Reduce the alliance tag

[neroon]

ehm.. sorry .. as last round i meant the one that is ending this week .. my mistake..

[JonnyBGood]

Originally Posted by neroon

having 50ppl tags aint new ?

We've gone down as far as 60 member tag limits. I don't see the 10 member difference causing any new dynamics to emerge.

[Psi_K]

Originally Posted by JonnyBGood

Yeah. Like in pa pre r10 where those giant 1000 man alliances were the ones that ran the game....

The competitive player base was significantly higher back then.
Back then it was giant block vs giant block with one having a slight favorite.
This round it was giant block vs small groupings of players.

This is one possible outcome. There are many possible outcomes though. Actually predicting exactly how things will pan out is pretty difficult.

I doubt very much we would see many alliances with sub 40 members.
It would end up being a significantly more offensive round.
Which also might be a bad thing...

There were four alliances fighting for it last round.

Dunno, wasn't around.
I heard there were far more players playing though.
Dunno if there's much to that.

[JonnyBGood]

Originally Posted by Psi_K

The competitive player base was significantly higher back then.
Back then it was giant block vs giant block with one having a slight favorite.
This round it was giant block vs small groupings of players.

Actually this round it was large informal block (AX) versus nobody, smaller block (BG) versus the A part of AX, rough stabilisation as BG+others versus A+X with infrequent smatterings of R, A (R) versus X+BG+others before finally a more coherent stabilisation as AX (R) versus everybody moving onto AX (R) versus nobody. No need to oversimplify things man!

I doubt very much we would see many alliances with sub 40 members.

We saw quite a few this round? You'll always see quite a few alliances with member numbers not around the tag limit. Why? Because community interaction is far more important to people than an arbitrary ****ing limit.

It would end up being a significantly more offensive round.
Which also might be a bad thing...

I completely disagree. As I've stated elsewhere I view defence as the key action in building up the bonds within alliances that make them work as units.

Dunno, wasn't around.
I heard there were far more players playing though.
Dunno if there's much to that.

There weren't. I guess there might be fewer active players this round but again that's due to the political situation.

[Cochese]

Off topic,I like Lokken's idea of 10 man galaxies, 15 galaxies per cluster.

On topic, I really don't care. I think the entire alliance system (which I advocated for hard-coding since like r5) is actually probably ****ed.

[Mistwraith]

my pov

With my HC hat on - 50 counted with 60 members !
(if the bigger tags want to abuse this by having 2 tags - then so be it - their players will be complaining that one tag isnt as good as the other etc etc ...)

With my player hat on - how many in the big guns doesnt make much difference to attacking but defence will be harder to obtain out of galaxy !

so all in all with both hats on i think 60/50 is a damned good idea, but wether a drop like that is feasable over just 1 round is something i doubt, to keep dropping it over preceeding rounds would be less painfull for those alliances with excess members.

[[DDK]gm]

I think it should be made 70 this round and 50 next

[Paisley]

keep the tag limit at 80 and ban out of tag defense via hard coding

[Benneh]

Originally Posted by Paisley

keep the tag limit at 80 and ban out of tag defense via hard coding

that probably screws bgs over more than it would us if thats what your trying to do.

*looks at the cluster 10 hugfest and DLRs support caths*

[_Kila_]

Originally Posted by DogsGrowl

At least we could safely say that 50+ alliances are fighting for #1 lol

Just like all the galaxies "fight" for #1 right? oh wait I forgot galaxies just win when they don't get incs...

[newt]

That's just a terrible argument, though I can see why it appealed to you to use it.
a). no one is saying alliances should be groups of 20 *;
b). galaxies rarely operate politically amongst each other to take down the top galaxies. And alliances generally care little (compared to other ranks) about the top galaxies. Alliances do care about the top alliance, and will cooperate politically to take them down.

