Round XIII Alliance Size

[Nadar]

Originally Posted by Catwoman

By reducing numbers of an alliance you will again leave new players out in the cold with out any alliance.
As it stands bigger alliances are taking in new players and teaching them the game while giving them protection. Drop numbers to 50 and big alliances will just form 2 alliances.
I say keep the number at 100.

You think so? I doubt any of the big alliances are accepting new people into their home.. Just look at HR in example.. their recruitment requirement is "Need to be above HR average to apply". That doesn't look like taking new players into the warm to me.. Same goes for other bigger alliances, I doubt they accept a noob just so he has a home. So that point really doesn't count... but ofc there's some alliances which recruits totally new players (Don't know what your pack is doing, but I assume you don't take score into consideration). By decreasing the size limit to 50 you do give those medium and small sized alliances a better chance to do well. That would be much funnier than having the standard top alliances at top.

I bet that 90% of those who can be considered as "elite" in PA is in the top5 alliances today. That's not really spread out is it? Also, the big alliances who almost have filled their limit isn't all core members. I even doubt as much as half the players in each of the alliances are core members. I believe that if LCH suddenly broke down and got beaten totally into oblivion that half their members could be the type of people who runs off. Just look at FAnG r10 in example. Built up mostly with shipjumpers were like 20(?) members ran off to Elysium.

So.. by reducing to 50 members per alliance I still don't believe any alliance would have to kick a core member to get below limit and by that still have extra room for recruits. If an alliance would form 2 wings and run it like that, fine by me, but I doubt they'd earn any respect by doing that, at least not mine...

[mist]

Originally Posted by Catwoman

By reducing numbers of an alliance you will again leave new players out in the cold with out any alliance.
As it stands bigger alliances are taking in new players and teaching them the game while giving them protection. Drop numbers to 50 and big alliances will just form 2 alliances.
I say keep the number at 100.

again that argument, which means what? if it's not going to affect the big alliances why not do it?

-mist

[Dr_Zaius]

Alliances have allways been a key aspect of PA.

I've played since round 2 and in that time I have been in alot of alliances, some big, some small, and I can honestly say that the small ones have been the best.

Small alliances all pull together and help each other, in the way a good galaxy might, except stronger, because they haven't been thrown together but have come together by choice. The community spirit and sense of belonging is allways greater in thoose smaller alliances, most small alliances have some small members, and some large members, and they help the smaller members, they train the new players, give tips to older players who might be struggling, and the members know who everyone is.

If the alliance size were set around the 30 mark there would still be better alliances, as is the nature of the game, select alliances have allways recruited upto a certain number of members by recruiting people higher than the alliances, or the games, average score. These alliances will exist, and they will be stronger, but that is the nature of the game.

Some larger alliances would break into smaller parts, they would block together and effectively be one alliance, this could be resolved, you could not offer the ability to form alliances but only NAPs, so there is no traveltime bonus defending allies, this would severely reduce the defensive power of alliances trying to combat the system like this, but they will be effectively nothing but a small group of alliances with shared IRC rooms. True, they may attack together, but as may any other alliances you allow to become allies, these problems could of course also be solved by not allowing alliances, just NAPs so alliances could be of friendly status towards each other, if you attack the same planet as another alliance, who is to say you won't be at disagreement with the other alliance and fight them also? Something that might be looked into again prehaps.

Cluster allies may have thier day again...

So what are the differences?

Large Alliances:
Easier defence (More people and you may very likely be larger than you attacker and be able to cover better)
Easier for an alliance to dominate others
Easier to attack (More people)
More power for HC! (We know you love it :-) )

Small Alliances:
Easier defence (Attackers are going to have as many people as you, so it comes down to whos on at the time)
Harder to dominate other alliances, commitment and efficency come into effect more
Easier to attack (Your alliance is likely to have the max member limit so you won't be attacking alliances with more members and therefore better coverage than you!)
Better community spirit
Prehaps easier for alliances to start out

All in all I have allways prefered the alliances where I know everyone and I trust them. I have met people who I still remember today in my first alliances, the most closeknit ones, I still remember them, I still consider some of them friends, and I miss the times when small alliances stood a chance.

I don't have a say in this, this is just my view, I know some will agree, and some will disagree, but thats life (or so the people say).

Dr_Zaius

[I am Idler]

thing is.

you cant start thinking of "more and more alliances witth 50 members" unless Jolt gets their windows open and realise that they might want to run a round or two free to increase memberbase.

trying to think a little outside the box here...

how about having galaxies sign up to alliances, and not players?
requests to join something like the gc voting system?
limit to ten galaxies or so?

would help new players in alliance galaxies too, since they could very well end up in an allaince straight off.

obviously then though there would need to be greater options in being able to pick your galaxy at sign up.

I'll be as clear as I can:

1. Yes. Cut down alliances to 50 players. This will defenitedly make it a more dynamic group. Not a "all accepting" enviroment that reigns the first 1 month of the round, with the current cap at 100.

