For most alliances, there really isn't much choice but to run several hc's and a dozen or more officers, and even then most of them are really understaffed, often with people on the team who aren't pulling their weight.

If there were even more alliances, the level of leadership in each lower tier alliance would simply deteriorate further, eventually resulting in several of these alliances collapsing, much like what happened in PIA when the officers and HC were spread too thin.
__________________
[OLMIT] / [TreKronor]
Sun_Tzu is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 17 May 2010, 17:46   #209
HeimdallR
Registered User
 
HeimdallR's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Belgium
Posts: 671
HeimdallR is on a distinguished road
Re: Alliance player limit

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kaiba View Post
Also on the lack of HC's front, im always surprised on the vast number of HC's some alliances seems to have maybe by splitting down some of the bigger alliances some of these HC could come out of the shadows and run there own allies again as most have been intergrated into their current HCing structure after an alliance merger (ODDR has 6 HC's!!)
Well we do have 6 HC's, the reasons for this are.
The hc team of ODDR gets along very well and we agree on how to handle most things without even speaking to each other.
1.We currently hold 2 us/asian and 4 euro's as hc. Timezone can be a factor.
2.If one of the hc's can't be active for a round the alliance won't fall apart.
3.Spreading the workload: Well you try to keep yourself occupied with teaching 10-20 noobs the game and irc first two weeks of a round and if your unlucky half of those are really slow learners and it takes them a whole round. Then its always nice to have 5 others that can share the load of that.
4. hc's for def, politics, attacks, ....
5. anyways whats in a name?
__________________
At some point the world shits on everybody. Pretending it ain't shit makes you an idiot, not an optimist."

If life hands you lemons, drink more tequila

After the game is over the king and the pawn end up in the same box

HA - asc -rdm-asc-VR- #ODDR - APP
Finally retired
HeimdallR is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 17 May 2010, 18:19   #210
HeimdallR
Registered User
 
HeimdallR's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Belgium
Posts: 671
HeimdallR is on a distinguished road
Re: Alliance player limit

Secondly i have to say i can't be more proud of our HC squad.

The past ten rounds I've seen many new alliances fall apart by emoing or hc's not getting along anymore.
Most of those didn't survive past there 2nd round, while were going onto our 4th.
__________________
At some point the world shits on everybody. Pretending it ain't shit makes you an idiot, not an optimist."

If life hands you lemons, drink more tequila

After the game is over the king and the pawn end up in the same box

HA - asc -rdm-asc-VR- #ODDR - APP
Finally retired
HeimdallR is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 17 May 2010, 20:57   #211
Donar
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 278
Donar is just really niceDonar is just really niceDonar is just really niceDonar is just really nice
Re: Alliance player limit

your not wrong membrivio, and explained perfectly by HeimdallR the reason why we have 6.
__________________
HA-ND-EC-DLR-APP-ODDR-Kittenz-Carisan
Co founder ODDR
Donar is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 17 May 2010, 22:43   #212
Zotnam
Over the moon
Stans Ski Jumping Champion, Ollie Skates Champion, Sperm Wars Champion
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Deeeeenmark
Posts: 547
Zotnam has a brilliant futureZotnam has a brilliant futureZotnam has a brilliant futureZotnam has a brilliant futureZotnam has a brilliant futureZotnam has a brilliant futureZotnam has a brilliant futureZotnam has a brilliant futureZotnam has a brilliant futureZotnam has a brilliant futureZotnam has a brilliant future
Re: Alliance player limit

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sun_Tzu View Post
I'll gladly admit that some alliances have done very well with far less HC's and officers. However, these are usually some of the most skilled alliances, Asc being a prime example. There's hardly any need for officers and JBG is capable of filling most HC functions to the extent that they are needed, and there's no lack of capable people to step up if he doesn't.
There's no lack of capable people in both asc and apprime I imagine, there is however a lack of people willing to step up. I had serious issues last round finding someone to share duties with me as JBG was half active, and we ended up with quite many nights without organised attacks. In the end BlueArmy stepped in for some nights, but mainly because he was bored and had the time, not because of "a burning desire to contribute"
I honestly don't see anyone in ascendancy starting up a new alliance if we went to 30 man tags.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sun_Tzu View Post
Perhaps the most common "superhero officer" is the Head DC, and there have been several insanely good people who have basically DC'd a whole alliance. Some names that come to mind are Carnis (FAnG), IRVINE(FAnG), BaDD(VtS), Heartless(FAnG?), safe(Dragons), Tuhoaja(Dragons), JBG(Asc).
Meh, I've played with 4 on that list and there's only one I've been impressed with. Granted, maybe it wasn't in their most active rounds, but I don't think they are unique in anything else than the ability to spend so much time dc'ing. It's not THAT hard, with enough training and the right ships being offered, DC'ing a whole alliance is doable for anyone with a minimum of braincells.
__________________
Golan - Ascendancy

Planets.
Zik: 3rd(r30), 4th(r52), 7th(r27), 9th(r26), 31st(r51)
Ter: 3rd(r50), 4th(r53), 4th(r37), 5th(r31) 7th (r58)
Xan: 3rd(r36), 40th(r57) 54th(r33), 104th(r29)
Cat: 8th (r54), 9th(r48), 12th (r55), 20th(r32), 77th(r23), 103rd(r38), 150th(r34), 152nd(r24),
Etd: 14th(r28)

Those damn emp races..
Zotnam is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 18 May 2010, 00:21   #213
Sun_Tzu
Arrogant Fck
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Helsinki, Finland
Posts: 1,031
Sun_Tzu is a glorious beacon of lightSun_Tzu is a glorious beacon of lightSun_Tzu is a glorious beacon of lightSun_Tzu is a glorious beacon of lightSun_Tzu is a glorious beacon of light
Re: Alliance player limit

Quote:
Originally Posted by Zotnam View Post
Meh, I've played with 4 on that list and there's only one I've been impressed with. Granted, maybe it wasn't in their most active rounds, but I don't think they are unique in anything else than the ability to spend so much time dc'ing. It's not THAT hard, with enough training and the right ships being offered, DC'ing a whole alliance is doable for anyone with a minimum of braincells.
I assume the ones you know are JBG/Hearty/safe and...Tuhoaja? Well, safe really is a gem, worthless at playing his own planet, but his work for us back in PIA is some of the most impressive I've seen, and I've been on both ends of it as well. Hearty really is useless these days, but I love him anyway <3. And Tuhoaja hasn't really done much of note since the days he and Rhythm ran Dragons pretty much the two of them for a while.

Anyway, I guess the point is that not only do you need to have insane skill (if it were just skill, my list would have included Anaram and Monsen over most of those), you also need to have the time and the will to use it.