* edit: jsut realised gm was jokingly discussing a round with 20-man alliances. So ignore 'a).' if you want in this particular farcical discussion!

edit #2: I really miss the days when galaxies did play politically together - and think pa is suffering a little because of it. I think I'm agreeing with lokken/cochese here!

[Paisley]

Originally Posted by Benneh

that probably screws bgs over more than it would us if thats what your trying to do.

*looks at the cluster 10 hugfest and DLRs support caths*

I can't comment on that due to lack of research / info on C10 (Non VGN members) and DLR fleet movements. I know VGN doesnt have a support tag so we make do with the def ships we have in ally.

However I can comment on attacks been done by myself and other VGN members getting eta 9 BW def determined retrospectively via news scan a few ticks later (no cr / bs ships from adv unit to rule out that + not in same cluster) and eta 8 nixie def determined retrospectively via news scan a few ticks later with no frig/de/bs/cr ships. on certain key planets.

[ArcChas]

Not this old chestnut again!

More (smaller) alliances means more BCs & DCs needed - where do you think they're going to come from?

[newt]

DCing for a smaller group of people (in my opinion) is easier and more chilled out than a large group. Thus more people willing to do it.

Only way I can see PA progress tbh is if most alliances start using the ascendancy defence model (the real one, not the JBG/Golan/etc does everything one). I.e., when members need defence, they do their own calls. This means a lot more people will be roided and such.

I can't see new people coming into PA in the thousands if, to do well, you need two or three people in your group that can play PA 16hrs a day, most of them ruining their lives considerably. So yes, I am asying pa should become attack-based (though defence is what bonds an alliance together - if the asid alliance is full of super active people)

[neroon]

Originally Posted by ArcChas

Not this old chestnut again!

More (smaller) alliances means more BCs & DCs needed - where do you think they're going to come from?

heh.. wtf is this about mate.. uhm.. all the allys playing atm DO have BC`s and DC`s already and dont need more..

now the new allys (re)forming each round have to think about that themselves, which they also do im sure.. noone makes an ally when he/she dosent have enough support as ministers/officers/DCs/BCs/whatever..

also Asc has brought a new alliance run style into the game aswell which, a couple of other alliances, have also adapted and are using it (no BCs nor DCs needed, members do such things by themselves).. with all that theres no such problem as lack of DCs/BCs

again if alliance decides to come and play the upcoming round and wants to do that properly with designated DC`s and BC`s then its the problem it needs to overcome itself (find proper ppl to do that).. simple as that

[Ave]

Dont limit alliance size.

[DrunkenViking]

All this whining. People that wants to play together will find a way.

I find it highly doubtful that the whining will stop if the tag-limit is set to 40 or 50 since the rank would probably look like this at the end of round:
1 asc 1
2 asc 2
3 xvx 1
4 xvx 2
5 asc 3
5 whoever

Imo thats just replacing "problems" with bigger "problems".

Why not remove alliance benefits ingame alltogether? No eta-bonus, no alliancefund, no alliancescans. Reserve eta-bonus for galaxy and cluster. Keep the tag and the allianceranking, but let it only show avg score of each ally and nothing more.

[neroon]

even if its asc1 and asc2 then still ct1 or nd2 will have more chance to compete for top since the fleet slots are the same in defence for those 2 competitive alliances.. ct1 nor nd2 at least dont have less opperturnitys to step against the alliances that they are playing against..

asc1 and asc2 can still indeed teamup on ct1 or nd2, but the main thing here is that even tho they can join forces in attacks, its quite alot harder to organize defence between 2 diffrent tags.. atm if asc hits dlr for instance then we are just madly outnumbered and even if we retal they got like 2x-3x more fleet slots and fleets to def against us and even launch more fleets..

and tbh i wouldnt have nething aginast removing tag rankings at all and make it gal/cluster oriented, but atm as nothing has been changed for the upcoming round (except lowering tag limits by 10 players, which absolutly dosent improve jack and has 0 point in it) i think we will have another absolutly pointless round :s which is really sad imho

[Wandows]

So, you knowingly and willingly join with a small group of 'elite' players thats far below any alliance limit and now complain the rounds are pointless because you are being outnumbered 2-3 to 1 which you could have known a long time before the round started?