2. We should introduce the concept that the top 100 players are "in a competition for a top 100 spot". So, as soon as they become a Top 100 they are automatically forced (as long as they are Top 100) to leave their alliances (and will automatically rejoin once they drop). Maybe u even wanna make these planets a especific color,as to make it easy for people to recognize: i.e. Green

A. This will prevent Furies, 1ups, etc... cuz u know 70% of the top 100 R not going to be able to come together in a single unit

B. & u know that none of these players are going to be eta 7 DEFENSE vacuum cleaners of their alliances newer members (a.k.a. noobs and/or pawns)

C. This system would encourage, since it would be in the best interest, alliances to have a mixed roster of: veterans (going for a top 100 spot and likely to eventually leave), rookies (mostly concerned about alliance politics) and less experienced/noobs just playing the "solo and/or alliance game".


Dictator

[Ferretus]

Originally Posted by mist

personally, i believe that alliances are 'bad' for the community of pa. they each have their own seperate small community, which probably does keep people playing, but outside of these communities there's little left. it's fine if you're in an alliance, but if you're not then there is no community.

-mist

I completely agree with everything you said Mist. Its fine for many of us to say how great the community is but we are more than likely in good alliances. Without our own 'inhouse' community whcih lets be honest is by invite only, there is nothing for new players and that is reflected regardless of what anyone says in the new player uptake of the game.

[Pinkerton]

Limiting the size of alliances would at most effect 6 or 7 alliances that are close to 100 players.

The effects on "community" will be negligable because:1) there is the overall PA community, as well as goodnatured competition between alliances. There are always other alliances members on the public channels talking smac to each other. I really don't think that limiting the size of alliances will cause people to quit. Those hard core players are addicted and will stick around and likely enjoy the changes.

I think If the big alliances are split they may still work together, but I also see some of thier good players wanting to HC thier own alliance . Even if they do work together once they see themselves close to overtaking thier partner alliance I'm sure there will be some Competition to be on top. Plus how boring would that be 1up & 1UP2 (just an example) trying for the top 2 positions.

Plus most of those top alliance are there by Size only.. If i collected 100 moderately active or even slighly active players I'm sure that we would be within the top 20

Plus, I don't think that a small alliance of the 50 super best players will dominate. There are plenty of new players who are getting better and there are some great players in the smaller alliances.

You should not have to join one of the Mega alliances to stand a chance. Any advantage that that the big alliances may lose won't really matter because no one else will have those advantages either.


Noone is going to leave because of smaller alliance size. Let me repeat that:

Noone is going to leave because of smaller alliance size
Noone is going to leave because of smaller alliance size
Noone is going to leave because of smaller alliance size

But new players will leave when they don't have a chance to compete.
Plus it should be made very CLEAR that this Is an alliance based game. I joined(like Many) thinking "oh cool, this seems fun" then realizing that unless you are in an alliance you don't have a chance. SO many just quit. I found a very cool alliance of 35+ which have kept me in the game. Now the only wall the I or we can't get pass is the dominace of 100 player alliance which have no check. They simply maxed out and the rest of the Universe is there farm.

[Cochese]

Alliance size isn't broken, so don't try to "fix" it (read: make it worse). The notion of having a boatload of 50-member alliances all playing solo and living happily ever after is a pipe dream. Stop thinking about it, as it isn't worth the effort it takes to fire those neurons.

It is, basically, the "easiest" way to try to fix this problem, yet doesn't solve anything, and probably will only make things worse. We (alliance players) shouldn't have to pay for your lack of creative thinking by being subjected to a cop-out solution, and the ensuing crap round(s) of play.

Alliances in general are not "evil", so stop pointing the finger at them as if we're the ones ruining this game. Various people have said we make up 75% of the user base. That means, we pay 75% of your bills. This means if anything, you ought to be listening to what we say, and doing what we tell you to do.

Not to say we want the game catered to us. It should be, to some extent, but not entirely. There are more creative, and applicable means of giving new alliances a fair shot. How about a bash limit system based upon alliance rank or average size? Have a variable cap/salvage rate for alliances of different sizes attacking each other. The #19 alliance can fully roid the #20 alliance and visa versa...however the #2 alliance wouldn't cap anything off the #15 alliance, and the defender would get a higher salvage rate.

I guarantee, the combat wouldn't ever take place. Simply knowing that they wouldn't get anything would be a deterrent against bashing in the early days.

Encourage the "big baby eating evil" alliances to attack each other even more, and add some extra buffer zone between high and low ranked/value/whatever alliances.

Joe Newbie isn't going to get into a big alliance his first round unless he does spectacularly well. This has always been the case, and will always be the case. No amount of coding will change that. Not to say he won't *ever* get there. If he sticks around for another round, makes use of contacts, and continues to do well, he will likely find himself a top alliance. The key is time and people. You can't do well without experience, and you can't expect to go from newbie to veteran over night. Again, no amount of coding will fix this.

