|
|
14 Dec 2006, 01:19
|
#1
|
Autobot
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Posts: 30
|
Round 20 Changes
From Round 20 Announcement
Quote:
- Clusters get -2 defence eta advantage
- Clusters get -1 attack eta advantage
|
Do you guys think this will affect the behaviour of the Top Alliances and see the return and "importance" of Cluster Alliances, and the Cluster Strongholds?
Quote:
- Alliance rankings is now in terms of value. The alliance ranking page and alliance dumps will be updated to reflect this.
|
This should eliminate the "fleet crashing" for Score strategy, but now as their is no mention of how the top planet will be awarded (I am assuming it will continue to be by score) will this eliminate, certain alliances members from going for top planet as they will have to be very careful not to lose score for XP gains so that their alliance can win?
__________________
Insurrection
|
|
|
14 Dec 2006, 01:30
|
#2
|
snadwich fetcher
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: ONE LOVE
Posts: 660
|
Re: Round 20 Changes
Who was the bright fellow that determined Alliance rankings would be determined by value?
It's eliminating yet another method of playing the game of Planetarion.
brilliant.
__________________
Nude On!
|
|
|
14 Dec 2006, 01:33
|
#3
|
Up The Hatters!
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Kenilworth Road
Posts: 3,012
|
Re: Round 20 Changes
Alliance size is totally ridiculus and will probably prevent alot of alliances from starting the round.
__________________
Planetarion veteran
|
|
|
14 Dec 2006, 01:35
|
#4
|
snadwich fetcher
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: ONE LOVE
Posts: 660
|
Re: Round 20 Changes
Alliance size isn't ridiculous. There's been a lot of discussion about this and a lot opportunity for community input.
Removing XP from the game though...that's out of left field.
__________________
Nude On!
|
|
|
14 Dec 2006, 01:38
|
#5
|
Registered User
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 3,174
|
Re: Round 20 Changes
Who was consulted on this?
__________________
If one person is in delusion, they're called insane.
If many people are in delusion, it's called a religion.
|
|
|
14 Dec 2006, 01:38
|
#6
|
Up The Hatters!
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Kenilworth Road
Posts: 3,012
|
Re: Round 20 Changes
Quote:
Originally Posted by Barrow|Pony
Alliance size isn't ridiculous. There's been a lot of discussion about this and a lot opportunity for community input.
|
In wich most of the people said that a 50 members limit was the right way to go.
__________________
Planetarion veteran
|
|
|
14 Dec 2006, 01:38
|
#7
|
BlueTuba
Join Date: Aug 2000
Posts: 6,339
|
Re: Round 20 Changes
Determining alliances by value is daft.
Basically, you pick the most active alliance, that'll be the winner, as there's no alternative to compensate for others being more active than you. At least on the old system we can rely on people being politically (in)ept to help determine who wins on top of them being shit at the game.
If you don't like being in the 'most active' alliance, what's the point of alliance play, there's not even a prospect of you winning. Activity rewards itself, in greater value. XP is a bit of a leveller and as Barrow states, offers alternative ways of playing if you want to play for an alliance. Basically this means if you want to contribute, you need to play for value, which requires more activity.
__________________
"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."
|
|
|
14 Dec 2006, 01:42
|
#8
|
Registered Awesome Person
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 5,676
|
Re: Round 20 Changes
Quote:
Originally Posted by Barrow|Pony
Removing XP from the game though...that's out of left field.
|
Well, the planet rankings and galaxy rankings will still be by score. Alliance rankings will be by value, of course.
But I do agree. The alliance rankings should remain score-based, since alliances will be otherwise forced to promote value anyway - and I like XP and the benefits it's brought to the game. As lokken said, it's been an important leveller time and time again.
__________________
Finally free!
|
|
|
14 Dec 2006, 01:45
|
#9
|
The Original Carebear
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Trondheim, Norway
Posts: 1,048
|
Re: Round 20 Changes
I predict a lot of ziks in alliances next round. And as a consequense of this a lot of unallied / xpwhore planets in the top 100.
