Planetarion Forums

Gio2k · 24 Mar 2007, 19:59

Please make a poll about this point.
I personally think cluster etas are damaging to alliances, and encourage solo and xp play, and should be removed.

HellKicker · 24 Mar 2007, 20:19

Yes, please make one

Although i must say, i dont agree with Gio2k's arguements. Promoting solo and xp play is a good thing, aslong as their advantages does not get too far out of hand, compared to alliance/horde play. It also promotes non-p2p players, which is what we all long for this game to be, aren't we?

-Blue Moon- · 24 Mar 2007, 21:02

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gio2k

Please make a poll about this point.
I personally think cluster etas are damaging to alliances, and encourage solo and xp play, and should be removed.

i agree with gio2k and would vote for their removal... with alliances the way they are, it does lead to solo players who dont bother defending members outside of their cluster (or at all, which reduces alliances to bg's tbh)... and the inability for alliances to help with certain defence (unless they have players in-cluster). e.g. incluster fi/co eta, and makes for what i call 'stupid' etas in defending which can seriously ruin certain stats, making the balances a bit screwy (e.g in-c destroyers defending against universe fi?).
i say get rid of them, stats have enough problems as it is

Makhil · 25 Mar 2007, 01:19

I'm very happy with the cluster eta. That it favors solo playing is a good point, I don't see why you should have to join an alliance in order to do well.
Everything that shifts the gameplay towards galaxies is good.
I would remove the alliances (or their eta advantage) just one round, I'm sure it would be an improvement.

Heartless · 25 Mar 2007, 12:41

Game design ain't a democratic process.

robban1 · 25 Mar 2007, 13:46

cluster eta sucks and makes allies act as attackgroups more or less i play pa cos of its teamwork within allies but now its just is boring :/

Cochese · 25 Mar 2007, 20:11

Having cluster alliances was one of the best things about PA back in the day, and many "proper" alliances formed out of previous' rounds cluster alliances.

I don't see how this is a bad thing.

ComradeRob · 26 Mar 2007, 00:01

The clusters are too small for this to work properly. Either make clusters bigger (minimum 15 galaxies) and possibly make galaxies stronger (larger BPs, larger galaxies), or remove the cluster ETA.

GrandAdm Thrawn · 26 Mar 2007, 00:13

There has been a poll about this already, didnt you realise?

robban1 · 26 Mar 2007, 00:32

Quote:

Originally Posted by GrandAdm Thrawn

There has been a poll about this already, didnt you realise?

where? in the basement with you and the smurfs?

TheMedic · 26 Mar 2007, 00:47

yea there was a poll where you could vote 1000 times if you wanted, i agree with comraderob and either do away with the in cluster eta's or make the clusters larger.

Wandows · 26 Mar 2007, 10:39

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cochese

I don't see how this is a bad thing.

The comparison with old rounds isn't really valid. As other mentioned clusters were bigger then and alliances had more control over the clusters due to 'private' galaxies. In the early rounds (at least, from the ones i played, r4+) a galaxy simply belonged to a certain block and teamed with other galaxies in the same cluster to get control over a cluster (which was ofcourse encouraged by alliances as it meant less universal enemies to worry about). But with random placement as it is, you end up having roughly every (alliance/block) part of the universe in your galaxy. And this makes it impossible to mix cluster play with alliance play, as you simply can't organize anything properly on cluster scale without harming either your alliance or galaxy relations.

Bane · 26 Mar 2007, 13:39

Every cluster just has a useless NAP, c-alliances only truly work now if you have an alliance or block domination the cluster to make it properly work.

Mortal · 28 Mar 2007, 12:35

cluster eta sucks