User Name
Password

Go Back   Planetarion Forums > Planetarion Related Forums > Planetarion Suggestions

Reply
Thread Tools Display Modes
Unread 17 Nov 2014, 00:01   #1
BloodyButcher
Propaganda Chief
 
BloodyButcher's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Under the Rainbow
Posts: 4,535
BloodyButcher has much to be proud ofBloodyButcher has much to be proud ofBloodyButcher has much to be proud ofBloodyButcher has much to be proud ofBloodyButcher has much to be proud ofBloodyButcher has much to be proud ofBloodyButcher has much to be proud ofBloodyButcher has much to be proud ofBloodyButcher has much to be proud of
Limited jumpgates on alliances.

Seeing the tags are so small, and gang ups are more likely to happend with all the politics involved in todays PA, i think that there should be a limit on how many fleets you can send at one alliance at the time without declaring war on them ingame.
If Public planet intel was added, perhaps you could limit the amount of fleets you could send at one tag without official declaring war ingame.
Smaller tags(scorewise) should be able to send more fleets at a bigger tag(score wise), it could be some sort of ratio for this.
If a tag want to send 30/40/50/60+(whatever) fleets at another tag they would have to declare war officialy ingame.
Atleast this would hinder tags getting flash ganged on with 150+ incomming fleets.
Or you could ofc raise the tag limits to say 80 so that flash ganging will be harder to organize and rankings not so random/politicaly.
__________________
RainbowS

RB Ely MISTU Angel Fusi0n 1up ToF VisioN CT FAnG ROCK
BloodyButcher is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 17 Nov 2014, 01:02   #2
Kaiba
Valle is my hero
 
Kaiba's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 2,532
Kaiba has much to be proud ofKaiba has much to be proud ofKaiba has much to be proud ofKaiba has much to be proud ofKaiba has much to be proud ofKaiba has much to be proud ofKaiba has much to be proud ofKaiba has much to be proud ofKaiba has much to be proud of
Re: Limited jumpgates on alliances.

A) FlashGang sounds like a gay dance act, dont use it again.

B) it sounded like decent idea, then you added the raising tags bit on the end and ruined it.

I'll comment more in the morning
Kaiba is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 17 Nov 2014, 11:39   #3
Mzyxptlk
mz.
Space Invaders Champion, Alien Invasion Champion, Mosquito Kill Champion, Squid Hunter Champion, Tiger Punch Champion, Barts Watersports Adventure Champion
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 8,362
Mzyxptlk spreads love and joy to the forum in the same way Jesus wouldMzyxptlk spreads love and joy to the forum in the same way Jesus wouldMzyxptlk spreads love and joy to the forum in the same way Jesus wouldMzyxptlk spreads love and joy to the forum in the same way Jesus wouldMzyxptlk spreads love and joy to the forum in the same way Jesus wouldMzyxptlk spreads love and joy to the forum in the same way Jesus wouldMzyxptlk spreads love and joy to the forum in the same way Jesus wouldMzyxptlk spreads love and joy to the forum in the same way Jesus wouldMzyxptlk spreads love and joy to the forum in the same way Jesus wouldMzyxptlk spreads love and joy to the forum in the same way Jesus wouldMzyxptlk spreads love and joy to the forum in the same way Jesus would
Re: Limited jumpgates on alliances.

Limiting incomings helps strong tags and hurts weak tags. Terrible idea.
__________________
The outraged poets threw sticks and rocks over the side of the bridge. They were all missing Mary and he felt a contented smug feeling wash over him. He would have given them a coy little wave if the roof hadn't collapsed just then. Mary then found himself in the middle of an understandably shocked family's kitchen table. So he gave them the coy little wave and realized it probably would have been more effective if he hadn't been lying on their turkey.
Mzyxptlk is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 17 Nov 2014, 12:01   #4
BloodyButcher
Propaganda Chief
 
BloodyButcher's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Under the Rainbow
Posts: 4,535
BloodyButcher has much to be proud ofBloodyButcher has much to be proud ofBloodyButcher has much to be proud ofBloodyButcher has much to be proud ofBloodyButcher has much to be proud ofBloodyButcher has much to be proud ofBloodyButcher has much to be proud ofBloodyButcher has much to be proud ofBloodyButcher has much to be proud of
Re: Limited jumpgates on alliances.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mzyxptlk View Post
Limiting incomings helps strong tags and hurts weak tags. Terrible idea.
Well you might not have read what i wrote then? Or we got a diffrent understanding of how the game works now days.
If a bigger tag is gonna attack a smaller tag, it will be limited to send fewer fleets at it than it can today without officialy declaring war.
If someone declares war on you, you are more likely to focus your effort on fighting back at that alliance.
I personaly think PA is getting more and more boring. The PA crew tried to make a game, wich aint suppose to be a even race all the time, more even.
The impact of smaller tags has sky rocked, grudges and trolling can easily ruin the round for certain allies, when you get hit you often get 20% of the univers attacking you, no matter what rank your alliance is at. A few rounds back my gal mate got 6 multiple fleet waves when he was under 300 roids, all willing to crash and burn if defence. The bigger tags should be able to attract good players, and be able to hold roids, and there should be more tempting attacking a bigger tag than a small tag.
Im sure we are moving closer to a round where the top5 tags barely attacking each, and instead going for the smaller tags.
__________________
RainbowS

RB Ely MISTU Angel Fusi0n 1up ToF VisioN CT FAnG ROCK
BloodyButcher is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 17 Nov 2014, 12:15   #5
Mzyxptlk
mz.
Space Invaders Champion, Alien Invasion Champion, Mosquito Kill Champion, Squid Hunter Champion, Tiger Punch Champion, Barts Watersports Adventure Champion
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 8,362
Mzyxptlk spreads love and joy to the forum in the same way Jesus wouldMzyxptlk spreads love and joy to the forum in the same way Jesus wouldMzyxptlk spreads love and joy to the forum in the same way Jesus wouldMzyxptlk spreads love and joy to the forum in the same way Jesus wouldMzyxptlk spreads love and joy to the forum in the same way Jesus wouldMzyxptlk spreads love and joy to the forum in the same way Jesus wouldMzyxptlk spreads love and joy to the forum in the same way Jesus wouldMzyxptlk spreads love and joy to the forum in the same way Jesus wouldMzyxptlk spreads love and joy to the forum in the same way Jesus wouldMzyxptlk spreads love and joy to the forum in the same way Jesus wouldMzyxptlk spreads love and joy to the forum in the same way Jesus would
Re: Limited jumpgates on alliances.

When you're just after roids (and not XP, so that leaves just 57 out of 59 rounds), it has never (NEVER) been more attractive to attack bigger tags than smaller ones. You're painting this as a phenomenon that has only recently surfaced, when in reality it has been around since the dawn of PA.

Additionally, you're contradicting yourself by 1) suggesting something with the express purpose (whether achieved or not) of helping small alliances, 2) complaining the game is too even, and 3) stating that small tags have too much impact.

So yes. We probably do have a different understanding of how the game works.
__________________
The outraged poets threw sticks and rocks over the side of the bridge. They were all missing Mary and he felt a contented smug feeling wash over him. He would have given them a coy little wave if the roof hadn't collapsed just then. Mary then found himself in the middle of an understandably shocked family's kitchen table. So he gave them the coy little wave and realized it probably would have been more effective if he hadn't been lying on their turkey.
Mzyxptlk is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 17 Nov 2014, 12:58   #6
BloodyButcher
Propaganda Chief
 
BloodyButcher's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Under the Rainbow
Posts: 4,535
BloodyButcher has much to be proud ofBloodyButcher has much to be proud ofBloodyButcher has much to be proud ofBloodyButcher has much to be proud ofBloodyButcher has much to be proud ofBloodyButcher has much to be proud ofBloodyButcher has much to be proud ofBloodyButcher has much to be proud ofBloodyButcher has much to be proud of
Re: Limited jumpgates on alliances.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mzyxptlk View Post
When you're just after roids (and not XP, so that leaves just 57 out of 59 rounds), it has never (NEVER) been more attractive to attack bigger tags than smaller ones. You're painting this as a phenomenon that has only recently surfaced, when in reality it has been around since the dawn of PA.