__________________
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.
|
|
|
14 Dec 2006, 01:47
|
#10
|
Registered User
Join Date: Apr 2002
Posts: 126
|
Re: Round 20 Changes
Alliances ranked by value? Ridiculous. Change it back at once!
|
|
|
14 Dec 2006, 01:57
|
#11
|
Banned
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Further to the right
Posts: 19,441
|
Re: Round 20 Changes
Realistically it depends on what you want from PA. If it is to be a wargame then value should be the determining factor. The strongest alliance should be the one that wins.
__________________
Some might ask what good is life without purpose but I'm anticipating a good lunch.
|
|
|
14 Dec 2006, 02:04
|
#12
|
[SiN] HC
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 56
|
Re: Round 20 Changes
/me looks as PA is brought another step towards Mount Doom
Quote:
- Alliances are a maximum size of 60 members up to tick 168 (1 week in), then they're allowed to accept up to 10 members that are below half their alliance's average value
|
Thank you for not listening to the community.
Quote:
- Alliance rankings is now in terms of value. The alliance ranking page and alliance dumps will be updated to reflect this.
|
Plain silly...
Quote:
- The differences between paid and free accounts have changed dramatically. Paid accounts will have benefits including:
(stuff)
|
Great way not to get paying customers.
As long as you're not going scanner or cov opper, no need to pay as I see it.
Somehow, I don't think "OMG! I need to pay so I can change skin and fleetnames!" is the general grounds for upgrading...
__________________
Think SiN!
Quote:
<@Cedlind> I get a bad wibe on the nick
<@Clogg|zZzZz> you get that with most nicks tbh
|
SiN->SiNND *shivers*->SiN->TGV->really long break->Asc
|
|
|
14 Dec 2006, 02:05
|
#13
|
[Vision]
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: The Netherlands
Posts: 897
|
Re: Round 20 Changes
Quote:
Originally Posted by JonnyBGood
Realistically it depends on what you want from PA. If it is to be a wargame then value should be the determining factor. The strongest alliance should be the one that wins.
|
The alliance with the most value doesn't have to be the strongest. Much like Alexander the Great (some 45,000 troops) with his victory over Persia (allegedly 1,000,000 troops) in the Battle of Gaugamela, a smaller force can beat a bigger one. Experience comes to show there. Although i'm personally not a huge fan of XP, there is something to say for both sides to be the determining factor in the end ranking.
__________________
[Vision] in a lost dream, contributing to The 5th Element at present
|
|
|
14 Dec 2006, 02:11
|
#14
|
Banned
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Further to the right
Posts: 19,441
|
Re: Round 20 Changes
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wandows
The alliance with the most value doesn't have to be the strongest. Much like Alexander the Great (some 45,000 troops) with his victory over Persia (allegedly 1,000,000 troops) in the Battle of Gaugamela, a smaller force can beat a bigger one. Experience comes to show there. Although i'm personally not a huge fan of XP, there is something to say for both sides to be the determining factor in the end ranking.
|
The relationship between experience and xp is tenuous at best.
__________________
Some might ask what good is life without purpose but I'm anticipating a good lunch.
|
|
|
14 Dec 2006, 02:13
|
#15
|
BlueTuba
Join Date: Aug 2000
Posts: 6,339
|
Re: Round 20 Changes
The point is that there is no near zero incentive for less active alliances to play if they know they've lost from the off. And determining by value is a pretty sure fire way of putting them off, I think.
__________________
"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."
|
|
|
14 Dec 2006, 02:21
|
#16
|
Up The Hatters!
