Alliances and their part in Planetarion

[Zo0f]

This is taken from the disscussion that developed in the r14 preditctions thread.

The disscussion was about wether alliances should take into account the effect of their potential actions could have on the game or only look out for themselves. With some people arguing both sides. This shocked me as I had never concidered that some people/alliances would not care wether the game kept running/failed or the degree of the games success/popularity.

I personally have always concidered the game and generally tried to push my alliance in a direction that I thought was better for the round and would keep it interesting, aswell as how to do best for my alliance.

(note: Id like to note i am not suggesting alliances sacrifice all hopes of enjoying the round to make everyone elses round more fun, just that they concider actions that benefit both.)

So id like to hear what you think:
1) As an alliance HC do you only concider what is best for your alliance? Or do you consider how you could benefit the game aswell as allow your alliance to have a fun round?

2) As an alliance member do you think your alliance should concider their effects on the game and try to make the rounds more interesting? Or do you think your alliance should solely look after themselves?

[Kjeldoran]

Heh, you know my opinion on this matter ...

as an HC I'd only do things that benefit my alliance. If that means helping PA or helping another alliance so Angels has a higher chance on performing well, then so be it. But it also works the other way around.

As a member I'd seriously hope my HC only care about their members and their enjoyment and performance.

[Jonas]

As a HC I do what it takes to make my members have fun, and to win(following the rules of Planetarion, and common sence(eg. we dont hack others etc to killt heir IRC server or whatever)) I don't want Planetarion to fold tho, so if theres anything I can do to help PA improve and live on, I will do it. As long as it doesnt make the game booring for my members.

hmm not sure if thah made much sence had alot of stuff in my head, but didnt sound the same on here :P

I think im trying to say that my members enjoyment goes before anything, and that a booring PA is as good as a dead PA. We can do certain things to make PA a enjoyable place, and all should do it :P

My contribution is being a fair friendly player/HC that does not cheat, nor allow other to cheat.

-Jonas-

[Supersander]

As HC I always keep in mind what's good for the game. For example: one of the points we (I) are strongly against is massive retals as you see many alliances often do bashing one target totally into the ground and thus destroying the round for that person. This is the kind of actions that makes people quit PA.
Furthermore our alliances is all about fun so I guess not having to look at the rankings makes it easier to do what's best for the game.

[Nadar]

Originally Posted by Supersander

For example: one of the points we (I) are strongly against is massive retals as you see many alliances often do bashing one target totally into the ground and thus destroying the round for that person.

That tactic is old Planetarion style if you didn't know

[wakey]

It should be pretty obvious what my responce will be but I will state it anyway.

I've always held the view that PA is very much like a finely balanced eco system and as such every player and every alliance not only has a responsability to themselves but also to every player/alliance above and below them. Its no good some people being totally dominant if they achieve this dominance is achieved through tactics which upset the balance so much that it destroys the rounds fun for most people. People whom take the view of not caring about anyone elses progress and fun will often justify it with "I have to look out for my groups fun, which means winning by any means" are often being extreamly shortsighted because they fail to relise that their actions have consequences which will come back to haunt them later,(mostly in the form of causing players to quit which stagnates if not lowers the playing numbers and ultimatly makes the game less fun for themselves in the future rounds.

Certainly the alliances attitudes towards alliances lower then themselves in the past have done a very good job at helping counteract others attempts to raise number with the contempt they treated others with and the way they stood in the way of balancing factors for their own gains using the mass "we will leave the game" threats. However I have to say that over the last couple of rounds the community in general has seemed to be alot more knowledgable and accepting of the parts they play in PA's future and while theres always some bad apples which push it the community is one which seems alot less selfish and more focussed on pulling together to help the game grow

[The_Mad_Keg]

Well im only starting HC'ing this round but i think both mine and F-Crews views on this are fairly clear, Fun is our main aim and to provide a place for old and new players alike to enjoy themselves, our acceptance of new, unpaid, not as active players goes along way to keeping people coming to pa and new ppl starting pa. Also things like our quiz and myself and rockos various song based ramblings help brighten up the community side of things. the quiz brings together several alliances for a bit of friendly banter .

heh was writing this while wakey posted soz if u read same thing twice

[Gate]

As I said in the other thread; I think my duty is to try and provide the greatest enjoyment for the members of my alliance.

However, I seem to view it differently to some; actions that benefit the game at a small personal sacrifice (for instance, agreeing to a war with a former ally because the round is going into stagnation; though I would say this could lead to more fun for your members, this is a war game, with equal emphasis on both words), may lead to greater enjoyment in future. Partly because it may put your alliance in a politically superior position in future (it may not, obviously, but if you go about things the right way, you can build a good reputation which can be of benefit), and partly because it helps to ensure the future of PA.*

I think the confusion caused was because I was looking at 'best for my alliance' as providing fun for the members through enjoyable gameplay; which can be gained from most rounds, whilst others were perhaps looking at 'best for my alliance' in pure rank terms and enjoyment through satisfaction of achievement, which is never guaranteed and therefore must be grabbed when possible. That's how it seemed to me, atleast.