Additionally, you're contradicting yourself by 1) suggesting something with the express purpose (whether achieved or not) of helping small alliances, 2) complaining the game is too even, and 3) stating that small tags have too much impact.

So yes. We probably do have a different understanding of how the game works.
Attacking your biggest competitors have always been something you would have to do for winning.'
Since when did "lets NAP our biggest competitors and hope someone else deals with them" become the number one strategy in this game?
eXilition beat 1up back in the days because they hit them, and Ultores/FAnG always were going head to head from r45-r49
__________________
RainbowS

RB Ely MISTU Angel Fusi0n 1up ToF VisioN CT FAnG ROCK
BloodyButcher is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 17 Nov 2014, 13:53   #7
Kaiba
Valle is my hero
 
Kaiba's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 2,532
Kaiba has much to be proud ofKaiba has much to be proud ofKaiba has much to be proud ofKaiba has much to be proud ofKaiba has much to be proud ofKaiba has much to be proud ofKaiba has much to be proud ofKaiba has much to be proud ofKaiba has much to be proud of
Re: Limited jumpgates on alliances.

Since the game changed butcher. This isn't round 21 or 35 or 46 anymore, it's 59 get with the times. Take off the rose tinted specs too cos PA was just as shit and ppl griped just as much back then too.
Kaiba is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 17 Nov 2014, 14:32   #8
Mzyxptlk
mz.
Space Invaders Champion, Alien Invasion Champion, Mosquito Kill Champion, Squid Hunter Champion, Tiger Punch Champion, Barts Watersports Adventure Champion
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 8,362
Mzyxptlk spreads love and joy to the forum in the same way Jesus wouldMzyxptlk spreads love and joy to the forum in the same way Jesus wouldMzyxptlk spreads love and joy to the forum in the same way Jesus wouldMzyxptlk spreads love and joy to the forum in the same way Jesus wouldMzyxptlk spreads love and joy to the forum in the same way Jesus wouldMzyxptlk spreads love and joy to the forum in the same way Jesus wouldMzyxptlk spreads love and joy to the forum in the same way Jesus wouldMzyxptlk spreads love and joy to the forum in the same way Jesus wouldMzyxptlk spreads love and joy to the forum in the same way Jesus wouldMzyxptlk spreads love and joy to the forum in the same way Jesus wouldMzyxptlk spreads love and joy to the forum in the same way Jesus would
Re: Limited jumpgates on alliances.

Quote:
Originally Posted by BloodyButcher View Post
Attacking your biggest competitors have always been something you would have to do for winning.
Since when did "lets NAP our biggest competitors and hope someone else deals with them" become the number one strategy in this game?
Every round during which there wasn't a clear superpower was won by some midlevel alliance that got there pretty much by accident. It was that way after 1up and Exi quit (20-27), and it was that way for a couple of rounds when Asc left and Apprime stopped bothering (36-38, 40-41), and then once more when Ultores got tired (r49-now). During all of those periods, politics was awful, gangbangs were common, wars in which the two sides were roughly equal were rare, and wins were marginal.

The only point I'll grant you is that the current superpower-free period is lasting longer than the previous ones.

Attacking your competition has always been a short term sacrifice. It's far easier and far more profitable to roid Joe Random McNewbie than to roid Mary Fort McSuperpower. The way attacking competition pays off is not in roids, and not even in XP. It's in reducing your opponent's willingness to play by wearing out their spirit, and reducing their ability to play by destroying their fleets. That's what separates midlevel alliances like Fang and CT from top alliances like Exilition and Ultores in their respective heydays.
__________________
The outraged poets threw sticks and rocks over the side of the bridge. They were all missing Mary and he felt a contented smug feeling wash over him. He would have given them a coy little wave if the roof hadn't collapsed just then. Mary then found himself in the middle of an understandably shocked family's kitchen table. So he gave them the coy little wave and realized it probably would have been more effective if he hadn't been lying on their turkey.

Last edited by Mzyxptlk; 17 Nov 2014 at 14:43.
Mzyxptlk is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 17 Nov 2014, 14:44   #9
Machado
Seraphim
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 196
Machado is a jewel in the roughMachado is a jewel in the roughMachado is a jewel in the roughMachado is a jewel in the rough
Re: Limited jumpgates on alliances.

Genuinely a question here. Declare war vs don't declare war. What's the main thing about declaring war that would force an alliance to limit their amounts of incs on another alliance? I mean, why would it be a big deal? So you declare war. Now what? As far as I know, and please correct me if I'm wrong, you could just declare war, attack one day, then get together as HC and put a CF together. It happens all the time.

Aside from that, there's a ton of problems on the horizon for this plan, I'm not even going to try and name all of them, but lets start with the intel question and the fact that basically you're trying to limit players/alliances in their movements, which is something that's never going to go down well.

That said, in a theoretical world where alliances would be more or less equal to one another, setting a maximum fleet slot use would be an extremely interesting tactical addition, altho I realize that's not exactly what you proposed. It would force bc's to be a lot more tactical and alliances a lot more organized - which is why I mentioned a theoretical world.

The tactical implications could make me rather excited, but I don't see how this could work at all, nor do I see (at the moment) the big reason why this idea would make a difference in the format you proposed.

I know the following is part of another discussion, but to discuss your point about attacking rivals, I don't think attacking your main opponents is always the best tactic with the universe as is (as much as we could like it to be). Sure, when two alliances are on their own level, then it makes sense, but when there's multiple alliances roughly equal in ability and activity luring for a shot, you run into the problem that attacking each other would weaken both sides, and a third party would be the real winner.
__________________
Seraphim
Machado is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 17 Nov 2014, 14:54   #10
BloodyButcher
Propaganda Chief
 
BloodyButcher's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Under the Rainbow
Posts: 4,535
BloodyButcher has much to be proud ofBloodyButcher has much to be proud ofBloodyButcher has much to be proud ofBloodyButcher has much to be proud ofBloodyButcher has much to be proud ofBloodyButcher has much to be proud ofBloodyButcher has much to be proud ofBloodyButcher has much to be proud ofBloodyButcher has much to be proud of
Re: Limited jumpgates on alliances.

Main point being that war is much more fun than roiding average joes.
Basicly it seems to me that nothing is happening, this round is at status quo.
Maybe its the mix of alliance playing and the stats wich has done this.
But look at the univers right now, the alliance wich apparently is getting hit is faceless, with average size rank of 28! Joe Random must be realy bothering everyone, since BF/p3ng/Inf seems to be standing still on the roid gap.
__________________
RainbowS

RB Ely MISTU Angel Fusi0n 1up ToF VisioN CT FAnG ROCK
BloodyButcher is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 17 Nov 2014, 16:33   #11
TheoDD
Registered User
Othello Champion
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 670
TheoDD will become famous soon enoughTheoDD will become famous soon enough
Re: Limited jumpgates on alliances.

You do realize how crap this idea is? Simply for the fact that you can't BC shit for your alliance, because whatever targets you pick might be over the limit. And this won't be figured out before it is tolate and most in the tag is sleeping. Need me to further explain it?
TheoDD is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 17 Nov 2014, 18:24   #12
Adapt
Leader Of The Gang
Yankee Go Home Champion
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Posts: 374
Adapt is a jewel in the roughAdapt is a jewel in the roughAdapt is a jewel in the rough
Re: Limited jumpgates on alliances.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mzyxptlk View Post
Limiting incomings helps strong tags and hurts weak tags. Terrible idea.

As mz said above couldn't agree more.
__________________
Played in: Newdawn, Ultores, Apprime, Howling Rain, FAnG, Faceless, ODDR, RainbowS And Conspiracy.

Round 67 - Ultores Rank 67.
Round 75 - Conspiracy Rank 19 - 4:4 Galaxy Winners.
Adapt is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 18 Nov 2014, 01:19   #13
Blue_Esper
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 996
Blue_Esper is just really niceBlue_Esper is just really niceBlue_Esper is just really niceBlue_Esper is just really niceBlue_Esper is just really nice
Re: Limited jumpgates on alliances.