There's a real obvious answer here: have an official newbie alliance. Let the PA Team run an alliance for new people to join and get some experience. That's what the mentors were doing essentially, wasn't it?

Instead of trying to fix everything with limits and coding, why not take some responsibility yourselves, and take new players under your wings. You could even code it so you all could have unlimited numbers, just to make it "fair". Imagine, a big BT-esque mass of newbie players to take revenge on the evil big alliances for ruining the game.

I'm laughing already.

[Ferretus]

I like the idea of top 100 players not being alliance members. Thats a nice idea and gives a new spin to the game.

[DrunkenViking]

my suggestion:
50 member per alliance.
15 players per galaxy.
Completely random galaxies.

Why?
50 members per alliance because it tight knits the alliances more, you loose deadweight, it gets easier to start a new alliance, its easier for smaller alliances to survive, we get more alliances, it gets easier for new players to get an alliance, shipjumpers will appear less often, stagnation doesnt happed as fast.

Completely random galaxies because it benefits the new players. No other reason needed(screw the arrogant vets thats suiciding for the whole game with their "conservative" thoughts, private galaxies has allways caused bashing of randoms and newbies. Buddypacks are no better really).

15 players per galaxy will make the universe seem smaller, but with the smaller alliances there are more targets out there thats not in arby, and bigger galaxies increases the chance of getting a couple real actives in it so it doesnt become an idling inactive galaxy. And that also helps the newer players.

People has to realise that its not r4 anymore with 100k planets and everyone doing whatever they can to get the win.

My personal opinions, not representative for my alliance in any way.

[Nadar]

Originally Posted by Unregistered

2. We should introduce the concept that the top 100 players are "in a competition for a top 100 spot". So, as soon as they become a Top 100 they are automatically forced (as long as they are Top 100) to leave their alliances (and will automatically rejoin once they drop). Maybe u even wanna make these planets a especific color,as to make it easy for people to recognize: i.e. Green

You kiddin' me right?

[Pinkerton]

Why does each round need to be exactly the same anyway. Its easy to experiment one round with with a different dynamic: Private gals, buddypacks,, shipstats, ALLIANCE size.

Try it for one round. IIf it causes mayhem just change up

There are only a few players in the top twenty who are hysterical , crying that its the end of the world if you cut the size of alliances.

Plus I think you would get more paying players if they thought they had a chance to compete. Who wants to pay if they are going to end up a farm .




50 is a good size.

Originally Posted by Kal

Let me reiterate something here, this is not a PaTeam idea, in fact it was an idea proposed by anumber of alliances. I also stated that there are no plans to change it at this team so I see absolutely no reason for people to be attacking PaTeam over this. There are actually a lot of vlaid arguments for why for example we woudln;t get LCH1 and LCH2 etc. The point of thsi thread is to dicuss things and try to work out the actual affects of doing things, it is not a vote on what should happen.

If it isn't a PA Team idea, then state that next time pls (in your first post). As PA Team member everything you say is seen in light of your PA Team membership.

So far what ive seen is mostly crap, but i saw one very valiid point against lowering the limit: the communities keep PA alive, nothing else. Don't split them up (yes, LCH is one of the alliances with a high ratio of loyal multi-round members, we wud have serious community problems if we had to deal with < 100 (esp 50 as proposed by some)

And stop talking about all the cents you added to this thread, it makes you poor, no1 rich and its very cliché :P

Simplicity is the key (But I know im getting into some tangents, please bear with me)

I think PA has ALWAYS, ALWAYS lacked 2 things. 2 things that in my opinion would increase the addictive seduction of this type of game. I think

================================================

1. Extremely detailed + graph enhanced Stats/History screen for all: player, gal, cluster, alliance.

:: I know we sorta of have it, this round, but we CAN DO SO MUCH BETTER. And I dont kow how much work would require but I think that it can't be that much, is all math googling.

You should give people MANY different ways of WINNING "the" gameS, provide diferent rankings for diferent categories (i.e. most money donated, most roid gottens, most def fleets, etc :: or more technical: gotten most roids from Xans, Ziks..., or best Thief, or Best Sabotageur (cov op resources) in the universe), make them easily searchable (i.e. pilkara, sandmans) ***INGAME***.

