Development update 14/02/04

[JC]

With Round 11 approaching it seems like now is a good time to reveal some of the details of what is going to happen regarding alliances, associated tools and restrictions. The plan is to be along the lines of the system employed in PA:X whereby alliances should signup for the tools in-game leading to it being possible to give alliances a ranking for the end of the game.

As before there will be an incentive to be in an alliance that is registered in the game. Alliances which aren't registered won't enjoy the same benefits. The ETA bonus will be travel time -1, which will be effective on defence missions to other alliance members on the universe travel time only. Essentially this is the same as the system employed in PA:X. It is designed to give alliances a chance to work together, while at the same time not creating a barrier to playing the game without an alliance.

The tools available to alliances in Round 11 are also going to be constructed from scratch to enable alliances to use either their own sites, or the tools in-game. One of the things that has come out of the various meetings we have had with representatives of alliances is the need to make the tools easy to configure within each alliance, so that the HC can choose who has access to what information. We are currently debating how much to automatically integrate things like defence calls into the system with the various pros and cons being looked at. As the tools for alliances are somewhat secondary to the functioning of the game they won't be coded until the game itself is nearing completion.

In other news relating to Planetarion there have been several other developments since the last update. The newsletter has been launched and is accessible via http://news.planetarion.com and development on the passport is coming close to completion. The passport will be detailed in an announcement coming soon explaining what it is and why we're doing it. In the meantime the graphics for it have been produced and I'd like to take this opportunity to thank blixxard for making them. In all areas we are trying to ensure compatibility with browsers, both new and old to make sure that the sites are accessible to as many people as possible. Of course browser technology and the languages used to construct webpages have moved on, so although the sites will work in browsers such as Netscape 4.8 they don't necessarily look as pretty as they do in IE6 or the latest versions of Mozila.

As a note to end on this seems like a good time to remind everyone about the on-going Speedgame series. At the time of writing there are 2 games remaining, the first of which on the 14th & 15th of February is free to enter. The single top galaxy from this round will qualify for the final. The other game is a week later on the 21st & 22nd of February and is pay to play, but the top 4 galaxies from this one will qualify.

[Kal]

sounds good,. altho0ugh i wpouln;t neccesarily say alliance tools are secondary to the game it self, if you want alliances to stay with pa then u need to keep em happy.

[wakey]

The upper limit on alliance size will be reduced from 150 to 100.

FFS when will someone listen to me, SETTING ALLIANCE LIMITS LIKE THIS IS POINTLESS, even with the current player level 100 members is still not any kind of limiting factor for 99.9% of alliance. The alliance limit should be a dynamic figure which is dependant on the number of players signed up so that it can actually do its job and keep some control on the alliances. Otherwise if your going to stick it at a static figure of 100 you might as well just do away with the limit as its just pointless

[Karmulian]

As i explained to you in channel, the limit can be changed by altering 1 value in the admin tools

so to an extent it is dynamic

[Kal]

a limit of 100 members might be a problem for some alliances, if the limit is reduced further then some alliances would ahve to reconsider their position in planetarion

[Karmulian]

100 Limit removed form above post - will review it before releasing a figure

Thanks to Kal for discussing diplomatically

[wakey]

Originally Posted by KalVirtus

a limit of 100 members might be a problem for some alliances, if the limit is reduced further then some alliances would ahve to reconsider their position in planetarion

The problem is that as we saw in PAX most of the alliance survived on under 100 members while maintaining a massive majority still, with the downward trend likly to continue this majority will no doubt increase and as such the limit should be adjusting to take this into account. If however numbers go up it should also take that into account which is exactly why I've said for a long time that the figure should be dynamic. The game needs some way of self adjusting to the player numbers so it has a chance of thrieving otherwise more and more small players will quit as its pointless playing a game with the power distribution we have and these reduced numbers results in big players also quitting due to the game being too small to be much fun anymore

[Kal]

i'll use NoS as an example:

we are very community based, so ahve many members who would pay to play, but not play that activly and so not have a real impact in our attack power etc. If a limit were set that prevented some of our community from playing with us, its bad for our community and pad for pa as it would be loosing paying planets. The worst case scenario would be if the limit forced so many of our community to be unable to play that we decided to leave pa. A limit of 100 is not a major problem YET, but many things coule change between now and round 11 and for all I know by then we might have 100+ members wanting to play pa. Yes we woudl be big, but we ar enot talking 100+ hard core players that the likes of fang and eclipse would have.

