allow more targets

[Makhil]

with the small number of planets in the universe a big problem i face is finding targets. If you add your gal + your alliance + the Cluster nap + your friends + whatever politics your HC comes up with, it becomes difficult to find targets (long gone are the days when I could spend a whole round without targeting twice the same planet), what I propose is :

- Allow ingal attacks. With no MoW: attacks are allowed, with a MoW: the GC can select 'Peace' meaning no attack on any planet, or 'Truce' no attack on trusted planets only.

- Decrease the alliance limit to 30 planets. Allow ingame NAPs limited to 1 per alliance. Ingame napped alliances get the defense eta bonus. 72 ticks delay between breaking a NAP and forming another. Ingame NAPs would be visible on the universe page.

- Make smaller clusters: 5 galaxies per cluster

[Tietäjä]

Originally Posted by Makhil

- Decrease the alliance limit to 30 planets. Allow ingame NAPs limited to 1 per alliance. Ingame napped alliances get the defense eta bonus. 72 ticks delay between breaking a NAP and forming another. Ingame NAPs would be visible on the universe page.

Alliances are struggling as it is without further limits introduced.

[NitinA]

30 planets + 24h a day = traditional alliance DCs' worst nightmare.

[Tietäjä]

Originally Posted by NitinA

30 planets + 24h a day = traditional alliance DCs' worst nightmare.

And the "regular players" wonder why alliances aren't so keen on fighting wars. Maybe it's become "too small alliance - too many regular players - too little staff" during the recent times.

[Mzyxptlk]

Or perhaps you just need to tell your HCs to not be morons by allying or napping half the universe.

[Tietäjä]

No no, that's definately not it. The way I've experienced it it's always been the lack of capable staff (Omen round 17, Omen round 18, Omen round 19, Angels round 21). You might wish to rewind the perspective: inability to competitively fight a war, or fear of not being able to do it, because you might only have 2-3 qualified, active military officers, might put you off from fighting wars and into fencing things.

[Veedeejem!]

Originally Posted by Mzyxptlk

Or perhaps you just need to tell your HCs to not be morons by allying or napping half the universe.

Or perhaps members of alliances need to learn to follow orders from HC's & not **** off and go solo when there's a war to be fought (this might not be a problem in big allies, but it is in smaller ones)

[Kargool]

I had a slight problem attacking round 21, but I dont agree with any of the measures Makhil here suggests. I think the problem lies more in him and his alliances' ability to broker deals which leaves himself and his alliance somewhat stranded without attackoptions. Make less deals, and more war. Oh, and btw, hardcoding who you are allowed to attack incluster probably gives you less targets.

[Makhil]

The alliance politics is just part of the problem. I don't agree with you not agreeing and I guess you found targets more easily than me because you don't care about bashing lowbies.

[Kargool]

Originally Posted by Makhil

The alliance politics is just part of the problem. I don't agree with you not agreeing and I guess you found targets more easily than me because you don't care about bashing lowbies.

On the contrary, most of my attacks were preformed on targets that had higher value than myself, but when you have 5,1mill value its hard to find proper targets above xp limit. You might wanna try that one time

Some of my attacks was actually escort attacks where I escorted smaller planets for they to recive a higher xp boost from the roids they grabbed. In that case i sometimes attacked people below my own value. But in a value round, hitting above your own value will always be difficult.

[Makhil]

You started the round with 5 million value ?

[Kargool]

No I didnt, but if you had problems finding targets from the start allready I can only begin to wonder how many naps your ally had.

[Makhil]

you might be happy to be able to attack small targets all round or to attack the same big ones over and over, I just feel it would be better if we had more choice. I didn't post this message on AD, I don't understand why you want to turn it into a rant against my alliance, the problem goes beyond that I think.

[Mortal]

Makhil if u want more targets go solo and u can hit everyone u want. or maybe not ur friends.

[Mzyxptlk]

Originally Posted by Veedeejem!

Or perhaps members of alliances need to learn to follow orders from HC's & not **** off and go solo when there's a war to be fought (this might not be a problem in big allies, but it is in smaller ones)

One could ask if its the member or the HC that fails.

[CBA]

allow users to have 2 planets?

[Kargool]

Originally Posted by Makhil

you might be happy to be able to attack small targets all round or to attack the same big ones over and over, I just feel it would be better if we had more choice. I didn't post this message on AD, I don't understand why you want to turn it into a rant against my alliance, the problem goes beyond that I think.

See, now this is even where you are wrong.. My planet thrived on attacking various targets all throughout the round, I had almost no restrictions towards my targets and as I said probably hit above my own value about 90% of the times I attacked. If you were unable to do so, you need to look into why you were unable too.. And seing as I started out with the same basis as you, there must be something wrong with the way the round played for you.. And like it or not, but most planets did not have your problem, alas, the problem must have been with your ally, or the naps your galaxy/cluster made.