*EDIT: To use the F1 analogy. If an F1 company can prevent F1 from going out of business through minor personal sacrifice, surely it would be better to do so? As without F1, it then loses its consistent source of income and ergo loses out overall.

[Nitros]

when i still played i tried to do whatever kept both the members happy, aswell as doing things which benifit the whole alliance progress

helping the game was also a part of it - example: not forming huge blocks to win a round in 2 weeks and kill PA

edit: typos again..

[Kargool]

I dont think I would elaborate on everything I do as HC, but as HC you have several obligations, but the one thing EVERY HC should hold dear is to both KNOW and understand that you are NOT doing this for yourself, you are doing it for the best of the members in your alliance.

I play alot of strategic boardgames, one of my favourites is Puerto Rico. In Puerto Rico, your actions will decide alot of the game, both relating to your own strategy and the opponents strategy, that's my view on PA aswell. Every thing you do in a game like this, every action, gets an reaction. It is up to the HC to decide and consider the reactions of their actions. And if the risk to the alliance and their members is negible, you should try to do whatever is best for your members. Every action you do, doesnt have to be selfish for your own alliance to survive.

[lokken]

killing shit

[Kjeldoran]

Originally Posted by Gate

*EDIT: To use the F1 analogy. If an F1 company can prevent F1 from going out of business through minor personal sacrifice, surely it would be better to do so? As without F1, it then loses its consistent source of income and ergo loses out overall.

If for instance Ferrari, like last season, wins nearly all GP's that it becomes too dull and boring for pple to watch it, do you really think Ferrari would make a bad car to safe the image of F1? You really think ANY team would sacrefize to make it easier for the others etc?

If for instance 1up is too strong for everyone else, do you expect 1up to random kill some fleets and to have some nights when they don't attack so the rest can catch up abit? No self respecting alliance or F1 team would ever do that, I know I wouldn't (I know I'm using extreme examples here).

[Bashar]

Personally, as an HC, I put my alliance first, and will do whatever benefits my alliance the most.

As a member of the community, I will do what I can to help the game and the community flourish.

These two roles are largely kept seperate because in my view, they are seperate issues. I have never yet had a conflict of interest, and as a more fun game benefits the alliance, I reckon the roles are complimentary.

[hook]

Even though I believe I made my point clear in the other thread, I will re-word it in simplicity once again.

As a HC, I do what is best for my alliance, at all times. Galaxy mates, respect, the rest of the universe, and all the other PA-related stuff around that will come in second place. Now, don't take out the magnifyingglass and go beserk on my post (once again ), you know aswell as I do that if my members enjoy playing planetarion, keeping planetarion alive is one of the interests that goes hand in hand with my main interest, being my members.

That's it for tonight.

[Gate]

Originally Posted by Kjeldoran

If for instance Ferrari, like last season, wins nearly all GP's that it becomes too dull and boring for pple to watch it, do you really think Ferrari would make a bad car to safe the image of F1?

However, unlike in planetarion, it's not really possible for the opposing teams to 'add together' their collective capabilities in order to equal that of Ferrari, is it?

I doubt that 1up would 'powerblock' with the entire universe even if they could... which is an example of an alliance slightly estraining themselves from guaranteeing a win, to instead have more fun.

[cypher]

Originally Posted by Kjeldoran

If for instance 1up is too strong for everyone else, do you expect 1up to random kill some fleets and to have some nights when they don't attack so the rest can catch up abit? No self respecting alliance or F1 team would ever do that, I know I wouldn't (I know I'm using extreme examples here).

i seem to remember something about us cutting 1/3rd of our memberbase when we overpowered everyone /me pets kj

[Kjeldoran]

Originally Posted by cypher

i seem to remember something about us cutting 1/3rd of our memberbase when we overpowered everyone /me pets kj

No cypher, you decided to throw off the extra inactive pple and go further with the active quality core, and you won the round. I don't think sid or Mazz tried to weaken their alliance for the rest of PA to enjoy it. That's be rather patethic and insulting ot any PA alliance tbh.

[Zo0f]

Im taking this quote from the r14 predictions thread as I think it is more relevant here, as you said at the bottom Nadar.

Originally Posted by Nadar

I never said being selfish is the only thing that wins an alliance the round, ofc quality and tacticts plays a role too. And it's not always an alliance needs to be selfish throughout a round, but at one point or another it has to be selfish/greedy to provide what's best for its members. And I doubt any winning alliance can say they never were selfish/greedy to give the alliance what it needs.

Also, NoS politics wouldn't have upset anyone if we in example ended #11 last round, but because we ended #3 people got sore in the arse and started whining about it simply because we ended above you

And yes, it's up to every alliance HC how they want to run their alliance. I'm not telling you how to run your alliance, if you want to run it elsewise than i.e I would then I respect that, just because it's your choice. Too many have tried telling NoS HC how to run NoS, but it's not really any of their business. Politics might be completely abnormal and differ 100% from other alliances politics, but that's not really our problem. It's your problem how you want to cope with it. Whining about it on forums surely won't help at all.