This is a reactionary post due to rainbows is copping it sweet because their hcs don't look after their members interests.
__________________
Alliance History
Rnd 1-3 - Allianceless, Rnd 16 - APA, Rnd 31, 33-35 - F-Crew, Rnd 32 - Hidden Agenda, Rnd 36 - DLR, Rnd 37 - Evolution, Rnd 38 - Osiris/Apprime, Rnd 39 - Imperia, Rnd 40 - S.P.Q.R, Rnd 41-43 - TGV, Rnd 44 onwards Ultores
Blue_Esper is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 18 Nov 2014, 02:16   #14
Tommy
Sain†s
 
Tommy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 331
Tommy has much to be proud ofTommy has much to be proud ofTommy has much to be proud ofTommy has much to be proud ofTommy has much to be proud ofTommy has much to be proud ofTommy has much to be proud ofTommy has much to be proud ofTommy has much to be proud ofTommy has much to be proud of
Re: Limited jumpgates on alliances.

This is mind-boggling. Almost as if you're trying to find ways to make the game even less fun.
__________________
| ROCK | BowS | Sain†s
Tommy is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 18 Nov 2014, 03:28   #15
Paisley
The brother of Spammer
 
Paisley's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Paisley - Scotland
Posts: 2,263
Paisley is a name known to allPaisley is a name known to allPaisley is a name known to allPaisley is a name known to allPaisley is a name known to allPaisley is a name known to all
Re: Limited jumpgates on alliances.

the first 3 days of attacking is one of the best times in PA having restrictions on who you can roid would dampen this
__________________
Missing Subh (r15-r18)
Paisley is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 18 Nov 2014, 03:49   #16
Cochese
Retired
 
Cochese's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: The Back Porch Bar
Posts: 2,560
Cochese has a brilliant futureCochese has a brilliant futureCochese has a brilliant futureCochese has a brilliant futureCochese has a brilliant futureCochese has a brilliant futureCochese has a brilliant futureCochese has a brilliant futureCochese has a brilliant futureCochese has a brilliant futureCochese has a brilliant future
Re: Limited jumpgates on alliances.

lol, nerf attacking.

I've now seen it all.
__________________
I'd rather be fishing.

Utterly useless since r3
Cochese is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 18 Nov 2014, 09:19   #17
Kaiba
Valle is my hero
 
Kaiba's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 2,532
Kaiba has much to be proud ofKaiba has much to be proud ofKaiba has much to be proud ofKaiba has much to be proud ofKaiba has much to be proud ofKaiba has much to be proud ofKaiba has much to be proud ofKaiba has much to be proud ofKaiba has much to be proud of
Re: Limited jumpgates on alliances.

Hmm... I think you have all jumped on this and not read it properly.

He is saying the cap only exsists out of war. If you declare war the cap is removed.

I don't think it's as bad an idea as you guys are making out, especially if it came into play from tick 400 onwards maybe.

It puts emphasis on having to actually gather Intel in the first few hundred ticks of the round and tbh if you are truly 'gal raiding' and hit the cap then maybe a few back end waves can't launch. The only reason this would have a highly detrimental effect on raiding is if you were being sneaky.

The caps proposed are too low but it's not an entirely unworkable idea and may add an element to the game. As well as making some of the CURRENT unused features in the game used.

The hostile option is pointless atm, this could be a way to make it useful.

I think 40+ as a starting point from one ally to another is acceptable, if you are doing more than this and reckon you aren't warring then there is something wrong away with your thought process
Kaiba is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 18 Nov 2014, 11:18   #18
Influence
Finally retired
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 778
Influence is a splendid one to beholdInfluence is a splendid one to beholdInfluence is a splendid one to beholdInfluence is a splendid one to beholdInfluence is a splendid one to beholdInfluence is a splendid one to beholdInfluence is a splendid one to behold
Re: Limited jumpgates on alliances.

I am just going to have to say no, let's please not add additional limits in this game at all. You do have a point where it comes to making it more interesting to hit planets/alliances at your own level tho, or actually making it profitable to be at war with an alliance. Imho the only way to do this is to introduce an alternative alliance score that actually works, not the one we have at the moment that is 90% defence activity based. Problem is, someone is yet to come up with a good formula for this.
__________________
don't be an arse, join [TiT]

In the absence of the good old TiT alliance, look me up in VGN
Influence is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 18 Nov 2014, 12:22   #19
Mzyxptlk
mz.
Space Invaders Champion, Alien Invasion Champion, Mosquito Kill Champion, Squid Hunter Champion, Tiger Punch Champion, Barts Watersports Adventure Champion
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 8,362
Mzyxptlk spreads love and joy to the forum in the same way Jesus wouldMzyxptlk spreads love and joy to the forum in the same way Jesus wouldMzyxptlk spreads love and joy to the forum in the same way Jesus wouldMzyxptlk spreads love and joy to the forum in the same way Jesus wouldMzyxptlk spreads love and joy to the forum in the same way Jesus wouldMzyxptlk spreads love and joy to the forum in the same way Jesus wouldMzyxptlk spreads love and joy to the forum in the same way Jesus wouldMzyxptlk spreads love and joy to the forum in the same way Jesus wouldMzyxptlk spreads love and joy to the forum in the same way Jesus wouldMzyxptlk spreads love and joy to the forum in the same way Jesus wouldMzyxptlk spreads love and joy to the forum in the same way Jesus would
Re: Limited jumpgates on alliances.

For the record, I do agree with the statement that war is not profitable enough. An interesting (and simple!) approach to solving that problem would be to make all score permanent, regardless of whether it comes from XP or value. If you crashed your entire fleet, you would have no value left, but you would retain all your score. Crashing would still be bad, because it reduces your ability to gain roids, and stops you from being able to hurt your opponents. But as the time window during which you can do these things shrinks, it would start paying off to actually engage in the huge cluster****s breps that we all know and love.
__________________
The outraged poets threw sticks and rocks over the side of the bridge. They were all missing Mary and he felt a contented smug feeling wash over him. He would have given them a coy little wave if the roof hadn't collapsed just then. Mary then found himself in the middle of an understandably shocked family's kitchen table. So he gave them the coy little wave and realized it probably would have been more effective if he hadn't been lying on their turkey.
Mzyxptlk is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 18 Nov 2014, 12:54   #20
Light
You've Seen The Light
Speed Cards Champion, Zelda Champion
 
Light's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 1,152
Light has a reputation beyond reputeLight has a reputation beyond reputeLight has a reputation beyond reputeLight has a reputation beyond reputeLight has a reputation beyond reputeLight has a reputation beyond reputeLight has a reputation beyond reputeLight has a reputation beyond reputeLight has a reputation beyond reputeLight has a reputation beyond reputeLight has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Limited jumpgates on alliances.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mzyxptlk View Post
For the record, I do agree with the statement that war is not profitable enough. An interesting (and simple!) approach to solving that problem would be to make all score permanent, regardless of whether it comes from XP or value. If you crashed your entire fleet, you would have no value left, but you would retain all your score. Crashing would still be bad, because it reduces your ability to gain roids, and stops you from being able to hurt your opponents. But as the time window during which you can do these things shrinks, it would start paying off to actually engage in the huge cluster****s breps that we all know and love.
I'd like Value and Score merged into one if this got implemented, so people couldn't see your true value which would allow for people to crash more of there fleets without the world see'ing, allowing them to take risks on capping roids with a longer payback.
__________________
First shalt thou take out the Holy Pin. Then shalt thou count to three, no more, no less. Three shall be the number thou shalt count, and the number of the counting shall be three. Four shalt thou not count, neither count thou two, excepting that thou then proceed to three. Five is right out. Once the number three, being the third number, be reached, then lobbest thou thy Holy Hand Grenade of Antioch towards thy foe, who, being naughty in my sight, shall snuff it.
Light is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 18 Nov 2014, 14:43   #21
Blue_Esper
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 996
Blue_Esper is just really niceBlue_Esper is just really niceBlue_Esper is just really niceBlue_Esper is just really niceBlue_Esper is just really nice
Re: Limited jumpgates on alliances.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Light View Post
I'd like Value and Score merged into one if this got implemented, so people couldn't see your true value which would allow for people to crash more of there fleets without the world see'ing, allowing them to take risks on capping roids with a longer payback.
__________________
Alliance History
Rnd 1-3 - Allianceless, Rnd 16 - APA, Rnd 31, 33-35 - F-Crew, Rnd 32 - Hidden Agenda, Rnd 36 - DLR, Rnd 37 - Evolution, Rnd 38 - Osiris/Apprime, Rnd 39 - Imperia, Rnd 40 - S.P.Q.R, Rnd 41-43 - TGV, Rnd 44 onwards Ultores
Blue_Esper is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 18 Nov 2014, 14:44   #22
BloodyButcher
Propaganda Chief
 
BloodyButcher's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Under the Rainbow
Posts: 4,535
BloodyButcher has much to be proud ofBloodyButcher has much to be proud ofBloodyButcher has much to be proud ofBloodyButcher has much to be proud ofBloodyButcher has much to be proud ofBloodyButcher has much to be proud ofBloodyButcher has much to be proud ofBloodyButcher has much to be proud ofBloodyButcher has much to be proud of
Re: Limited jumpgates on alliances.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cochese View Post
lol, nerf attacking.

