Planetarion Forums

Wishmaster · 29 Jan 2007, 18:29

Thanks alot for giving us clusters back. Atm we are sitting makeing up some basic rules, and adding people we know. Found name and all. I feel like a teenager again, and remember the good old days of pa

Thank you. this is bound to be great fun

Wishmaster · 29 Jan 2007, 18:33

I do I do I do

/me dances to some 90s dance music

qebab · 29 Jan 2007, 18:38

I have to agree with this. Clusters are great fun. Thumbs up!

Mighteh · 29 Jan 2007, 19:05

yer... all those addition to politics. Just what a guy needs to kill his spare time

but hey, its a game of strategy and tactics. I welcome new challenges in every way

Makhil · 29 Jan 2007, 19:39

yeah dealing with all the planets breaking the Nap will be cool

furball · 29 Jan 2007, 21:26

I give it a month until half of you change your tune. There will always be winners and losers in cluster conflicts.

Forest · 29 Jan 2007, 21:29

I think clusters in a universe this size is a very bad idea, and I think we have started to see it already where galaxies are having to join cluster alliances or die.
And it will be only a matter of time before gals in c alliances start getting picked off.
Anyone not in a c alliance will be dead in 3 days anyway.

Mighteh · 29 Jan 2007, 21:52

Quote:

Originally Posted by furball

I give it a month until half of you change your tune. There will always be winners and losers in cluster conflicts.

precisely. Gives you another front to fight on. That can effectively co-exist with your alliance conflicts.

Imo, great deal of fun. Noone lets me play with alliance politics anyways

(and thank god for that!). So i get to pick and choose my cluster friends and foes =)

furball · 29 Jan 2007, 21:54

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mighteh

precisely. Gives you another front to fight on. That can effectively co-exist with your alliance conflicts.

Imo, great deal of fun. Noone lets me play with alliance politics anyways

(and thank god for that!). So i get to pick and choose my cluster friends and foes =)

You might have the luxury of choosing who your cluster friends and foes are, but the majority of players don't.

Mighteh · 29 Jan 2007, 22:08

everybody has a choice. it does require initiative and basic common sence.
Every galaxy has a GC they voted. He (GC) represents the wishes and respects of that said galaxy. Its his job, on the behalf of the people who voted him GC, to create maximumly beneficial situation in his galaxy. For the better of galaxy as a unit, as much as everybody in in it particular. At least in my comprehension.

Why, u think GC's sole job is to click something any time exiling is needed and/or change galaxy banners ? ^^

furball · 29 Jan 2007, 23:28

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mighteh

everybody has a choice. it does require initiative and basic common sence.
Every galaxy has a GC they voted. He (GC) represents the wishes and respects of that said galaxy. Its his job, on the behalf of the people who voted him GC, to create maximumly beneficial situation in his galaxy. For the better of galaxy as a unit, as much as everybody in in it particular. At least in my comprehension.

Why, u think GC's sole job is to click something any time exiling is needed and/or change galaxy banners ? ^^

Oh dear. You really are retarded. I'll inform the nurse, she'll give you a prescription for the anti-stupidity medicine.

[/end of highly offensive diatribe]

Look, not all galaxies have 'leet' buddypacks in them - in fact, 20% of all galaxies are crap. Several galaxies still haven't even elected a GC, while many of them obviously have no chance of ever forming a cohesive unit. The re-introduction of clusters has relegated them to bashville, as opposed to just being a shitty sink galaxy. Suprise suprise, these galaxies are often where new players end up after being exiled out of the 'leet' galaxies they were fortunate enough to land in at round start.

I really can't see how the re-introduction of clusters is going to be good for the game.

Forest · 29 Jan 2007, 23:50

Quote:

Originally Posted by furball

Look, not all galaxies have 'leet' buddypacks in them - in fact, 20% of all galaxies are crap. Several galaxies still haven't even elected a GC, while many of them obviously have no chance of ever forming a cohesive unit. The re-introduction of clusters has relegated them to bashville, as opposed to just being a shitty sink galaxy. Suprise suprise, these galaxies are often where new players end up after being exiled out of the 'leet' galaxies they were fortunate enough to land in at round start.