Besides, you're not fooling anyone Ministry-boy, not as if you've ever even heard of "defense"!
__________________
[OLMIT] / [TreKronor]
Sun_Tzu is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 18 May 2010, 00:28   #214
Knight Theamion
Miles Teg
 
Knight Theamion's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Dom City
Posts: 5,191
Knight Theamion is an inspiration to us all and we should try to be more like himKnight Theamion is an inspiration to us all and we should try to be more like himKnight Theamion is an inspiration to us all and we should try to be more like himKnight Theamion is an inspiration to us all and we should try to be more like himKnight Theamion is an inspiration to us all and we should try to be more like himKnight Theamion is an inspiration to us all and we should try to be more like himKnight Theamion is an inspiration to us all and we should try to be more like himKnight Theamion is an inspiration to us all and we should try to be more like himKnight Theamion is an inspiration to us all and we should try to be more like himKnight Theamion is an inspiration to us all and we should try to be more like himKnight Theamion is an inspiration to us all and we should try to be more like him
Re: Alliance player limit

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sun_Tzu View Post
Besides, you're not fooling anyone Ministry-boy, not as if you've ever even heard of "defense"!
That's the green stuff? While we send 3 of them red things?
__________________
Audentes Fortuna Iuvat
Knight Theamion is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 18 May 2010, 00:33   #215
ellonweb
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 401
ellonweb has a brilliant futureellonweb has a brilliant futureellonweb has a brilliant futureellonweb has a brilliant futureellonweb has a brilliant futureellonweb has a brilliant futureellonweb has a brilliant futureellonweb has a brilliant futureellonweb has a brilliant futureellonweb has a brilliant futureellonweb has a brilliant future
Re: Alliance player limit

megalulz

Well, I think it's safe to say the Ascendancy Troll Squad has successfully derailed this thread! Because that's what we do.

Ascendancy - destroying intellectual conversation since doing your mum last night.
ellonweb is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 18 May 2010, 01:12   #216
t3k
Theoretical Scientist lol
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 1,275
t3k has a reputation beyond reputet3k has a reputation beyond reputet3k has a reputation beyond reputet3k has a reputation beyond reputet3k has a reputation beyond reputet3k has a reputation beyond reputet3k has a reputation beyond reputet3k has a reputation beyond reputet3k has a reputation beyond reputet3k has a reputation beyond reputet3k has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Alliance player limit

d'you really think you're a part of the troll squad ell? I held you in such higher regard!
__________________
Writing lists and taking names.
t3k is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 18 May 2010, 04:46   #217
HeimdallR
Registered User
 
HeimdallR's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Belgium
Posts: 671
HeimdallR is on a distinguished road
Re: Alliance player limit

thread has gone off topic some time now, plz don't start a debate over QM and theory of relativity ever again.
Hard to follow for us simple minded folk
__________________
At some point the world shits on everybody. Pretending it ain't shit makes you an idiot, not an optimist."

If life hands you lemons, drink more tequila

After the game is over the king and the pawn end up in the same box

HA - asc -rdm-asc-VR- #ODDR - APP
Finally retired
HeimdallR is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 19 May 2010, 16:12   #218
Chancellor
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 5
Chancellor is an unknown quantity at this point
Re: Alliance player limit

Quote:
Originally Posted by Donar View Post
You know what's really retarded to assume people that become HC don't want more members. question is do we hand all the active people to 5 allies max with this 100 tag limit or distribute them amongst 10 alliance wich would be the case with a 50 tag limit.

We simply don't have the playerbase to go for 100 tag alliances except that and move on to a lower tag limit. What's happening now just annoys more players then you think not to mention it will become even harder to attack top 5 alliances or there planets. If it stays like this just take away XP so top 5 allies can go all for value and the rest won't be bothered to play this game anymore.
This is so true.

I consider myself a decent player, I am usually able to make some pretty excellent XP hits each round, even playing in one of the non top 5 alliances. During the second half of round 36, the only way I'd land was by teaming up with a top 5 alliance instead of my own people. Not because I had a badly designed fleet; there was simply too many defenders when attacking the top 5. I could attack a private one alliance galaxy with my entire alliance and still get 8 defenders on my single fleet on the wave I claimed on an equal-sized planet from a larger alliance. Defense pool in the top 5: simply too large.
Chancellor is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 19 May 2010, 19:06   #219
Sun_Tzu
Arrogant Fck
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Helsinki, Finland
Posts: 1,031
Sun_Tzu is a glorious beacon of lightSun_Tzu is a glorious beacon of lightSun_Tzu is a glorious beacon of lightSun_Tzu is a glorious beacon of lightSun_Tzu is a glorious beacon of light
Re: Alliance player limit

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chancellor View Post
This is so true.

I consider myself a decent player, I am usually able to make some pretty excellent XP hits each round, even playing in one of the non top 5 alliances. During the second half of round 36, the only way I'd land was by teaming up with a top 5 alliance instead of my own people. Not because I had a badly designed fleet; there was simply too many defenders when attacking the top 5. I could attack a private one alliance galaxy with my entire alliance and still get 8 defenders on my single fleet on the wave I claimed on an equal-sized planet from a larger alliance. Defense pool in the top 5: simply too large.
No...they simply have more value than you...

Should they perhaps be prohibited from growing? Don't bother, that's quite rhetorical, PA already does this by means of both HCT research and the extremely punishing way that roidcap is calced. Regardless, there's no reason to assume you should be able to attack a better alliance with more value and be allowed to land, just because you sent X amount of players fleets there. That's not a wargame, that's a sham, a farce, a joke.
__________________
[OLMIT] / [TreKronor]
Sun_Tzu is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 19 May 2010, 19:17   #220
Mzyxptlk
mz.
Space Invaders Champion, Alien Invasion Champion, Mosquito Kill Champion, Squid Hunter Champion, Tiger Punch Champion, Barts Watersports Adventure Champion
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 8,456
Mzyxptlk spreads love and joy to the forum in the same way Jesus wouldMzyxptlk spreads love and joy to the forum in the same way Jesus wouldMzyxptlk spreads love and joy to the forum in the same way Jesus wouldMzyxptlk spreads love and joy to the forum in the same way Jesus wouldMzyxptlk spreads love and joy to the forum in the same way Jesus wouldMzyxptlk spreads love and joy to the forum in the same way Jesus wouldMzyxptlk spreads love and joy to the forum in the same way Jesus wouldMzyxptlk spreads love and joy to the forum in the same way Jesus wouldMzyxptlk spreads love and joy to the forum in the same way Jesus wouldMzyxptlk spreads love and joy to the forum in the same way Jesus wouldMzyxptlk spreads love and joy to the forum in the same way Jesus would
Re: Alliance player limit

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sun_Tzu View Post
the extremely punishing way that roidcap is calced.
It's not all that punishing. You get 20% cap off planets 64% your score and 15% of planets 36% your score. That's barely worth mentioning.
__________________
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.
Mzyxptlk is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 19 May 2010, 20:09   #221
Sun_Tzu
Arrogant Fck
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Helsinki, Finland
Posts: 1,031
Sun_Tzu is a glorious beacon of lightSun_Tzu is a glorious beacon of lightSun_Tzu is a glorious beacon of lightSun_Tzu is a glorious beacon of lightSun_Tzu is a glorious beacon of light
Re: Alliance player limit

