Cluster alliances...

[Jonas]

I wish they were useful, but they arent. Unless incluster attacking is made -1 and incluster defending -1(-2 if same alliance) we'll never see a proper c allie again(which imo is sad )

So for now, I laugh at all the gals napping and allying cluster, not understanding that the real alliances dont give a shit :/

Just had too many episodes with c allies this round

-Jonas-

[TheRat]

with PaX, clusters where made utterly useless for two reasons:

1) The playerbase is small & leet, noone depends on incluster defence.
2) There is (as you say) no attack bonus, so making sure you are safe from incluster attacks makes no sense anymore.

I miss the good old days of having incluster xan fleetcatches, so I wouldnt mind if they found a good way of reintroducing cluster eta bonuses.

[ChubbyChecker]

ETA bonus for in-cluster attacking is a very VERY bad idea.

I've made some suggestions on how to make clusters useful again in the Suggestions forum. We're going to have to see something pretty drastic done to make clusters worthwile though.

[lokken]

In cluster attacking while very very fun indeed would probably result in the game being over far far quicker.

If the playerbase was larger it could be supported, but not any more.

[wakey]

The problem with clusters is most of the ways you can make them useful requires that the alliance is fragmented into a number of them along alliance and skill lines. Then the problem with that is it makes the divide between the big and small greater because not only are the bigger players the more active and skilled players but also they are more likly to have more to gain from working together so work as a unit much better. In the smaller cluster alliance theres just not that advantage to sending ships to someone else in your group whom due to activity levels isnt likly to be able to help you out later. I mean even if you were to say add a fleet that would be able to defend only cluster mates you would find that the chances are most of the people in the smaller alliance would simply not use it unless it was someone in your alliance or in an ally of your alliance as it wouldnt be worth wasting ships on

[Bashar]

To you and I, cluster alliances may be a pointless exercise, but to new players just starting off, it can be a shallow end introduction to alliances, and a way of meeting new friends. It is also a potential source of fun. Whilst I wouldn't suggest that cluster alliances have any tactical merits, they do have a potential to benefit certain players, and as such, the community.

[lokken]

Originally Posted by Bashar

To you and I, cluster alliances may be a pointless exercise, but to new players just starting off, it can be a shallow end introduction to alliances, and a way of meeting new friends. It is also a potential source of fun. Whilst I wouldn't suggest that cluster alliances have any tactical merits, they do have a potential to benefit certain players, and as such, the community.

if there were to be clusters, they would have to be larger than clusters are now, to be even remotely viable.

[jerome]

split uni into 4 clusters etc, sorts it all.

[Rumad]

my cluster alliance worked fine last round - a bit dysfunctional, but what do you expect - its not an alliance!

I guess what I am trying to say is a cluster alliance is what you make it. With a little time and effort it can be a decent hang out to have

[Chika]

TBH, the cluster alliance/NAP, currently introduces a greater chance for a security breach.
Thats all.

[Bashar]

Rumad, you pissed?

[max_vix]

I was in =1st= last round and we managed to get 1:2 as the #1 gal, and my own gal was #5 (1:10) 1:7 also made top 15, possibly top 10 I can't remember now.

My point is - they can work, if you MAKE them work. 1:2 and 1:7 saved my ass many a time

[Bashar]

It wasn't cluster alliances that put those galaxies where they were.

[max_vix]

I never said it was. But they DID help. my own gal was under constant attack when we were ranked #1 and 1:2 and 1:7 sent plenty of fleets to help us. If it wasn't for the cluster NAP we wouldn't have stayed top 5

[ironhell]

Originally Posted by max_vix

I was in =1st= last round and we managed to get 1:2 as the #1 gal, and my own gal was #5 (1:10) 1:7 also made top 15, possibly top 10 I can't remember now.

My point is - they can work, if you MAKE them work. 1:2 and 1:7 saved my ass many a time

Oi, we were 7th or 8th u little biatch

[Rumad]

Originally Posted by Bashar

Rumad, you pissed?

nope not at all

[Rumad]

Originally Posted by Bashar

It wasn't cluster alliances that put those galaxies where they were.

partially true, but the early support of and use of cluster alliances helped there position.