From your replies/requests i take it the whole alliance limit means jack shit, you basicly say that any group that's (roughly?) half the size of the arbitrary alliance size limit has the 'right' to demand changes to make the game more fair for them compared to the larger communities . If we keep that up we'll be at a alliance limit of 1 in a few rounds (but at least that is fair for all!).

[Makhil]

Originally Posted by ArcChas

More (smaller) alliances means more BCs & DCs needed - where do you think they're going to come from?

Yes and No.
Yes for those still using the old DCing model: a small group of trusted people DCing for the whole ally.

No for Alliances trusting all their members with DCing. It means giving access to the tools to everyone. And ingame tools are great for that, far better than some alliance tools I've seen around. OFC it is easier to trust your members when you have a smaller, carefully selected group.

I'm all for an alliance limit at 50 because it is what the current number of players allow. Currently 2 or 3 alliances can bully the whole universe. Some galaxies have 10 members of the same alliance, it's just ridiculous. If those 2 alliances have an agreement the round is over before it started.

[neroon]

Wandows mate.. im saying it since there are just 2 alliances that make the tag limit.. all other alliances are smaller.. if game dosent have that many players so that more than 2 alliances can fill up tags then .. umm why dont we change it so that the game can b played decently again ?

and yes i joined DLR, knowing we wont have full tag and most prolly are crushed by asc from pt72 tbh.. but im not whining atm cos it was tought for BGs.. tbh i dont give a jack about my roids taken away and stuff like that.. just that its pointless game imo when u cant compete for top rankings (talking about alliance rankings atm) simply beacause u cant do anything against alliance that has 3x more members than u got

[neroon]

also wandows it wasnt a demand.. as the subject is what it is here atm, I just wanted to say what i was thinking about it..

just in my honest opinion its very simple. Planetarion dosent have enough members to fill 90man tags.. my only wish atm here is to make the game more playable considering there are fewer members than there were before in earlier rounds

[Desse]

Originally Posted by neroon

Wandows mate.. im saying it since there are just 2 alliances that make the tag limit.. all other alliances are smaller.. if game dosent have that many players so that more than 2 alliances can fill up tags then .. umm why dont we change it so that the game can b played decently again ?

Only two alliances make the tag limit because shitloads of players decided to join the smaller BG's.

What came first the chicken or the egg ?

[Rio]

Originally Posted by Desse

Only two alliances make the tag limit because shitloads of players decided to join the smaller BG's.

What came first the chicken or the egg ?

That still only allows for maybe one or two more full tags, wouldnt it be more interesting to have 10 orso tags capable of winning..

edit: can't spell

[Desse]

Why not go all the way then ?

Lower tag limits to 10. Only people in the same gal be in the same tag.

That people choose to play with fewer members "for fun", then demanding that the rules are changed to accomodate them so that they can compete is hilarious to be honest.

[Rio]

Originally Posted by Desse

Why not go all the way then ?

Lower tag limits to 10. Only people in the same gal be in the same tag.

That people choose to play with fewer members "for fun", then demanding that the rules are changed to accomodate them so that they can compete is hilarious to be honest.

Or you could throw your toys out of your pram...

basically, either remove them all together, or move them down to better fit the size of the community. Atm all they do is allow two alliances to compete for the win and the rest don't get a look in, its not about the alliances that want to play for fun. Theres simply not enough people in this game anymore (actively) to have 80/90 limits.

However i do see that people should be able to play for who they like, which is why im kinda in favour of removing them as well. Atleast that way it would give a true representation of an alliances size, and other allies can merge together if they wish to stop them. Currently you can just alliances hitting tag limit and then having extras sat outside which is unfair on those members.