[wakey]

Yes i understand its a difficult situation for alliances but you really have to look at the bigger picture in all of this. Yes it might be bad for your community if the limits made you have to restrict members but a limit that doesnt keep alliances under any kind of control is indirectly just as bad for you.

I mean lets just look at the percentage of the gaming population that an alliance can hold with the way the limits are

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
|  Players			Limit			%		|
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
|  1000  			100			10.00		|
|  2000  			100			5.00		|	
|  3000  			100			3.33		|
|  4000  			100			2.50		|
|  5000  			100			2.00		|
|  6000  			100			1.67		|		
|  7000  			100			1.43		|
|  8000  			100			1.25		|
|  9000  			100			1.11		|
|  10000			100			1.00		|
|  15000			100			0.67		|
|  20000			100			0.50		|
|  25000			100			0.40		|
|  30000			100			0.33		|
|  35000			100			0.29		|
|  40000			100			0.25		|
|  45000			100			0.22		|
|  50000			100			0.20		|
|  55000			100			0.18		|
|  60000			100			0.17		|
|  65000			100			0.15		|
|  70000			100			0.14		|
|  75000			100			0.13		|
|  80000			100			0.13		|
|  85000			100			0.12		|
|  90000			100			0.11		|
|  95000			100			0.11		|
|  100000			100			0.10		|
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

Now its fairly clear that at the lower range of numbers the big alliances can hold too much power over the game yet at the higher ends the amount of power each can have is way too low. And with the number of players being an unknown quantity before signups start you really have no way of getting it right.

When we consider PAX had what not too far over 2k players and with the downward trend likly to continue we are pretty much saying that the big alliances are going to be handed probally somweher between 5 and 10% control of the game. This is quite simply NOT a situation which is good for the game, the small players and alliances stand no chance and the numbers will continue to dwindle.

BUT what happens numbers really pick up through the round (or we get an insurgance of players at the start) its quite possible that we could end up with all the alliances having so little power no decent battles can take place and instead blocking tactics become even more important which in itself isnt healthy for the game.

Now in no way am I saying we should go out to cripple alliances by limiting them to something stupid but instead try and decide on an acceptable percentage of the player base each alliance should be allowed, that way each round isnt really effected in the same way as a static level is as player numbers rise and fall during the round and future rounds so that the game has the right enviorment for it to thrieve in

[Kal]

small alliances could alwlays work together and share a tag. If the situation arises that a certina alliance has say 10% of the players, why should it not be allowed to show its dominance? Last round on the whole the big alliances struggled to get close to the 150 member limit, hence the limit didn;t really ahve a purpose - other than stopping pre arranged super blocks. Thats what needs preventing, not individual alliance success.

[wakey]

What does the small alliances teaming up really acheive for the game. Yes it might give them a slightly better chance (although thats debatable simply because throwing a few alliances into a pot and then trying to get them to work as one gets increasingly harder with every alliance added, theres always inter alliance disagreements, power struggles between members and simply too many people 'in control') but HOW is it helping PA.

Does it make the game more diverse? Certainly not as theres less alliances
Does it make it more competative? Not really, you add one alliance up at the top
Does it make life at the bottom easier? Nope, in fact your just increase the pressure on new players and those not in a big alliance or a small alliance block
Does it make it easier for new players to get involved? Again no in fact it makes it harder as theres less easy targets for people

I can probally go on for hours but I think thats enough to make my point. Its about time those of us who run alliances and even those in alliance woke up and realised we play a major part in this game surviving. We need to stop being so selfish and stop thinking "whats good for us" and instead start thinking "whats good for the game". This might mean making sacrifices but if we dont start making such sacrifices there will be no PA which is going to do alot more harm to our communities than any kind of sensiable limits to control us for the good of the game.

Lets help get back to a situation where
* We have a thrieving community
* We have more than a handful of alliance putting up a fight
* Where alliances from top to bottom are competative and scuffles are taking place all over
* Where new players can come in join an alliance and survive without being bashed immediatly
* Where the games fun
* And most importantly where alliance success is based upon skill and hardwork rather than an overwhelming majority

[Kal]

the alliances are allready importnat to the games survivial, say eclipse was 20% of the playerbase. if then evclispe could not all play the game, eclipse woudl leave - hence 20% of the players might well leave. THe point is many are mroe loyal to their alliance community that to planetarion's community, hence by limimting the alliances you limit the game, that said there should be a limit to prevent loarge alliances sharing a tag and having a super block.