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Kenilworth Road
Posts: 3,012
|
Re: Round 20 Changes
Quote:
Originally Posted by lokken
The point is that there is no near zero incentive for less active alliances to play if they know they've lost from the off. And determining by value is a pretty sure fire way of putting them off, I think.
|
Disagree. With the new system it gets better to be an xpwhore and play for yourself. You wouldnt need an alliance for anything.
__________________
Planetarion veteran
|
|
|
14 Dec 2006, 03:06
|
#17
|
snadwich fetcher
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: ONE LOVE
Posts: 660
|
Re: Round 20 Changes
Thats what he said dude.
__________________
Nude On!
|
|
|
14 Dec 2006, 03:54
|
#18
|
Autobot
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Posts: 30
|
Re: Round 20 Changes
Quote:
Originally Posted by lokken
The point is that there is no near zero incentive for less active alliances to play if they know they've lost from the off. And determining by value is a pretty sure fire way of putting them off, I think.
|
I agree fully with this point, it seems rather stupid to judge alliance score just by value, when value isnt the determining factor for the entire game. One very tiny plus would be the fact that if it was organised properly roiding the Top alliance dry would actually drop their value, where as now when roiding the top alliance you have to hope for XP gain as well. A few thousand rocks lost everynight will surely tilt the "Value" of the alliance(s) lower, unless of course people deside to fleetcrash for XP gain and stop thinking about their alliances.
__________________
Insurrection
|
|
|
14 Dec 2006, 06:14
|
#19
|
Hired Thug
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Central Illinois USA
Posts: 894
|
Re: Round 20 Changes
Taking score out of the alliance ranking is rediculous. the alliance competition will be over much faster than it is now. You have very few alliances that can sustain an effective campaign without XP score boost. Anyone forgeting how close last round was as opposed to most because of the xp score boost possability? Not to mention you don't plan to track Cluster alliances. A completely pointless move.
__________________
Anatidaephobia is the fear that somewhere in the world, there is a duck watching you......
|
|
|
14 Dec 2006, 07:13
|
#20
|
Registered User
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 227
|
Re: Round 20 Changes
personally i like everything the game has inputted apart from the paid account situation, seems no point in paying now as some1 said earlier, i like the bring back of clusters, adds a new dimension to the game. as for value based alliances, i personally think its a good idea, i personally hate XP as it shows nothing apart from the fact ur willing to crash fleet, maybe ND are annoyed at this, but hey, shoot me down
|
|
|
14 Dec 2006, 07:38
|
#21
|
Registered User
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Noruega
Posts: 2,999
|
Re: Round 20 Changes
Being a valueplayer im fkin happy
__________________
"Cry havoc and let slip the dogs of War"
|
|
|
14 Dec 2006, 07:45
|
#22
|
Pedantic hypocrite
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Back and to the left
Posts: 1,488
|
Re: Round 20 Changes
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cedlind
Great way not to get paying customers.
As long as you're not going scanner or cov opper, no need to pay as I see it.
Somehow, I don't think "OMG! I need to pay so I can change skin and fleetnames!" is the general grounds for upgrading...
|
Quote:
-- Engineering/journal/history pages
|
__________________
I always wanted to be a dancer, but I could never get the shit off my shoes
.......
|
|
|
14 Dec 2006, 07:46
|
#23
|
Hired Thug
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Central Illinois USA
Posts: 894
|
Re: Round 20 Changes
Quote:
Originally Posted by .Disc.
personally i like everything the game has inputted apart from the paid account situation, seems no point in paying now as some1 said earlier, i like the bring back of clusters, adds a new dimension to the game. as for value based alliances, i personally think its a good idea, i personally hate XP as it shows nothing apart from the fact ur willing to crash fleet, maybe ND are annoyed at this, but hey, shoot me down
|
you have to remember, only a few alliances, maybe not even 5 can hang value wise in a 7 week fight, only way this is going to give them a way to compete is if they have the ability to catch up, or keep up xp wise....
