User Name
Password

Go Back   Planetarion Forums > Planetarion Related Forums > Planetarion Discussions

Reply
Thread Tools Display Modes
Unread 6 Jan 2006, 00:55   #1
Bashar
Idle Git
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Wandering
Posts: 1,550
Bashar is a pillar of this Internet societyBashar is a pillar of this Internet societyBashar is a pillar of this Internet societyBashar is a pillar of this Internet societyBashar is a pillar of this Internet societyBashar is a pillar of this Internet societyBashar is a pillar of this Internet societyBashar is a pillar of this Internet societyBashar is a pillar of this Internet societyBashar is a pillar of this Internet societyBashar is a pillar of this Internet society
Has to be said

The alliance limit thing for the free round SUCKS.

What happens if an alliance with >50 planets gets into the top 5, are they forced to ditch planets? If not, what happens if an alliance with 100 members manages to get to the top spot with a 'strong finish' (possibly through intentionally staying small).

Also, up to a maximum of 100 members, are you having a laugh? You expecting 10k planets? It's ridiculously large. Alliances that ally (use) smaller alliances could get them to flak the entire def fleets of an enemy, then just fly in and roid for free.

I think someone's had some serious trips with some seriously strong dope thinking this one up. It is just plain ridiculous.
__________________
Here we go again....
Bashar is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 6 Jan 2006, 00:59   #2
Bashar
Idle Git
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Wandering
Posts: 1,550
Bashar is a pillar of this Internet societyBashar is a pillar of this Internet societyBashar is a pillar of this Internet societyBashar is a pillar of this Internet societyBashar is a pillar of this Internet societyBashar is a pillar of this Internet societyBashar is a pillar of this Internet societyBashar is a pillar of this Internet societyBashar is a pillar of this Internet societyBashar is a pillar of this Internet societyBashar is a pillar of this Internet society
Re: Has to be said

Just for the record, I don't disagree with the concept, 70 members would be fine. It's the size that I find so stupid.
__________________
Here we go again....
Bashar is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 6 Jan 2006, 01:09   #3
furball
Registered Awesome Person
 
furball's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 5,676
furball has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.furball has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.furball has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.furball has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.furball has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.furball has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.furball has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.furball has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.furball has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.furball has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.furball has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.
Re: Has to be said

Any alliance starting off early on with more than 50 planets will very quickly hit the top 5, and so won't be able to take in any more. So there shouldn't be so much of a problem there.

For the sake of training alliances, etc, I think 100 is the right number. Is 50 correct? Possibly not, I prefer 60. I'm fairly comfortable with it apart from that.
__________________
Finally free!
furball is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 6 Jan 2006, 02:02   #4
jupp
Hi there ...
 
jupp's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 481
jupp has a brilliant futurejupp has a brilliant futurejupp has a brilliant futurejupp has a brilliant futurejupp has a brilliant futurejupp has a brilliant futurejupp has a brilliant futurejupp has a brilliant futurejupp has a brilliant futurejupp has a brilliant futurejupp has a brilliant future
Re: Has to be said

Quote:
The free round alliance limit will be as follows:
For all alliances, the limit will be 50 for the first 4 days (or 96 ticks). From then on, any alliance not in the top 5 may accept a new applicant every 20 - $current_alliance_rank ticks (minimum of 1), up to a maximum of 100 players.
50 is correct
__________________
#Reunion

[Ascendancy] - While you were trying, we were sleeping

jupp is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 6 Jan 2006, 03:11   #5
Dictator2
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: not sure
Posts: 98
Dictator2 can only hope to improve
Thumbs up Re: Has to be said

who is high???

30 (top alliances)* 100 = LESS than 3k planets (which was what we had last round) **and** IF EVERY SINGLE oNE can achieve maximum number of players, right??? So, wher do you get that 10k planets from??? what u smoking??? I want some.

And about the 50 number, is perfect... u dont want more, u dont need more, otherwise u wont ever get to meet everybody, unless u play 2 or 3 rounds. Better to have a close group than large number of abusable p30ns.

About the flak comment... cmm... it doesnt matter if its 20, 40, 70 or 100.. the concept applies to all limits EQUALLY since all alliances will be affected EQUALLY.

And I do like that alliances not in the top 5 can add a new player everyday; especially since they "could" double by the END of the round (50 days later). They should do so with the understanding that by the following round, ranks would be purged and new players or inactive players might not be able to make it... just as it has always been.

I think the concept, as a whole, promotes competition and survival of the fittest... (Maybe we should be bold enough now and make top 100 planets drop out of alliances automatically; although I know a bunch of you would kill me if this ever happens cuz of this comment)

I do want some of whatever he was smoking whoever came up with the idea.
__________________
<\RoNiN/>

Last edited by Dictator2; 6 Jan 2006 at 04:33.
Dictator2 is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 6 Jan 2006, 03:32   #6
Wandows
[Vision]
 
Wandows's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: The Netherlands
Posts: 897
Wandows has a reputation beyond reputeWandows has a reputation beyond reputeWandows has a reputation beyond reputeWandows has a reputation beyond reputeWandows has a reputation beyond reputeWandows has a reputation beyond reputeWandows has a reputation beyond reputeWandows has a reputation beyond reputeWandows has a reputation beyond reputeWandows has a reputation beyond reputeWandows has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Has to be said

tbh, being able to recruit to double your size through the round sux. It means that alliances who might have been based on playing with friends and have some fun will have no choice but to boot ppl from their community at the start (great way to promote the game \o/). And if they want to stay its like "sure you can stay.. but you won't be usefull untill like 2 weeks into the round when we can accept your account in ally, given we ain't top 5".

Things like this is something that imho takes the fun away, as i don't like having to force ppl to leave just because the game decided there is no room for them in the community anymore. I probably could have lived with 60-70 start value (and 80-100 end depending on uni rank, like Top 1-5 till 70, top 6-10 till 85 and below till 100 ), but 50 with the prospect of doubling in member size is just a lame way to force alliance to boot members or start a sub/training-alliance tag, but in either case you are well on ur way dividing the community.
__________________
[Vision] in a lost dream, contributing to The 5th Element at present
Wandows is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 6 Jan 2006, 03:43   #7
Dictator2
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: not sure
Posts: 98
Dictator2 can only hope to improve
Re: Has to be said

I disagree with you Wandows, almost completely, although I respect your opinion.

Except perhaps with the observation that big alliances will have to decimate its ranks at the start of each round... which is good in my opinion and not "armaggedon" as you seem to believe.

I think it will put a bit more of pressure on players to play well and stay active the whole round, to play in team; to do their best or risk a "not so good start" the following round (if they decide to wait)... maybe then you can have "rankings" (score wise, defense, attacking, activity, overall sacrifice, etc) within alliances that actually matter, etc

It will also tend to create more HCs, more MOs, more arbiters, more shit to play politics, thus enriching the players and the game
__________________
<\RoNiN/>

Last edited by Dictator2; 6 Jan 2006 at 03:53.
Dictator2 is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 6 Jan 2006, 04:07   #8
Monroe
Planetarion Forum Moderator
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 1,289
Monroe has much to be proud ofMonroe has much to be proud ofMonroe has much to be proud ofMonroe has much to be proud ofMonroe has much to be proud ofMonroe has much to be proud ofMonroe has much to be proud ofMonroe has much to be proud ofMonroe has much to be proud of
Re: Has to be said

Personally I say we just let it play out and see how it goes. This hasn't been tried before, and since it's being tried in a free round, how can we really complain? Personally I think this limit gives smaller allies a chance, and it also limits the powers of the larger allies (unless this all just leads to blocking again). There is a chance this might lead to a return to the time when non allied players could do well, and that would be a huge plus to the game. Limiting the size of allies limits their abilities to single handedly strangle the game, a big problem in the past. So lets all just wait and see after a round what we think before we judge this one too hard one way or the other.

Just my two cents.
__________________
Romans 10:9-10

#strategy
Monroe is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 6 Jan 2006, 07:30   #9
Kargool
Up The Hatters!
 