I really can't see how the re-introduction of clusters is going to be good for the game.

Couldnt of said it better myslef.

lokken · 30 Jan 2007, 00:39

Clusters in this universe should be bigger. For a cluster to really work and to have depth, you need about 250 per cluster. That means we shouldn't have more than 4 clusters.

Smaller clusters mean you can just force the issue (and the margin of victory) home much faster, if you're any good at the game.

Willzzz · 30 Jan 2007, 13:45

Personaly i think this was an excellent idea. It brings an interest back into PA. Of course its not as succesful before as you had a lot more players which meant bigger clusters. But at the same time i applaud PA Team for making this step. It brings some nostalga back to the old PA gamers.

Also as i said you dont get so bored. You fight for the right to own cluster alliances, you have wars in cluster and outside of cluster. To me it makes it a lot more interesting. It shouldnt of been removed in the first place. And infact, i have saw a lot of newer players (meaning players that have only played the last 2-3 rounds or less) Are enjoying this. So i think it is benefitting newer players more then the old.

Sharur · 30 Jan 2007, 14:03

I'm not sure if all people who cheer to the return of clusters realise this game has changed alot, both the interaction of players with the game as the politics inside alliances and galaxies.
I doubt we'll have the same form of cluster alliances as we did back in the days, I do think it'll be interesting to see what does happen tho. So I'm quite neutral towards it all.

Gio2k · 30 Jan 2007, 14:26

Cluster alliances were always good for the well connected players and shit for the new ones.
In this setup it makes things worse for my taste, since fast fleets (fi and co) incluster can't be defended by alliance members. So if you are not in the cluster aliance, you will be dead soon.
I may be wrong, but i think we will soon see the repercussions of this measure.

Kargool · 30 Jan 2007, 14:41

A player will now have his loyality divided between cluster, galaxy and alliance.

I dont know if thats good or bad.

Lets see what the end game will bring.

Sharur · 30 Jan 2007, 14:57

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kargool

A player will now have his loyality divided between cluster, galaxy and alliance.

I dont know if thats good or bad.

Lets see what the end game will bring.

Well I don't really see loyalty to cluster as any different from putting your planet's benefits before alliance's benefit.

Sjor · 30 Jan 2007, 15:29

the only thing i miss are the "forbidden" characters

u cant tag a gal [c1a] or so

but its nice to bash the ppl that aint allowed to reveal nick just cause they aint

some alliances will have to rethink

AllFather|away · 30 Jan 2007, 15:35

Bo!

Raging.Retard · 30 Jan 2007, 15:41

Go away.

AllFather|away · 30 Jan 2007, 15:44

you know you love me.

Lockhead · 30 Jan 2007, 22:06

Quote:

Originally Posted by qebab

I have to agree with this. Clusters are great fun. Thumbs up!

Yea.

I love it, too.

So its "old tactics" and not "new tactics", but heh, how should the new ones know

Forest · 31 Jan 2007, 00:37

Quote:

Originally Posted by Willzzz

Personaly i think this was an excellent idea. It brings an interest back into PA. Of course its not as succesful before as you had a lot more players which meant bigger clusters. But at the same time i applaud PA Team for making this step. It brings some nostalga back to the old PA gamers.

Also as i said you dont get so bored. You fight for the right to own cluster alliances, you have wars in cluster and outside of cluster. To me it makes it a lot more interesting. It shouldnt of been removed in the first place. And infact, i have saw a lot of newer players (meaning players that have only played the last 2-3 rounds or less) Are enjoying this. So i think it is benefitting newer players more then the old.

It is not very often I disagree with you but I will in this instance.

A strong cluster - everyone has to join, anyone who doesnt gets killed. Weaker gals wont control there gals and get picked off. Strong gals get extra defence pool. Weak gals are at mercy of strong gals, they cant make any decisions for themsleves, they ahve to follow or die.