__________________
Anatidaephobia is the fear that somewhere in the world, there is a duck watching you......
|
|
|
14 Dec 2006, 08:06
|
#24
|
Registered User
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Noruega
Posts: 2,999
|
Re: Round 20 Changes
I really like the incluster changes and the 'smaller' buddypack one
__________________
"Cry havoc and let slip the dogs of War"
|
|
|
14 Dec 2006, 08:58
|
#25
|
wasted
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Under the floorboards
Posts: 1,240
|
Re: Round 20 Changes
Mostly good ideas. Not sure about the alliance value ranking though; it's the only idea which has a non-obvious justification.
Can anyone from PAteam explain the rationale behind the decision?
__________________
“They were totally confused,” said the birdman, whose flying suit gives him a passing resemblance to Buzz Lightyear in Toy Story. “The authorities said that I was an unregistered aircraft and to fly, you need a licence. I told them, ‘No. To fly, you need wings’.”
|
|
|
14 Dec 2006, 09:23
|
#26
|
NewDawn peon
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Dutchieland
Posts: 18
|
Re: Round 20 Changes
To count Alliance rankings based on Value is in my opinion a failing method, because:
1: Loads of people play for their alliance. It includes a social aspect into the game. Making it easier for people to go for XP and play individually will lessen that social aspect.
2: Making value a bigger aspect will make races unbalanced. Zikonian will have a great advantage, being able to steal value. IF, and only IF, you are going through with the change, this balance should be restored. That, in my opinion, is impossible as long as single planets and galaxies are still rated by Score.
3: Value mostly represents your ability to stock, build and stay as safe as possible. It represents NOT your ability to arrange attacks and defense. It will simply mean the ally that racks up the most resources in the round stays on top.
4: Value on a planet represents the danger you risk attacking said planet. I will explain that below, where I propose alternative change. Value + XP represents an alliance's achievement. I do not believe alliances should be ranked on risk factor, I believe in ranking on achievement.
Furthermore, I believe that a change in the gamesystem, namely ADDING xp to gameplay some rounds before, made ALL players attack and defend a whole lot more, bringing more and better actual warfare to the game.
Alliance gameplay revolves around warfare, and not being rewarded for waging war demotes alliances to social clubs at most. I think alliance gameplay is a big part of PA and is to be taken, and kept, seriously.
Combining both effort and quality into score gives a good representation of how *good* an alliance is. Removing effort will only keep the elite players on top.
-----------------------
Now, I DO want to propose something in alternative to said round change:
In my opinion, XP is a very easy way to rack up score right now. Land on a big planet and you are halfway there. There are two thing I propose to make XP a bit more balanced:
1: XP points should be worth less score, say 40-50 instead of the current 60. This because only 1 land can already boost you very high up, which does not make it 100% resemblant to the effort needed.
2: XP formula should be based on value/roids ONLY. This because of the following:
- It is very easy to land on a big score planet when he has no ships. Landing on a planet which has no defense of its own should hardly be rewarded. You can already be happy with the free roids in my opinion.
- If said does have a lot of resources stacked up, that will also count towards value. Value is thusly the most representative factor of the danger you risk when attacking such a planet.
----
Now, I know this rant will probably be read and dismissed by the team. I will just add to this that I have enjoyed gameplay like it was r19, even with XP to be worth a bit too much imho. Demoting XP would mean a lot less pleasant gameplay, at least for me.
|
|
|
14 Dec 2006, 09:31
|
#27
|
Registered User
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Australia
Posts: 31
|
Re: Round 20 Changes
My query is..