If you want new players to start to have a more enjoyable experience u must provide them with ANY SATISFACTION u can, cuz hell sure they wont have a good alliance and they wont have many roids and most people in the galz are gonna be other noobz, thus inactive on iRC, etc, etc
======================================================

2. The alliance screen. WTF???? Can this be more useless????

is time to SERIOUSLY put some work into this. Make it meaningful: i.e.

a. Give alliances ALL they need to run a top alliance. Incorporate this to the game. DONT FORCE NEW PLAYERS to HAVE TO ALWAYS have irc open, and their alliance web page open, etc, etc Cmm!!! if u dont know just ask on IRC :P

b. Make it possible for alliances to be :: INGAME :: NEUTRAL, or NAP other alliances (with consecuences (i.e. can't attack any of their planets) or form Blocks (in which case they can't attack any planet on the galaxies where planet members are). **Or declare war, THUS reducing the attack ETA by 1 tick (he he, I have to try , to which the other alliance automatically responds in kind

c. If u are a member of an alliance u should be able to automatically see who is neutral, nap, ally, allied, hostile, etc. OR, if the HC so chooses, this option might only be visible to MOs, or even only to the HCs themselves. (this is to avoid coord leaking of course, but noob alliance might not necesarily care about this)

d. provide alliances with a very DETAILED STATS/graphs/history. Again, make sure people can win the game in different ways.

======================================================================

3. Now, bringing the 2 previous together. Why not give all these options/concepts to the galaxy itself. Why arent GC/ministers able as well to set "galaxy stance" to Neutral/Nap/Ally/Allied/Hostile/Enemy to all: individual planets, galaxies, clusters & alliances...
WE REALLY NEED TO WORK ON TASKS FOR GC/MINISTERS (this is truly the first "alliance" for a TRULY NOOB player, nothing will be a better training ground for a future alliance)

=====================================================================

4. I have proposed before the idea of having 4 galaxies, one per race, to which truly noob/free accouts players MIGHT CHOOSE (or might not) to go. These four "alpha" galaxies can be thought as the mother galaxy of each race, and new players might (or might not) be required to leave them as soon as they reach certain requirements: i.e. 1 million score, or 1000 roids, etc

Each of these galaxies would funtion as an alliance of course, with their channel and webby (or like I said before, all this INGAME). And since they will be 100% part of the universe, they WILL have to collaborate on defense and such.

Keep in mind each of this galaxies could get rather large, and some players might complain is not fair since the eta, etc... to those I say, o shut up, besides, is in our best interest as many noob players get the "requirements" done so they automatically are exiled from the mother galaxy and ramdomly placed in the universe.

The four galaxies would have a team of voluntary mentors. Problable much more larger than usual galaxies


Dictator

[I am Idler]

Ok... GANG.. let me level with you..

STOP MAKING LIMITATIONS TO EVERY SINGLE ASPECT OF THE GAME IN A FEEBLE ATTEMPT TO GIVE THE SHORT MINDED A CHANCE TO COMPETE.. ITS NEVER GOING TO HAPPEN AND ITS TIME YOU STARTED REALISING IT.

KEEP IT SIMPLE, KEEP IT RELIABLE AND STOP MAKING FEEBLE ATTEMPTS TO HAVE HUGE CHANGES TO THE GAME EVERY SINGLE ROUND.

Im going to have a fit.. seriously

[higginz]

how will smaller alliance size help smaller members / alliances, when all it will do is seperate 100member alliances into two, with the elites in the main one.

This will mean they coul all still get defence from all their members, but make the stronger alliance in a different league from the others

Im not really talking about changing the game that much, but adding TOOLs to it, dummie


Dictator

I think the current alliance cap of 100 is just fine.
Contrary to what people have said above, new alliance can easily be formed. My alliance was formed near the end of round 11, but managed to get into the top 25 that round, and we're now sat in 18th place and slowly climbing....

We've all seen how well the status quo has worked...smaller alliances would still give a top few dominant ones, and the rest would be even weaker, and competition for places in an alliance would become enough as to make it not as much fun for many.

couple of thoughts:

note that even with the limits we have, there are many "small" alliances with 1 person in each - loads in the top 100. - if these guys don't seem to want to band together to create a bigger alliance, how is limiting the big ones going to help smaller ones? it will just be 2 alliances being 2 halves of the ex-alliance and no real change in membership.

also, the successful alliances are those with the skill and patience and TIME to organise the irc, attacking and defence stuff. it's hard enough to find these people for the alliances we have.

i think the current system where we have 20-30 viable alliances with a few small ones growing underneath works fine. the larger alliances still recruit so it's not like new players have no chance whatsoever if they really want to get in an alliance. i did even though i hadn't played for a few rounds - it's just about perseverence.

[DrunkenViking]

Originally Posted by higginz

how will smaller alliance size help smaller members / alliances, when all it will do is seperate 100member alliances into two, with the elites in the main one.

This will mean they coul all still get defence from all their members, but make the stronger alliance in a different league from the others

it will make more alliances, so when the game faces stagnation(admit it, that is the main reason for established players to leave) it wont take all the hardcore alliances to bring the leading alliance down to the level of the others again. Main problem with ppl not seeing advantage with the lower memberlimit is because they have no emphaty, it's all me me me me me me me and my alliance, all the way till the game dies. I see your point idler, however, it isnt r4 anymore...... If you give alliances freedom and no boundaries this game will die with 2 rounds. There is 1 well known clone of this game that has been doing exactly what you and many others like, keeping the oldstyle gamepley, no restrictions for alliances etc, and they lost more players than planetarion the last couple of rounds, even tho that are a free game. In my opinion, planetarion is 10 times better, but thats for my likings.

