|
7 Sep 2013, 09:06
|
#1
|
Propaganda Chief
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Under the Rainbow
Posts: 4,740
|
Gal size this round
So 13 members each gal at pt12 eh?
__________________
RainbowS
RB Ely MISTU Angel Fusi0n 1up ToF VisioN CT FAnG ROCK
|
|
|
7 Sep 2013, 09:10
|
#2
|
Over the moon
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Deeeeenmark
Posts: 547
|
Re: Gal size this round
837 people signed up and less BP's than usually because it was raised from 4 to 5 probably
__________________
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..
|
|
|
7 Sep 2013, 11:08
|
#3
|
Propaganda Chief
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Under the Rainbow
Posts: 4,740
|
Re: Gal size this round
Its too big gals
__________________
RainbowS
RB Ely MISTU Angel Fusi0n 1up ToF VisioN CT FAnG ROCK
|
|
|
7 Sep 2013, 11:23
|
#4
|
Blah Blah Blah
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 622
|
Re: Gal size this round
Quote:
Originally Posted by BloodyButcher
Its too big gals
|
Your so smart
__________________
If you can't amaze people with your intelligence, confuse them with your bullshit.
BANANA ALLIANCE!!
|
|
|
7 Sep 2013, 11:52
|
#5
|
Valle is my hero
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 2,581
|
Re: Gal size this round
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zotnam
837 people signed up and less BP's than usually because it was raised from 4 to 5 probably
|
It more liekly that the extended downtime and short notice round start meant that not as many bp's signed up and therefore there was lots of randoms and not many BPs
|
|
|
7 Sep 2013, 12:49
|
#6
|
Propaganda Chief
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Under the Rainbow
Posts: 4,740
|
Re: Gal size this round
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kaiba
It more liekly that the extended downtime and short notice round start meant that not as many bp's signed up and therefore there was lots of randoms and not many BPs
|
Does the amount of bps count for gal size? Cant there be gals with only randoms?
__________________
RainbowS
RB Ely MISTU Angel Fusi0n 1up ToF VisioN CT FAnG ROCK
|
|
|
7 Sep 2013, 13:00
|
#7
|
mz.
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 8,587
|
Re: Gal size this round
There could, but I'm pretty sure there aren't.
__________________
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.
|
|
|
7 Sep 2013, 16:47
|
#8
|
Registered User
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 1,386
|
Re: Gal size this round
Alliances will struggle with these bigger galaxies, especially the tags that aren't full.
|
|
|
7 Sep 2013, 17:01
|
#9
|
Idle Git
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Wandering
Posts: 1,550
|
Re: Gal size this round
Quote:
Originally Posted by Clouds
Alliances will struggle with these bigger galaxies, especially the tags that aren't full.
|
Yes, it's all setup to be a very poor round sadly. With alliance limit and playerbase as they are, 10 is the absolute largest gal you want, but I personally think 8 would be about ideal.
__________________
Here we go again....
|
|
|
7 Sep 2013, 20:49
|
#10
|
wild one
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: River Edge, NJ
Posts: 3,313
|
Re: Gal size this round
"Oh no, PA might not be around anymore, Jagex are gonna ditch it, my game! What shall I do?!"
Three days later...
"Well, I don't like how you're doing this, that's just silly. I'll complain on the forums."
If this were SA, I'd be on one hell of a tirade by now. But it's not. So I'll leave it with this.
http://i.somethingawful.com/forumsys...-commissar.gif
|
|
|
7 Sep 2013, 21:09
|
#11
|
Internal Error
Join Date: May 2002
Location: the Netherlands
Posts: 696
|
Re: Gal size this round
Agreed with skiddy.
Anyways, its still very early in the round so its not too late to do a new shuffle.
__________________
Nitros
[]LCH[] ..lets change history
|
|
|
8 Sep 2013, 02:55
|
#12
|
Registered User
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 957
|
Re: Gal size this round
This isn't so much a fault of PA team (although I do think bp sizes can't be higher than 3 at this point), but mostly a result of poor circumstances which lead to fewer bps than ever before.
At this point there isn't much that can be done. In theory, perhaps - alliances could not let fort/fence gals get too far ahead, and they can occasionally help each other hit a galaxy. In reality though, what we'll most likely see in a week or so is that the bottom 20 galaxies will be repeatedly farmed while the top 5-10 galaxies won't ever get hit.
On top of that, these stats, while relatively offensive, favour galaxy defense over alliance defense (Wyverns&Ghosts), and cross-defence will make hitting a top galaxy a nightmare, even with multiple alliances.