All depends on what you favour really!

[neroon]

i totally agree with Rio..

thats a stupid excuse Desse that this situation was due to ppl playing in BGs.. there are 3 alliances that got full tag and 14 alliances currently that got 40-70 players.. imo that shows its time to have smaller alliances to keep the competition up in alliance rankings..

i just cant understand how asc and xvx cant see this :P

[JonnyBGood]

Perhaps desse's point is better phrased as a hypothetical. How would you feel, in your 50 man alliance, if the remainder of the community decided that they'd rather play in 20 man alliances and demanded you kick your friends from your alliance in order to allow them to better compete with you?

[neroon]

im not saying its very fun to decide who to kick and who to leave to tag.. but imo game needs it.. alliance rankings needs it as its the most important ranking in pa together with planet ranking..

if theres no competition like the situation is atm then better just remove alliance rankings, if asc/xvx really wont accept it then thats the best solution

[Desse]

I am glad you totally agree with Rio.

He is suggesting either removing the limit or lowering it.

So you don't mind getting it removed either.

Last round we had several alliance playing at tag limit or close to tag limit.

I don't think that many players have left between the last 2 rounds. So what has these players done then ?

My Guess is a lot of them are playing in these small tag BG's.
And it is not an excuse, it is an attempt at an explanation.

I have been ascendancy since it was created in every round, I have played
since then. Personally, I would rather quit playing if I am being prevented to play with the people I have played with for more than 15 rounds.

Lowering tag limit below what it is now, is telling people to find other allies than their current one, if it is above tag limit. Why should those people be punished for staying the same place for an extended time ?

If the alliance limit was lowered to lets say 50 members. If ascendancy have more than 50 long term ascendancy members playing next round, what is your suggestion should happen to these people ? Force them to join other allies ? Stop playing ? Do support tags ?

[neroon]

i got nothing against removing alliances at all Desse.. it might make the rounds shitloads of more intresting as far as i see it..

ive been checking the alliance page for a couple of times.. i agree now that lowering to 50 members is a tad too much, 60-70 would b perfect..why that nr? cos i think it would make at least 10 competitive alliances in pa for the upcoming round.

thirdly - if the limits are reduced to 70 for instanec then im quite sure u will find 20 ppl from yer tag to kick out that havent been long time players and that have just joined yer tag to avoid incomings from one of the best alliances rankwise in planetarion`s history

[Desse]

Lets take these theoretical ideas of yours a bit further.

So we lower the alliance limit to 70. You then claim we will have 10 competitive tags ?

What is your definition of a competitive tag ?

[neroon]

competitive as now those 10 tags are the same size.. wont happen that x1 justs comes down on x4 with full forces and even then got enough fleets to cover the retals and stuff x4 sends out..

x1 might have out of tag players tho those still dont have alliance eta bonus (even better if support planet rule was in some sort of way reintroduced) and cant b that big of a help when it comes down to retals, etc..

heh, sorry, hope it made some sort of sense.. its too damn hot here and i cba to think hard enough P:

[ArcChas]

Originally Posted by Makhil

Yes and No.
Yes for those still using the old DCing model: a small group of trusted people DCing for the whole ally.

No for Alliances trusting all their members with DCing. It means giving access to the tools to everyone. And ingame tools are great for that, far better than some alliance tools I've seen around. OFC it is easier to trust your members when you have a smaller, carefully selected group.

It's not (always) about trust. It's more about finding people with both the willingness and ability to do the jobs.

[[B5]Londo]

This argument comes up every round, why dont ppl look back at the old threads rather than rehashing it. Even with the BGs there is nothing said in this thread that has not been said before.
The lower the tag limit the more elitist alliances are forced to be; I like the idea that ppl can be new and active and get into a competent alliance and learn from active ppl/get decent def etc. That said Im sure this dosent happen much, however I know that asc recruited quite a few new or nearly new ppl when the limit was really high last round and it is a good thing imo.
This means you will never get a level playing field that ppl will desire, when the round with 50 as the tag limit occurs and everyone gets pwned by the 50 best asc ppl then the complaint will simply be that asc takes all the good ppl so its unfair.
A lower tag limit will not break up an alliance like asc, it will harm an alliance like ROCK who benefit from being large and inclusive.