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mzyxptlk View Post
It's not all that punishing. You get 20% cap off planets 64% your score and 15% of planets 36% your score. That's barely worth mentioning.
Well, compared to how things used to work, it means any top value planet is going on reduced cap for pretty much the entire round, meaning you have to roid far fatter targets than smaller players just to maintain your roidlead.
__________________
[OLMIT] / [TreKronor]
Sun_Tzu is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 19 May 2010, 21:26   #222
Mzyxptlk
mz.
Space Invaders Champion, Alien Invasion Champion, Mosquito Kill Champion, Squid Hunter Champion, Tiger Punch Champion, Barts Watersports Adventure Champion
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 8,456
Mzyxptlk spreads love and joy to the forum in the same way Jesus wouldMzyxptlk spreads love and joy to the forum in the same way Jesus wouldMzyxptlk spreads love and joy to the forum in the same way Jesus wouldMzyxptlk spreads love and joy to the forum in the same way Jesus wouldMzyxptlk spreads love and joy to the forum in the same way Jesus wouldMzyxptlk spreads love and joy to the forum in the same way Jesus wouldMzyxptlk spreads love and joy to the forum in the same way Jesus wouldMzyxptlk spreads love and joy to the forum in the same way Jesus wouldMzyxptlk spreads love and joy to the forum in the same way Jesus wouldMzyxptlk spreads love and joy to the forum in the same way Jesus wouldMzyxptlk spreads love and joy to the forum in the same way Jesus would
Re: Alliance player limit

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sun_Tzu View Post
Well, compared to how things used to work, it means any top value planet is going on reduced cap for pretty much the entire round, meaning you have to roid far fatter targets than smaller players just to maintain your roidlead.
What.
__________________
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.
Mzyxptlk is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 19 May 2010, 21:33   #223
qebab
The Original Carebear
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Trondheim, Norway
Posts: 1,048
qebab is an inspiration to us all and we should try to be more like himqebab is an inspiration to us all and we should try to be more like himqebab is an inspiration to us all and we should try to be more like himqebab is an inspiration to us all and we should try to be more like himqebab is an inspiration to us all and we should try to be more like himqebab is an inspiration to us all and we should try to be more like himqebab is an inspiration to us all and we should try to be more like himqebab is an inspiration to us all and we should try to be more like himqebab is an inspiration to us all and we should try to be more like himqebab is an inspiration to us all and we should try to be more like himqebab is an inspiration to us all and we should try to be more like him
Re: Alliance player limit

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mzyxptlk View Post
What.
If he's referring to how roidcap worked in ******** when I played it, he's right that PA is a lot more punishing in that regard.

Can't recall exactly how it worked, but you could get 3 ticks with 20% roids each tick or something (So you could take like 49% roids off from one planet in one attack).

The crucial part of it though was that huge planets could send small fleets to roid since the calculation used defenders_score / attacking_fleet_score.
__________________
If at first you don't succeed, try, try again. Then quit. No use being a damn fool about it.

Oh crap, I might be back. I should take my own advice.
qebab is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 19 May 2010, 21:38   #224
Donar
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 278
Donar is just really niceDonar is just really niceDonar is just really niceDonar is just really nice
Re: Alliance player limit

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sun_Tzu View Post
No...they simply have more value than you...

Should they perhaps be prohibited from growing? Don't bother, that's quite rhetorical, PA already does this by means of both HCT research and the extremely punishing way that roidcap is calced. Regardless, there's no reason to assume you should be able to attack a better alliance with more value and be allowed to land, just because you sent X amount of players fleets there. That's not a wargame, that's a sham, a farce, a joke.
He's not talking about the planet having more value. He's talking about how attacking a planet that's in an alliance with twice the fleets is simply harder to hit because they simply have more deffleets. Neither does he says he should have to land it, but there should be a chance to do so. Every race tends to have a gaping hole that 1 or 2 other races can exploit even if your value is lower. Can't see that happen with the tag limit we have now

and the thing about roidcap is fairly good it seems. keeps the profit from attacking a lower ranked/value planet to a minumum. Although it hasn't stopped bashing completely.
__________________
HA-ND-EC-DLR-APP-ODDR-Kittenz-Carisan
Co founder ODDR
Donar is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 19 May 2010, 21:41   #225
Donar
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 278
Donar is just really niceDonar is just really niceDonar is just really niceDonar is just really nice
Re: Alliance player limit

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sun_Tzu View Post
Well, compared to how things used to work, it means any top value planet is going on reduced cap for pretty much the entire round, meaning you have to roid far fatter targets than smaller players just to maintain your roidlead.
Makes sense doesn't it, but then you might have to attack some friends in another alliance to gain more roids. or go up against bigger allies?

you scared they might have more deffleets then say any other alliance out of the top 5?
__________________
HA-ND-EC-DLR-APP-ODDR-Kittenz-Carisan
Co founder ODDR
Donar is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 19 May 2010, 21:59   #226
Sun_Tzu
Arrogant Fck
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Helsinki, Finland
Posts: 1,031
Sun_Tzu is a glorious beacon of lightSun_Tzu is a glorious beacon of lightSun_Tzu is a glorious beacon of lightSun_Tzu is a glorious beacon of lightSun_Tzu is a glorious beacon of light
Re: Alliance player limit

Quote:
Originally Posted by qebab View Post
The crucial part of it though was that huge planets could send small fleets to roid since the calculation used defenders_score / attacking_fleet_score.
Yes, exactly, and this for the record is how things used to work in PA too, assuming you were able to attack a planet, you were also able to send less value and therefor maximize your cap each time. Now, you get punished for having value, regardless what you use it for (meaning any and all def-fleet is technically doubly harmful for a planet trying for top ranks).
__________________
[OLMIT] / [TreKronor]
Sun_Tzu is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 19 May 2010, 22:08   #227
Sun_Tzu
Arrogant Fck
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Helsinki, Finland
Posts: 1,031
Sun_Tzu is a glorious beacon of lightSun_Tzu is a glorious beacon of lightSun_Tzu is a glorious beacon of lightSun_Tzu is a glorious beacon of lightSun_Tzu is a glorious beacon of light
Re: Alliance player limit

Quote:
Originally Posted by Donar View Post
He's not talking about the planet having more value. He's talking about how attacking a planet that's in an alliance with twice the fleets is simply harder to hit because they simply have more deffleets. Neither does he says he should have to land it, but there should be a chance to do so. Every race tends to have a gaping hole that 1 or 2 other races can exploit even if your value is lower. Can't see that happen with the tag limit we have now
See my previous debunking of this claim. Number of fleets means nothing, only the total value available or indeed used means anything. The way you guys are going on about fleets, it's as if you think a 500k fleet is as useful as a 1mil value fleet. Newsflash, one of those numbers is bigger than the other, and even if you take two of the first, you're still at no advantage towards the second.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Donar View Post
Makes sense doesn't it, but then you might have to attack some friends in another alliance to gain more roids. or go up against bigger allies?