[Kal]

oh and one other thing, some alliances do give new players a chance. Last round NoS let in quite a few new players and some ahve turned out to be really good, if only other alliances would do the same.

[General Martok]

Originally Posted by KalVirtus

oh and one other thing, some alliances do give new players a chance. Last round NoS let in quite a few new players and some ahve turned out to be really good, if only other alliances would do the same.

I think that is a flaud arguement. If NoS has let's say 95 members and there is a 100 memberlimit, that would indeed meen rejecting recruits. If you think thats a problem you're only selfish thinking about NoS, and not about the game and other alliances, since there are plenty alliances far away from the 100-member limit, who would just LOVE to get new recruits in...

[wakey]

Originally Posted by KalVirtus

the alliances are allready importnat to the games survivial, say eclipse was 20% of the playerbase. if then evclispe could not all play the game, eclipse woudl leave - hence 20% of the players might well leave. THe point is many are mroe loyal to their alliance community that to planetarion's community, hence by limimting the alliances you limit the game, that said there should be a limit to prevent loarge alliances sharing a tag and having a super block.

BUT how many players do these alliance drive away each round, the falling numbers suggest its something like 50% and thats not counting the new players they put off joining the game.

This 'selfish' view that you are taking sums up the selfish attitude that most alliances seem to have, they seem to think they are vital to the game and hence they can pretty much hold the game to ransom, in reality your not really that important. Yes half the player base could potentially walk out if alliances took offence to changes made but in all honesty the game would be in better state if that happened because the game would offer a much fairer playing enviorment and it would be much eaiser to attract new blood and as long as steps were taken to prevent the current situation happening again theres no doubt in my mind that the numbers would start to rise.

The alliances need to start realising that they are a major part in PA's problems and instead of fighting to remain a problem they need to start trying to help work towards a solution

[Kal]

i agree alliances are a problem, but without them staying pa has no finiancial future unless u can come up with 5k people willing to pay.... but then if u can do that the alliances arn;t a problem.

the point is there is no easy answer - what is needed is for alliances to start tkaing responsibilty for the game, but at the same time that can;t happen if alliances have to tell their members they can;t play

[Kal]

Originally Posted by General Martok

I think that is a flaud arguement. If NoS has let's say 95 members and there is a 100 memberlimit, that would indeed meen rejecting recruits. If you think thats a problem you're only selfish thinking about NoS, and not about the game and other alliances, since there are plenty alliances far away from the 100-member limit, who would just LOVE to get new recruits in...

Maybe the smaller alliances need to do a better job of marketting themselves. Last round NoS wa sno great or amazing alliance, we did ok, but nothing super impressive, and yet we had a constant flow of applicants many of which were new players. The applied to us becuase they could see us in the rankings and hence *thought* we would be good, when in fact our rankings were articfically inflated due to hirr. This stratetgy now means we have a bunch of new recruits to play with and that we no longer need hirr or anyone else to maintain a good position and do well. Hence it turned out to be a good strategy (also hirr rock).

I guess it is also arguable that people came to NoS becuase we have a name people know, but does that really apply to new players?

There is also a quesiton of keeping new players. Say a new player joins a random small alliance, they will probably not get def and get bashed a lot. Will they then want to pay to play another game? probably not. That is the problem, it is not possible for a small alliance to survive and recruit in a small alliance dominated by big alliances, this in turn makes the big alliances crucial to making new players stay in the game... this then leads to even more small alliance bashing and a cycle of decline...

So what is the solution? One idea might be to restrict an alliance recrutiment once the round has started. This could be scaled e.g. an alliance going in with 100 members would say only be allowed to recruit another 25 or so, but one going in with 50 would be able to recruit say another 50. This allows new and small alliances to grow, but gives big alliances the ability to kepe current members. It also prevtns a certian tactic used to win the previous round, and artifical score inflating

[MrL_JaKiri]

Originally Posted by Karmulian

As i explained to you in channel, the limit can be changed by altering 1 value in the admin tools

so to an extent it is dynamic

'Characterized by continuous change, activity, or progress: a dynamic market.'