Will it be -3eta Defend.. if you are in tag, in cluster?
if so.. it will make it cluster alliance based.. and cluster alliances will rock
back to round 1
|
|
|
14 Dec 2006, 09:32
|
#28
|
Registered User
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Australia
Posts: 31
|
Re: Round 20 Changes
oh and stop your whinging about the pay accounts..
as there isnt a larger incentive to pay.. thats not (our) problem.. thats (their) problem
think of it like this..
more targets..
bring on the newbies
.. also the way i see it.. $10 AUD isnt much to pay to support a habbit.. think of it as buying a beer that lasts 7 weeks or so.
support pa.. pay for your account.. dont 'NOT' pay because you dont recieve any greater benifits.. is this pa community really
full of a bunch of tight asses ?
im sure you all make more then that per hour at work..
even if it is workin as a kitchen hand in a greasy food joint like maccas..
and the xp issue on alliances.. pfft.. may aswell remove xp altogether.. as i see it the ONLY benifit it gives you is score..
which i think is a cheap rip off..
if anything.. restructure the XP to give you other benifits.. like better ship agility n crap.. to imporve worth in an attack..
as for the bloke who quoted the alexander the great thing earlier.. about expierenced soldiers compared to number of soilders..
yes thats true.. im sure they didnt benifit from "score" rather then learning how to be quicker and better.. see my point?
either way in pa.. more ships.. better.. it doesnt give you any attack benifits.. so its pointless.
so bring on the value only
Last edited by MadwoG; 14 Dec 2006 at 09:42.
|
|
|
14 Dec 2006, 09:40
|
#29
|
Flame me...
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Ohio, USA
Posts: 152
|
Re: Round 20 Changes
Cluster alliances last about 1 week. There is no reason to indulge this aspect of the game.
The game is fine as is for the most part, it just needs downsized. No more than 50 with 10 added later in alliance. No more than 10 in a galaxy, etc. Also some upgrades here and there. Nothing else is needed.
Trash this crap, it's obviously not wanted.
__________________
r1: [Ark]HC
r2: [Ark]-[Tuba]
r3: [Tuba]
r4: [Tuba]HC
r11: [SiN]
r12: [SiN]HC
r13: [eX]
r19: [TGV]
r20: Destiny
r21: What? Are you kidding?
Ooooomph! Come back Noah02!
|
|
|
14 Dec 2006, 10:29
|
#30
|
Hired Thug
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Central Illinois USA
Posts: 894
|
Re: Round 20 Changes
lets remember also that nonpayed planets opens up the chance for more support planets/multi's to, like there already isn't enough for the mh's to do without increasing their already heavy workload, that they do for free. So let's go and make it easier for these planets to have an effect on the non cheatng players...good plan
__________________
Anatidaephobia is the fear that somewhere in the world, there is a duck watching you......
|
|
|
14 Dec 2006, 11:20
|
#31
|
Up The Hatters!
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Kenilworth Road
Posts: 3,012
|
Re: Round 20 Changes
Quote:
Originally Posted by Round20announcement
- Clusters get -2 defence eta advantage
|
Fine, no problem with it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Round20announcement
- Clusters get -1 attack eta advantage
|
No, this will mean that there are some attacks the alliance cant defend. Unfair to the alliances. For example, u can with this do fleetcatches in cluster without the alliance being able to defend. So basically free fleetcatches.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Round20announcement
- Alliances are a maximum size of 60 members up to tick 168 (1 week in), then they're allowed to accept up to 10 members that are below half their alliance's average value
|
This basically means that the higher score/value a planet is, the harder it is for a smaller alliance to accept him. Eventually you might have to send the applicant to a BIGGER alliance because you cant accept him...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Round20announcement
- All planets count towards the alliance limit
|
No problems with that one.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Round20announcement
- Alliance rankings is now in terms of value. The alliance ranking page and alliance dumps will be updated to reflect this.
|
Big problem.This opens for xpfarming. If an alliance plays to win,the alliance player will have a high value planet This basically means that cluster planets can be attacked and roided spot free in own cluster and only cluster/gal def can defend it. XP players should probably go for fi/co fleets in order to be able to roid theese type of planets for free. Question is ofc, is this a good thing? I think not.