you scared they might have more deffleets then say any other alliance out of the top 5?
Let's just say you don't really know who you're talking to, I'm not really big on hitting anyone who isn't in the top100 most of the round. Regardless, a high ranked planet, say top10 value, can't get a maxcap off pretty much anyone in the top100. Yes, that means they are being penalized even for attacking some of the biggest players in the top tier alliances. Does that make sense? Because it sure as hell doesn't make any sense to me.
__________________
[OLMIT] / [TreKronor]
Sun_Tzu is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 19 May 2010, 22:37   #228
Mzyxptlk
mz.
Space Invaders Champion, Alien Invasion Champion, Mosquito Kill Champion, Squid Hunter Champion, Tiger Punch Champion, Barts Watersports Adventure Champion
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 8,456
Mzyxptlk spreads love and joy to the forum in the same way Jesus wouldMzyxptlk spreads love and joy to the forum in the same way Jesus wouldMzyxptlk spreads love and joy to the forum in the same way Jesus wouldMzyxptlk spreads love and joy to the forum in the same way Jesus wouldMzyxptlk spreads love and joy to the forum in the same way Jesus wouldMzyxptlk spreads love and joy to the forum in the same way Jesus wouldMzyxptlk spreads love and joy to the forum in the same way Jesus wouldMzyxptlk spreads love and joy to the forum in the same way Jesus wouldMzyxptlk spreads love and joy to the forum in the same way Jesus wouldMzyxptlk spreads love and joy to the forum in the same way Jesus wouldMzyxptlk spreads love and joy to the forum in the same way Jesus would
Re: Alliance player limit

Life should be harder at the top. This capping formula is a far cry from what I would've implemented, given the chance: cap% = 30 * e ^ ( -2 * (value_ratio - 1.25) ^ 2 ).

ratio -> cap%
1.25 -> 30%
0.95 -> 25%
0.80 -> 20%
0.66 -> 15%
__________________
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.
Mzyxptlk is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 19 May 2010, 23:13   #229
Sun_Tzu
Arrogant Fck
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Helsinki, Finland
Posts: 1,031
Sun_Tzu is a glorious beacon of lightSun_Tzu is a glorious beacon of lightSun_Tzu is a glorious beacon of lightSun_Tzu is a glorious beacon of lightSun_Tzu is a glorious beacon of light
Re: Alliance player limit

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mzyxptlk View Post
Life should be harder at the top.
Per definition, it is, because you're already being forced to attack mostly higher ranked players, because of your bash limit.
__________________
[OLMIT] / [TreKronor]
Sun_Tzu is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 20 May 2010, 04:48   #230
qebab
The Original Carebear
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Trondheim, Norway
Posts: 1,048
qebab is an inspiration to us all and we should try to be more like himqebab is an inspiration to us all and we should try to be more like himqebab is an inspiration to us all and we should try to be more like himqebab is an inspiration to us all and we should try to be more like himqebab is an inspiration to us all and we should try to be more like himqebab is an inspiration to us all and we should try to be more like himqebab is an inspiration to us all and we should try to be more like himqebab is an inspiration to us all and we should try to be more like himqebab is an inspiration to us all and we should try to be more like himqebab is an inspiration to us all and we should try to be more like himqebab is an inspiration to us all and we should try to be more like him
Re: Alliance player limit

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sun_Tzu View Post
Yes, exactly, and this for the record is how things used to work in PA too, assuming you were able to attack a planet, you were also able to send less value and therefor maximize your cap each time. Now, you get punished for having value, regardless what you use it for (meaning any and all def-fleet is technically doubly harmful for a planet trying for top ranks).
I wouldn't actually agree with it being doubly harmful. Or actually, in a way I do - but I think it gets outweighed by the fact that a more defensive fleet will make you a less desirable target. I'd argue that Ascendancy won a round (The one that lasted forever) because near the end with so many people building really defensive fleets we were just the most horrible targets ever.

I think it works better like this with 1-tick attacks. However I really quite miss 3-tick attacks sometimes, it gave you more room to play around with different tactics. On the other hand planetarion now is really a better game in itself than what ******** ever was, the fact that I enjoyed it less is largely related to circumstances partially outside PA-teams control.
__________________
If at first you don't succeed, try, try again. Then quit. No use being a damn fool about it.

Oh crap, I might be back. I should take my own advice.
qebab is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 20 May 2010, 11:29   #231
Sun_Tzu
Arrogant Fck
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Helsinki, Finland
Posts: 1,031
Sun_Tzu is a glorious beacon of lightSun_Tzu is a glorious beacon of lightSun_Tzu is a glorious beacon of lightSun_Tzu is a glorious beacon of lightSun_Tzu is a glorious beacon of light
Re: Alliance player limit

Quote:
Originally Posted by qebab View Post
I wouldn't actually agree with it being doubly harmful. Or actually, in a way I do - but I think it gets outweighed by the fact that a more defensive fleet will make you a less desirable target. I'd argue that Ascendancy won a round (The one that lasted forever) because near the end with so many people building really defensive fleets we were just the most horrible targets ever.

I think it works better like this with 1-tick attacks. However I really quite miss 3-tick attacks sometimes, it gave you more room to play around with different tactics. On the other hand planetarion now is really a better game in itself than what ******** ever was, the fact that I enjoyed it less is largely related to circumstances partially outside PA-teams control.
I tend to agree about 3 tick attacks, but for a different reason, I just think the workload required to DC has gone out of hand with waves showing up every 1h.

And I didn't mean to imply that you considered it double harmful, that's just my point of view, that from a offensive standpoint it's a double penalty. Naturally, a defense fleet has other benefits, but as it is the game skews towards one style of play because of the mechanics, and that's never a good thing. People should be mostly free to play in a way which is most enjoyable to them, so long as it doesn't completely ruin the enjoyment for all others.
__________________
[OLMIT] / [TreKronor]
Sun_Tzu is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 20 May 2010, 12:09   #232
Mzyxptlk
mz.
Space Invaders Champion, Alien Invasion Champion, Mosquito Kill Champion, Squid Hunter Champion, Tiger Punch Champion, Barts Watersports Adventure Champion
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 8,456
Mzyxptlk spreads love and joy to the forum in the same way Jesus wouldMzyxptlk spreads love and joy to the forum in the same way Jesus wouldMzyxptlk spreads love and joy to the forum in the same way Jesus wouldMzyxptlk spreads love and joy to the forum in the same way Jesus wouldMzyxptlk spreads love and joy to the forum in the same way Jesus wouldMzyxptlk spreads love and joy to the forum in the same way Jesus wouldMzyxptlk spreads love and joy to the forum in the same way Jesus wouldMzyxptlk spreads love and joy to the forum in the same way Jesus wouldMzyxptlk spreads love and joy to the forum in the same way Jesus wouldMzyxptlk spreads love and joy to the forum in the same way Jesus wouldMzyxptlk spreads love and joy to the forum in the same way Jesus would
Re: Alliance player limit

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sun_Tzu View Post
Per definition, it is, because you're already being forced to attack mostly higher ranked players, because of your bash limit.
What value based capping does is reduce the rate at which roids move up the tiers. Nothing more, nothing less. This reduces value inequality, but does by no means nullify the advantage that high ranked players have, if only because they will always have an easier time roiding lower ranked players than the other way around.