I've now seen it all.
Its not about nerfing attacking wich is the main goal, but making war more official and profitable.
P3ng/BF has seemingly been NAPed for 700 ticks.
__________________
RainbowS

RB Ely MISTU Angel Fusi0n 1up ToF VisioN CT FAnG ROCK
BloodyButcher is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 18 Nov 2014, 14:46   #23
BloodyButcher
Propaganda Chief
 
BloodyButcher's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Under the Rainbow
Posts: 4,535
BloodyButcher has much to be proud ofBloodyButcher has much to be proud ofBloodyButcher has much to be proud ofBloodyButcher has much to be proud ofBloodyButcher has much to be proud ofBloodyButcher has much to be proud ofBloodyButcher has much to be proud ofBloodyButcher has much to be proud ofBloodyButcher has much to be proud of
Re: Limited jumpgates on alliances.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Blue_Esper View Post
This is a reactionary post due to rainbows is copping it sweet because their hcs don't look after their members interests.
What is our members interests, and what have we not done?
__________________
RainbowS

RB Ely MISTU Angel Fusi0n 1up ToF VisioN CT FAnG ROCK
BloodyButcher is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 18 Nov 2014, 16:29   #24
NoXiouS
Mordar, Keel, Reip
 
NoXiouS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: Finland
Posts: 333
NoXiouS is just really niceNoXiouS is just really niceNoXiouS is just really niceNoXiouS is just really nice
Re: Limited jumpgates on alliances.

"War is more fun" well, must be if you're the average player playing in an average alliance with no other goals but to finish in the top800 and survive another round, been there too, it was quite fun. Once you play as say top100 planet in a top3 alliance, wars are never fun, you have everything to lose to those average joes looking to get some lucky lands for huge gains. So no, can't see a point in encouraging wars to "improve the game". And the game already limits gains for bigger planets hitting smaller planets and highly rewards smaller planets hitting bigger planets, even in lolwaves the gains are higher per planet, so can't really see a point in limiting fleets either. And would these limits be global or just alliance vs. alliance limits? 3-1 gangbag... still 120 incs (with 40 max per tag) vs. 30 (per tag), kinda ruins that point too, or would the wars close the warring alliances inside a warbubble where no one else can attack? Can an alliance only be in one war at a time?
Tags are small? You can't even handle 60 man tag properly, what on earth would happen if you had 120 members? Increasing tagsizes only reduces the amount of tags and makes the better tags even bigger "superpowers", I'm sure that's what you want, seeing your opinions in other places as well (and even in this one). And yes, P3n & BF have been friendly most of the round, after warring 2 consecutive rounds nearly fully, gets boring and imo it was a welcome change to opponents.

Every limit, rule and regulation limits, rules out and regulates the amount of imagination the players can use to achieve fun.

PS. Thumbs up for combining value+score, that was actually a nice idea. (and if that would be the new ranking system, it would radically balance XP vs. Value play).
__________________
Wolf in a pirates clothing to the highest degree, standing behind the curtains.

All the war propaganda, all the screaming and lies and hatred, comes invariably from people who are not fighting. - George Orwell

Last edited by NoXiouS; 18 Nov 2014 at 16:42. Reason: added the () -part in the PS
NoXiouS is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 18 Nov 2014, 16:31   #25
TheoDD
Registered User
Othello Champion
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 670
TheoDD will become famous soon enoughTheoDD will become famous soon enough
Re: Limited jumpgates on alliances.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kaiba View Post
Hmm... I think you have all jumped on this and not read it properly.

He is saying the cap only exsists out of war. If you declare war the cap is removed.

I don't think it's as bad an idea as you guys are making out, especially if it came into play from tick 400 onwards maybe.

It puts emphasis on having to actually gather Intel in the first few hundred ticks of the round and tbh if you are truly 'gal raiding' and hit the cap then maybe a few back end waves can't launch. The only reason this would have a highly detrimental effect on raiding is if you were being sneaky.

The caps proposed are too low but it's not an entirely unworkable idea and may add an element to the game. As well as making some of the CURRENT unused features in the game used.

The hostile option is pointless atm, this could be a way to make it useful.

I think 40+ as a starting point from one ally to another is acceptable, if you are doing more than this and reckon you aren't warring then there is something wrong away with your thought process
Mr idiot #2. Every other alliances outside those 2 in this said war scenario will be f*cked over by this. It will make it impossible to BC for everyone else as they can't tell who's locked by limit or not. It is a retarded idea, and it is basicly not thought through at all.
TheoDD is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 18 Nov 2014, 17:37   #26
Kaiba
Valle is my hero
 
Kaiba's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 2,532
Kaiba has much to be proud ofKaiba has much to be proud ofKaiba has much to be proud ofKaiba has much to be proud ofKaiba has much to be proud ofKaiba has much to be proud ofKaiba has much to be proud ofKaiba has much to be proud ofKaiba has much to be proud of
Re: Limited jumpgates on alliances.

Quote:
Originally Posted by TheoDD View Post
Mr idiot #2. Every other alliances outside those 2 in this said war scenario will be f*cked over by this. It will make it impossible to BC for everyone else as they can't tell who's locked by limit or not. It is a retarded idea, and it is basicly not thought through at all.
I'll presume you are Mr idiot #1 then, unfortunatly a title I will never take from you as long as you have access to a keyboard.

Once again someone failed to actually read the thread post properly.

It quite clearly states this would be a tag on tag thing. If Rock sent 40 fleets at bows they would need to declare war. This wouldn't affect any other alliances attacks at all. The whole idea is basically a warning light to mass incommings.

If the limit was set right then as I said it would only hamper those trying to be sneaky or trolls.

Let's use 50 as an example, a nice round number for you. There you are in your 60 man alliance and you are picking some targets, these targets include say 5 planets of another alliance and you as the BC setup so that around a 3rd of your alliances fleets can hit that alliance.

Now 'most' alliances operate on a 2 att 1 def policy with fleet so 51+ out of now 120 of your alliances attacking force is aiming at one alliance. Supposedly in your eyes this isn't an aggressive act. In the eyes of competent people tho it is an act of war and therefore should need to be declared to show your true intentions. Declaring war in-game remove the limiter and the other 59 or 120 if you are feeling fruity can now attack that alliance.

This is a clean and simple idea which would remove some of the blatant lying in this game about attacking intentions.

Now if declaring war added on xp/capping buffs this thread wouldn't have been so poo pooed by moronic people like you
Kaiba is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 18 Nov 2014, 18:03   #27
TheoDD
Registered User
Othello Champion
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 670
TheoDD will become famous soon enoughTheoDD will become famous soon enough
Re: Limited jumpgates on alliances.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kaiba View Post
I'll presume you are Mr idiot #1 then, unfortunatly a title I will never take from you as long as you have access to a keyboard.

Once again someone failed to actually read the thread post properly.

It quite clearly states this would be a tag on tag thing. If Rock sent 40 fleets at bows they would need to declare war. This wouldn't affect any other alliances attacks at all. The whole idea is basically a warning light to mass incommings.

If the limit was set right then as I said it would only hamper those trying to be sneaky or trolls.

Let's use 50 as an example, a nice round number for you. There you are in your 60 man alliance and you are picking some targets, these targets include say 5 planets of another alliance and you as the BC setup so that around a 3rd of your alliances fleets can hit that alliance.