I think it's high time to reflect on how the game is setup - round length, galaxy size and type (random/private/mixed), alliance size, and perhaps even tick speed (and with that, fleet ETAs) should all be reexamined in my opinion.
|
|
|
9 Sep 2013, 12:44
|
#13
|
Over the moon
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Deeeeenmark
Posts: 547
|
Re: Gal size this round
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kaiba
It more liekly that the extended downtime and short notice round start meant that not as many bp's signed up and therefore there was lots of randoms and not many BPs
|
This is incorrect, there are about the same amount of people in BP's as last round(240-ish). But due to the BP size increase, we've dropped from 60 BP's to 46 BP's and that has in turn increased the amount of people shoved into every galaxy.
I'm not sure I share the doom and gloom predicted for smaller galaxies, if anything it means that the top galaxies will have more incoming. If you look at the stats from the last 5 rounds, it's pretty clear that top galaxies receive far more incoming than average ones. With fewer targets to hit, the likelihood of top galaxies being put up also goes up, perhaps only half the planets most of the time due to naps and politics, but still an uptick in total incoming.
__________________
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..
|
|
|
9 Sep 2013, 13:42
|
#14
|
Idle Git
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Wandering
Posts: 1,550
|
Re: Gal size this round
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zotnam
I'm not sure I share the doom and gloom predicted for smaller galaxies, if anything it means that the top galaxies will have more incoming. If you look at the stats from the last 5 rounds, it's pretty clear that top galaxies receive far more incoming than average ones. With fewer targets to hit, the likelihood of top galaxies being put up also goes up, perhaps only half the planets most of the time due to naps and politics, but still an uptick in total incoming.
|
This is incorrect. Plenty of alliances struggled to hit top galaxies last round. Because of galaxies having more planets, it means they require more fleets to cover them. Lots of alliances have smaller tags this round, consequently meaning they have fewer fleets to cover attacks.
Therefore:
More fleets needed + fewer fleets available = less incomming for top galaxies.
__________________
Here we go again....
|
|
|
9 Sep 2013, 13:50
|
#15
|
Registered User
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 1,038
|
Re: Gal size this round
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bashar
This is incorrect. Plenty of alliances struggled to hit top galaxies last round. Because of galaxies having more planets, it means they require more fleets to cover them. Lots of alliances have smaller tags this round, consequently meaning they have fewer fleets to cover attacks.
Therefore:
More fleets needed + fewer fleets available = less incomming for top galaxies.
|
This is incorrect. Alliances struggled to hit top galaxies because of the stats and setup of ingal defence.
__________________
Did some stuff, played here n there done just about all there is to do
|
|
|
9 Sep 2013, 15:19
|
#16
|
Idle Git
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Wandering
Posts: 1,550
|
Re: Gal size this round
Quote:
Originally Posted by Blue_Esper
This is incorrect. Alliances struggled to hit top galaxies because of the stats and setup of ingal defence.
|
I fail to see how what you have said in any way refutes my point. All you are suggesting is that gals were hard to hit, it therefore follows as a blindingly obvious point that bigger gals are even harder to hit.
__________________
Here we go again....
|
|
|
9 Sep 2013, 22:07
|
#17
|
Registered User
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 1,038
|
Re: Gal size this round
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bashar
I fail to see how what you have said in any way refutes my point. All you are suggesting is that gals were hard to hit, it therefore follows as a blindingly obvious point that bigger gals are even harder to hit.
|
What i am saying is that the size of the gal makes no difference to how well it is defended.
__________________
Did some stuff, played here n there done just about all there is to do
|
|
|
9 Sep 2013, 22:14
|
#18
|
Idle Git
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Wandering
Posts: 1,550
|
Re: Gal size this round
Quote:
Originally Posted by Blue_Esper
What i am saying is that the size of the gal makes no difference to how well it is defended.
|
It means they *should* have a little more flexibility in defence as they will have more fleets to choose from whilst cross defing, so they should be able to use fleets more optimally, although the impact of this would admittedly be quite small. My point, though, was nothing to do with how well gals defend, it was simply that with more planets you need more fleets to fully cover the gal in an attack and with alliances being smaller, they have less fleets. Consequently, the ability to hit bigger gals is being squeezed from two directions, whether or not they are any better/worse at defence is a completely seperate factor that has no bearing on the above (unless it is worse to the extent that alliances didn't have to cover gals as thoroughly).