Even with VB capping, higher ranked players naturally tend to avoid each other unless responding to alliance pressure (war is bad for planet ranks). Without VB capping, high ranked players would avoid each other even more, because the odds of landing on high ranked players are lower and large teamups yield fewer roids than noob roiding would.

As for the bashlimit, it's so low that a player ranked in the top 20 can roid planets in the top 300 for much of the round. Were the capping formule more like the one I gave, I'd suggest removing it altogether (thought that'd leave an issue with SK'ing that needs solving).
__________________
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.
Mzyxptlk is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 20 May 2010, 13:43   #233
Sun_Tzu
Arrogant Fck
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Helsinki, Finland
Posts: 1,031
Sun_Tzu is a glorious beacon of lightSun_Tzu is a glorious beacon of lightSun_Tzu is a glorious beacon of lightSun_Tzu is a glorious beacon of lightSun_Tzu is a glorious beacon of light
Re: Alliance player limit

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mzyxptlk View Post
What value based capping does is reduce the rate at which roids move up the tiers. Nothing more, nothing less. This reduces value inequality, but does by no means nullify the advantage that high ranked players have, if only because they will always have an easier time roiding lower ranked players than the other way around.

Even with VB capping, higher ranked players naturally tend to avoid each other unless responding to alliance pressure (war is bad for planet ranks). Without VB capping, high ranked players would avoid each other even more, because the odds of landing on high ranked players are lower and large teamups yield fewer roids than noob roiding would.

As for the bashlimit, it's so low that a player ranked in the top 20 can roid planets in the top 300 for much of the round. Were the capping formule more like the one I gave, I'd suggest removing it altogether (thought that'd leave an issue with SK'ing that needs solving).
You do also realize that if the cap formulae were not this retarded VB-capping, top players would grow faster and grow out of the range of hitting top300 players much faster. So...yeah...nice solution and all.

Other great unintended consequences of this retarded crap: Taking chances is less rewarded, making it even more important for top players to avoid attacking other top players, because they'll just reduce their cap further and piss off people whom they can't then get a decent value lead on, so they'll be left exposed.
__________________
[OLMIT] / [TreKronor]
Sun_Tzu is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 20 May 2010, 14:18   #234
Mzyxptlk
mz.
Space Invaders Champion, Alien Invasion Champion, Mosquito Kill Champion, Squid Hunter Champion, Tiger Punch Champion, Barts Watersports Adventure Champion
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 8,456
Mzyxptlk spreads love and joy to the forum in the same way Jesus wouldMzyxptlk spreads love and joy to the forum in the same way Jesus wouldMzyxptlk spreads love and joy to the forum in the same way Jesus wouldMzyxptlk spreads love and joy to the forum in the same way Jesus wouldMzyxptlk spreads love and joy to the forum in the same way Jesus wouldMzyxptlk spreads love and joy to the forum in the same way Jesus wouldMzyxptlk spreads love and joy to the forum in the same way Jesus wouldMzyxptlk spreads love and joy to the forum in the same way Jesus wouldMzyxptlk spreads love and joy to the forum in the same way Jesus wouldMzyxptlk spreads love and joy to the forum in the same way Jesus wouldMzyxptlk spreads love and joy to the forum in the same way Jesus would
Re: Alliance player limit

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sun_Tzu View Post
You do also realize that if the cap formulae were not this retarded VB-capping, top players would grow faster and grow out of the range of hitting top300 players much faster. So...yeah...nice solution and all.
Considering how few top players there are every round, I doubt that has such a big impact. I agree that a lower value inequality leads to more potential attackers for top 300 planets, but these are a small minority. This should be easily compensated by the reduced cap for higher ranked planets.

I'd be more comfortable with that statement if I had some data to back it up, but I think we can both agree that politics plays a significant role in changes in value inequality between rounds (ie, between pre-VB rounds and post-VB rounds).

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sun_Tzu View Post
Other great unintended consequences of this retarded crap: Taking chances is less rewarded, making it even more important for top players to avoid attacking other top players, because they'll just reduce their cap further and piss off people whom they can't then get a decent value lead on, so they'll be left exposed.
Taking chances is not a good long-term strategy anyway, and every single value player out there knows it. Furthermore, in the majority of cases, you can predict with near-certainty whether or not a land is worth it, given willingness to research the recent behaviour of the target and defenders. Were I to guess, I'd say about 15% of attacks encounter potential fake defence, most of which can be figured out prior to landing.

By the way, which is it? Does VB capping make the game harder for top planets or lower ranked planets?
__________________
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.
Mzyxptlk is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 20 May 2010, 16:22   #235
Sun_Tzu
Arrogant Fck
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Helsinki, Finland
Posts: 1,031
Sun_Tzu is a glorious beacon of lightSun_Tzu is a glorious beacon of lightSun_Tzu is a glorious beacon of lightSun_Tzu is a glorious beacon of lightSun_Tzu is a glorious beacon of light
Re: Alliance player limit

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mzyxptlk View Post
By the way, which is it? Does VB capping make the game harder for top planets or lower ranked planets?
It was your argument that it forces top players to attack bigger targets. My argument is that it keeps them longer in range to feed on smaller planets and promotes risk aversion, so in effect it does the exact opposite of what it was intended to do.

And stop trolling, life's not binary, almost everything has both positive and negative effects, such as making it easier to bottom feed but harder to run away in value. My issue is that it promotes promotes one style of play over others and tries to artificially manipulate the rankings, which is hardly ever a good idea. Instead of trying to find an actual fix for bashing (the solutions already existed, I know because I helped formulate them), they went with a fix which actually punished efficient play more so than anything else.

Oh, and just because you're chicken-shit scared of attacking bigger planets, doesn't mean some of us haven't been actively doing just that, going back nearly as far as this game is old.
__________________
[OLMIT] / [TreKronor]
Sun_Tzu is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 20 May 2010, 17:26   #236
Mzyxptlk
mz.
Space Invaders Champion, Alien Invasion Champion, Mosquito Kill Champion, Squid Hunter Champion, Tiger Punch Champion, Barts Watersports Adventure Champion
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 8,456
Mzyxptlk spreads love and joy to the forum in the same way Jesus wouldMzyxptlk spreads love and joy to the forum in the same way Jesus wouldMzyxptlk spreads love and joy to the forum in the same way Jesus wouldMzyxptlk spreads love and joy to the forum in the same way Jesus wouldMzyxptlk spreads love and joy to the forum in the same way Jesus wouldMzyxptlk spreads love and joy to the forum in the same way Jesus wouldMzyxptlk spreads love and joy to the forum in the same way Jesus wouldMzyxptlk spreads love and joy to the forum in the same way Jesus wouldMzyxptlk spreads love and joy to the forum in the same way Jesus wouldMzyxptlk spreads love and joy to the forum in the same way Jesus wouldMzyxptlk spreads love and joy to the forum in the same way Jesus would
Re: Alliance player limit

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sun_Tzu View Post
It was your argument that it forces top players to attack bigger targets. My argument is that it keeps them longer in range to feed on smaller planets and promotes risk aversion, so in effect it does the exact opposite of what it was intended to do.