Kargool's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Kenilworth Road
Posts: 3,012
Kargool is a pillar of this Internet societyKargool is a pillar of this Internet societyKargool is a pillar of this Internet societyKargool is a pillar of this Internet societyKargool is a pillar of this Internet societyKargool is a pillar of this Internet societyKargool is a pillar of this Internet societyKargool is a pillar of this Internet societyKargool is a pillar of this Internet societyKargool is a pillar of this Internet societyKargool is a pillar of this Internet society
Re: Has to be said

I think that this will lead to shipjumping later in the round but hopefully this wont be much of a problem.
__________________
Planetarion veteran
Kargool is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 6 Jan 2006, 19:51   #10
Bashar
Idle Git
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Wandering
Posts: 1,550
Bashar is a pillar of this Internet societyBashar is a pillar of this Internet societyBashar is a pillar of this Internet societyBashar is a pillar of this Internet societyBashar is a pillar of this Internet societyBashar is a pillar of this Internet societyBashar is a pillar of this Internet societyBashar is a pillar of this Internet societyBashar is a pillar of this Internet societyBashar is a pillar of this Internet societyBashar is a pillar of this Internet society
Re: Has to be said

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dictator2
30 (top alliances)* 100 = LESS than 3k planets (which was what we had last round) **and** IF EVERY SINGLE oNE can achieve maximum number of players, right??? So, wher do you get that 10k planets from??? what u smoking??? I want some.
You are arguing semantics here, probably because you missed the point. I'll simplify it for you so you can digest it better : the point was that it's toolarge a number for such a small universe.

You're assuming that a universe of 3k planets would mean 3k planets in alliances? The rank 10-5 alliances will be the ones that get the best pick of the players available, that means (potentially) 500 of the best players will be in those alliances. Add the 250 in the top 5, that's 750 players. That's about half of the paid players we see at the moment, which are the players that can be considered worth having. Over half have been freebies who don't do a lot. A free round is likely to see some old hardcore players returning who have a problem with p2p, but not many, most players who come will be of a similar quality to the current freebies we get, and in all fairness, completely useless to alliances until they get into the game, which would usually take more than a round. This means that the decent players still around will be more concentrated into the higher ranking alliances, and there will end up being an even more marked difference between 'decent' alliances and crap alliances.

Quote:
And about the 50 number, is perfect... u dont want more, u dont need more, otherwise u wont ever get to meet everybody, unless u play 2 or 3 rounds. Better to have a close group than large number of abusable p30ns.
50 is fine by me, and very obviously I agree with your point about small tight-nit groups being better.

Quote:
About the flak comment... cmm... it doesnt matter if its 20, 40, 70 or 100.. the concept applies to all limits EQUALLY since all alliances will be affected EQUALLY.
Wrong. It only applies to alliances whose enemies stoop to that level. Most alliances prefer to stand up and fight for themselves now rather than cowardly trying running for help. If anything, this encourages any cowardly alliances to pursue these tactics.

Quote:
who is high???
Evidently you:

Quote:
And I do like that alliances not in the top 5 can add a new player everyday; especially since they "could" double by the END of the round (50 days later). They should do so with the understanding that by the following round, ranks would be purged and new players or inactive players might not be able to make it... just as it has always been.
I'll help you out with your maths here:

Quote:
Originally Posted by PA News
alliance not in the top 5 may accept a new applicant every 20 - $current_alliance_rank ticks (minimum of 1)
Every 20-$current_alliance_rank means that, if they have the applicants, the #6 alliance could fill up to 100 after ((20-6)*50)/24 days. This works out to be 29 days and 4 hours. If they are below rank 18, then it "could" take them precisely 50 ticks (2 days 2 hours) to get to 100 players.

Now, I realise the maths here could be challenging to a dyslexic turkey, but there is something there to help: "ticks (minimum of 1)". This kinda gives the game away

If you're going to come on here and try to tear my post apart with suggestions of me being intoxicated when I made it, at least understand the subject.

Quote:
I think the concept, as a whole, promotes competition
As my second post said, the concept is fine, just the numbers aren't.

Quote:
I do want some of whatever he was smoking whoever came up with the idea.
Judging by your maths and their maths, I'd say you've already had enough of it.
__________________
Here we go again....
Bashar is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 6 Jan 2006, 20:02   #11
Bashar
Idle Git
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Wandering
Posts: 1,550
Bashar is a pillar of this Internet societyBashar is a pillar of this Internet societyBashar is a pillar of this Internet societyBashar is a pillar of this Internet societyBashar is a pillar of this Internet societyBashar is a pillar of this Internet societyBashar is a pillar of this Internet societyBashar is a pillar of this Internet societyBashar is a pillar of this Internet societyBashar is a pillar of this Internet societyBashar is a pillar of this Internet society
Re: Has to be said

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dictator2
Except perhaps with the observation that big alliances will have to decimate its ranks at the start of each round... which is good in my opinion and not "armaggedon" as you seem to believe.
I think you fail to understand the big alliances. A large number of their players are playing PURELY for their alliance. If they weren't able to play in it, they wouldn't play. Hence the game loses players and therefore its fun also.

Quote:
I think it will put a bit more of pressure on players to play well and stay active the whole round, to play in team; to do their best or risk a "not so good start" the following round (if they decide to wait)...
How exactly does this apply? I don't see your point and I can't see where you got it from either. I'm confused by what you mean to be honest as I can't see any way it encourages activity/quality. It means crap players have a higher chance of staying in their alliances (if not in top 5, which in the top 5, they have no chance anyway) and it means crap alliances can do well through recruitment rather than activity/ability. In my mind the logic suggests the opposite of what you are saying. I'd be intrigued to see what you base that point on as I really can't see any effects on activity/quality besides the ones I have mentioned.

Quote:
maybe then you can have "rankings" (score wise, defense, attacking, activity, overall sacrifice, etc) within alliances that actually matter, etc
Errrr..... I thought all alliances already had this. Certainly all the major alliances do and have done for as long as I can remember.

Quote:
It will also tend to create more HCs, more MOs, more arbiters, more shit to play politics, thus enriching the players and the game
Hang on.... by increasing the membership limit among all but 5 alliances (though possibly less if the rankings are shifting a lot), and thus reducing the number of alliances: more HC, MO's, arbiters etc. are created? You're just having a laugh aren't you, and trying to play dumb. It nearly worked too, that last one was just too obvious, good try though!
__________________
Here we go again....
Bashar is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 6 Jan 2006, 20:06   #12
Bashar
Idle Git
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Wandering
Posts: 1,550
Bashar is a pillar of this Internet societyBashar is a pillar of this Internet societyBashar is a pillar of this Internet societyBashar is a pillar of this Internet societyBashar is a pillar of this Internet societyBashar is a pillar of this Internet societyBashar is a pillar of this Internet societyBashar is a pillar of this Internet societyBashar is a pillar of this Internet societyBashar is a pillar of this Internet societyBashar is a pillar of this Internet society
Re: Has to be said

Quote:
Originally Posted by Monroe
Personally I say we just let it play out and see how it goes. This hasn't been tried before, and since it's being tried in a free round, how can we really complain? Personally I think this limit gives smaller allies a chance, and it also limits the powers of the larger allies (unless this all just leads to blocking again). There is a chance this might lead to a return to the time when non allied players could do well, and that would be a huge plus to the game. Limiting the size of allies limits their abilities to single handedly strangle the game, a big problem in the past. So lets all just wait and see after a round what we think before we judge this one too hard one way or the other.

Just my two cents.
I agree in principle with what you are saying, but my point is really that, if you wanted to see if you could fly, you'd start with a 3 foot wall, not the empire state building (without the nets). If it goes badly wrong, as I think it could well do, the idea would possibly be shelved. It'd be better to try it in a little less extreme fashion and reduce the numbers rather than diving into the deep end.
__________________
Here we go again....
Bashar is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 6 Jan 2006, 20:58   #13
Dictator2
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: not sure
Posts: 98
Dictator2 can only hope to improve
Re: Has to be said

M8 I guess u took it personal, lol, I didn’t mean to hurt your feelings.