Now 'most' alliances operate on a 2 att 1 def policy with fleet so 51+ out of now 120 of your alliances attacking force is aiming at one alliance. Supposedly in your eyes this isn't an aggressive act. In the eyes of competent people tho it is an act of war and therefore should need to be declared to show your true intentions. Declaring war in-game remove the limiter and the other 59 or 120 if you are feeling fruity can now attack that alliance.

This is a clean and simple idea which would remove some of the blatant lying in this game about attacking intentions.

Now if declaring war added on xp/capping buffs this thread wouldn't have been so poo pooed by moronic people like you
Quote:
If a tag want to send 30/40/50/60+(whatever) fleets at another tag they would have to declare war officialy ingame.
Atleast this would hinder tags getting flash ganged on with 150+ incomming fleets.
Are you not seeing how this directly affect every other alliance daily target picks? The whole concept of the idea is to avoid gangbangs. What if (and if being a very loose term) the "gangbang" on one alliance is random? And what if (again a very loose term) it isn't random?
The only thing this whole idea is adding to the game is lots of idle fleets that won't launch in the first place, due to a limit.
What if 40 people prelaunch 2 each fleets on one alliance, do the game decide which ones get launched?
Since several alliances regurarly hit the same targets, intentionally and unintentionally.
I can't remember the last time or if ever there has been a tag on tag fight. From one side to the other, yes maybe... But rarely if ever both ways. That is basicly how politics works, it is barely for defence support, and mainly for attack support.

You honestly think the number of fleets that you try to point out make a difference, well probably for yourself... Mister i need help to do basic math! And this has nothing to do with math.

Last edited by TheoDD; 18 Nov 2014 at 18:14.
TheoDD is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 18 Nov 2014, 18:12   #28
Mzyxptlk
mz.
Space Invaders Champion, Alien Invasion Champion, Mosquito Kill Champion, Squid Hunter Champion, Tiger Punch Champion, Barts Watersports Adventure Champion
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 8,362
Mzyxptlk spreads love and joy to the forum in the same way Jesus wouldMzyxptlk spreads love and joy to the forum in the same way Jesus wouldMzyxptlk spreads love and joy to the forum in the same way Jesus wouldMzyxptlk spreads love and joy to the forum in the same way Jesus wouldMzyxptlk spreads love and joy to the forum in the same way Jesus wouldMzyxptlk spreads love and joy to the forum in the same way Jesus wouldMzyxptlk spreads love and joy to the forum in the same way Jesus wouldMzyxptlk spreads love and joy to the forum in the same way Jesus wouldMzyxptlk spreads love and joy to the forum in the same way Jesus wouldMzyxptlk spreads love and joy to the forum in the same way Jesus wouldMzyxptlk spreads love and joy to the forum in the same way Jesus would
Re: Limited jumpgates on alliances.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Light View Post
I'd like Value and Score merged into one if this got implemented, so people couldn't see your true value which would allow for people to crash more of there fleets without the world see'ing, allowing them to take risks on capping roids with a longer payback.
Value is a simple sum of fleet + constructions + roids + guards anyway, and that's all public information. You could remove it from the universe and galaxy pages, I guess, but *shrug*
__________________
The outraged poets threw sticks and rocks over the side of the bridge. They were all missing Mary and he felt a contented smug feeling wash over him. He would have given them a coy little wave if the roof hadn't collapsed just then. Mary then found himself in the middle of an understandably shocked family's kitchen table. So he gave them the coy little wave and realized it probably would have been more effective if he hadn't been lying on their turkey.
Mzyxptlk is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 18 Nov 2014, 18:43   #29
BloodyButcher
Propaganda Chief
 
BloodyButcher's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Under the Rainbow
Posts: 4,535
BloodyButcher has much to be proud ofBloodyButcher has much to be proud ofBloodyButcher has much to be proud ofBloodyButcher has much to be proud ofBloodyButcher has much to be proud ofBloodyButcher has much to be proud ofBloodyButcher has much to be proud ofBloodyButcher has much to be proud ofBloodyButcher has much to be proud of
Re: Limited jumpgates on alliances.

Well the whole goal to this would be to make it possibole, with the current state the game is in, to make it easier to survive as a small tag without being NAPed with 80% of the univers. Or rather call it harder to get away with doing precisly this(naptarion).
Im not sure how long youve been playing PA, but im pretty sure the ratio of members per tag and fleet movement in the univers is bigger than ever.(hopefully mz can confirm/deny this).
If this is the fact, id conclude with that defence is harder now than ever before for alliances.
The other thing i brought up was increasing the tag limits to make your def pool bigger and the chance of being randomly hit on 80% of your planets less likely. Im pretty sure that most people think politics is more boring, and more random now than ever before
__________________
RainbowS

RB Ely MISTU Angel Fusi0n 1up ToF VisioN CT FAnG ROCK
BloodyButcher is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 18 Nov 2014, 19:34   #30
Kaiba
Valle is my hero
 
Kaiba's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 2,532
Kaiba has much to be proud ofKaiba has much to be proud ofKaiba has much to be proud ofKaiba has much to be proud ofKaiba has much to be proud ofKaiba has much to be proud ofKaiba has much to be proud ofKaiba has much to be proud ofKaiba has much to be proud of
Re: Limited jumpgates on alliances.

Quote:
Originally Posted by TheoDD View Post
Are you not seeing how this directly affect every other alliance daily target picks? The whole concept of the idea is to avoid gangbangs. What if (and if being a very loose term) the "gangbang" on one alliance is random? And what if (again a very loose term) it isn't random?
The only thing this whole idea is adding to the game is lots of idle fleets that won't launch in the first place, due to a limit.
What if 40 people prelaunch 2 each fleets on one alliance, do the game decide which ones get launched?
Since several alliances regurarly hit the same targets, intentionally and unintentionally.
I can't remember the last time or if ever there has been a tag on tag fight. From one side to the other, yes maybe... But rarely if ever both ways. That is basicly how politics works, it is barely for defence support, and mainly for attack support.

You honestly think the number of fleets that you try to point out make a difference, well probably for yourself... Mister i need help to do basic math! And this has nothing to do with math.
Do we have to hammer this idea into your skull to make you actually read what he wrote???


ITS ON A TAG BY TAG BASIS. It doesnt not affect Alliance B if Alliance C sent 40 fleets at Alliance A. Alliance B can also send 40 fleets. So can Alliances D,E,F,G etc.

The whole point is to stop OTT gang hammerings. Its to stop 'bandwagon' tatics of 5 alliances chucking 500 fleets at 1 60 man alliance and then half of them making out they were just 'gal raiding' when infact they were doing anything but. If you want to pwn an alliance then you need to declare a war against them to do so. This gives them a heads up of what to expect and may stem the extent of the beating. Which in turn would stop some of these smaller alliance coat tail riders from coming along.

I think that if this idea was entwined with buff for war state for both sides then it could be another dimension added to the game.

If the cap was delayed until tick 400 as i said then that would give ppl a 1/3rd of the round to gather intel and that in turn could add a further political and strategical element to the game. The accquisition of intel would be something worth doing again which has no downside.

All i get from you TheoDD in every post you have made in the last 6 months is that after many years of toiling away as a mediocre player in a less than mediocre alliance finally enough players have quit the game and you have had an ephiany and can now rank somewhere in the top half of the scoreboard. Is this why you are scared of change? Is this why you are so negative to any idea or change ever proposed here? Why you gripe away about new and different stats that are proposed?? Is it because you have finally worked out how to play and any change could mean its back to the drawing board and another 10 years of being shit!!!
Kaiba is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 18 Nov 2014, 19:44   #31
TheoDD
Registered User
Othello Champion
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 670
TheoDD will become famous soon enoughTheoDD will become famous soon enough
Re: Limited jumpgates on alliances.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kaiba View Post
Do we have to hammer this idea into your skull to make you actually read what he wrote???


ITS ON A TAG BY TAG BASIS. It doesnt not affect Alliance B if Alliance C sent 40 fleets at Alliance A. Alliance B can also send 40 fleets. So can Alliances D,E,F,G etc.

The whole point is to stop OTT gang hammerings. Its to stop 'bandwagon' tatics of 5 alliances chucking 500 fleets at 1 60 man alliance and then half of them making out they were just 'gal raiding' when infact they were doing anything but. If you want to pwn an alliance then you need to declare a war against them to do so. This gives them a heads up of what to expect and may stem the extent of the beating. Which in turn would stop some of these smaller alliance coat tail riders from coming along.