And stop trolling, life's not binary, almost everything has both positive and negative effects, such as making it easier to bottom feed but harder to run away in value. My issue is that it promotes promotes one style of play over others and tries to artificially manipulate the rankings, which is hardly ever a good idea. Instead of trying to find an actual fix for bashing (the solutions already existed, I know because I helped formulate them), they went with a fix which actually punished efficient play more so than anything else.
It seems like the latest trend on the PA forums to accuse everyone you disagree with of trolling. The implication of it is that you're calling me dishonest, and you know me better than that.

Life is not binary and neither is PA. However, the only direct result VB capping has is that it makes attacking down the food chain less effective by reducing the profits of such. A logical result of this is that value is distributed more equally, which increases the number of potential targets for most planets. This is all known information.

I think we can also agree that this has not got a lot of influence on the actual rankings. Bad players will still perform badly, just not as badly. Good players will still perform well, just not as well. It's the step size between ranks that changes, not the ranks themselves.

I would argue that in the exchange of an increased number of targets for highly ranked planets, for lower capping off small targets, the smaller players have the better deal. There are very few planets that cannot target top 300 planets. The number of fleets they can bring to bear, though impressive in size, is very low. Meanwhile, the cap of each of those fleets is reduced significantly.

So even if you're right, even if this formula encourages bashing (which I still disagree with), then the smaller planets still come out ahead. Which is exactly what this formula was intended to do.

As for your argument about risk aversion, you have so far not countered my arguments against them.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sun_Tzu View Post
Oh, and just because you're chicken-shit scared of attacking bigger planets, doesn't mean some of us haven't been actively doing just that, going back nearly as far as this game is old.
Surely you can do better than inaccurate ad hominem?
__________________
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.
Mzyxptlk is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 20 May 2010, 17:53   #237
Sun_Tzu
Arrogant Fck
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Helsinki, Finland
Posts: 1,031
Sun_Tzu is a glorious beacon of lightSun_Tzu is a glorious beacon of lightSun_Tzu is a glorious beacon of lightSun_Tzu is a glorious beacon of lightSun_Tzu is a glorious beacon of light
Re: Alliance player limit

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mzyxptlk View Post
It seems like the latest trend on the PA forums to accuse everyone you disagree with of trolling. The implication of it is that you're calling me dishonest, and you know me better than that.

Life is not binary and neither is PA. However, the only direct result VB capping has is that it makes attacking down the food chain less effective by reducing the profits of such. A logical result of this is that value is distributed more equally, which increases the number of potential targets for most planets. This is all known information.

I think we can also agree that this has not got a lot of influence on the actual rankings. Bad players will still perform badly, just not as badly. Good players will still perform well, just not as well. It's the step size between ranks that changes, not the ranks themselves.

I would argue that in the exchange of an increased number of targets for highly ranked planets, for lower capping off small targets, the smaller players have the better deal. There are very few planets that cannot target top 300 planets. The number of fleets they can bring to bear, though impressive in size, is very low. Meanwhile, the cap of each of those fleets is reduced significantly.

So even if you're right, even if this formula encourages bashing (which I still disagree with), then the smaller planets still come out ahead. Which is exactly what this formula was intended to do.

As for your argument about risk aversion, you have so far not countered my arguments against them.
Risk is a matter of expectancy, if you lower the rewards for taking risks, which in effect this does because it lowers the cap for a top players against almost all targets, coupled with a xp formulae which doesn't benefit them, means their interest is to go for the lowest risk roids at all costs. Further, there's no reward in managing to get those higher risk roids, because you're only further decreasing your potential cap for the future, so in effect the only targeting that makes sense in the long run is to throw your entire fleet at smaller players, ensuring low risk, low skill, low yield play.

Further, I accused you of being a troll, because you know better than to actually think there were only two possible answers to your question.

And your argument about higher ranked players avoiding each other was a bullshit generalization, as clearly there have been several players who did not engage in bash-tactics even before VB-capping or XP. The activity itself was rewarding, where as now it is discouraged.
__________________
[OLMIT] / [TreKronor]
Sun_Tzu is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 20 May 2010, 18:07   #238
Donar
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 278
Donar is just really niceDonar is just really niceDonar is just really niceDonar is just really nice
Re: Alliance player limit

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sun_Tzu View Post
See my previous debunking of this claim. Number of fleets means nothing, only the total value available or indeed used means anything. The way you guys are going on about fleets, it's as if you think a 500k fleet is as useful as a 1mil value fleet. Newsflash, one of those numbers is bigger than the other, and even if you take two of the first, you're still at no advantage towards the second.



Let's just say you don't really know who you're talking to, I'm not really big on hitting anyone who isn't in the top100 most of the round. Regardless, a high ranked planet, say top10 value, can't get a maxcap off pretty much anyone in the top100. Yes, that means they are being penalized even for attacking some of the biggest players in the top tier alliances. Does that make sense? Because it sure as hell doesn't make any sense to me.
Seeing he was talking about same sized planets valuewise i think you need to read it again. and deffleets do help, offcourse more value helps aswell but that's beside the point here. an ally with 100 members will always have more value for def then an ally with 40.

i'm usually never top 100 and always attack top 100, every fleet has it's failings even top 100 planets. About the maxcap, well it serves to protect the little guys, if only 10 planets are effected won't be much of a problem.
__________________
HA-ND-EC-DLR-APP-ODDR-Kittenz-Carisan
Co founder ODDR
Donar is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 20 May 2010, 18:09   #239
Sun_Tzu
Arrogant Fck
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Helsinki, Finland
Posts: 1,031
Sun_Tzu is a glorious beacon of lightSun_Tzu is a glorious beacon of lightSun_Tzu is a glorious beacon of lightSun_Tzu is a glorious beacon of lightSun_Tzu is a glorious beacon of light
Re: Alliance player limit

Quote:
Originally Posted by Donar View Post
Seeing he was talking about same sized planets valuewise i think you need to read it again. and deffleets do help, offcourse more value helps aswell but that's beside the point here. an ally with 100 members will always have more value for def then an ally with 40.

i'm usually never top 100 and always attack top 100, every fleet has it's failings even top 100 planets. About the maxcap, well it serves to protect the little guys, if only 10 planets are effected won't be much of a problem.
Nice complete failure to comprehend the discussion at hand. And you're pretty much wrong on every account.
__________________
[OLMIT] / [TreKronor]
Sun_Tzu is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 20 May 2010, 18:16   #240
Donar
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 278
Donar is just really niceDonar is just really niceDonar is just really niceDonar is just really nice
Re: Alliance player limit