Being able to manually change things doesn't really apply, duder.

[wakey]

Originally Posted by KalVirtus

Maybe the smaller alliances need to do a better job of marketting themselves. Last round NoS wa sno great or amazing alliance, we did ok, but nothing super impressive, and yet we had a constant flow of applicants many of which were new players. The applied to us becuase they could see us in the rankings and hence *thought* we would be good, when in fact our rankings were articfically inflated due to hirr. This stratetgy now means we have a bunch of new recruits to play with and that we no longer need hirr or anyone else to maintain a good position and do well. Hence it turned out to be a good strategy (also hirr rock).

I guess it is also arguable that people came to NoS becuase we have a name people know, but does that really apply to new players?

There is also a quesiton of keeping new players. Say a new player joins a random small alliance, they will probably not get def and get bashed a lot. Will they then want to pay to play another game? probably not. That is the problem, it is not possible for a small alliance to survive and recruit in a small alliance dominated by big alliances, this in turn makes the big alliances crucial to making new players stay in the game... this then leads to even more small alliance bashing and a cycle of decline...

So what is the solution? One idea might be to restrict an alliance recrutiment once the round has started. This could be scaled e.g. an alliance going in with 100 members would say only be allowed to recruit another 25 or so, but one going in with 50 would be able to recruit say another 50. This allows new and small alliances to grow, but gives big alliances the ability to kepe current members. It also prevtns a certian tactic used to win the previous round, and artifical score inflating

Nice solution, so before hand they can recruit as many people as they like thus moving the games balance even further to the top end, then let them recruit even more people throughout the round either from new players or poaching the best of the small alliances. And if that isnt enough when next round comes allow them to recruit all the previous rounds people plus then another 25 people throughout the round. All this as the number of small and new players falls at a rate significantly higher than the number of big alliance players quitting.

DOES that really sound like a successful survival stratergy for the game? Certainly doesnt to me. The big alliances have a stranglehold on the game thats sucking the lifeforce out of it. This stranglehold needs loosened and sadly that means with the current player numbers alliances will have to let some players go BUT if they are as vital for alliances as they seem to all suggest with the way they dig their heels in when it comes to such moves to the survival then you all dont have a hope in hell of surviving once you help drag PA into oblivian, because thats what your doing.

If these people who you might let go are so important to all the alliances then really its upto the alliances themselves to be pro active in preventing it being a problem by activly promoting the game, finding ways to help PA attract new members to get the player numbers to a level where the game can support all your members without a problem. Quite simply if alliances wants a certain number of members then its upto them to ensure that its possible, otherwise they have to live with the fact that keeping the game viable is more important than keeping your alliance going

[Kal]

if it was really that easy to recruit why are there not allready alliances with 200 people.....

NoS does make an effort to bring people to pa. However if they come to pa they will be coming to pa with NoS. Any NoS members in any game that NoS plays will be invited to play the next round of pa. In some cases this means someone might have to buy them an account in others they will pay themselves.

You could say that in a way we are using PIA as a recruting ground to test people out to see if they are up to the pa challenge, but if we can't offer theese people a home in pa, why shoudl we bother training them... after all who really cares about PIA

[Chika]

I really can't see the point of limiting the alliances. I mean, some alliances are going to be stronger than others, that is just the way it is. I can see there being a point if say like Wolfpack won the last 5 rounds in a row. Then the WTF question can be asked. I see a struggle for the round EVERY round. Look, this last one sort of was a political battle until the end, when one alliance made the round winning move of recruiting another allinaces big players, I mean hey, I don't see any dominance going on. If alliance, say the NOOBS alliance, can set up a good enough campaign to recruit 300 members, then why not let them have their 300 members? Most alliances encourage their members to pay in order to get defense and access to alliance forums and ch's and stuff. Hey, now you have HC's working for YOU (the PA team) getting people to pay. Think about it.

[wakey]

The theory is as follows

1) Big alliance domainate and bash small people
2) Small people quit as they stand a riduculosly small chance of surving past the first few weeks
3) The playerbase shrinks due to those quitting, those remaining small players get bashed more due to fewer targets and the game stagnates
4) The big players then start quitting as theres too few players to make it fun
5) back to 1)

You require a certain balance between the number of big players and number of small players to produce a fun game, you allow one 'group' to dominate too much the system cant handle it and the whole thing callapses