[Bee]

I think 50 is a nice number. This would make it easier to form new alliances, and the game would be more balanced with more, smaller alliances.

[Pinkerton]

First off it is that exact attitude that chases new players away.

I haven't seen one good argument on how the Experienced players would be hurt by smaller alliances. They way it is now IS definetely unwelcoming to new players.

You want to keep the game all to yourself. You have a Tank, I have a stick and you are the one calling changes unfair . Keep the game the way it is and in the next few rounds it will likely just be the top 500 players in 5 allainces.

[Gerbie]

I'd make a minor reduction. Though keeping it at 100 would suit me fine too. Alliances only recruit to get close to 100 because they need more members for a higher rank. You can cut down to 75 without affecting the core of the alliance. Personally I like smaller alliances more than big alliances.
100 members aparantly is enough to avoid 1 alliance from dominating the game without NAPs or allies. To get fluid politics it's also important to have a galaxy set up that prevents the formation of fixed blocks (priv gals).
The only problem I see is the recruitment of new players. Maybe allow recruitment of players below a certain value after an alliance has reached a certain size (for instance giving alliances a size of 75 members and the option to have 25 more members, in case those are below universe average).

[Assassin]

i think smaller alliances is a great idea, as tbh most allies you see in the top 10 are only there not based on skill but based on they can recruit over 90 + members.

[mist]

that's not true, had they no skill they would't be able to keep 100 members organised and active enough to be there.

if anything, making alliances smaller would decrease the skill needed to run one, except at the highest level, which imo wouldn't be a bad thing

-mist

[Kjeldoran]

I'd make no limits at all but that's just my opinion.

By dragging down the limit, it'll only be EASIER to make temp cooperations to waste an alliance, if you see that some can't even coop with 100 members and fall apart in less then 2 nights. Bringing down the max members will only encourage alliances to work together imo.

rgds Kj

[Isambard]

My view? Chnage for the sake of change can be good. Make it a different game to play each round, with new challenges, and keep the player base excited.

Alot of people want to maintain the status-qo, but to be honest, alot of people just want to play round 2 again.

I think a change to 50 would be good.

[Kal]

If people keep on posting unconstructive threads then I will be forced to close the discussion and discuss this solely with alliance HCs. I want the widest input possible but some of the threads here are just not constructive at all. All I want is a balenced discussion on the pros and cons and what the affect on paid account numbers would be with any change.

[Dr_Zaius]

Originally Posted by Unregistered

trying to think a little outside the box here...

how about having galaxies sign up to alliances, and not players?
requests to join something like the gc voting system?
limit to ten galaxies or so?

would help new players in alliance galaxies too, since they could very well end up in an allaince straight off.

obviously then though there would need to be greater options in being able to pick your galaxy at sign up.

Primarily defence problems, if you get a whole gal attacked its hard to defend!

[OneColourRed]

I dont thikn it would have any great change in the number of paid planets initially. However long term i think it will just make alliances far more elitest with the most active players being in 3 or 4 alliances,(assuming say 50ppl per alliance) instead of having about 8 atm with a spread of players. Another problem is i dont think there are enough talented people with the ability or who want to run an alliance, it is a lot of work.

On the other hand someone could argue this would give ppl a chance to learn how to run an alliance, but i think they would see such a large gulf between the top alliances and lower it would discourage them.

Just my opinion.

[Gerbie]

Make them too small and some people who normally pay will leave because they can'be in the alliance they want. But before this effect gets too big you can get pretty low I think (50 or so). Furthermore you'd want the alliances have the ability to recruit new players (you can focus this, for instance on people who started during the round).
Make them too big and you'll have old fashioned stagnation back for sure, which will cause people to leave and never return again.
There's a large area in between where it doesn't seem to matter that much. There's pro's and cons on both sides, but in all the effect on the (paying) playerbase will be minimal.

[I am Idler]

Originally Posted by Pinkerton

First off it is that exact attitude that chases new players away.

I haven't seen one good argument on how the Experienced players would be hurt by smaller alliances. They way it is now IS definetely unwelcoming to new players.

You want to keep the game all to yourself. You have a Tank, I have a stick and you are the one calling changes unfair . Keep the game the way it is and in the next few rounds it will likely just be the top 500 players in 5 allainces.

Experienced players shouldnt be hurt by a pack of newbies.

you cant simply expect people to have a fair chance when they have never played the game before.

[Conall]

A few quick points:

1. The topic of a change in alliance size has been initiated. My question is to what end. What is the goal, the purpose, objective to making a change? Changes don't need to be made for the sake of change alone. If this question were posed as "There is a problem X, one solution this problem is Y, what are the ramifications of the change, do these changes achieve the goal and is there a better solution." If we can approach changes to PA in that manner I believe we can get somewhere. Without a goal in mind, other than to make a change because some alliances HC have suggested it, any change seems fruitless.