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sun_Tzu View Post
Nice complete failure to comprehend the discussion at hand. And you're pretty much wrong on every account.
no your wrong.
__________________
HA-ND-EC-DLR-APP-ODDR-Kittenz-Carisan
Co founder ODDR
Donar is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 20 May 2010, 18:42   #241
Sun_Tzu
Arrogant Fck
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Helsinki, Finland
Posts: 1,031
Sun_Tzu is a glorious beacon of lightSun_Tzu is a glorious beacon of lightSun_Tzu is a glorious beacon of lightSun_Tzu is a glorious beacon of lightSun_Tzu is a glorious beacon of light
Re: Alliance player limit

Quote:
Originally Posted by Donar View Post
Seeing he was talking about same sized planets valuewise i think you need to read it again. and deffleets do help, offcourse more value helps aswell but that's beside the point here. an ally with 100 members will always have more value for def then an ally with 40.

i'm usually never top 100 and always attack top 100, every fleet has it's failings even top 100 planets. About the maxcap, well it serves to protect the little guys, if only 10 planets are effected won't be much of a problem.
-More fleet without more value doesn't help, see earlier in this thread.
-If the issue is more value and not more fleets, then stop talking about alliance sizes.
-An alliance of the top40 players in the game will most likely have more value than an alliance of 100 players picked randomly from the top300.
-The VB-cap doesn't protect smaller players, it encourages bigger players to be risk averse, attack smaller targets and use larger fleets, because there's a penalty on intelligent play. The VB cap encourages sending more value on fewer targets, where as in the past it was feasible for a well organized and efficient team to take on a equivalent size opponent, now they are less capable of doing so.
__________________
[OLMIT] / [TreKronor]
Sun_Tzu is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 20 May 2010, 18:51   #242
Mzyxptlk
mz.
Space Invaders Champion, Alien Invasion Champion, Mosquito Kill Champion, Squid Hunter Champion, Tiger Punch Champion, Barts Watersports Adventure Champion
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 8,456
Mzyxptlk spreads love and joy to the forum in the same way Jesus wouldMzyxptlk spreads love and joy to the forum in the same way Jesus wouldMzyxptlk spreads love and joy to the forum in the same way Jesus wouldMzyxptlk spreads love and joy to the forum in the same way Jesus wouldMzyxptlk spreads love and joy to the forum in the same way Jesus wouldMzyxptlk spreads love and joy to the forum in the same way Jesus wouldMzyxptlk spreads love and joy to the forum in the same way Jesus wouldMzyxptlk spreads love and joy to the forum in the same way Jesus wouldMzyxptlk spreads love and joy to the forum in the same way Jesus wouldMzyxptlk spreads love and joy to the forum in the same way Jesus wouldMzyxptlk spreads love and joy to the forum in the same way Jesus would
Re: Alliance player limit

If you read my post, you'll notice that even if the assumption of increased bashing is true, smaller players are still better off with VB capping. You are not responding to my line of reasoning. If you feel my arguments are flawed, point out how, instead of copy pasting the same rhetoric over and over again.

There is only one question here that I'm fundamentally interested in: does VB capping reduce the impact of bashing? This has my interest because the point at which most players quit is not when they're top 10 and get bored of attacking top 300 planets. It's when they're barely top 1000 and get bashed to oblivion every night. VB capping ensures that even if they get more incomings (which is still an assertion I have seen no evidence for), they still lose less than without VB capping.

Nothing you've said so far appears to lead to a negative answer to my fundamental question (which, by the way, really does have only two answers).

As for people who didn't bash in the first place, for them, VB capping changes very little, because their targets are big enough that VB capping has very little influence. That is the mathematical nature of the formula used.

On a sidenote, I would be a fool if I weren't willing to consider alternate approaches to reaching the same goal. Your earlier post seemed to indicate that you had one. If so, I would be glad to hear it.
__________________
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.
Mzyxptlk is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 20 May 2010, 19:32   #243
Sun_Tzu
Arrogant Fck
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Helsinki, Finland
Posts: 1,031
Sun_Tzu is a glorious beacon of lightSun_Tzu is a glorious beacon of lightSun_Tzu is a glorious beacon of lightSun_Tzu is a glorious beacon of lightSun_Tzu is a glorious beacon of light
Re: Alliance player limit

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mzyxptlk View Post
If you read my post, you'll notice that even if the assumption of increased bashing is true, smaller players are still better off with VB capping. You are not responding to my line of reasoning. If you feel my arguments are flawed, point out how, instead of copy pasting the same rhetoric over and over again.

There is only one question here that I'm fundamentally interested in: does VB capping reduce the impact of bashing? This has my interest because the point at which most players quit is not when they're top 10 and get bored of attacking top 300 planets. It's when they're barely top 1000 and get bashed to oblivion every night. VB capping ensures that even if they get more incomings (which is still an assertion I have seen no evidence for), they still lose less than without VB capping.

Nothing you've said so far appears to lead to a negative answer to my fundamental question (which, by the way, really does have only two answers).

As for people who didn't bash in the first place, for them, VB capping changes very little, because their targets are big enough that VB capping has very little influence. That is the mathematical nature of the formula used.

On a sidenote, I would be a fool if I weren't willing to consider alternate approaches to reaching the same goal. Your earlier post seemed to indicate that you had one. If so, I would be glad to hear it.
It's not a closed ended question because the answer is not on a single spectrum. Your question was a False Dilemma.

Now, where as it is true that VB-cap does fix the incentive to send the old style of bash+roid fleets, it has instead reduced it to simply sending a bash and roid fleet. In effect, there is no benefit to the smaller player, as the attacker has no incentive to send any more proportional fleets than they did under the bash+roid strategy. In fact, it encourages everyone to send larger fleets, as opposed to proportional fleets. This, by the way, is a bad thing, and renders the former style of attacking larger players rather impossible as it forces higher and higher relative value to attack the same targets.

I do believe your introduction of the rank 1k planets into this discussion is a Red Herring btw, seeing as how it in no way changes the nature of the argument.

Now, I've yet to see where you've stated how VB cap makes it less favourable for someone to send larger fleets with the intent of either forcing the opponent to run or to kill their entire fleet if they fail to do so. This, for the record, was the original issue taken with bashing, that it encouraged disproportionate measures and the active destruction of smaller planets, as opposed to proportionate attacks and simply roiding them. Therefor, the true issue has not been addressed.

As for demanding proof of something which we both know we can't get any data on, which is to say whether or not you or I am correct to state that the amount of bashing has either increased or decreased, is a matter of Negative Proof. Simply because I can't prove that I am right, does not make your correct either. As such, we can only fall back on logic, of which you have displayed none. Now, if indeed you insist on getting your anecdotes of support (as implicit in requiring proof of something which you can not provide any more evidence for than I can), as silly as that would be since Anecdotal Evidence is a fallacy itself, let me point out that more players take fewer targets today than before, more and bigger team-ups are used than before, and this all is in line with the logic of a inclination towards disproportionate attacks. Now, there are other factors contributing to this, but VB-cap is still one of them.