A medium cluster - Strong gals work together and kill andone who is weak. Incluster attack means those smaller gals are dead from tick 72 and wont recover. Any decent player here knows they cant stand any chance at all of surviving and they exile fast.

Weak clusters - get killed by the strong clusters from the offset.

I dont buy any arguments about ppl not knowing strong/weak etc, every single top 10 alliance by now knows which clusters are owned by who, which clusters are bad to attack and which are free roids.

If they had made it -1 eta on cluster def, and normal attack, clusters would have achance, and mayb, just mabe, the cluster allinces would become important (as it appears tahts what the plp runing the game want, clusters over alliances).
As it is, I see NO benefit to clusters at all for the weak, and the strong will gain nm the rules anyway.

jerome · 31 Jan 2007, 01:17

Quote:

Originally Posted by Forest

If they had made it -1 eta on cluster def, and normal attack, clusters would have achance, and mayb, just mabe, the cluster allinces would become important (as it appears tahts what the plp runing the game want, clusters over alliances).
As it is, I see NO benefit to clusters at all for the weak, and the strong will gain nm the rules anyway.

what are you talking about you imbecile, it's been -1 cluster def and normal attack since r10 until now

also clusters are too small, should've been 15 gals a cluster to be honest

Wishmaster · 31 Jan 2007, 01:25

In the cluster alliance which I m part of running atm, we accept all who are willing to show their true identity ( e.g not fake nicking / hiding their alliance )

For now, thats about it...and all have been mailed. I see this as a great chance for never players to get to know others. And a way for them to get protection.

Ofc, it depends how / who runs the C. In our C it was simple to take controll, as it seems like 90% of the bps knew each other

Hopefully it will be a good round where I get to know people I wouldnt get to know normally. And it wont / cant be a drain from the smaller ones, as we have def points etc etc.

Lei~ · 31 Jan 2007, 02:59

thanks from me too.
ive long wanted to have clusters back and i dont think ppl will get bashed as badly as many ppl see it. And theres always the exile option to get into an alliance cluster of yours

Forest · 31 Jan 2007, 08:49

Quote:

Originally Posted by jerome

what are you talking about you imbecile, it's been -1 cluster def and normal attack since r10 until now

also clusters are too small, should've been 15 gals a cluster to be honest

Oh lol

My point remains about attacking though.

Zh|l · 1 Feb 2007, 00:28

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wishmaster

In the cluster alliance which I m part of running atm, we accept all who are willing to show their true identity ( e.g not fake nicking / hiding their alliance )

For now, thats about it...and all have been mailed. I see this as a great chance for never players to get to know others. And a way for them to get protection.

Ofc, it depends how / who runs the C. In our C it was simple to take controll, as it seems like 90% of the bps knew each other

Hopefully it will be a good round where I get to know people I wouldnt get to know normally. And it wont / cant be a drain from the smaller ones, as we have def points etc etc.

If I was in your cluster, I'd not reveal myself (assuming i was playing for a top alliance.) Infact, my young self would have purposefully gotten a fake alternate identify with accompaning alliance and told the others in my 'allies' to do the same to infiltrate you and get free intel.

Then, I'd coordinate with this 'elite' rogue group to take you out along with support from my alliance if required.

Alki · 1 Feb 2007, 02:42

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zh|l

If I was in your cluster, I'd not reveal myself (assuming i was playing for a top alliance.) Infact, my young self would have purposefully gotten a fake alternate identify with accompaning alliance and told the others in my 'allies' to do the same to infiltrate you and get free intel.

Then, I'd coordinate with this 'elite' rogue group to take you out along with support from my alliance if required.

we are the elite rogue thats the point, but we only reveal nicks, its pretty wank getting to know someone whos been fake nicking, then they change to there real and its totally different. We havent distributed the details to anyone, only I actually have them, and havent given them out, plus when people wanna check coords if they can attack, it just displays whether it is hittable or not