2. Talent pool. What makes an alliance work? Certainly active talented players are key, but as important is the structure and organization. The structure takes talent, skills, time and dedication to function. I see most alliances choosing to keep their strongest most talented and active players and choosing to jettison the rest. It has been assumed that those players will join other alliances or start their own. What alliances are they going to join? Most alliances they would want to join have just kicked a large number of players; many they would have preferred to keep, so that is not an option. They can join smaller alliances that are weaker and without the level of structure they have been accustomed to or create their own. But most of those players jettisoned will not be the ones that have the skill knowledge or desire to become HC, Military or Intel Officers, yet many will fill those spots. The result is likely there will be 7 or 8 Alliances rather than 4 or 5 that compete for the top spot. The rest will settle into second and third tier alliances just as alliances have don this round. So I don't really see a huge shake up of rankings from this proposal. It is also conceivable that many of those jettisoned players will end up quitting because now they are on the receiving end of their former mate’s attacks and the less organized alliances can not cope with them.

3. Community - Someone stated community would be better. I don't see how. Ever since I started playing this game in round 2 the alliance has been the heart and soul of the community. Arguably, C and P clusters were an option in the early rounds because there were so many players and alliances we not a formal part of the game. I cannot see how fracturing existing communities will all of a sudden bring about a transition to a larger PA community fair. It doesn't work that way in RL so I am stumped to see how it would have that effect here.

Concentration of Talent - as a flip to topic 2 - the talent would be even more concentrated in smaller alliances creating a wide gap between the top and bottom planets in PA. Currently alliances have to defend smaller weaker alliance members, using valuable resources to do so. If situation were to change the stronger would not spend resources on the weaker thus getting stronger, the weaker would not benefit from their assistance thus getting weaker.

Blocks - I believe looking at blocks that spring from existing alliances is a bit simplistic. I think it would be more likely that you would see small blocks of 3 maybe 4 alliances. But those blocks would likely evolve to include other alliances rather than former alliance mates. When alliance A splits it will likely not evenly divide its talents between the A1 and A2. A1 will maintain the vast portion of the talent. As the game progresses and blocks for it seems more reasonable to believe that A1 and B1 would form a block because it is in their mutual interest.

These are just a few points off the top of my head. Fire away.

[Conall]

Originally Posted by Pinkerton

First off it is that exact attitude that chases new players away.

I haven't seen one good argument on how the Experienced players would be hurt by smaller alliances. They way it is now IS definetely unwelcoming to new players.

You want to keep the game all to yourself. You have a Tank, I have a stick and you are the one calling changes unfair . Keep the game the way it is and in the next few rounds it will likely just be the top 500 players in 5 allainces.

Agreed - in fact I believe the opposite is true. The smaller, less experienced, less active player currently in good alliances would be the ones that would be hurt.

Originally Posted by Dingo

If people had the guts to go alone and not block at all, then the game might stand a chance of recovering some form of enjoyment.

With that said, there is zero chance of anyone finding 100 people to form a half decent alliance capable of functioning and being competitive. If the size was 50, then the chance of forming new alliances would increase dramatically.

Please look at this with the idea of trying to improve gameplay for new people as well as veterans.

IF PA can not attract and keep new players, then there is only one way it can go.

Likewise, if there is 100 smaller alliances rather than 20 large and 30 tiny it has to make the overall challenge for the more experienced allianced more enjoyable as well. You can only pound the crap out of the same people for so long before it gets a bit old and tired.

I would love to see alliance sizes set at 50, but concede that 60 or 65 may be needed to appease all sides of the argument.

-i absolutely agree!!

how many alliance is it?
It is many 2-4 member-alliances in top 100 list
Maybe it shold be not so easy to start a new alliance. i donno.

[Dr_Zaius]

Alot of people are saying that they cant see people doing new players doing well, and they can't see any immediate benefits, prehaps if PA were to stick to it people would adapt?

PA has changed alot since it started, but that change hasn't changed what the game is, the underlying currents and addictive pull are still there, imo there has only been 1 change in PA's history that has actually gone badly wrong, and that was P2P, and were still here, paying to play.

I believe that with 50 members the big allainces will just split, and the number is still to high for a new alliance to get a decent foothold and memberbase, with a lower number as I previously suggested new leaders may emerge, old leaders may resurface, there would be more powerfull alliances initially, but as those new alliances grew more experienced, as the memberbase of those elite alliances which would surely be formed disperse, it will even out again.

New alliances, new leaders, new politics, a new breath of life into the game. Those people who allways wanted to start an alliance, and do have the time, but knew they would fail, could have a chance.

PA needs a new memberbase, this may be achieved through alliances, it would probally be achieved better through 1 or 2 free, full, rounds, but that isn't the topic right now.