[Rumad]

Originally Posted by ironhell

Oi, we were 7th or 8th u little biatch

actually my gal finished 8th ;D

[Kjeldoran]

I "PERSONALLY" don't like cluster or parallell alliances. They interfere with the policies of the alliances, they create extra potential trouble (member that has cluster nap but the alliance don't give a FK about those naps etc ...).

I never respected the rules in cluster nway, most of the time it's just mainly "talking" yet little "action" and during the round, whatever cluster agreement there once was, dissappears nway when alliances no longen tollerate the cluster policies.

[mazzelaar]

Originally Posted by Rumad

partially true, but the early support of and use of cluster alliances helped there position.

Not even slightly. The wooden construction which they sat upon all round made their rank possible.

[Gate]

Originally Posted by mazzelaar

Not even slightly. The wooden construction which they sat upon all round made their rank possible.

Would I fit in this wooden construction?

[Bashar]

Originally Posted by Gate

Would I fit in this wooden construction?

You're shackled up in the cellar in your gimp outfit

[Gate]

Originally Posted by Bashar

You're shackled up in the cellar in your gimp outfit

My cunning pun on my exceedingly shit online nick (it's the com unit's fault fs :/ ) has failed. :/

Besides which, you forgot to take me out for walkies today.

[Bashar]

Sorry, I had to go to work

Besides, you were naughty yesterday, you stole Sid's wig. (Sid is gonna kill me for that one).

[Gate]

I would have thought a 1up HC would know to keep such leet intel on their glorious leader's current state of hairy-ness in private. I think you will be joining me soon \o/


Uhh, yea, clusters. I for one have never seen an effective cluster alliance; but perhaps greater effort should be made for them in order to help newer players?

[Bashar]

Originally Posted by Gate

I Uhh, yea, clusters. I for one have never seen an effective cluster alliance; but perhaps greater effort should be made for them in order to help newer players?

c7r? Loads of alliances formed out of cluster alliances, though I admit that is extremely unlikely to ever happen again.

[furball]

Originally Posted by Gate

Uhh, yea, clusters. I for one have never seen an effective cluster alliance; but perhaps greater effort should be made for them in order to help newer players?

Not really. Alliances are most players' higher priority, over their galaxy. Since cluster alliances are dominated by galaxies, not alliances, then cluster alliances will never survive past the first few weeks.

The only effective cluster alliances are by block members. Say Wolfpack, Tides of Fire and Veneratio were working together: they could have their members in grouped cluster channels (all c1 members, all c2 members, and so on). They could then defend each other at 'alliance eta'.

Originally Posted by Bashar

c7r? Loads of alliances formed out of cluster alliances, though I admit that is extremely unlikely to ever happen again.

Not while there is no ETA advantage for attacking in-cluster.

[Gate]

Originally Posted by Bashar

c7r? Loads of alliances formed out of cluster alliances, though I admit that is extremely unlikely to ever happen again.

I'm a newbie PA player, I joined in round 10. :/

So I've never seen an effective cluster alliance, and I guess this is due to smaller clusters/player numbers, change in etas in C, and more rigid alliance structures. Pure guesswork though...

[Neferti]

Played 16 rounds of PA, only decent cluster alliance I've been in (that lasted more than a few weeks) was 'c12nap' in round 3. So there you go.

Not even been in one that lasted more than a week since PaX...

[Envious]

Originally Posted by Neferti

Played 16 rounds of PA,

isn't this one the 16th (and that is even counting r8 a full one ) ? and it just started?
or which "b" rounds were there except 9.5 and 10.5?

[Rumad]

Originally Posted by mazzelaar

Not even slightly. The wooden construction which they sat upon all round made their rank possible.

Thanks for clearing that one up for me

[Neferti]

Originally Posted by Envious

isn't this one the 16th (and that is even counting r8 a full one ) ? and it just started?
or which "b" rounds were there except 9.5 and 10.5?

Yes, I'm counting this one, which has now had more than enough time to see cluster alliances set up.

[Nadar]

My gals usually formed c-allies/naps with other gals in cluster, but if my alliance decided to attack any of the gals in the c-alliance, I wouldn't hold my ships back. That's how much a c-alliance matters to me