A. The 100 limit is not too large, simply because very few alliances will be able to recruit the 100 players; and in any case, will not be 100 good players (since most of the good players should be in the top 5). So, the idea is that alliances can recruit as much as they can, but the limit will avoid mid round sudden mergers of medium size alliances.
B. I did not assumed everybody will have an alliance. You assumed that. I simply made an observation: if every alliance could recruit the ‘maximum’ allowed, you DONT need 10k planets and even if we get 3k players again, we will have a few planets allianceless (paid and/or unpaid)
C. We don’t need 30 top alliances… 5 to 10 will do… (wich will group about 10% -30% of total planets if we look at the current # of players PA has) + any other minor alliances are just stepping stones for n00bs or close groups of old players who simply don’t care about the big leagues; or both (most likely). WE DON’T NEED CRAP ALLIANCES, they don’t serve any purpose.
D. About the flak comment you are wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong… is not a matter of being coward or not, is about being good at politics.
E. About the 50 + 1 player every 20 ticks… I did the math loosely, not really “exactly”. Besides, wtf is the point of making it every 20 ticks – rank, blah, blah, blah… (in my opinion, to give room to mergers of minor alliances) instead of 1 per day???? Pff, stupid, but you are right, the math was wrong. (btw, I doubt, an alliance ranked #18 (to take your number) will get 70 players in 50 ticks by other means than a merger… go ahead and try, I’ll send you $5 if you prove me wrong)
F. About the big alliances comment, I don’t fail to understand big alliances, u do I am afraid. I seriously doubt any alliance will have 50+ old hardcore players that will play every single round, I simply doubt it, although I might see exceptions happening every now and then. But hey, besides, if you really are “playing ‘PURELY’ for the benefit of the alliance” wtf do you care if you are allied ingame or not, you would do the best you can for it, no matter what. If they wont stay playing because they are not in the alliance, then their priority is really NOT the benefit of their alliance or to have fun with their friends. IN ANY CASE, any alliance not in the top 5 will certainly not have a large number of these kind of players you are talking about. Certainly not more than 50.
G. If you fail to understand the concept of ‘decimation’ and its benefits, go and read some history or study some economics… also, u could grasp it if you give it a thought to art in general.
H. About minor alliances doing better thru recruitment… that’s the freaking point… they can’t compete in terms of activity or experience, they simply don’t have the “quality” to do so; so a chance is being given for them to compete by "quantity".
I. Don’t talk about logic please, please!!!
J. And no, alliances don’t really take seriously rankings for many things, we simply don’t have the tools to have access to FULL statistics; only a very select group of players (i.e. HC) “might” be able to keep track of some of these. And these do mean SHIT for the most part.
K. Again, that the limits are increased doesn’t mean alliances will be able to recruit that many players. The limit is meant, in my opinion, to avoid large mergers. And yes, if everybody starts with 50, then, you will see the rise of more HCs, etc, etc
L. One of my New Years resolution was to detox myself, so the comments about “smoking” were obviously a joke.
__________________
<\RoNiN/>

Last edited by Dictator2; 6 Jan 2006 at 21:53.
Dictator2 is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 6 Jan 2006, 21:49   #14
Kal
Inactive peon
 
Kal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 6,050
Kal has a brilliant futureKal has a brilliant futureKal has a brilliant futureKal has a brilliant futureKal has a brilliant futureKal has a brilliant futureKal has a brilliant futureKal has a brilliant futureKal has a brilliant futureKal has a brilliant futureKal has a brilliant future
Re: Has to be said

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bashar
I agree in principle with what you are saying, but my point is really that, if you wanted to see if you could fly, you'd start with a 3 foot wall, not the empire state building (without the nets). If it goes badly wrong, as I think it could well do, the idea would possibly be shelved. It'd be better to try it in a little less extreme fashion and reduce the numbers rather than diving into the deep end.
but it was tried in round 15 in a less extreme way - 80/100
__________________
Kal

Round 6-10 NoS member-->NoS junior HC
Round 10.5 FAnG member
Round 11-15 PATeam
Round 17-30 PATeam
Round 31 ???

Check out toastmonster.com for crazy illustrations and art
Kal is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 6 Jan 2006, 22:05   #15
Bashar
Idle Git
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Wandering
Posts: 1,550
Bashar is a pillar of this Internet societyBashar is a pillar of this Internet societyBashar is a pillar of this Internet societyBashar is a pillar of this Internet societyBashar is a pillar of this Internet societyBashar is a pillar of this Internet societyBashar is a pillar of this Internet societyBashar is a pillar of this Internet societyBashar is a pillar of this Internet societyBashar is a pillar of this Internet societyBashar is a pillar of this Internet society
Re: Has to be said

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dictator2
M8 I guess u took it personal, lol, I didn’t mean to hurt your feelings.
No, I didn't take it personally, I just get intolerant of people who come blundering in without thinking it through properly or forming any coherent/substance-based opinion.

Quote:
A. The 100 limit is not too large, simply because very few alliance will not be able to recruit the 100 players
So you're saying that the only thing factor to consider when deciding on member limit is fairness, the amount of alliances who benefit? If most alliances are able to benefit directly then that trumps all other factors including (but not limited to) how much fun it would be, affect on the size of the playerbase, affect on the dynamics of the round, affect on the community (which is the most integral part of the game?

Sorry sir, but you are wrong. There is nothing simple about it, there are a huge number of other factors, most of which I would say are far more important than the one you just mentioned (such as the ones I mentioned).

Quote:
B. I did not assumed everybody will have an alliance. You assumed that. I simply made an observation: if every alliance could recruit the ‘maximum’ allowed, you still will have a few planets allianceless.
And when you consider that, and the proportion of allianceless players, 10k doesn't seem as far fetched as you implied, possibly a little high. If however you add some background context, such as past history of the game, current community feeling in all quarters that the game would be far more fun with more players, 10k seems like a far more sensible playerbase for having alliance limits of 100. Going down to 50 is a good move (maybe 60 would have been better, but 50 is not 'bad'), but taking it up to 100 is completely contradictory to the whole argument about having limits in the first place.


Quote:
C. We don’t need 30 top alliances… 10 will do… any other minor alliances are just stepping stones for n00bs or close groups of old players who simply don’t care about the big leagues; or both (most likely). WE DON’T NEED CRAP ALLIANCES, they don’t serve any purpose.
30 top alliances would lead to a MUCH more dynamic and fun round. If you honestly believe what you just said, then I think you're misguided, especially considering I very much doubt you have done a study within the community to find out what the community feels it needs. I suspect instead you are going for the arrogant approach of assuming what YOU need is what everyone else needs. Also, I imagine what you're saying about smaller alliances could well cause offence to such alliances, and I disagree entirely about them serving no purpose. The point of the game is to have fun. People are in smaller alliances and still play, so they must have fun there. It would have been better if you'd said "I DON'T NEED CRAP ALLIANCES, they don't serve MY purpose" instead of going down the arrogant route again.

Quote:
D. About the flak comment you are wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong… is not a matter of being coward or not, is about being good at politics.
Rubbish. Being good at politics does not mean the ability to win at all costs. Go to your local library tomorrow and read Machiavelli's "The Prince", it's your sort of read, and agrees entirely with what you're saying, it doesn't however help your argument as he is amongst a minority. Most people consider good politics to be achieving your goals with the method judged by your own standards. An alliance who wins can have worse politics than an alliance that loses in that regard, as an alliance could win, burn itself out or do itself some mortal damage so it never plays again. A losing alliance could keep itself intact and go on to win the next 8 rounds and have more fun along the way than the original winning alliance. Don't assume everyone elses goals are the same as yours.

Quote:
E. About the 50 + 1 player every 20 ticks… I did the math loosely, not really “exactly”. Besides, wtf is the point of making it every 20 ticks – rank, blah, blah, blah… instead of 1 per day???? Pff, stupid, but you are right, the math was wrong. (btw, I doubt, an alliance ranked #18 (to take your number) will get 70 players in 50 ticks… go ahead and try, I’ll send you $5 if you prove me wrong)
So what you're saying is you agree that it's implementation is stupid. You spent all that time arguing against me just to agree with me? Seems like a lot of wasted effort.

As for your point on impossibility for rank 18 alliance, it'd be remarkably easy. If the limit increases by + every x ticks, then it is so easy it defies belief. If it just allows you to recruit +1 person (if you don't recruit you lose that +1 until the next x ticks) then it's a little harder.