Also Kal, you would do well to ignore those going off topic and bringing up other issues, just delete thier posts. Don't close this topic to the players, it is a topic which affects us all, just because people aren't currently alliance HC doesn't mean they won't be in the future.

Zaius

[Dr_Zaius]

Conall
There is a better answer


Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 56 Re: Round XIII Alliance Size

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Quote:
Originally Posted by Pinkerton
First off it is that exact attitude that chases new players away.

I haven't seen one good argument on how the Experienced players would be hurt by smaller alliances. They way it is now IS definetely unwelcoming to new players.

You want to keep the game all to yourself. You have a Tank, I have a stick and you are the one calling changes unfair . Keep the game the way it is and in the next few rounds it will likely just be the top 500 players in 5 allainces.

Agreed - in fact I believe the opposite is true. The smaller, less experienced, less active player currently in good alliances would be the ones that would be hurt.
__________________
--
I am Still.......

A pessimist sees the difficulty in every opportunity; an optimist sees the opportunity in every difficulty.
Sir Winston Churchill

----------

That quote in thier sig says it all, see the opertunity we have to change things here, and seize it.

[demiGOD]

It's really better to keep the alliances small - 50 is a really good number - so that the universe rankings on alliances will solely depend on member scores. Right now, it's really a mixed factor of how many members an alliance got, and how big they are, their scores, and when the last time they got attacked by 80,971 Terran Destroyers... which a regular newbie will tend to think "-well.. the only reason they're so big is because they got 99 members... hhmpfft!!! - this mentality will end if you cap alliances into 50's. It really would! This way too, alliance battles will be more complex and interesting because the chances of the alliance you're waging war with is about the same size as you, is really high.

[Dingo]

Originally Posted by Unregistered

u can only cut down alliance size... if their is protection time at night... every planet should get 10-12 hour prot. day where no atackes are allowed to lunch...

This is a suggestion for NEXT round, so not an issue.

Also the posts about kicking members is not exactly true either, since most if not all alliances generally lose 1/3 anyway and have to top up.

[Dingo]

Originally Posted by Jonas

lemme add...the smaller alliances are, the bigger r the chance of them seeking allies, hence blocking. We dont want that? or do we?

Where do you hide from the world? Blocking has been a part of this game since early days.

The difference is: Round 4 with 200k planets and a block of say 500 planets is 0.25% of the universe in a block compared to now with 4k planets and a block of 300 planets which is 7.5% yes... 30 THIRTY times higher. Can we see the problem here?

Reduce the alliance sizes and it reduces the block size. Yes you MIGHT get 6 alliances to block, but have any of you ever tried to co-ordinate that? I have in round 6 and we still hated each other and BARELY managed to work together. It was more of a NAP than a block.

If alliance sizes were linked to universe size and increased as the universe did, then it would retain balance.

Bottom line to those that do not wish any change... PA numbers are reducing and if nothing new is tried, then you can have an alliance of 500 if you like, but the universe will also be 500 and you will have lots of fun playing with yourself. Please think larger picture and not just how it might affect you for a short period while adjusting.

[Dr_Zaius]

Originally Posted by Dingo

If alliance sizes were linked to universe size and increased as the universe did, then it would retain balance.

Bottom line to those that do not wish any change... PA numbers are reducing and if nothing new is tried, then you can have an alliance of 500 if you like, but the universe will also be 500 and you will have lots of fun playing with yourself. Please think larger picture and not just how it might affect you for a short period while adjusting.

Alliance size linked to universe size - Definitely should be

2nd, a good point, something I was trying to put across earlier!

[Hellcat]

Ok.

So far we have heard from mostly established players. Now to hear from the people who will keep the game you enjoy playing available. The newbies.

As a newb myself - I can't help but cringe at the attitude of some of the players who have played for say the last 5+ rounds.

STOP MAKING LIMITATIONS TO EVERY SINGLE ASPECT OF THE GAME IN A FEEBLE ATTEMPT TO GIVE THE SHORT MINDED A CHANCE TO COMPETE.. ITS NEVER GOING TO HAPPEN AND ITS TIME YOU STARTED REALISING IT.

If the new players dont get anywhere they will leave. The number of people paying will decrease. PA will become unprofitable (or more unprofitable). Jolt will pull its funding and support. PA will end.

If an alliance has 100 members, and as a newb you attack one of them then get your whole gal raided "to teach you a lesson" over and over again by seemingly never ending and un-related fleets. Your really going to feel like a farm. All that time wasted and you can't hit back cause they're so damn big!

Big alliances are NOT welcoming to newbies. Newbies are seen as hard work to defend, not willing to attack, dont add enough to alliance score, and dont hang in IRC all day. Well duh! They're new! As a past member of veneratio I can say that they were quite helpful to me in my first round - but only once I'd became big enough by myself to join their alliance. By then I wasn't so much of a newbie.