And so, you ask what the alternative would be? Well, it seems rather obvious, it would be to encourage proportionate attacking, and minimizing the damage done by disproportionate attacks upon smaller players. The solution then would be a variable salvage and cap formulae based on attacker and defender value. This presents a possible issue in that if it were based on total value usage, it would not enable the takedown of larger planets, and as such it should be based around a comparison between the largest single fleet value vs. the defending planets fleet value. As the attack grows more disproportionate, the cap becomes lower and the target is compensated by increasing salvage. However, with this system, no bash limit is needed any longer, as it's not beneficial to the top players to bash, nor is it hurtful to the smaller players to get bashed. Further, because it encourages proportionate fleets, it discourages attacking smaller targets, as it means a greater proportion of the fleet could not be used. So, instead it encourages proportionate attacking of bigger targets, and more attacks hitting more planets.

Most importantly, it doesn't needlessly limit the options available as to how anyone should play.
__________________
[OLMIT] / [TreKronor]
Sun_Tzu is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 20 May 2010, 20:11   #244
lokken
BlueTuba
 
lokken's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Posts: 6,306
lokken has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.lokken has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.lokken has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.lokken has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.lokken has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.lokken has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.lokken has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.lokken has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.lokken has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.lokken has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.lokken has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.
Re: Alliance player limit

I would be in favour of abolishing the benefits of alliance tags altogether and simply limiting it to 50 planets that count for score.
__________________
"Build a man a fire, and he'll be warm for a day. Set a man on fire, and he'll be warm for the rest of his life."
lokken is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 20 May 2010, 20:20   #245
Sun_Tzu
Arrogant Fck
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Helsinki, Finland
Posts: 1,031
Sun_Tzu is a glorious beacon of lightSun_Tzu is a glorious beacon of lightSun_Tzu is a glorious beacon of lightSun_Tzu is a glorious beacon of lightSun_Tzu is a glorious beacon of light
Re: Alliance player limit

Quote:
Originally Posted by lokken View Post
I would be in favour of abolishing the benefits of alliance tags altogether and simply limiting it to 50 planets that count for score.
Arguments? Counter-arguments to previous posts? Anything of real value?
__________________
[OLMIT] / [TreKronor]
Sun_Tzu is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 21 May 2010, 00:35   #246
Shev
So what?
 
Shev's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Scotland
Posts: 606
Shev is a splendid one to beholdShev is a splendid one to beholdShev is a splendid one to beholdShev is a splendid one to beholdShev is a splendid one to beholdShev is a splendid one to beholdShev is a splendid one to behold
Re: Alliance player limit

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sun_Tzu View Post
And so, you ask what the alternative would be? Well, it seems rather obvious, it would be to encourage proportionate attacking, and minimizing the damage done by disproportionate attacks upon smaller players. The solution then would be a variable salvage and cap formulae based on attacker and defender value. This presents a possible issue in that if it were based on total value usage, it would not enable the takedown of larger planets, and as such it should be based around a comparison between the largest single fleet value vs. the defending planets fleet value. As the attack grows more disproportionate, the cap becomes lower and the target is compensated by increasing salvage. However, with this system, no bash limit is needed any longer, as it's not beneficial to the top players to bash, nor is it hurtful to the smaller players to get bashed. Further, because it encourages proportionate fleets, it discourages attacking smaller targets, as it means a greater proportion of the fleet could not be used. So, instead it encourages proportionate attacking of bigger targets, and more attacks hitting more planets.
It sounds like it would encourage sending lots of cloaked fakes at low value planets who can't stay at home on the odd chance you've sent full fleet more than anything else.
__________________
Legion

[RaH] [Mercenaries]
Shev is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 21 May 2010, 00:47   #247
Sun_Tzu
Arrogant Fck
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Helsinki, Finland
Posts: 1,031
Sun_Tzu is a glorious beacon of lightSun_Tzu is a glorious beacon of lightSun_Tzu is a glorious beacon of lightSun_Tzu is a glorious beacon of lightSun_Tzu is a glorious beacon of light
Re: Alliance player limit

Quote:
Originally Posted by Shev View Post
It sounds like it would encourage sending lots of cloaked fakes at low value planets who can't stay at home on the odd chance you've sent full fleet more than anything else.
Which differs from current situation how? Or are you trying to argue it's a bad thing that xandas send fake fleets? Because there might be a slight issue there, given that the race is kind of built around the point of doing just that...
__________________
[OLMIT] / [TreKronor]
Sun_Tzu is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 21 May 2010, 01:08   #248
Shev
So what?
 
Shev's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Scotland
Posts: 606
Shev is a splendid one to beholdShev is a splendid one to beholdShev is a splendid one to beholdShev is a splendid one to beholdShev is a splendid one to beholdShev is a splendid one to beholdShev is a splendid one to behold
Re: Alliance player limit

Pretty much, yeah. I think instead of encouraging top players to attack upwards it would actually do the opposite for a lot who would be able to use the Xan cloaking to hit low value players all round and get full cap from them. I'm not sure how you'd fix it without removing everything that Xan are though.
__________________
Legion

[RaH] [Mercenaries]
Shev is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 21 May 2010, 01:12   #249
Sun_Tzu
Arrogant Fck
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Helsinki, Finland
Posts: 1,031
Sun_Tzu is a glorious beacon of lightSun_Tzu is a glorious beacon of lightSun_Tzu is a glorious beacon of lightSun_Tzu is a glorious beacon of lightSun_Tzu is a glorious beacon of light
Re: Alliance player limit

Quote:
Originally Posted by Shev View Post
Pretty much, yeah. I think instead of encouraging top players to attack upwards it would actually do the opposite for a lot who would be able to use the Xan cloaking to hit low value players all round and get full cap from them. I'm not sure how you'd fix it without removing everything that Xan are though.
Well, there's also the variable cap, and the fact that due to how salvage works the targets wouldn't really be inclined to run away, since a full fleet would mean they'd regain most of their losses if it wasn't a fake.
__________________
[OLMIT] / [TreKronor]
Sun_Tzu is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 21 May 2010, 02:27   #250
Shev
So what?
 
Shev's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Scotland
Posts: 606
Shev is a splendid one to beholdShev is a splendid one to beholdShev is a splendid one to beholdShev is a splendid one to beholdShev is a splendid one to beholdShev is a splendid one to beholdShev is a splendid one to behold
Re: Alliance player limit

If there is no inclination to run away then you can follow a real fleet with a fake fleet, destroy your target and then max cap the next tick anyway.

I'm not saying the idea is hugely flawed, just that the interaction with Xan fleets seems to favour the players who want to farm downwards.
__________________
Legion

[RaH] [Mercenaries]

Last edited by Shev; 21 May 2010 at 02:32.
Shev is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 15:44.


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