First scenario, create 3 alliances; few small people in one; everyone left in 100 in another 2. Second 2 alliances play as well as they can, cooperating in a 'block' style approach, first alliance (probably full of scanners) plods along happily building up it's limit. End of round all leave second 2 alliances and join first one in same tick.

Second scenario you do the same alliance setup but gradually transfer the members over to the first alliance as the ticks go by (moving the smallest over first). The timing on this would be critical, and only hindsight would tell you if your timing was optimum. Also, you are unlikely to get to 100, but you'd be able to get a long way above 50.

Quote:
F. About the big alliances comment, I don’t fail to understand big alliances, u do I am afraid.
I suspect if we compared experience, the opposite would be proven.

Quote:
I seriously doubt any alliance will have 50+ old hardcore players that will play every single round, I simply doubt it, although I might see exceptions happening every now and then.
Very true, but also completely irrelevant. Any sensible alliance will chose those most likely to benefit it the most, not necessarily the ones who've been there the longest. Those who have been there the longest often have patchy activity, but still play at a level far higher than your average player, but below the average big alliance quality. These are the players that we'd lose, and it doesn't matter if it's not an entire alliance, the fact is the whole community (except possibly you judging by your earlier comments) wants the plaerbase to go up not down.

[quote]But hey, besides, if you really are “playing ‘PURELY’ for the benefit of the alliance” wtf do you care if you are allied ingame or not, you would do the best you can for it, no matter what. If they wont stay playing because they are not in the alliance, then their priority is really NOT the benefit of their alliance or to have fun with their friends.[quote]

Just some background info for you, during last round a new rule came in about not being able to defend out-galaxy out-cluster (possible restrictions on in-cluster). This means if you're outside the alliance, there's not a huge amount you can do for it, except scan, and scanners are often outside alliances anyway.

Quote:
IN ANY CASE, any alliance not in the top 5 will certainly not have a large number of these kind of players you are talking about. Certainly not more than 50.
Playerbase up = good, playerbase down = bad, simple as that. Doesn't matter if it's top 5 or bottom 50 they go from (except that top 5 are guaranteed pair planets, and as such allow the game to exist at all).

Quote:
G. If you fail to understand the concept of ‘decimation’ and its benefits, go and read some history or study some economics… also, u could grasp it if you give it a thought to art in general.
Decimation was the most severe punishment inflicted upon Roman soldiers for bad results. It involved the soldiers being punished (usually a century; group of about 80 legionnaries and an Optio and Centurion, or a cohort; a collection of centuries that fought together, roughly equivalent to a modern battalion) drawing lots/or being selected in some other way at random (I can't quite remember off the top of my head exactly what the selection process was, but it was random) in which 1/10th of them would be selected to be killed brutally by the rest of the group of soldiers. The killing would involve blunt weapons/hands/fists to increase the brutality and prevent mercy. It was considered such a dreadful punishment it was hardly ever used.

I think it is you who misunderstands the benefits. It was used in extreme cases only as a very brutal punishment for only the most severe of failings/cowardice/crimes. Mutiny is the sort of level it would be used on. It hardly translates to PA terms.

You also failed to explain why it would be a good thing, you simply stated it was and provided no justification whatsoever. You're discursive skills are non-existent. You cannot argue against my point simply by saying "you don't understand what I meant" when you stated what is at best a controversial opinion and at worst utter bullshit without a single supportive argument. You made a comment, not an argument.


Quote:
H. About minor alliances doing better thru recruitment… that’s the freaking point… they can’t compete in terms of activity or experience, they simply don’t have the “players” to do so.
No. The point is that recruitment boosts them to a level where they'd have more of a chance to compete. The ability to hide behind recruitment is not something that is of benefit. There is a big difference between recruitment giving them a helping hand and recruitment removing the need for them to try to improve. Consider a simple welfare model (since you implied knowledge of economics) with someone struggling because they can't earn much money due to reasons other than disability or long term illness. Do you give them all the money they want, or make sure they have what they need, but in order to get what they want still have to improve to be able to get it.
Quote:
I. Don’t talk about logic please, please!!!
Sorry, I thought you just had no grasp of it, not a phobia of it.

Quote:
J. And no, alliances don’t really take seriously rankings for many things, we simply don’t have the tools to have access to FULL statistics; only a very select group of players (i.e. HC) “might” be able to keep track of some of these. And these do mean SHIT for the most part.
You are talking quite simply out your arse. The top alliances can do this NO problem, they just CHOOSE not to open the statistics to the members. The 100 limit will if anything make them even more certain of this choice due to an increased chance of spies and more non-core members (something you yourself have said applies). Also, the larger alliances are not averse to offering advice and occasionally assistance to smaller alliances who want to achieve this for themselves.

Quote:
K. Again, that the limits are increased doesn’t mean alliances will be able to recruit that many players. The limit is meant, in my opinion, to avoid large mergers. And yes, if everybody starts with 50, then, you will see the rise of more HCs, etc, etc
No, the limit was put there because the playerbase was too small for large alliances. The number of alliances was shrinking fast due to players leaving the game. The limits were put there because not only is fewer players less fun, but fewer alliances is less fun also. You'll have to truse the experience of the entire community who's been here since pre-PAX on this one I'm afraid.

I am pleased you have seen my point on the number of HC etc. point. My efforts (though frustratingly long) haven't been totally in vein.

Quote:
L. One of my New Years resolution was to detox myself, so the comments about “smoking” were obviously a joke.
Then you ought to read the newest scientific advice on detoxing .
__________________
Here we go again....
Bashar is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 6 Jan 2006, 22:07   #16
Bashar
Idle Git
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Wandering
Posts: 1,550
Bashar is a pillar of this Internet societyBashar is a pillar of this Internet societyBashar is a pillar of this Internet societyBashar is a pillar of this Internet societyBashar is a pillar of this Internet societyBashar is a pillar of this Internet societyBashar is a pillar of this Internet societyBashar is a pillar of this Internet societyBashar is a pillar of this Internet societyBashar is a pillar of this Internet societyBashar is a pillar of this Internet society
Re: Has to be said

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kal
but it was tried in round 15 in a less extreme way - 80/100
Hehe, the concept can't be THAT bad then, as I didn't even notice it. But I haven't argued against the concept, only the implementation (and Dictator2's views on what the concept offers).

Still, there is a lot of difference between 25% and 100%. It's a MASSIVE jump, and I reckon my overall point still stands.
__________________
Here we go again....
Bashar is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 6 Jan 2006, 22:08   #17
Bashar
Idle Git
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Wandering
Posts: 1,550
Bashar is a pillar of this Internet societyBashar is a pillar of this Internet societyBashar is a pillar of this Internet societyBashar is a pillar of this Internet societyBashar is a pillar of this Internet societyBashar is a pillar of this Internet societyBashar is a pillar of this Internet societyBashar is a pillar of this Internet societyBashar is a pillar of this Internet societyBashar is a pillar of this Internet societyBashar is a pillar of this Internet society
Re: Has to be said

Besides, I KNOW I am right, I got a green blob from someone in exilition, so there is no other possibility and there can be no doubt.
__________________
Here we go again....
Bashar is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 6 Jan 2006, 22:22   #18
Dictator2
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: not sure
Posts: 98
Dictator2 can only hope to improve
Re: Has to be said

ok, im not willing to reply AS substantially AS you have , is getting boring and you are getting too abstract and we are diverging in language (i.e. minor alliance Vs top alliance vs crap alliance), so we are likely to be misreading eachother.

But I read your comments, and altho I don't agree, I can tolerate your views - one thing is certain, we are not gonna have 7k new players signing up overnite, although I agree, PA would be a much better game with 10k accounts.

I had a laugh about the definition of decimation, you are right, altho I was thinking more in general terms, not the meaning of the word per se (which by the way, was not completely right, I suggest u go and google it again)

About your experience, what you meant? that u have played since round 1??? ppff, even if thats the case why should that matter???... m8, they are 80 year old persons who dont know how to write and read, and they are 20 years old with doctorates in philosophy and law... get my point??