People say that a 100 member alliance will split into two 50's (eg 1up + 1up2). well then let them. thats just the same as if they want more than 100 they could join two 100's to make a 200 alliance. Nothings stopping them doing that.

Before you flame, try thinking how does a new player feel when they're getting hit and can't hit back? Its bad enough when a big Gal hits you but least you know how many there are and how big they are.

To recap. To keep new players they can't be left feeling that they are only there as roiding farms for the established players. If implementing some of the ideas suggested so far will help them then PA has a future. If you think that PA is only for the elite - and new players should just expect to be destroyed - then you must think people are more willing to waste money than I do.

[Hellcat]

Originally Posted by Dingo

Bottom line to those that do not wish any change... PA numbers are reducing and if nothing new is tried, then you can have an alliance of 500 if you like, but the universe will also be 500 and you will have lots of fun playing with yourself. Please think larger picture and not just how it might affect you for a short period while adjusting.

Thats exactly how I feel. SOME of the established players want the PA universe to stay exactly the same but with loads of newbies paying their £5 and just sitting around waiting to be roided.

[Dr_Zaius]

Hellcat, I agree with what you have said and I'm not a new player, I think experienced players and heads of large alliances are more inclined to comment on the forums than new players as they are more confident and willing to voice thier opinions to the community.

Personally I believe the fairest way to settle it would be a poll actually INGAME (Add a menu button at bottem, its been done before for temp stats), get the opinion of as many players as possible, just a straight vote from those playing the game, let them come to the forums, see the debate, but not have to comment to state thier view, just give it without any1 ever having known what they said. Large alliances can encourage thier members to vote a certain way all they like, but the members vote would be just a statistic, they would never know how they actually DID vote. Let the forum debate continue for a while to get suggestions, then put it to the playermass as a whole.

I can tell you you wil get the best picture this way. I used to be a league manager (voluntary position in free time) for an Americas Army gaming league, when we held polls on the site about 200% MORE people voted.

[Borg]

Originally Posted by Dingo

Where do you hide from the world? Blocking has been a part of this game since early days.

The difference is: Round 4 with 200k planets and a block of say 500 planets is 0.25% of the universe in a block compared to now with 4k planets and a block of 300 planets which is 7.5% yes... 30 THIRTY times higher. Can we see the problem here?

Reduce the alliance sizes and it reduces the block size. Yes you MIGHT get 6 alliances to block, but have any of you ever tried to co-ordinate that? I have in round 6 and we still hated each other and BARELY managed to work together. It was more of a NAP than a block.

If alliance sizes were linked to universe size and increased as the universe did, then it would retain balance.

Bottom line to those that do not wish any change... PA numbers are reducing and if nothing new is tried, then you can have an alliance of 500 if you like, but the universe will also be 500 and you will have lots of fun playing with yourself. Please think larger picture and not just how it might affect you for a short period while adjusting.

I seem to recall something that was suggested back around r10, of how the game could be made more interesting and stop obvious blocking
I am a member of alliance A and attack a member of alliance B, his alliance defends him but ask there Block buddies alliance C to send a few extra shippies to help teach me a lesson sound familiar?

the idea suggested was that if 3 or more alliance fleets clashed at a planet, they would fight each other and not be 2 on 1 or 3 on 1, it would be A vs B vs C vs A now that is still a bloody good idea, make it harder for me to calc a def, but way harder for blocks to gang up on attacks or defences

a 2nd thing ( not really right for this thread but nm here we go ) make a limit on the value of ships that can attack a planet at any 1 time
its ok to say you cant attack anybody less than 40% your value, but you get 4 people that size attack together its just like having somebody 10 times your value come calling, eg if target planet is 100k value, then a maximum of 250k value is allowed to attack him at any one time
and thats just stopped the 4 170k guys working together to kill him off, more risk now, more action, more enjoyment

nuff said

[Dr_Zaius]

I think I suggested the attackers attack each other thing in my 1st post? Thats what I was refering to really, the thing suggested b4, its good idea really, so long as you alliance and gal can attack together without killing each other

As for the 2nd point, as you said, not totally relevant here but thats a great idea! I hope PA team read and note that 1!

[Sagacity]

100 imo seems about right. i would drop lower than 80 ( being the lowest EVER ! )

its not about 100 people being a problem if 1/3 arent core members. 1up have proved this so its utter bs what some people are saying on here.

Thats just my thoughts short n sweet

[Sagacity]

Originally Posted by Assassin

i think smaller alliances is a great idea, as tbh most allies you see in the top 10 are only there not based on skill but based on they can recruit over 90 + members.

If it was a simple as recruiting 90 people + then im sorry but any fool would be doing it. the top 10 Alliances are top 10 because they have good organisation and people willing to spend a lot of time playing PA to make that alliance good. as someone has already said. the Alliance limit 100 is not broke, so why fiddle with it. there are far more needy fixes in PA than alliance size's