__________________
Here we go again....
|
|
|
9 Sep 2013, 22:45
|
#19
|
Propaganda Chief
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Under the Rainbow
Posts: 4,740
|
Re: Gal size this round
Quote:
Originally Posted by Blue_Esper
What i am saying is that the size of the gal makes no difference to how well it is defended.
|
trollolloollloolooolll
__________________
RainbowS
RB Ely MISTU Angel Fusi0n 1up ToF VisioN CT FAnG ROCK
|
|
|
10 Sep 2013, 06:00
|
#20
|
Registered User
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 1,038
|
Re: Gal size this round
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bashar
It means they *should* have a little more flexibility in defence as they will have more fleets to choose from whilst cross defing, so they should be able to use fleets more optimally, although the impact of this would admittedly be quite small. My point, though, was nothing to do with how well gals defend, it was simply that with more planets you need more fleets to fully cover the gal in an attack and with alliances being smaller, they have less fleets. Consequently, the ability to hit bigger gals is being squeezed from two directions, whether or not they are any better/worse at defence is a completely seperate factor that has no bearing on the above (unless it is worse to the extent that alliances didn't have to cover gals as thoroughly).
|
Everyone starts from the same base point, what seperates everyone is all to do with how well you play the game. the reason you have bigger gals and smaller gals, is generally because at some point in the round the bigger gals don't recieve incs for a period of time and because they're generally better at roiding/initting then the smaller gals, they are able to remain competitive and fly under the radar for a couple of days which allow them to get fat, build value and make themselves harder to hit through organisation and team work.
Basically if you give incs to a gal for a whole round they wont be a top gal regardless of how many member planets they have as long as you can cover the majority with your gal raid
__________________
Did some stuff, played here n there done just about all there is to do
|
|
|
10 Sep 2013, 07:49
|
#21
|
mz.
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 8,587
|
Re: Gal size this round
The number of planets in a galaxy does not significantly affect how well they can defend. It does affect how much defense they have to send. That is primarily why alliances struggle to hit them.
Blue_Esper, bigger does not mean better, it just means more planets. Talk of top galaxies is besides the point.
__________________
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.
|
|
|
10 Sep 2013, 08:28
|
#22
|
Registered User
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 1,038
|
Re: Gal size this round
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mzyxptlk
The number of planets in a galaxy does not significantly affect how well they can defend. It does affect how much defense they have to send. That is primarily why alliances struggle to hit them.
Blue_Esper, bigger does not mean better, it just means more planets. Talk of top galaxies is besides the point.
|
i didn't say bigger is better i was saying why you have top galaxies and other galaxies
__________________
Did some stuff, played here n there done just about all there is to do
|
|
|
10 Sep 2013, 08:54
|
#23
|
mz.
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 8,587
|
Re: Gal size this round
You're making a point that is irrelevant to the topic at hand though. Bigger BPs = fewer BPs. Fewer BPs = fewer galaxies. Fewer galaxies = bigger galaxies. Bigger galaxies = harder to roid.
The distinction between top galaxies and other galaxies does not come in at all.
__________________
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.
|
|
|
10 Sep 2013, 10:01
|
#24
|
Idle Git
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Wandering
Posts: 1,550
|
Re: Gal size this round
Quote:
Originally Posted by Blue_Esper
Everyone starts from the same base point, what seperates everyone is all to do with how well you play the game. the reason you have bigger gals and smaller gals, is generally because at some point in the round the bigger gals don't recieve incs for a period of time and because they're generally better at roiding/initting then the smaller gals, they are able to remain competitive and fly under the radar for a couple of days which allow them to get fat, build value and make themselves harder to hit through organisation and team work.
Basically if you give incs to a gal for a whole round they wont be a top gal regardless of how many member planets they have as long as you can cover the majority with your gal raid
|
You are either both completely missing the point and intellectually unable to understand it (as I have explained it in the simplest possible terms), or you are just posting irrelevant nonsense for the sake of it. Either way, there is no point in trying to explain further.
__________________
Here we go again....
|
|
|
10 Sep 2013, 10:15
|
#25
|
Registered User
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 1,038
|
Re: Gal size this round
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mzyxptlk
You're making a point that is irrelevant to the topic at hand though. Bigger BPs = fewer BPs. Fewer BPs = fewer galaxies. Fewer galaxies = bigger galaxies. Bigger galaxies = harder to roid.
