Round 10 "The Death of Real Alliances"

[Supernova9]

Originally posted by Seth Mace
Is it just me who thinks that statement is quite astonishing? When have i ever implied my history means the words i type hold more weight then some1 elses? But hey, well done to your achievments in planetarion, i am truely honoured to have my name on the same page as yours \o/ ;P

This is very confusing imo. I thought one of the reasons for recruit wings was to train up new blood? From my personal experience, a large proportion of recruits each round are new players to the alliance scene.

I think what he means is his judgements of the 1337 alliances is valid based on the number of alliances he's seen, because it pretty much encompasses all of them. Something I'd actually have to agree with. He does have more experience with alliances than you, so maybe he might have a better idea of what goes on in the upper echelons.

And come on, recruitment wings aren't normally about training up new blood. If you need a vouch to get in, they're counting on you knowing members of the community, so therefore they're expecting you to be at least established a bit in some part of the planetarion community in order to know someone to vouch for them, thus not new blood.

[Dingo]

Too many pages and too many posts to keep my attention.

I do agree with Sethy though. As soon as I read the announcement, the very first thing I said was that alliances would now be for defence only with these changes.

I whole heartedly agree with limiting the size of alliances. I'd go for 100 maximum though. 150 is too many imo. The extended travel times though are the stupidest idea I can think of as it will only turn people away if they can not be part of their community and attack with it.

Why not go down the track suggested of making multiple attackers fight if not in same alliance. I liked that idea and it certainly goes towards limiting alliance sizes and stopping blocks.

Lets keep alliances as full alliances though, not just for defence.

Other games are looking more appealing every day.

[Silva baby]

these changes seem to make the game even more irc based....

the casual player or semi active couldn't be able to play even properlly now

[The_Fish]

Originally posted by Silva baby
these changes seem to make the game even more irc based....

the casual player or semi active couldn't be able to play even properlly now

I dont see how it does, but anyways, if they want to succeed now they need irc, so whats the difference?

[skipper]

Originally posted by Gerbie
Yup, those who think themselves to be l33t will not want to have anything to do with the rest.

Imo the best deserve whats best. It would also give a lot new colour to the alliance scene.

[Seth Mace]

I think what he means is his judgements of the 1337 alliances is valid based on the number of alliances he's seen, because it pretty much encompasses all of them. Something I'd actually have to agree with. He does have more experience with alliances than you, so maybe he might have a better idea of what goes on in the upper echelons.

Yer he probably does, im sure there are many, many people who do!

And come on, recruitment wings aren't normally about training up new blood. If you need a vouch to get in, they're counting on you knowing members of the community, so therefore they're expecting you to be at least established a bit in some part of the planetarion community in order to know someone to vouch for them, thus not new blood

I'm not saying they are only used for recruiting new blood but i am saying that some of those recruits will be fresh to the alliance scene. Which is surely an acceptable statement to make, when in comparison to;

And where do you get the new blood? Do you openly recruit? Or do you only accept vouched members who have playing experience? Do you have a recruiting wing to weed through the new players? That's not fresh blood, that's recycling old blood.

[Hathor]

I'm not very well atm so please excuse my lack of fluiidity if it appears but I felt a need to reply to this thread.
I've made a few points, take them as positives or negatives dependent on how you feel.
1.Time zones. PA has always been very much European based. When I first played ppl loved I was an aussie as I was a Nightshift . I got lots of alliance offers as a result. However we are also great players in our own right :P My point is, with this time travel stuff, are alliances going to still want shared time zones or will we see ppl in same zones grouping up because they can atatcker together?
2. PA history has shown that small, 1337 alliances can do very well in this game. You only need look at KoN for example . Strong, experienced players with a fantastic community spirit. I can see them rising like the phoenix rd 10 . Larger alliances will have to 'prune' their player base, but then don't they every round anyway. NoS will survive becuase it has a supurb family of players.
3. New alliances will be needed becauyse most of the older ones will have their 150 man membership. What worried me is who will 'lead' these alliances ? Where will the HC come from ? Most ppl that are Hcs of alliances have played, know the ropes and take the helm with administrative skills, leaderships skills and are respected by the members . New allainces will perhaps lake this esperience base. The may also lack the skilled players to show the new players the ropes . OFC if players band together on an area basis, does this mean they are 'dumping' their friends, alliance m8s ? This one I find very subjective. Friendship means everything to me in this game and playing without my old mates would be lonely . Sure I'd make new buddies but it takes time to be accepted and trusted.
4. Training. I'm wondering who is going to train the new players in the ways of the game if they are kept busy trying to get in an allaince that will enable then to get defence.
5. Long atatck eta I guess would mean I could deliberately pick targets that i know will take 12 hours to arrive [we have this already remember before we get - eta researched and constructed] , go to bed/work/party whatever, and hope like hell I'm not defended when i return. It also means I may never get roids.
6. alliances/BGs based on areas. I can see this being a bun fight. Everyone josling for attention. Putting their hand up for HC spot etc. Can see the senario now..." I was HC of blah allaince, you need me to lead you". "Bug..r of you, I'm better than you , I'll pick the target" " That's it I'm forming a new alliance in this section."
Cracks me up every round and thank god I have my allaince to fall back on .
Anyway. That's my $1.00's worth. {took longer than I thought }

[Faberius]

Originally posted by Obfuscator
I don't understand what you are getting at in the first paragraph.