&

but I bet you I was here, playing PA, before most of the current players and I do have a pretty good idea of PA past, present and future

&

I meant drug detox, not toxins in general, but thx, I actually read it

&

don't worry, I wont give u a "red mark"... he he

(we better stop it here, cuz now we are fighting eachother, not debating a concept for the sake of the game - but I'll leave you with a final thought, u say it bothers u when someone doesnt think thru what they propose - how do you think you make feel those who were actually involved in the decision to set those limits??? Do you really think you have a better grasp of the dynamics of the game??? Take a look at you starting post!!!)
__________________
<\RoNiN/>

Last edited by Dictator2; 7 Jan 2006 at 02:39.
Dictator2 is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 6 Jan 2006, 22:26   #19
Bashar
Idle Git
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Wandering
Posts: 1,550
Bashar is a pillar of this Internet societyBashar is a pillar of this Internet societyBashar is a pillar of this Internet societyBashar is a pillar of this Internet societyBashar is a pillar of this Internet societyBashar is a pillar of this Internet societyBashar is a pillar of this Internet societyBashar is a pillar of this Internet societyBashar is a pillar of this Internet societyBashar is a pillar of this Internet societyBashar is a pillar of this Internet society
Re: Has to be said

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dictator2
ok, im not willing to reply substantially, is getting boring, but I read your comments... and if the green blob from an exilition players makes u feel infallible... well, good for you... ignorance is a bliss
However ignorance of humour such as you just displayed must be anything but bliss. That comment about exilition was made completely in jest.

Also, there's nothing wrong with saying "I don't have the ability to backup what I've been saying with arguments of substance, so I'll stop now".
__________________
Here we go again....
Bashar is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 6 Jan 2006, 22:38   #20
Smudge
For Crowly <3
 
Smudge's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Luton, England
Posts: 1,391
Smudge has a reputation beyond reputeSmudge has a reputation beyond reputeSmudge has a reputation beyond reputeSmudge has a reputation beyond reputeSmudge has a reputation beyond reputeSmudge has a reputation beyond reputeSmudge has a reputation beyond reputeSmudge has a reputation beyond reputeSmudge has a reputation beyond reputeSmudge has a reputation beyond reputeSmudge has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Has to be said

Why not scrap the ingame alliance thing and go old school for the free round?
__________________
[14:53:26] * Keiz`afk has joined #support
[14:53:36] <Keiz`afk> THE SMUDGE CHEERLEADING TEAM HAS ARRIVED
Smudge is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 6 Jan 2006, 22:40   #21
Reincarnate
ToF
 
Reincarnate's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: England
Posts: 607
Reincarnate is a name known to allReincarnate is a name known to allReincarnate is a name known to allReincarnate is a name known to allReincarnate is a name known to allReincarnate is a name known to all
Re: Has to be said

set the limit as a percentage of the total players, dunno if anyone said that cos i cba to read up.

PS, stfu smudge n00b
__________________
[19:10] <coffee-> dont worry about Reincarnate he is an angry man

R1 - 9 none | R10.5 - 13 [ToF] | R14 [Reunion] | R15-17 [Subh] | R18 - 36 PA vacation | R37 [Evo] | R38 [NFI] | R39 & 40 [ToF] | R41 [Omega] | R42 - 47 [ToF][HC]
Reincarnate is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 6 Jan 2006, 23:09   #22
Kal
Inactive peon
 
Kal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 6,050
Kal has a brilliant futureKal has a brilliant futureKal has a brilliant futureKal has a brilliant futureKal has a brilliant futureKal has a brilliant futureKal has a brilliant futureKal has a brilliant futureKal has a brilliant futureKal has a brilliant futureKal has a brilliant future
Re: Has to be said

Quote:
Originally Posted by Reincarnate
set the limit as a percentage of the total players, dunno if anyone said that cos i cba to read up.
that doesn't really work, as generally speaking the percentage would need to be high to form alliances at the start, which then means alliances can be to big later on.

the other problem is its quite easyy to abuse to increase alliance size - signup loads of accounts from random ip addresses.
__________________
Kal

Round 6-10 NoS member-->NoS junior HC
Round 10.5 FAnG member
Round 11-15 PATeam
Round 17-30 PATeam
Round 31 ???

Check out toastmonster.com for crazy illustrations and art
Kal is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 6 Jan 2006, 23:33   #23
Bashar
Idle Git
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Wandering
Posts: 1,550
Bashar is a pillar of this Internet societyBashar is a pillar of this Internet societyBashar is a pillar of this Internet societyBashar is a pillar of this Internet societyBashar is a pillar of this Internet societyBashar is a pillar of this Internet societyBashar is a pillar of this Internet societyBashar is a pillar of this Internet societyBashar is a pillar of this Internet societyBashar is a pillar of this Internet societyBashar is a pillar of this Internet society
Re: Has to be said

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kal
the other problem is its quite easyy to abuse to increase alliance size - signup loads of accounts from random ip addresses.
I reckon strategically signing your members up to your alliance is a far easier way of abusing it.
__________________
Here we go again....
Bashar is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 6 Jan 2006, 23:52   #24
Bashar
Idle Git
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Wandering
Posts: 1,550
Bashar is a pillar of this Internet societyBashar is a pillar of this Internet societyBashar is a pillar of this Internet societyBashar is a pillar of this Internet societyBashar is a pillar of this Internet societyBashar is a pillar of this Internet societyBashar is a pillar of this Internet societyBashar is a pillar of this Internet societyBashar is a pillar of this Internet societyBashar is a pillar of this Internet societyBashar is a pillar of this Internet society
Re: Has to be said

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dictator2
but I'll leave you with a final thought, u say it bothers u when someone doesnt think thru what they propose - how do you think you make feel those who were actually involved in the decision to set those limits??? Do you really think you have a better grasp of the dynamics of the game??? Take a look at you starting post!!!)
Chances are I know most the people involved in the decision, they know what I am like, they know I don't mean to offend, but they also know I give my opinion. I also understand that what I am saying is MY opinion, which is why I read what people post in reply, and I reply back in detail explaining the basis for my opinion rather than just giving my opinion. A trait you ought to learn well. I don't have a problem changing my mind if people can show that their idea makes more sense. However, on this occasion, the vast majority of people I have spoken to agree. In fact, everyone I spoke to on IRC agreed.

Also, the decisions are made by PA team. I have a better grasp on certain aspects of the game than they do due to the fact I play it and they don't.
__________________
Here we go again....
Bashar is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 7 Jan 2006, 00:08   #25
Dictator2
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: not sure
Posts: 98
Dictator2 can only hope to improve
Re: Has to be said

Ok, one last one, because I have realized you "know" what you are "trying" to say:

:P

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bashar
Also, the decisions are made by PA team. I have a better grasp on certain aspects of the game than they do due to the fact I play it and they don't.
I agree with you 101%
__________________
<\RoNiN/>
Dictator2 is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 7 Jan 2006, 00:22   #26
Kal
Inactive peon
 
Kal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 6,050
Kal has a brilliant futureKal has a brilliant futureKal has a brilliant futureKal has a brilliant futureKal has a brilliant futureKal has a brilliant futureKal has a brilliant futureKal has a brilliant futureKal has a brilliant futureKal has a brilliant futureKal has a brilliant future
Re: Has to be said

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bashar
Chances are I know most the people involved in the decision, they know what I am like, they know I don't mean to offend, but they also know I give my opinion. I also understand that what I am saying is MY opinion, which is why I read what people post in reply, and I reply back in detail explaining the basis for my opinion rather than just giving my opinion. A trait you ought to learn well. I don't have a problem changing my mind if people can show that their idea makes more sense. However, on this occasion, the vast majority of people I have spoken to agree. In fact, everyone I spoke to on IRC agreed.

Also, the decisions are made by PA team. I have a better grasp on certain aspects of the game than they do due to the fact I play it and they don't.
until that last sentence I was going to say something nice about how your post has made me think, but now I take it all back

But seriously, yoru psots are allways useful even if they are wrong as they tend to provoke some thought.
__________________
Kal

Round 6-10 NoS member-->NoS junior HC
Round 10.5 FAnG member
Round 11-15 PATeam
Round 17-30 PATeam
Round 31 ???