The distinction between top galaxies and other galaxies does not come in at all.
|
It does when you have galaxies the same size and one is easy to roid and the other is hard. meaning that galaxy size makes no difference to its roidability
__________________
Did some stuff, played here n there done just about all there is to do
|
|
|
10 Sep 2013, 10:39
|
#26
|
mz.
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 8,587
|
Re: Gal size this round
Quote:
Originally Posted by Blue_Esper
It does when you have galaxies the same size and one is easy to roid and the other is hard. meaning that galaxy size makes no difference to its roidability
|
Top galaxies are harder to roid and bigger galaxies are harder to roid. Both statements are true. No one is saying that top galaxies are not harder to roid than other galaxies. You're the only one who's saying that the number of planets in a galaxy does not matter, that an 60 man alliance can just as easily roid a 10 man gal as they can a 20 man gal. Quite frankly I'm amazed that anyone who's played more than 2 rounds could seriously believe somethng as patently incorrect as that.
__________________
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.
|
|
|
10 Sep 2013, 10:49
|
#27
|
Registered User
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 1,038
|
Re: Gal size this round
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mzyxptlk
Top galaxies are harder to roid and bigger galaxies are harder to roid. Both statements are true. No one is saying that top galaxies are not harder to roid than other galaxies. You're the only one who's saying that the number of planets in a galaxy does not matter, that an 60 man alliance can just as easily roid a 10 man gal as they can a 20 man gal. Quite frankly I'm amazed that anyone who's played more than 2 rounds could seriously believe somethng as patently incorrect as that.
|
You're missing the point i am making. we dont have a 10 man and a 20 man, we have 13-14 man which will most likely be around 16man by end of round. yet i will safetly bet that the bottom 30 galaxies will still be just as roidable as before, now with more targets.
__________________
Did some stuff, played here n there done just about all there is to do
|
|
|
10 Sep 2013, 10:52
|
#28
|
mz.
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 8,587
|
Re: Gal size this round
Jesus Christ.
__________________
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.
|
|
|
10 Sep 2013, 11:23
|
#29
|
Idle Git
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Wandering
Posts: 1,550
|
Re: Gal size this round
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mzyxptlk
Jesus Christ.
|
Did you not read the conversation before you started? I've given in, it's not worth the frustration, arguing the intricacies of quantum physics with a 2 year old is easier than this.
__________________
Here we go again....
|
|
|
10 Sep 2013, 11:57
|
#30
|
Over the moon
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Deeeeenmark
Posts: 547
|
Re: Gal size this round
While the bigger galaxies might have more planets, so will the smaller ones. Look through the round ending stats and show me rounds where the top galaxies did not receive more incoming than an average galaxy please.
I'm in no way saying I prefer galaxies of this size, 8 or 10 would be much better, but just because we'll end on 15 or 16 it doesn't mean that bigger galaxies won't get targeted. In fact as recently as r50, where the biggest gals had 16 planets, the top3 galaxies were by far the ones with the most incoming.
Heck, the last time we had a galaxy outside the top2 with most incoming was in r49 where, surprise, we had the least number of planets in galaxies.
__________________
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..
Last edited by Zotnam; 10 Sep 2013 at 12:04.
|
|
|
10 Sep 2013, 13:09
|
#31
|
Valle is my hero
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 2,581
|
Re: Gal size this round
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zotnam
While the bigger galaxies might have more planets, so will the smaller ones. Look through the round ending stats and show me rounds where the top galaxies did not receive more incoming than an average galaxy please.
I'm in no way saying I prefer galaxies of this size, 8 or 10 would be much better, but just because we'll end on 15 or 16 it doesn't mean that bigger galaxies won't get targeted. In fact as recently as r50, where the biggest gals had 16 planets, the top3 galaxies were by far the ones with the most incoming.
Heck, the last time we had a galaxy outside the top2 with most incoming was in r49 where, surprise, we had the least number of planets in galaxies.
|
From what I have gathered its not that they won't get targeted its that no alliance is big enough to put a raid on one of these galaxies and land. That is the issue with gal size. Even with a 60 man tag you are really only going to be able to put 10-12 'landing waves' on these gals and they will get covered cos they are full of def leeches. The far more profitable solution for these alliances is to go after the lower ranked gals to keep the roid flow up.
|
|
|
10 Sep 2013, 18:50
|
#32
|
Registered User
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Tallinn
Posts: 734
|
Re: Gal size this round
yeah this is fail
__________________
VISION FTW
THIS IS ULTORES
|
|
|
|
All times are GMT +1. The time now is 01:47.
| |