I think that if this idea was entwined with buff for war state for both sides then it could be another dimension added to the game.

If the cap was delayed until tick 400 as i said then that would give ppl a 1/3rd of the round to gather intel and that in turn could add a further political and strategical element to the game. The accquisition of intel would be something worth doing again which has no downside.

All i get from you TheoDD in every post you have made in the last 6 months is that after many years of toiling away as a mediocre player in a less than mediocre alliance finally enough players have quit the game and you have had an ephiany and can now rank somewhere in the top half of the scoreboard. Is this why you are scared of change? Is this why you are so negative to any idea or change ever proposed here? Why you gripe away about new and different stats that are proposed?? Is it because you have finally worked out how to play and any change could mean its back to the drawing board and another 10 years of being shit!!!
Let's just say the answer to every question is yes. I'm clearly afraid, because i would suck big time with any changes. You keep forgetting what i continuesly say, it doesn't matter what changes that come for me. As i can easily adapt to whatever it may be.
TheoDD is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 18 Nov 2014, 22:18   #32
BloodyButcher
Propaganda Chief
 
BloodyButcher's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Under the Rainbow
Posts: 4,535
BloodyButcher has much to be proud ofBloodyButcher has much to be proud ofBloodyButcher has much to be proud ofBloodyButcher has much to be proud ofBloodyButcher has much to be proud ofBloodyButcher has much to be proud ofBloodyButcher has much to be proud ofBloodyButcher has much to be proud ofBloodyButcher has much to be proud of
Re: Limited jumpgates on alliances.

So since mz is not comming up with the stats i might aswell do it:

Average for R56-R58 vs average for R45-47:

Round 58:
Alliance Ranked 1-4:
Planets: 60
Incs: 3750
Recalled: 1750 47%
Average per planet: 62

Alliance ranked 5-8:
Incs 2500
Planets: 55,5
Average per planet: 45,5
Recalled: 1230 49,3%

____________________

Round 57:
Alliance Ranked 1-4:
Planets: 60
Incs: 3470
Recalled: 1920 55.3%
Average per planet: 57.8

Alliance ranked 5-8:
Incs: 2500
Planets: 52.3
Average per planet: 47,3
Recalled: 1258 50.3%

____________________


Roundt 56:
Alliance Ranked 1-4:
Planets: 61
Incs: 3350
Recalled: 2085 62,2%
Average per planet 54,9

Alliance ranked 5-12:
Incs: 2100
Planets: 42.6
Average inc per planet: 49.3
Recalled: 890 42,4%

____________________


Round 47:
Alliance Ranked 1-4:
Planets: 67
Incs: 3575
Recalled: 2300 64,2%
Average per planet: 53,4

Alliance ranked 5-10:
Incs: 1750
Planets: 49
Average per planet: 35,9
Recalled: 1180 67%

____________________


Round 46:
Alliance Ranked 1-4:
Planets: 67
Incs: 3370
Recalled: 2330 69%
Average per planet: 50,3

Alliance ranked 5-11:
Incs: 1515
Planets: 39
Average per planet: 38,9
Recalled: 905 59,8%

____________________

Round 45:
Alliance Ranked 1-4:
Planets: 75
Incs: 3510
Recalled: 2745 78.2%
Average per planet: 46,8

Alliance ranked 5-11:
Incs: 1515
Planets: 44
Average per planet: 34
Recalled: 910 fleets, average 60%

****
R56-58 bottom tags: 47.3% recalled
R45-48 bottom tags: 62.3% recalled

R56-58 top tags: 54,8% recalled
R45-48 top tags: 70.4% recalled

R56-58 average incs for bottom alliances per planet: 47.4
R45-47 average incs for bottom alliances per planet: 36.2

R56-58 average incs for top alliances per planet: 58.2
R45-47 average incs for top alliances per planet: 50.2
__________________
RainbowS

RB Ely MISTU Angel Fusi0n 1up ToF VisioN CT FAnG ROCK

Last edited by BloodyButcher; 18 Nov 2014 at 23:30. Reason: added some more numbers
BloodyButcher is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 18 Nov 2014, 23:02   #33
Mzyxptlk
mz.
Space Invaders Champion, Alien Invasion Champion, Mosquito Kill Champion, Squid Hunter Champion, Tiger Punch Champion, Barts Watersports Adventure Champion
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 8,362
Mzyxptlk spreads love and joy to the forum in the same way Jesus wouldMzyxptlk spreads love and joy to the forum in the same way Jesus wouldMzyxptlk spreads love and joy to the forum in the same way Jesus wouldMzyxptlk spreads love and joy to the forum in the same way Jesus wouldMzyxptlk spreads love and joy to the forum in the same way Jesus wouldMzyxptlk spreads love and joy to the forum in the same way Jesus wouldMzyxptlk spreads love and joy to the forum in the same way Jesus wouldMzyxptlk spreads love and joy to the forum in the same way Jesus wouldMzyxptlk spreads love and joy to the forum in the same way Jesus wouldMzyxptlk spreads love and joy to the forum in the same way Jesus wouldMzyxptlk spreads love and joy to the forum in the same way Jesus would
Re: Limited jumpgates on alliances.

Quote:
Originally Posted by BloodyButcher View Post
Im not sure how long youve been playing PA, but im pretty sure the ratio of members per tag and fleet movement in the univers is bigger than ever.(hopefully mz can confirm/deny this).
I did not have this data, so thanks for gathering it up.

My first attempt at an explanation was the number I like to call the 'farm ratio'. It's the ratio between the number of solo planets (the farms) and the number of players in established alliances (defined for this purpose as any alliance with >= 40 players) in any given round. This ratio has been in decline for a long time, and this change has forced alliance players into finding more of their roids in other alliances. This could result in the kind of increase you've spotted if it weren't for the fact that the farm ratio has been pretty much stable since the mid-40s, at about 0.71 farms per alliance player, down from 0.95 in the mid-30s and 1.14 in the mid-20s. Earlier data is polluted because PA switched to a stricter inactivity deletion formula for r23, dropping the number of farms by 500 in 2 rounds. Here's a pretty graph. In any case, since you see a change between the mid-40s and now, the farm ratio can't be to blame.

My guess now is that it's simply a coincidence (always a good bet!). 2 sets of 3 rounds each is not a huge amount of data to perform statistics on. Need moar data!
__________________
The outraged poets threw sticks and rocks over the side of the bridge. They were all missing Mary and he felt a contented smug feeling wash over him. He would have given them a coy little wave if the roof hadn't collapsed just then. Mary then found himself in the middle of an understandably shocked family's kitchen table. So he gave them the coy little wave and realized it probably would have been more effective if he hadn't been lying on their turkey.
Mzyxptlk is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 18 Nov 2014, 23:50   #34
BloodyButcher
Propaganda Chief
 
BloodyButcher's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Under the Rainbow
Posts: 4,535
BloodyButcher has much to be proud ofBloodyButcher has much to be proud ofBloodyButcher has much to be proud ofBloodyButcher has much to be proud ofBloodyButcher has much to be proud ofBloodyButcher has much to be proud ofBloodyButcher has much to be proud ofBloodyButcher has much to be proud ofBloodyButcher has much to be proud of
Re: Limited jumpgates on alliances.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mzyxptlk View Post
I did not have this data, so thanks for gathering it up.

My first attempt at an explanation was the number I like to call the 'farm ratio'. It's the ratio between the number of solo planets (the farms) and the number of players in established alliances (defined for this purpose as any alliance with >= 40 players) in any given round. This ratio has been in decline for a long time, and this change has forced alliance players into finding more of their roids in other alliances. This could result in the kind of increase you've spotted if it weren't for the fact that the farm ratio has been pretty much stable since the mid-40s, at about 0.71 farms per alliance player, down from 0.95 in the mid-30s and 1.14 in the mid-20s. Earlier data is polluted because PA switched to a stricter inactivity deletion formula for r23, dropping the number of farms by 500 in 2 rounds. Here's a pretty graph. In any case, since you see a change between the mid-40s and now, the farm ratio can't be to blame.