Check out toastmonster.com for crazy illustrations and art
Kal is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 7 Jan 2006, 00:39   #27
Monroe
Planetarion Forum Moderator
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 1,289
Monroe has much to be proud ofMonroe has much to be proud ofMonroe has much to be proud ofMonroe has much to be proud ofMonroe has much to be proud ofMonroe has much to be proud ofMonroe has much to be proud ofMonroe has much to be proud ofMonroe has much to be proud of
Re: Has to be said

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bashar
Hehe, the concept can't be THAT bad then, as I didn't even notice it. But I haven't argued against the concept, only the implementation (and Dictator2's views on what the concept offers).

Still, there is a lot of difference between 25% and 100%. It's a MASSIVE jump, and I reckon my overall point still stands.
I think massive is a bit of an over statement, but I am more then willing to conceed that 50 may be too low, but what about 60? A lot of the top allies stayed under the 80 cap last round anyway, most in the mid to low 70s, lch was even below that for a while and they did just fine. One potentially interesting consequence of a smaller ally cap is it may lead to some new alliances coming to promidence and the best player base will have to be spread out a little.

P.S. your math is a little funny, they are only talking about a 50% reduction at the most, not 100%
__________________
Romans 10:9-10

#strategy
Monroe is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 7 Jan 2006, 00:41   #28
Dictator2
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: not sure
Posts: 98
Dictator2 can only hope to improve
Re: Has to be said

well, now in his defense, he did included the word "certain"... he he... he didnt say "ALL"

:P
__________________
<\RoNiN/>

Last edited by Dictator2; 7 Jan 2006 at 01:15.
Dictator2 is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 7 Jan 2006, 01:42   #29
furball
Registered Awesome Person
 
furball's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 5,676
furball has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.furball has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.furball has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.furball has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.furball has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.furball has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.furball has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.furball has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.furball has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.furball has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.furball has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.
Re: Has to be said

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bashar
Also, the decisions are made by PA team. I have a better grasp on certain aspects of the game than they do due to the fact I play it and they don't.
I've said this again and again. Some of the PA-Team's suggestions I've seen in my time simply defy belief. That's why I think all official suggestions should be glanced at by the Support Team (who do play PA) before they're officially released. If all members of the Support Team think it's a stupid idea, then for god's sake don't release it on the public forums where it would be pillaried.
__________________
Finally free!
furball is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 7 Jan 2006, 02:29   #30
Tis
Lost the Fury... :(
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Posts: 516
Tis has much to be proud ofTis has much to be proud ofTis has much to be proud ofTis has much to be proud ofTis has much to be proud ofTis has much to be proud ofTis has much to be proud ofTis has much to be proud of
Re: Has to be said

Quote:
Originally Posted by Monroe
I think massive is a bit of an over statement, but I am more then willing to conceed that 50 may be too low, but what about 60? A lot of the top allies stayed under the 80 cap last round anyway, most in the mid to low 70s, lch was even below that for a while and they did just fine. One potentially interesting consequence of a smaller ally cap is it may lead to some new alliances coming to promidence and the best player base will have to be spread out a little.

P.S. your math is a little funny, they are only talking about a 50% reduction at the most, not 100%
Hes not really arguing the lower limit, but the upper one... one drops, the other should too. There is almost no chance that a legimate lower level alliance will recruit to 100.... there is a much greater chance that some slimey type will abuse the system for an unfair advantage.

raise your hand if you want to see 1up with 100 members at the end of the round. it wouldnt be hard.
Tis is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 7 Jan 2006, 02:41   #31
lokken
BlueTuba
 
lokken's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Posts: 6,339
lokken has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.lokken has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.lokken has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.lokken has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.lokken has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.lokken has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.lokken has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.lokken has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.lokken has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.lokken has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.lokken has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.
Re: Has to be said

My view is that 50 would make and enforce competition on an unprecedented scale, and therefore be a good thing for PA.
__________________
"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."
lokken is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 7 Jan 2006, 02:47   #32
Dictator2
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: not sure
Posts: 98
Dictator2 can only hope to improve
Re: Has to be said

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tis
Hes not really arguing the lower limit, but the upper one... one drops, the other should too. There is almost no chance that a legimate lower level alliance will recruit to 100.... there is a much greater chance that some slimey type will abuse the system for an unfair advantage.

raise your hand if you want to see 1up with 100 members at the end of the round. it wouldnt be hard.

Now that, simply put, makes more sense, and no 'questionable language' was used.

&

It would be painful to see 1up with 100 players; I fell in love with you guys precisely because you originally chose to play with 1/2 the number of players the average top alliance had. In essence, thats why you were the best and no one could say shit about your skills/quality.
__________________
<\RoNiN/>
Dictator2 is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 7 Jan 2006, 04:47   #33
Ultimate Newbie
Commodore
 
Ultimate Newbie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Perth, Western Australia
Posts: 3,176
Ultimate Newbie is an inspiration to us all and we should try to be more like himUltimate Newbie is an inspiration to us all and we should try to be more like himUltimate Newbie is an inspiration to us all and we should try to be more like himUltimate Newbie is an inspiration to us all and we should try to be more like himUltimate Newbie is an inspiration to us all and we should try to be more like himUltimate Newbie is an inspiration to us all and we should try to be more like himUltimate Newbie is an inspiration to us all and we should try to be more like himUltimate Newbie is an inspiration to us all and we should try to be more like himUltimate Newbie is an inspiration to us all and we should try to be more like himUltimate Newbie is an inspiration to us all and we should try to be more like himUltimate Newbie is an inspiration to us all and we should try to be more like him
Re: Has to be said

I was just wondering, if there was a 50 player limit on the top-most alliances, wouldnt that facilitate those alliances to effectively have two squads - ie, one group plays R16, the other group R17, and the first group R18 etc, such that players at the top level have more time to recover, work, study, smell the roses etc, before going absolutely nuts again 12 weeks later?

Just a thought .

Also, if the number of players was upped to 60 from 50, wouldnt that benefit those alliances who for much of the last round had ~65 or so people (like Subh, Vengeance, LCH i think for a while too?) as the limit is pretty much how many people are in their alliance already? These alliances would be pretty much able to play at full strength, whilst the more populous top alliances would only be at 75% or so. Whether that is 'unfair' or actually result in a far more competitive and entertaining round, i am not sure.

Thought i would mention it though.
__________________
#Strategy ; #Support - Sovereign
--- --- ---
"The Cake is a Lie."
Ultimate Newbie is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 7 Jan 2006, 04:50   #34
Ultimate Newbie
Commodore
 
Ultimate Newbie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Perth, Western Australia
Posts: 3,176
Ultimate Newbie is an inspiration to us all and we should try to be more like himUltimate Newbie is an inspiration to us all and we should try to be more like himUltimate Newbie is an inspiration to us all and we should try to be more like himUltimate Newbie is an inspiration to us all and we should try to be more like himUltimate Newbie is an inspiration to us all and we should try to be more like himUltimate Newbie is an inspiration to us all and we should try to be more like himUltimate Newbie is an inspiration to us all and we should try to be more like himUltimate Newbie is an inspiration to us all and we should try to be more like himUltimate Newbie is an inspiration to us all and we should try to be more like himUltimate Newbie is an inspiration to us all and we should try to be more like himUltimate Newbie is an inspiration to us all and we should try to be more like him
Re: Has to be said

Quote:
Originally Posted by furball
That's why I think all official suggestions should be glanced at by the Support Team (who do play PA) before they're officially released.
Well, i see what you are getting at, but i'm not so sure that its a wise idea - i mean, look at me and the crazy suggestions that I make; are you sure you want me and people like me to check all official material?
__________________
#Strategy ; #Support - Sovereign
--- --- ---
"The Cake is a Lie."
Ultimate Newbie is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 7 Jan 2006, 05:23   #35
Dictator2
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: not sure
Posts: 98
Dictator2 can only hope to improve
Re: Has to be said

stop giving me red dots damn it, or if you do, let me know who you are, so I can make more vodoo dolls