[[B5]Londo]

Edit: ooops double post.

It seemed to me that even when the tag limit was down at 60 or 70 everyone still only thought of there as being a couple of contenders; the fact that a half dozen filled the tag is irrelevent

[Paisley]

The issue I find with smaller allies and Battlegroup is that there is a high reluctance to merge due to power sharing/ HC reluctance to no longer being in charge.

[Cochese]

That's a fair point, and something that people should get over.

Given the choice between being a 'HC' in a small BG and losing, or a peon in a big alliance and winning, I'll take peon every time.


Back on the topic of reducing alliance sizes, specifically, to create more "competition"...I simply don't see it happening. Alliances will full tags now will likely split into two tags, and continue to operate mostly unchanged. Sure, defense will be more difficult, but you'd just see tag2 members countering the attackers on their tag1 mates, etc.

Would the 50 people in alliance X that typically end up in the bottom of the top10 be able to compete with the 50 people in alliance Y that typically win or are top3? Nope.

There's really no simple answer, I think. I am again contemplating the value of having hard-coded alliances versus the old system, where it was basically the planet/galaxy rank, and most people agreed the alliance with the most top-ranked planets/galaxies "won" the round...

[Makhil]

Originally Posted by Cochese

Given the choice between being a 'HC' in a small BG and losing, or a peon in a big alliance and winning, I'll take peon every time.

Luckily there is another choice: being treated as a real player, being given access to tools and intel, being DC or BC at any time, sending defence or being deffed without silly def points system... I'll stay in such an ally no matter what its ranking. And this trust is possible in smaller groups.
Ally of 50 would be an improvement for every member as there would be no choice but to give them higher access, and people will really depend on each other, there would be no room to hide, no flagshipping (in order to succeed).

[Cochese]

Originally Posted by Makhil

Luckily there is another choice: being treated as a real player, being given access to tools and intel, being DC or BC at any time, sending defence or being deffed without silly def points system... I'll stay in such an ally no matter what its ranking. And this trust is possible in smaller groups.
Ally of 50 would be an improvement for every member as there would be no choice but to give them higher access, and people will really depend on each other, there would be no room to hide, no flagshipping (in order to succeed).

Having "played" ten or so rounds in Asc, I'm well aware of the 'right' way to do it. My point was more that, this doesn't seem to be the way (historically) that alliances (or even BG's) operate...you have a hierarchial system of HC/officer/peon, and people spend more time power-tripping than worrying about the success of their alliance. I know the "Asc" model works, better than most.

The point was more that, in my experience, alliances don't (unless something has changed this round) use that type of system. There are a handful of people with access to intel/tools, and the rest are simply foot soldiers. Correct me if I'm wrong btw.

This whole argument obviously becomes moot if, in fact, 50 (or hell, 40) man alliances operated with all members being equal, having full access to everything, and working like a collective.

However, this still does not solve the problem of communities with more than 50 people in them, wanting to play 'together', and smaller alliances limits imposed to create "competition" effectively stifling those larger communities.

This is a huge problem with Planetarion currently, and simply assuming people will share the power (and the burden, and the responsibilities) is unrealistic given the history of PA alliances and the people who 'run' them.

I wish there was an easy fix for this, but there isn't...and anyone who says there is, likely is ****ing looney

[Dogs]

CONGRATULATIONS PEOPLE ALLIANCE LIMITS HAVE BEEN REDUCED FROM 80 TO 70 MEMBERS!!!!!! Id like to think this thread made a big difference with that and thank you for participating in this poll/discussion