My guess now is that it's simply a coincidence (always a good bet!). 2 sets of 3 rounds each is not a huge amount of data to perform statistics on. Need moar data!
Ofc the ship stats comes in to play, atleast on the recall percentage.
And R45-R47 had alliances like Ultores and FAnG playing, wich to some extent was much further away from the bottom alliances in terms of activity and skill.

So what does the farm ratio have to say when it comes to how much time needs to be invested in this game to be sucsefull?

Obviously alliances carrying "deadweight" will most likely drop fast down the rankings, and top alliances cannot afford carrying "deadweight".
This was once a game wich to some extent could be very relaxed, being in a bottom tag meant that you could average 36 incs per round, wich would require a lot less defending for the average joe.
Ofc being in a top tag was also abit more relaxing than it is today, you would ofc get one inc daily on average, but there was actualy a pretty decent chance you would be able to cover it.

Today you will have a inc daily or more wether you are in a top or a bottom tag, the chance to cover it is very low, and staying up everynight, or waking up every night will be burning you more out.

So what are we aiming for?
"PL MAKES THIS GAME PLAYABLE FOR THE AVERAGE JOE ASWELL".
"MORE EVEN TAGS MAKES THIS GAME FAR MORE INTERSTING".
"WHY WOULD WE WANT TO BE AT WAR WHEN ITS MORE RELAXING BEING NAPED TO OUR TOP COMPETITORS".

Something has to change in this game if its not gonna burn out the few players it got left in it.
Good players will gather in good alliances, thats just the nature of the game, its the same in sports aswell.
Good football players will play at good football clubs, but you dont have to be a proffesional football player to enjoy the game.

You shouldnt have to be awake every night to send defence to be able to cover half of your hostile incommings, and if you play in a top alliance you will have to put more time into the game, wich means you will have to Wake up more often cus you will have more incommings.

There is a middle road to all this, and we sure hell aint heading down this road atm, something has to change.
__________________
RainbowS

RB Ely MISTU Angel Fusi0n 1up ToF VisioN CT FAnG ROCK
BloodyButcher is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 19 Nov 2014, 00:44   #35
Influence
Finally retired
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 778
Influence is a splendid one to beholdInfluence is a splendid one to beholdInfluence is a splendid one to beholdInfluence is a splendid one to beholdInfluence is a splendid one to beholdInfluence is a splendid one to beholdInfluence is a splendid one to behold
Re: Limited jumpgates on alliances.

i think the biggest difference between these 2 data sets is the fact there is no real superpower, which leads to less early blocking. In the days of Ultores there often was a block by PT150 that would solely hit Ultores for the next 800 or so ticks.

Another big difference is the nature of the shipstats in these rounds. Recently we've seen some fairly offensive stats, with this round as an extreme, whilst the shipstats in the late 40's were primarily defensive, with r47 as an extreme. That fact is supported by the data that there are that much more recalls in the late 40's. More recalls in turn lead to players being less motivated to attack, which means fewer incs etc. I, for one, know a whole lot of players that just don't bother attacking anymore when they don't land at least 40% of their attacks.
__________________
don't be an arse, join [TiT]

In the absence of the good old TiT alliance, look me up in VGN
Influence is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 19 Nov 2014, 09:26   #36
Mzyxptlk
mz.
Space Invaders Champion, Alien Invasion Champion, Mosquito Kill Champion, Squid Hunter Champion, Tiger Punch Champion, Barts Watersports Adventure Champion
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 8,362
Mzyxptlk spreads love and joy to the forum in the same way Jesus wouldMzyxptlk spreads love and joy to the forum in the same way Jesus wouldMzyxptlk spreads love and joy to the forum in the same way Jesus wouldMzyxptlk spreads love and joy to the forum in the same way Jesus wouldMzyxptlk spreads love and joy to the forum in the same way Jesus wouldMzyxptlk spreads love and joy to the forum in the same way Jesus wouldMzyxptlk spreads love and joy to the forum in the same way Jesus wouldMzyxptlk spreads love and joy to the forum in the same way Jesus wouldMzyxptlk spreads love and joy to the forum in the same way Jesus wouldMzyxptlk spreads love and joy to the forum in the same way Jesus wouldMzyxptlk spreads love and joy to the forum in the same way Jesus would
Re: Limited jumpgates on alliances.

Quote:
Originally Posted by BloodyButcher View Post
So what does the farm ratio have to say when it comes to how much time needs to be invested in this game to be sucsefull?
The farm ratio tells us something about how often allianceless planets get incs. If the number of alliance players (who attack every night) stays the same but the number of farms drops, then each farm gets more incs. That's an simplification, of course, but not an oversimplification, in my view.

That said, look at the numbers. We've gone from 1.14 to 0.71 over the past 35 rounds. Even if alliance players only attack farms, all day, every day, then the amount of incs they get has only gone up by ~61%. That's a major change, but it's not 36 -> ~98 incs a round. The same is true for top or even lower tier alliances. The change your data shows is not a doubling or tripling of incs. It's just a minor increase.

What your data also does not show is how those incs are distributed. If most of them show up during a single week, then you have practically no chance of getting defense during that time. But that also means you get almost no incs for the other 6 weeks of the round, so you might come out ahead. On the other hand, if you get a small number of incs every day, the chance of getting defense is very good, but only if people wake up at night to send it. This, in my view, is PA's main problem today: to do well in PA, you need to organize your entire life around it. We aren't talking about sitting at your PC for 24/7 (not since the dawn of the smart phone), but we are talking about staying up another 25 minutes to send your attack next tick, and waking up at 3 am to send defense, and taking extended breaks at work to check if your attack can land. Some of these things you can get other people to do for you (which moves rather than solves the problem), but some you can't.

This is a problem that is caused by the very nature of the game. Prelaunch allows people to attack in their sleep, while forcing other people to wake up to defend. The length of the round makes losing very demotivating, because losing a game of Starcraft costs 15-45 minutes of your life, but losing your attack fleet costs many, many hours of hard work. Scans require some people to play the round without actually playing it. The list goes on. These are not things you can fix by making a(nother) new set of ship stats, or by increasing the cost of MCs by another 25%. Improvement requires Serious Development, which requires money, which requires a bigger player base, which requires improvement first. A vicious circle if ever I saw one.
__________________
The outraged poets threw sticks and rocks over the side of the bridge. They were all missing Mary and he felt a contented smug feeling wash over him. He would have given them a coy little wave if the roof hadn't collapsed just then. Mary then found himself in the middle of an understandably shocked family's kitchen table. So he gave them the coy little wave and realized it probably would have been more effective if he hadn't been lying on their turkey.
Mzyxptlk is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 19 Nov 2014, 13:56   #37
BloodyButcher
Propaganda Chief
 
BloodyButcher's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Under the Rainbow
Posts: 4,535
BloodyButcher has much to be proud ofBloodyButcher has much to be proud ofBloodyButcher has much to be proud ofBloodyButcher has much to be proud ofBloodyButcher has much to be proud ofBloodyButcher has much to be proud ofBloodyButcher has much to be proud ofBloodyButcher has much to be proud ofBloodyButcher has much to be proud of
Re: Limited jumpgates on alliances.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mzyxptlk View Post
The change your data shows is not a doubling or tripling of incs. It's just a minor increase.
No.
Its not a minor increase.
The amount of fleets that would land a planet in the bottom tier was around 10 per round r45-47.
The amount of fleets that would land a planet in the bottom tier increased to 25 per round r56-r58.
Thats more than a doubling! Its been increased by 150%

The amount of fleets that would land a planet in the top tier was around 16 per round r45-47.
The amount of fleets that would land a planet in the top tier increased to 25 per round r56-r58.
Thats also been increasing, but by 57%

**

I dont know if anyone can argue that the changes thats been done in the game with the milly centers/lower tag limits/offensive stats is good for the average Joe, unless he is pumping MCs, 3 fleet attacking for XP each day.

The XP lovers will prolly tell that i shouldnt dictate how they play the game, but for me it seems like how it is today leaves no other options for semi active planets.

I think the "top alliances" are also to blame, they seem to be afraid of conflicts and incs, wich makes it more reasonable to play NAPTARION.
__________________
RainbowS

RB Ely MISTU Angel Fusi0n 1up ToF VisioN CT FAnG ROCK
BloodyButcher is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 20 Nov 2014, 00:07   #38
Gen_Chaos
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Posts: 39
Gen_Chaos will become famous soon enoughGen_Chaos will become famous soon enough
Re: Limited jumpgates on alliances.