As to the second, no we're not seeing the better organized, and more elite factions of powerblocks and super-alliances rise to the top. This occured somewhat in r9, with ET defeating WE, and I could certainly make a case for it in r6, but in most rounds, power-blocks stick together, and large alliances don't fragment. With only a few exceptions, Xan, Legion, and Fury all maintained coherence for many rounds. WP and Ely, probably the 2 single biggest alliances (memberwise) of today, have similarly maintained their size without suffering major schizms. In a situation where there is a 150 member cap, an alliance of 400 members is forced to become a powerblock, in essense. This is going to give each one of those 150 member "wings" a great deal of autonomy, and a sense of identity....partly because their best chances of defense will come from each other. If one of them pulls ahead, it will be more likely to use its organizational advantages to win solo than it will be to stick with its sister wings, at least more likely than it is to do so now. Now if this 150 member group is able to stagnate the round, then so be it, but I'd rather see a round be stagnated by 150 people than by 500-1500. At least then you can be pretty sure they deserve to win.

I've advocated PA catering to the more casual player for about 2.5 years, but they clearly don't want to do that. The second best thing is this: ensuring that the people who win the round are the best players, and not the best at constructing behemoth power-blocks.

Then who won Round 8? Was it a disorganized Revolt-esque rabble that blindly hit targets and logged in twice a day? How about Round 9? If Eclipse was not the best organized and highest quality of the weet alliances, how did they win? Luck? Well I'm sure there are other factors, but none so compelling as the "1337ness" exhibited by alliances that have won this game throughout its history. Instead of correcting that element, and trying to level the playing field (although, in my opinion, nothing needs to be corrected at all, that can be) for those who do only log in twice a day and don't regulate their lives around the ticks of PA.

Let's face facts. The best players are also the best at constructing behemoth power blocks. The reason they are so good at that is because they are appealing for other alliances who see the ability to win at their side higher than if one was to ally a more community oriented alliance. Facts of life. Splitting up alliances due to an artificial and unrealisitic limitation will only exacerbate the problem of blocking since the lines between who is who and what will be blurred. As well, new players will be automatically rejected from any major alliance/battlegroup. How is that good?

Frankly I'd rather like to see open and clear cut blocks of alliances with a far more alliance vs alliance game rather than a planet vs planet game that PA originally envisioned. It would make things a heck of a lot simpler without compromising game play. An acceptance and embracement of blocking would be far more helpful than half assed unconsulted limitations which may or may not work.

[Dingo]

Originally posted by Faberius
Frankly I'd rather like to see open and clear cut blocks of alliances with a far more alliance vs alliance game rather than a planet vs planet game that PA originally envisioned. It would make things a heck of a lot simpler without compromising game play.

An acceptance and embracement of blocking would be far more helpful than half assed unconsulted limitations which may or may not work.

I can never agree with you on this one Col. Blocks make this game the most boring it can ever be. Anything that goes towards stopping blocks is a boon. It just requires careful thought so as not to destroy the basic game play.

[Faberius]

Disagreement is good, Chief Executive.

I was being frank. I enjoy blocking, blocks, anything beginning with b that isn't bull****. I'd be glad to see a way to make blocking a helpful part of PA, instead of a supposed hinderence, though.

[AlbinoSquirrel]

There's no way the game can be accurately played on an alliance-to-alliance or block-to-block level with the current abstract play level. If there was actual territory to control, demanding actual strategy and tactics to play, then team play would become the game. Political struggles could result in shifting balances of power, giving a real reason for politics rather than "lets massively outnumber the other side". This is rather off-topic, however. *shrug*

[Faberius]

well
I'd like territory, conquest, wars based on what you own.

That'd be really fun.

[Silva baby]

Originally posted by The_Fish
I dont see how it does, but anyways, if they want to succeed now they need irc, so whats the difference?

not really in rd 3 and this round, i found that rl contacts have been sufficient thus far, also politics, msn variety of other sources canbe used that are still useful. IRC is only needed for alliances not neccsarily gals, althought it would be so much NICER