:P
__________________
<\RoNiN/>
Dictator2 is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 7 Jan 2006, 05:40   #36
Monroe
Planetarion Forum Moderator
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 1,289
Monroe has much to be proud ofMonroe has much to be proud ofMonroe has much to be proud ofMonroe has much to be proud ofMonroe has much to be proud ofMonroe has much to be proud ofMonroe has much to be proud ofMonroe has much to be proud ofMonroe has much to be proud of
Re: Has to be said

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ultimate Newbie
I was just wondering, if there was a 50 player limit on the top-most alliances, wouldnt that facilitate those alliances to effectively have two squads - ie, one group plays R16, the other group R17, and the first group R18 etc, such that players at the top level have more time to recover, work, study, smell the roses etc, before going absolutely nuts again 12 weeks later?
Yeah that is potentially a concern, but you'd have to split your def channels and stuff which could be a real pain, I would think it would be more likely to see blocking again, where an ally essentially divides and then works closely together as the pieces. Part of the origional reason blocking happened was because single allies couldn't control their own destiny like they can now, allies had to block to be successful (because of the large number of organized independants). Then as the universe shrunk the blocking lead to stagnation because one side would run over the competition. By limiting the size of allies it improves the odds of independants, but greatly increases the rewards of cooperation between allies, gonna be interesting to see if shrunken allies can resist the temptation and not return to massive blocking.
__________________
Romans 10:9-10

#strategy
Monroe is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 7 Jan 2006, 06:01   #37
Monroe
Planetarion Forum Moderator
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 1,289
Monroe has much to be proud ofMonroe has much to be proud ofMonroe has much to be proud ofMonroe has much to be proud ofMonroe has much to be proud ofMonroe has much to be proud ofMonroe has much to be proud ofMonroe has much to be proud ofMonroe has much to be proud of
Re: Has to be said

Another thought: Personally I don't think it's such a great idea to limit allies like the PATeam is suggesting. Essentially PATeam wants to punish allies for doing well, and reward allies for staying towards the bottom. So essentially PATeam will be discouraging allies in general, which are the heart and soul of this game, and is that really a wise decision? I'm not sure it is.
__________________
Romans 10:9-10

#strategy
Monroe is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 7 Jan 2006, 09:36   #38
TheBerk
dazed and confused
 
TheBerk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Defford
Posts: 379
TheBerk has a brilliant futureTheBerk has a brilliant futureTheBerk has a brilliant futureTheBerk has a brilliant futureTheBerk has a brilliant futureTheBerk has a brilliant futureTheBerk has a brilliant futureTheBerk has a brilliant futureTheBerk has a brilliant futureTheBerk has a brilliant futureTheBerk has a brilliant future
Re: Has to be said

Quote:
Originally Posted by Monroe
I think massive is a bit of an over statement, but I am more then willing to conceed that 50 may be too low, but what about 60? A lot of the top allies stayed under the 80 cap last round anyway, most in the mid to low 70s, lch was even below that for a while and they did just fine. One potentially interesting consequence of a smaller ally cap is it may lead to some new alliances coming to promidence and the best player base will have to be spread out a little.

P.S. your math is a little funny, they are only talking about a 50% reduction at the most, not 100%
With alliances of 80 players those out of the top 5 can increase their size to 100, this is a 25% increase, with 50 players they can potentially double their alliance size to 100, this is a 100% increase.

Just one way I have thought about getting around this limit is to form a tag of say 20 players, keep them in the ranks 10-15 maybe or even lower and the rest of your alliance out of tag. With some clever DCing making use of buddy packs and even clusters you can still provide some defence, and it wouldn't break the OOGOOA rule as the players defending or being defended wouldn't be in an alliance. Wait until you can recruit ~80 members then add them too the tag, huge score boost etc and bam, top5 with more members than the rest.
I have seen other people state that you could create 2 alliances, one with 50 members, the other with 20, then part way through the round, everyone leaves the first tag and joins the second. This seems to me to be an easily abusable rule, sure the alliance that uses any tactics like these would be hugely unpopular and probably bashed fairly quickly, but it could happen.

My main problem with this new alliance situation is mainly the gap between the top 5 and the rest of the universe, 50-100 is too large a ratio. 50-80 might be workable, or even 60-90 but to allow a potential 100% mark up between those in the top 5 and those from rank 6 down is, well, crazy in my eyes.

[/my2penceworth]
__________________
rats live on no evil star
TheBerk is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 7 Jan 2006, 10:57   #39
Kal
Inactive peon
 
Kal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 6,050
Kal has a brilliant futureKal has a brilliant futureKal has a brilliant futureKal has a brilliant futureKal has a brilliant futureKal has a brilliant futureKal has a brilliant futureKal has a brilliant futureKal has a brilliant futureKal has a brilliant futureKal has a brilliant future
Re: Has to be said

with regards to the celevr tactics that can be used to get large alliances - as everyone here seems to udnerstand them and be aware of them surely they will be taking them into account in their strategies even IF they do not intend to use them themselves. In which case they can plan to win regardless etc.

Also remember the people will have to be allianceless for 72 ticks before they can join there new alliance.
__________________
Kal

Round 6-10 NoS member-->NoS junior HC
Round 10.5 FAnG member
Round 11-15 PATeam
Round 17-30 PATeam
Round 31 ???

Check out toastmonster.com for crazy illustrations and art
Kal is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 7 Jan 2006, 11:02   #40
The Real Arfy
Registered User
 
The Real Arfy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 1,081
The Real Arfy has a reputation beyond reputeThe Real Arfy has a reputation beyond reputeThe Real Arfy has a reputation beyond reputeThe Real Arfy has a reputation beyond reputeThe Real Arfy has a reputation beyond reputeThe Real Arfy has a reputation beyond reputeThe Real Arfy has a reputation beyond reputeThe Real Arfy has a reputation beyond reputeThe Real Arfy has a reputation beyond reputeThe Real Arfy has a reputation beyond reputeThe Real Arfy has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Has to be said

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ultimate Newbie
I was just wondering, if there was a 50 player limit on the top-most alliances, wouldnt that facilitate those alliances to effectively have two squads - ie, one group plays R16, the other group R17, and the first group R18 etc, such that players at the top level have more time to recover, work, study, smell the roses etc, before going absolutely nuts again 12 weeks later?
When I play for an alliance, I definately put my alliance first - as do alot of people. However, I think most people also play the game because they want to, and aren't going to sit a round out because their alliance has 'reserve players' so to speak.

Alliance Discussions aside, I can't help but think that you're referring to eXilition here.

P.S. Under no circumstances will this turn into another AD thread.
__________________
Dynamic Salvage!

[16:10:34] <[lfc]stif|afk> "dont be the worst in your alliance, join CT. We have Arfy!"
The Real Arfy is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 7 Jan 2006, 11:18   #41
furball
Registered Awesome Person
 
furball's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 5,676
furball has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.furball has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.furball has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.furball has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.furball has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.furball has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.furball has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.furball has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.furball has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.furball has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.furball has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.
Re: Has to be said

Right.


A load of people are suggesting that you could keep a bunch of players outside your tag, hang around outside the top 5 then add them all in one go. Don't be ridiculous, this couldn't happen. For starters, PA would re-calculate your ability to add members as you added them, not at the end of tick as some people assume. Furthermore, it would check where you are in the rankings to see what limits applied. Essentially it would be very very difficult to recruit into anywhere higher than fourth, unless the top alliances were incredibly close together.

I would like a member of PA Team to confirm this though.
__________________
Finally free!
furball is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 7 Jan 2006, 12:07   #42
E.S.B.
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Brasília - Brasil
Posts: 8
E.S.B. is an unknown quantity at this point
Re: Has to be said

Well, you could make that alliances can't add members into their ranks in large numbers, only bit by bit. Like, if an alliance is ranked 10th, then it could add members every 10 ticks. If it doesn't add a member then at 20 ticks they would not be able to add 2 members. I think a good metaphore would be constructions in PA. If you don't make them, you can't stockpile them and make a large amount later on.
__________________
aka eu_sou_eu
E.S.B. is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 7 Jan 2006, 13:31   #43
Tis
Lost the Fury... :(
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Posts: 516
Tis has much to be proud ofTis has much to be proud ofTis has much to be proud ofTis has much to be proud ofTis has much to be proud ofTis has much to be proud ofTis has much to be proud ofTis has much to be proud of
Re: Has to be said

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kal
with regards to the celevr tactics that can be used to get large alliances - as everyone here seems to udnerstand them and be aware of them surely they will be taking them into account in their strategies even IF they do not intend to use them themselves. In which case they can plan to win regardless etc.