I don't understand why the admins saw the need early on in this game to make it impossible for bashing to occur on a planet basis, but are so blind as to the damage it does when allowed on an alliance basis. There is just no way it should be possible to attack 60 planets with 150 fleets and not enable allied defense to operate within the same eta. Anybody who is not a junkie for this game, looking at it fresh, would be amazed that alliance gangbanging still happens, and what's more, is actually REQUIRED to win.

The fundamental question is, what makes the game more fun to play for people other than spec monkeys who love to solve the puzzle created each round by badly tweaked specs... where u can wind up with nothing but a fi fleet, 100 mil centers, 800k value and 5mil score? The round becomes just a math problem to solve and does not resemble the fun war simulation game it started as many years ago.

Being like this, it cannot attract new or returning players.

Certainly creating an intelligent bash limit for allies would be one answer, and also allowing allied planets to defend at the same eta at attacking planets. Doh, seems fundamental to finally end the practice of ganging which has dominated the game since the start.

Apparently the game owners like it set up as a game that only blockers can win, and wherein blocking is not an option but a necessity of survival.

There are two camps of people who play the game still. The ones who like it the way it is now, and the ones who want it to go back to being something that resembles a more balanced warfare game in which races are all potentially viable, not everything is hidden/faked and cloaked, and PLEASE do away with the stupid mil centers, which are just basically a legal cheat.

Those players want to see a Retro Pa round with multiple class targeting, mil scans, fewer pod classes, no mil centers, reduce the importance of xp so that people don't game the system, and just real strategy being important rather than solving the spec riddles.

How many people want to see Retro Pa for at least 1-2 rounds so the rest of us can finally have some fun? Please yell out.

You know, the people who pay their credits to get a game of war strategy and viable multiple races etc. Gosh... how about just one round of a return to 3-tick attacks and multi-tick defense options. I know that's just crazy talk but gawd was that fun. We see every possible idiotic variation of the specs except the ones that might really be fun to return to, at least temporarily.
Gen_Chaos is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 20 Nov 2014, 03:04   #39
ArcChas
General (Adjective Army)
 
ArcChas's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Yorkshire, England.
Posts: 818
ArcChas has much to be proud ofArcChas has much to be proud ofArcChas has much to be proud ofArcChas has much to be proud ofArcChas has much to be proud ofArcChas has much to be proud ofArcChas has much to be proud ofArcChas has much to be proud of
Re: Limited jumpgates on alliances.

I think there are limits to what features can be brought back (for example 3-tick attacks) but I certainly agree with you that a return to a much earlier version of the game would be a "GOOD THING!"

I won't list the "features" that I'd like to see removed - I'm sure that many others will be queuing up to do that.
__________________
Amnion (aka The Arcane Chas of Arcania) - Playing PA under those and other pseudonyms every genuine round since Round 2. Most recently (and insignificantly):
Rites of Passage R63 | Friends of The Family R64 | Hope of Reward R65
Lack of Effort R66 | Lack of Effort R67 | Green Shoots of Recovery R68
Another Round of Same Old | The End of The Line R70 | Keepers of The House R71
The Way of His Saints 2:1:3 R72 | Certain of Nothing 9:2:6 R73 | The Dance of Idiots 3:7:4 R74
ArcChas is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 21 Nov 2014, 15:19   #40
Adapt
Leader Of The Gang
Yankee Go Home Champion
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Posts: 374
Adapt is a jewel in the roughAdapt is a jewel in the roughAdapt is a jewel in the rough
Re: Limited jumpgates on alliances.

Quote:
Originally Posted by BloodyButcher View Post
No.
Its not a minor increase.
The amount of fleets that would land a planet in the bottom tier was around 10 per round r45-47.
The amount of fleets that would land a planet in the bottom tier increased to 25 per round r56-r58.
Thats more than a doubling! Its been increased by 150%

The amount of fleets that would land a planet in the top tier was around 16 per round r45-47.
The amount of fleets that would land a planet in the top tier increased to 25 per round r56-r58.
Thats also been increasing, but by 57%

** this post is great I was in railzious and juniors gal both xan xp whores they were useless

I dont know if anyone can argue that the changes thats been done in the game with the milly centers/lower tag limits/offensive stats is good for the average Joe, unless he is pumping MCs, 3 fleet attacking for XP each day.

The XP lovers will prolly tell that i shouldnt dictate how they play the game, but for me it seems like how it is today leaves no other options for semi active planets.

I think the "top alliances" are also to blame, they seem to be afraid of conflicts and incs, wich makes it more reasonable to play NAPTARION.
__________________
Played in: Newdawn, Ultores, Apprime, Howling Rain, FAnG, Faceless, ODDR, RainbowS And Conspiracy.

Round 67 - Ultores Rank 67.
Round 75 - Conspiracy Rank 19 - 4:4 Galaxy Winners.
Adapt is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 2 Dec 2014, 11:34   #41
budious
Egoistic Warmonger
 
budious's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 102
budious will become famous soon enoughbudious will become famous soon enough
Re: Limited jumpgates on alliances.

First can we limit retards on portal? Second, can we limit alliance size to 20. Third, can we limit galaxies to 8.

tl;dr - bloodybutcher is still a ****ing tool
budious is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 2 Dec 2014, 12:20   #42
Motti
Just Awesome
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 165
Motti has a spectacular aura aboutMotti has a spectacular aura aboutMotti has a spectacular aura about
Re: Limited jumpgates on alliances.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gen_Chaos View Post
I don't understand why the admins saw the need early on in this game to make it impossible for bashing to occur on a planet basis, but are so blind as to the damage it does when allowed on an alliance basis. There is just no way it should be possible to attack 60 planets with 150 fleets and not enable allied defense to operate within the same eta. Anybody who is not a junkie for this game, looking at it fresh, would be amazed that alliance gangbanging still happens, and what's more, is actually REQUIRED to win.

The fundamental question is, what makes the game more fun to play for people other than spec monkeys who love to solve the puzzle created each round by badly tweaked specs... where u can wind up with nothing but a fi fleet, 100 mil centers, 800k value and 5mil score? The round becomes just a math problem to solve and does not resemble the fun war simulation game it started as many years ago.

Being like this, it cannot attract new or returning players.

Certainly creating an intelligent bash limit for allies would be one answer, and also allowing allied planets to defend at the same eta at attacking planets. Doh, seems fundamental to finally end the practice of ganging which has dominated the game since the start.

Apparently the game owners like it set up as a game that only blockers can win, and wherein blocking is not an option but a necessity of survival.

There are two camps of people who play the game still. The ones who like it the way it is now, and the ones who want it to go back to being something that resembles a more balanced warfare game in which races are all potentially viable, not everything is hidden/faked and cloaked, and PLEASE do away with the stupid mil centers, which are just basically a legal cheat.

Those players want to see a Retro Pa round with multiple class targeting, mil scans, fewer pod classes, no mil centers, reduce the importance of xp so that people don't game the system, and just real strategy being important rather than solving the spec riddles.

How many people want to see Retro Pa for at least 1-2 rounds so the rest of us can finally have some fun? Please yell out.

You know, the people who pay their credits to get a game of war strategy and viable multiple races etc. Gosh... how about just one round of a return to 3-tick attacks and multi-tick defense options. I know that's just crazy talk but gawd was that fun. We see every possible idiotic variation of the specs except the ones that might really be fun to return to, at least temporarily.
Well, we can currently defend other tags, just not with the -1 ETA advantage.

Solution is either defend with lower class ships, or prelaunch - either is rather effective if done.

I don't believe ETA advantage for allied tags would benefit much for the game, you would simply indirectly increase tag size.

Main tag + support tag + cousin tag + whatever ally u manage to NAP.

The main problem of getting additional defence fleets from another tag is not the ETA disadvantage, it is the simple fact of members really not giving a shit about someone in some allied tag most of the time.

It is difficult enough to find people bothering to defend within your own alliance, even harder to get them to def some planet in some other alliance.
Motti is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 19:02.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.1
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2002 - 2013