__________________
Planetarion veteran
|
|
|
14 Dec 2006, 11:34
|
#32
|
BlueTuba
Join Date: Aug 2000
Posts: 6,339
|
Re: Round 20 Changes
Well another issue that I thought of while in bed was that in theory, it should encourage more defensive play from alliance players, simply because while you might gain XP, your alliance won't, if you're landing for a marginal value loss.
__________________
"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."
|
|
|
14 Dec 2006, 11:48
|
#33
|
Up The Hatters!
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Kenilworth Road
Posts: 3,012
|
Re: Round 20 Changes
Quote:
Originally Posted by lokken
Well another issue that I thought of while in bed was that in theory, it should encourage more defensive play from alliance players, simply because while you might gain XP, your alliance won't, if you're landing for a marginal value loss.
|
U thought about it in bed? I thought about it the shower :-p
__________________
Planetarion veteran
|
|
|
14 Dec 2006, 11:53
|
#34
|
Estharian
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Malaysia
Posts: 48
|
Re: Round 20 Changes
PA team should keep the option of 5 per bp as i believe 3 and below per bp is too few for a good coverage ingal. Or give us 3 options : 5 per bp / 3 per bp / 2 per bp. Gal setup could be 5 per bp with 2 per bp or 3 per bp with 2*2 per bp.
__________________
[Fury]/[Wrath], [Eclipse], [1up], []LCH[], CT & Ascendancy
-=Estharian Since R4=-
|
|
|
14 Dec 2006, 12:04
|
#35
|
Registered User
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 168
|
Re: Round 20 Changes
I agree with Sleepless. 3 in a BP is to little to be certain of decent gal (2*2 is even more unsecure), look at how many gals that disbanded last round when most had 5 ppl in a BP and at least could def eachother to a point. With only 3 in a BP this will become much harder and at least with cluster attacks -1. With only 3 in a BP it will also be harder to have enough time to make a and run a cluster alliance, which will be strongly needed in the upcoming round. If you have 5 then you can have some from the BP that runs the cluster alliance while some run the gal.
Ì think we'll see alot more of galaxies disbanding if the bp size is change as proposed
|
|
|
14 Dec 2006, 12:59
|
#36
|
wasted
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Under the floorboards
Posts: 1,240
|
Re: Round 20 Changes
I must admit that I don't see what was wrong with the 4-5 person BP size.
__________________
“They were totally confused,” said the birdman, whose flying suit gives him a passing resemblance to Buzz Lightyear in Toy Story. “The authorities said that I was an unregistered aircraft and to fly, you need a licence. I told them, ‘No. To fly, you need wings’.”
|
|
|
14 Dec 2006, 13:30
|
#37
|
Insomniac
Join Date: May 2003
Posts: 3,583
|
Re: Round 20 Changes
Quote:
Originally Posted by lokken
Well another issue that I thought of while in bed was that in theory, it should encourage more defensive play from alliance players, simply because while you might gain XP, your alliance won't, if you're landing for a marginal value loss.
|
It should also discourage stupid crashes of fleets as well.
Personally, i like the value being used as alliance score as it represents their direct strength in the game.
It is a war game after all, not a "Oh lets see how 'l33t' we can be with our tiny fleets and planets which cant be retaliated against" game
|
|
|
14 Dec 2006, 13:32
|
#38
|
Registered User
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Oktoberfest :)
Posts: 397
|
Re: Round 20 Changes
if score is value based please make roids more value worth
__________________
-------------------------------------------------
Alliances: Rock, FanG, Angels, Vengeance
Communities, BG's: OuZo, gôsu, Kralizec, Critters, Xraid
Prod to not have been in many alliances
|
|
|
14 Dec 2006, 13:37
|
#39
|
Hired Thug
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Central Illinois USA
Posts: 894
|
Re: Round 20 Changes
Quote:
Originally Posted by Phil^
It should also discourage stupid crashes of fleets as well.
Personally, i like the value being used as alliance score as it represents their direct strength in the game.