Also remember the people will have to be allianceless for 72 ticks before they can join there new alliance.
To be quite frank, that statement is rubbish. Analogy.

I know people cheat. I know how to cheat. But I do not cheat. No amount of planning 'planning to win regardless' will completely equalize the advantage cheaters have. I may still manage to win, but that doesnt make it any fairer.

Sure theres that 72 hours to work with, but since the exploiting alliances is, if doing it propperly, adding 50 players to a T6-7 alliance, you can afford to lose an aweful lot of score in those three days and still come out substantially stronger than your competition. Heck, even with no defense at all planets could just run their fleets and the opposition would have almost no chance of doing anywhere near enough damage to offset the advantage this group would have from doubling their member size.

It is just too much. No legitimate alliance will make use of it. The only ones to use it would be abusing it.

Last edited by Tis; 7 Jan 2006 at 13:36.
Tis is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 7 Jan 2006, 13:35   #44
Tis
Lost the Fury... :(
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Posts: 516
Tis has much to be proud ofTis has much to be proud ofTis has much to be proud ofTis has much to be proud ofTis has much to be proud ofTis has much to be proud ofTis has much to be proud ofTis has much to be proud of
Re: Has to be said

Quote:
Originally Posted by furball
Right.


A load of people are suggesting that you could keep a bunch of players outside your tag, hang around outside the top 5 then add them all in one go. Don't be ridiculous, this couldn't happen. For starters, PA would re-calculate your ability to add members as you added them, not at the end of tick as some people assume. Furthermore, it would check where you are in the rankings to see what limits applied. Essentially it would be very very difficult to recruit into anywhere higher than fourth, unless the top alliances were incredibly close together.

I would like a member of PA Team to confirm this though.
That is not my understanding of how it works. To my knowledge alliance score is only recalculated at the end of the tick, not every time a member is added or kicked as well. It if works how you discribe, that would help substantially.
Tis is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 7 Jan 2006, 13:47   #45
furball
Registered Awesome Person
 
furball's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 5,676
furball has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.furball has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.furball has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.furball has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.furball has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.furball has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.furball has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.furball has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.furball has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.furball has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.furball has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.
Re: Has to be said

Well, I hesitate to make assumptions about the way PA is coded. The only examples I can think of are things like not being able to initiate more than X roids in a tick, depending on resources, etc. It would be ludicrous not to have alliance member levels counted this way as well.

Of course, with PA nothing will ever suprise me. That's why I did say that I'd like a member of PA Team to confirm things though.
__________________
Finally free!
furball is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 7 Jan 2006, 14:01   #46
Kal
Inactive peon
 
Kal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 6,050
Kal has a brilliant futureKal has a brilliant futureKal has a brilliant futureKal has a brilliant futureKal has a brilliant futureKal has a brilliant futureKal has a brilliant futureKal has a brilliant futureKal has a brilliant futureKal has a brilliant futureKal has a brilliant future
Re: Has to be said

If an alliance is in the top 5 it cannot take new members in if it has 50 or more members.

If an alliance is outside the top 5 it can recruit providing it has less than 100 members, and has not accepted a recruit in the last X ticks.

This means that you cannot mass add 50 planets to your alliance at the end of the round.
__________________
Kal

Round 6-10 NoS member-->NoS junior HC
Round 10.5 FAnG member
Round 11-15 PATeam
Round 17-30 PATeam
Round 31 ???

Check out toastmonster.com for crazy illustrations and art
Kal is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 7 Jan 2006, 14:18   #47
Bashar
Idle Git
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Wandering
Posts: 1,550
Bashar is a pillar of this Internet societyBashar is a pillar of this Internet societyBashar is a pillar of this Internet societyBashar is a pillar of this Internet societyBashar is a pillar of this Internet societyBashar is a pillar of this Internet societyBashar is a pillar of this Internet societyBashar is a pillar of this Internet societyBashar is a pillar of this Internet societyBashar is a pillar of this Internet societyBashar is a pillar of this Internet society
Re: Has to be said

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kal
until that last sentence I was going to say something nice about how your post has made me think, but now I take it all back
Hehe, you know it's true though. It's not just me it applies to, but most people who play seriously. There's no way you can understand the decisions you make from a players point of view. It's a very simple and obvious fact.
__________________
Here we go again....
Bashar is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 7 Jan 2006, 14:21   #48
Bashar
Idle Git
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Wandering
Posts: 1,550
Bashar is a pillar of this Internet societyBashar is a pillar of this Internet societyBashar is a pillar of this Internet societyBashar is a pillar of this Internet societyBashar is a pillar of this Internet societyBashar is a pillar of this Internet societyBashar is a pillar of this Internet societyBashar is a pillar of this Internet societyBashar is a pillar of this Internet societyBashar is a pillar of this Internet societyBashar is a pillar of this Internet society
Re: Has to be said

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dictator2
stop giving me red dots damn it, or if you do, let me know who you are, so I can make more vodoo dolls

:P
i haven't given you any, which is surprising me as much as it is you.
__________________
Here we go again....
Bashar is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 7 Jan 2006, 14:27   #49
Kal
Inactive peon
 
Kal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 6,050
Kal has a brilliant futureKal has a brilliant futureKal has a brilliant futureKal has a brilliant futureKal has a brilliant futureKal has a brilliant futureKal has a brilliant futureKal has a brilliant futureKal has a brilliant futureKal has a brilliant futureKal has a brilliant future
Re: Has to be said

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bashar
Hehe, you know it's true though. It's not just me it applies to, but most people who play seriously. There's no way you can understand the decisions you make from a players point of view. It's a very simple and obvious fact.
I agree we often don;t understand things from a players pov, but in a way thats our greatest strength (as well as our greatest weakness...) as in theory it allows us to make objective decisions about how to change the game, that said its also important that the players to tell us what they think, but we shouldn't allways end up doing what the players want
__________________
Kal

Round 6-10 NoS member-->NoS junior HC
Round 10.5 FAnG member
Round 11-15 PATeam
Round 17-30 PATeam
Round 31 ???

Check out toastmonster.com for crazy illustrations and art
Kal is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 7 Jan 2006, 15:40   #50
Appocomaster
PA Team
 
Appocomaster's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 7,449
Appocomaster spreads love and joy to the forum in the same way Jesus wouldAppocomaster spreads love and joy to the forum in the same way Jesus wouldAppocomaster spreads love and joy to the forum in the same way Jesus wouldAppocomaster spreads love and joy to the forum in the same way Jesus wouldAppocomaster spreads love and joy to the forum in the same way Jesus wouldAppocomaster spreads love and joy to the forum in the same way Jesus wouldAppocomaster spreads love and joy to the forum in the same way Jesus wouldAppocomaster spreads love and joy to the forum in the same way Jesus wouldAppocomaster spreads love and joy to the forum in the same way Jesus wouldAppocomaster spreads love and joy to the forum in the same way Jesus wouldAppocomaster spreads love and joy to the forum in the same way Jesus would
Re: Has to be said

Setting the alliance limit to this was probably my idea more than most.

When discussing the alliance limit on any forum, there were generally a few opinions:

1) ditch limits (minority)

2) get low alliance limits (active players wanting small alliances/BGs to play in)

3) prefer higher alliances to not kick less active people (training alliances/alliances with big communities not willing to split, generally middle / lower top 10 or below).

So, the logic was that the 50 member alliances kept the top active alliances small. There'd probably be 7-8 alliances competiting for the top, so I wouldn't be surprised to see the 50 man alliances slip up to 60 by mid/end round. It might be because of ship jumping, or scanners coming in tag, or later signups...

The higher limit was set so that the other alliances could keep their players, although yes I admit that not all of them can join at once.

Edit:
The only way I'd change it is to perhaps change the 50 to 60
__________________
r8-10 RaH r10.5-12 MISTU

Last edited by Appocomaster; 7 Jan 2006 at 16:20.
Appocomaster is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 03:30.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.1
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2002 - 2018