[Makhil]

How can you be so sure ? The other players I have been talking to all agree it would be better with more targets, I'm suggesting ways to do it (ofc bringing more players would do, but I try to be realistic).
You don't feel the same way, ok, but it doesn't mean you are right. You refuse to aknowledge that there is a lack of targets in the game, and you put the blame on me or my alliance... not much left to discuss with you. But i'm interested in the opinion of other players.

[Kargool]

Says you who assumes Im hitting shit targets. There were lots of good targets last round, dont blame the game for your own inability to attack good targets.

Hard coding more limits/restrictions will just make the game weaker in my opinion, and also, just because one alliance only can be coded to be napped ingame, who stops an alliance from napping others outside the hardcoded.

[Wandows]

Originally Posted by Makhil

You don't feel the same way, ok, but it doesn't mean you are right. You refuse to aknowledge that there is a lack of targets in the game, and you put the blame on me or my alliance... not much left to discuss with you. But i'm interested in the opinion of other players.

The only real reason for a lack of targets would be the general lack of planets/players,which isn't solved by anything you suggested. Like others already said, regardless of your galaxy/cluster/alliance there should be plenty of targets to hit, unless you're a top planet (but that has always been the case concerning bash limits). If you really had problems finding targets either blame the ones supplying them (alliance due to naps, or poor BC choices) or yourself for having a poor fleet configuration leavin less targets. Most ranks should give at least 2-300 targets to pick from, over a 7 week round that should be more than enough. If you have problems either join another alliance/group that can supply you with targets or stick with it. Its also pretty naive to think that naps can be restricted by ingame limits, there is nothing stopping alliances from setting up agreements outside the game.

I personally have to say it wasn't easy for me to find decent targets, but that for a large part could be blamed on my fleet configuration (which was pretty defensive, leaving fewer possible targets) and me picking late on alliance raids resulting in all good targets already being booked (again something i could have changed myself).

[Makhil]

Originally Posted by Kargool

Says you who assumes Im hitting shit targets. There were lots of good targets last round, dont blame the game for your own inability to attack good targets.

Hard coding more limits/restrictions will just make the game weaker in my opinion, and also, just because one alliance only can be coded to be napped ingame, who stops an alliance from napping others outside the hardcoded.

I'm saying there is less and less targets each round (attacking the same several times in a round is not fun to me). I'm making suggestions to improve the number of targets (thanks to the people who points the flaws). You're happy with the way it is, I'm not. If it makes you feel superior to pretend I don't know how to play instead of trying to understand what I say, fine with me, I have nothing to prove.

[Veedeejem!]

Originally Posted by Mzyxptlk

One could ask if its the member or the HC that fails.

The HC can do all they want, but if the member refuses to launch his fleets where the HC wants & goes solo there's pretty much nothing a HC can do...
Except kick the member ofc

[Bubert Samson]

Originally Posted by NitinA

30 planets + 24h a day = traditional alliance DCs' worst nightmare.

Seconded


Next. I dont really think we need any more rules concerning these, the only thing we really need is more players, the upcoming free round will help this (at least for the duration of the round) plus, and I know this is a discussion for another forum, but, as far as I have seen the various tactics of getting new players havent really been considered as much as they should be, the dwindling playerbase is just causing it to shrink further.

One last thing I want to comment on is the ingal attacks, the problem I have with it is that galaxies (to me) need to be solid to survive successfully, attacking ingal will work in the opposite direction, making the galaxy as a whole weaker.

[Makhil]

Originally Posted by Bubert Samson

the only thing we really need is more players, the upcoming free round will help this.

Of course the best would be to have more players, but this isn't happening and the free round will do nothing to help that.
People who know PA and don't want to pay to play can already do it with some restrictions. The free round is known only from the community (no marketing campaign) and is meant only as a 'thank you' round for the people who usually pay (at a time where a significant proportion of the playerbase will be away on vacation, at least part of the round). If anything I predict less players for R22.
Biggest problem is that Pa is not noob friendly part is due to the game itself, part is due to the attitude of some players.

[Bubert Samson]

Originally Posted by Makhil

The free round is known only from the community (no marketing campaign)

I wouldn't say there is no marketing, but its close, but that seems to be the ongoing motif with PA, I think there will be an influx of older players, seeing as PAteam have made it a point to email every old player in their database, and for some of us, a free round is too tempting to turn down.

Originally Posted by Makhil

Biggest problem is that Pa is not noob friendly part is due to the game itself, part is due to the attitude of some players.

This is where there are a lot of people preaching a return to the old ways, though Im not sure I see it that way, I think, that as a whole, PA hasn't changed that much in this regard, it has never been noob friendly, its just that now, there are less places are, but, at the same time, there are less that are not. Once again having to do with a smaller playerbase.

I think the biggest problem is that (and I know this has been said before) is that no one wants to pay for a text-based game when there are so many other alternatives, there are remedies to this that I think can work, but none have been truly considered.