It is a war game after all, not a "Oh lets see how 'l33t' we can be with our tiny fleets and planets which cant be retaliated against" game
|
as I agree with your take on why it would reflect an alliances direct strenght, the point is, it means 2-3 alliances, top 5 maybe will compete, the rest are just farting in the wind, and it will decide the outcome of the round on the alliance level far too early.
__________________
Anatidaephobia is the fear that somewhere in the world, there is a duck watching you......
|
|
|
14 Dec 2006, 13:39
|
#40
|
Insomniac
Join Date: May 2003
Posts: 3,583
|
Re: Round 20 Changes
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kargool
Big problem.This opens for xpfarming. If an alliance plays to win,the alliance player will have a high value planet This basically means that cluster planets can be attacked and roided spot free in own cluster and only cluster/gal def can defend it. XP players should probably go for fi/co fleets in order to be able to roid theese type of planets for free. Question is ofc, is this a good thing? I think not.
|
Uhm. No it doesnt
Making alliance *Scores* dependant on their value has nothing to do with XP or its farming.
If anything it means xp farming by alliances is utterly useless now as it wont affect the alliance scores.
Planet xp farming is another matter however, and is something which existed before this change as well.
I would welcome all ranks being changed back to value based, personally - but thats just me
|
|
|
14 Dec 2006, 13:41
|
#41
|
Insomniac
Join Date: May 2003
Posts: 3,583
|
Re: Round 20 Changes
Quote:
Originally Posted by aNgRyDuCk
as I agree with your take on why it would reflect an alliances direct strenght, the point is, it means 2-3 alliances, top 5 maybe will compete, the rest are just farting in the wind, and it will decide the outcome of the round on the alliance level far too early.
|
the rest are farting in the wind usually anyway the way things are. They are never a real contender for the win even with the previous system and this change in how alliances are ranked will not change that.
They have always, and seemingly will always be collaborators, never in with a direct title shot but left to fiddle behind the scenes to help another alliance win.
If the other alliances want to win they need to overhaul their command, their members and their playing style
|
|
|
14 Dec 2006, 13:44
|
#42
|
Banned
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Further to the right
Posts: 19,441
|
Re: Round 20 Changes
Quote:
Originally Posted by aNgRyDuCk
as I agree with your take on why it would reflect an alliances direct strenght, the point is, it means 2-3 alliances, top 5 maybe will compete, the rest are just farting in the wind, and it will decide the outcome of the round on the alliance level far too early.
|
Bear in mind that a) all alliances will know value is the route they need to pursue so previous value gaps are unlikely to reoccur b) the round is now shorter by two weeks. Also I have very little idea what round had more than two or three alliances competing for the win. Let us not forget than the roll call of PA since r11 has gone 1up/1up/exi/1up/exi/asc/1up/exi/exi. Not exactly the height of variation which this change will destroy.
__________________
Some might ask what good is life without purpose but I'm anticipating a good lunch.
|
|
|
14 Dec 2006, 13:56
|
#43
|
Registered User
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 846
|
Re: Round 20 Changes
sorry dudes i think most of it sucks mostly cot is solves the syntomes but not the problems that the game have atm this changes kills off allies all together from the game and we can guess what happens then.
r19 big gals was hard as hell to roid now we have big gals+ clusters means fence raidings pays off even more
/me dont sign up r20 :/
|
|
|
14 Dec 2006, 14:02
|
#44
|
wasted
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Under the floorboards
Posts: 1,240
|
Re: Round 20 Changes
Only shit alliances will quit.
Have alliances lost all sense of creativity or ability to respond or adapt to changing circumstances? Personally, I can think of some very interesting new possibilities
__________________
“They were totally confused,” said the birdman, whose flying suit gives him a passing resemblance to Buzz Lightyear in Toy Story. “The authorities said that I was an unregistered aircraft and to fly, you need a licence. I told them, ‘No. To fly, you need wings’.”
|
|
|
14 Dec 2006, 14:02
|
#45
|
Banned
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Further to the right
Posts: 19,441
|
Re: Round 20 Changes
Quote:
Originally Posted by robban1
sorry dudes i think most of it sucks mostly cot is solves the syntomes but not the problems that the game have atm this changes kills off allies all together from the game and we can guess what happens then.
r19 big gals was hard as hell to roid now we have big gals+ clusters means fence raidings pays off even more
/me dont sign up r20 :/
|
No, we won't have big galaxies anymore. This is part of the bp size changes.
__________________
Some might ask what good is life without purpose but I'm anticipating a good lunch.
|
|
|
14 Dec 2006, 14:25
|
#46
|
Registered User
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Oktoberfest :)
Posts: 397
|
Re: Round 20 Changes
Quote:
Originally Posted by JonnyBGood
No, we won't have big galaxies anymore. This is part of the bp size changes.
|
random lotery ftw
__________________
-------------------------------------------------
Alliances: Rock, FanG, Angels, Vengeance
Communities, BG's: OuZo, gôsu, Kralizec, Critters, Xraid
Prod to not have been in many alliances
|
|
|
14 Dec 2006, 14:34
|
#47
|
Banned
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Further to the right
Posts: 19,441
|
Re: Round 20 Changes
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sjor
random lotery ftw
|
No, you now have a reasonably large cluster which you can attempt to organise.
__________________
Some might ask what good is life without purpose but I'm anticipating a good lunch.
|
|
|
14 Dec 2006, 15:25
|
#48
|
Hired Thug
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Central Illinois USA
Posts: 894
|
Re: Round 20 Changes
Quote:
Originally Posted by JonnyBGood
Bear in mind that a) all alliances will know value is the route they need to pursue so previous value gaps are unlikely to reoccur b) the round is now shorter by two weeks. Also I have very little idea what round had more than two or three alliances competing for the win. Let us not forget than the roll call of PA since r11 has gone 1up/1up/exi/1up/exi/asc/1up/exi/exi. Not exactly the height of variation which this change will destroy.
|
I do see your point, however I'm just pointing out, that alliances will piss off much earlier, soon as they see the bigger/more organised alliances move into the lead, expand on that lead. Also, the rounds may have not had more than 2-3 alliances going for the win in the end, but ofcourse earlier in th round before the shit flies some may have seen themselves more competitive than they will under this scenario
__________________
Anatidaephobia is the fear that somewhere in the world, there is a duck watching you......
|
|
|
14 Dec 2006, 15:30
|
#49
|
Banned
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Further to the right
Posts: 19,441
|
Re: Round 20 Changes
Quote:
Originally Posted by aNgRyDuCk
I do see your point, however I'm just pointing out, that alliances will piss off much earlier, soon as they see the bigger/more organised alliances move into the lead, expand on that lead. Also, the rounds may have not had more than 2-3 alliances going for the win in the end, but ofcourse earlier in th round before the shit flies some may have seen themselves more competitive than they will under this scenario
|
This is a problem due to the way the game previously developed though. People saw themselves as more competitive due to the fact they went after xp so their scores were "artifically" elevated and the blunt statement of alliance values, which more accurately reflects alliance strength was not apparent.
__________________
Some might ask what good is life without purpose but I'm anticipating a good lunch.
|
|
|
14 Dec 2006, 15:35
|
#50
|
Registered User
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 42
|
Re: Round 20 Changes
Im not at all convinced by the idea of alliances being judged solely on value I mean this gives all Ziks a serious advantage in an ally so if your ally if 50% zik and someone who just beat you this round is 30% zik then under the new judging system i think the ally that is 50% zik will now win is this really fair?
__________________
R17: NOOB
R18-19: Insurrection
R20-23: Orbit
|
|
|
|
All times are GMT +1. The time now is 04:07.
| |