Edit: Quote/reply and post in Zo0f's thread please. I forgot to ;p

From this and the couple of posts you made before it, you seem to be barking up the wrong tree. I know you guys have been on the defensive a lot lately but it seems to be effecting what you post a bit too much. This is not a direct assult on NoS, Angels or anyone specifically. Most alliances make the same sort of decisions that do not appear to contain much thought for the game.

The topic was about wether or not people considered the effects of their actions on the game. It seems obvious to me that helping the game be enjoyable for most people for longer would help Planetarion retain customers and help make the game a better place for new customers. This in turn makes the game more open and competative for everyone. This, in my opinion, can be done while giving your alliance and members an enjoyable and challenging(or not) round. The only question is how much weight each carries.

Your posts seem to suggest a very black and white simplified view that you either only concider your own alliance or give up everything to help others. Shown by:

Originally Posted by Nadar

If an alliance HC plays for the game and not the alliance, the alliance HC should be fired, immiedately. Being seflish is what wins an alliance the round, not being a charity pe0n running around with Santas xmas hat.

Making a subject that simple only means you miss out on the other options. If you could fight someone you were not originally planning on to make the round interesting and competative for everyone (including yourselves) for longer, does that not benefit both the game and your own alliance? It might not be exactly what you wanted, however it gives you good short-term fun and a longterm benefit.

What I see mostly is people agreeing the game doing better would be good for their alliance but not even concidering how their actions effect the game or wether they could infact get what they want while occasionally doing the game some good.

The only conflict of interests I can see possible is when an alliance does not aim to win the round, nore does it want chellenging direct conflicts during the round. While I dont see why people would ever want to do that, I know some see that way especially with the not aiming to win point.

[Nadar]

Originally Posted by Zo0f

From this and the couple of posts you made before it, you seem to be barking up the wrong tree.

Barking up the wrong tree? The post was an answer at Sethy's post.

But come on, you can't say you that you would make decisions that is good for the game, but effects your alliance negatively. Remember it is a game and in a game you want to win or get the best position possible for your alliance, wether it's Planetarion or Ludo. Some decisions may be good for both the game and your alliance, but making a decision that's good for the game and bad for your alliance is a bit weird*.

* Couldn't find a better word to use, feel free to help me finding it.

[Zo0f]

Originally Posted by Nadar

Barking up the wrong tree? The post was an answer at Sethy's post.

But come on, you can't say you that you would make decisions that is good for the game, but effects your alliance negatively. Remember it is a game and in a game you want to win or get the best position possible for your alliance, wether it's Planetarion or Ludo. Some decisions may be good for both the game and your alliance, but making a decision that's good for the game and bad for your alliance is a bit weird*.

* Couldn't find a better word to use, feel free to help me finding it.

The word you were looking for was stupid. Im aware the replies were to SethMace, but they were equally off course anyway.

I have never suggested that I would make a decision to benefit the game that would negatively effect my alliance. What I am suggesting is that people might not be considering the fact that they could do a good job of both, in favour of making the decisons far more straight foward by only considering their own alliances.

This does depend what type of command/members your alliance has though, as different people want different things out of a round. So far though, the only conflict I can possibly see is where alliances do not aim to win a round, or do not want to have to fight a hard fight during a round. As from that any actions you could take to effect the round in a big way would be in direct conflict with your own alliances needs.

[Nadar]

Originally Posted by Zo0f

I have never suggested that I would make a decision to benefit the game that would negatively effect my alliance. What I am suggesting is that people might not be considering the fact that they could do a good job of both, in favour of making the decisons far more straight foward by only considering their own alliances.

Ofc they can do a good job for both game and alliance, but sometimes not. That the actions an alliance takes is good for the game is just a bonus.

[hook]

To be honest, my first statement was meant to make that clear (in the R14 predictions thread), and I actually think it did (re-reading it again). The two interests, being in this case the community on the one hand, and your alliance on the other hand, do not have to rule out one another. They can very well go hand in hand. Like I said before, any HC that has members enjoying this game, will not (given fairly normal circumstances ofcourse) make a decision that's necesarilly bad for the game on purpose. Keeping the game alive is then in the interests of his/her members, as they're enjoying it.

My point was however, and I do believe that's the point Kjeldoran and Nadar agreed to, that when making decisions, your alliance and your members should be first priority, above all others. I never stated you wouldn't take other things into account, but when the day comes you'd have to choose between what the community needs / wants you to do, and what's best for your alliance, the community can go to hell.

[Supersander]

Originally Posted by hook

I never stated you wouldn't take other things into account, but when the day comes you'd have to choose between what the community needs / wants you to do, and what's best for your alliance, the community can go to hell.

I don't really agree with that. By helping the community you WILL help your members in the long run as they are part of that same community.

[Zo0f]

I think Bashar put it best:

Originally Posted by Bashar

I have never yet had a conflict of interest, and as a more fun game benefits the alliance, I reckon the roles are complimentary.

As Supersander said they are entirely the same thing to most people the difference is that you cannot measure the gain in the same way you can anything else in Planetarion. It takes a long time to see large benefits and they arent easily quantified. That in my opinion is why so many people have dismissed this arguement bluntly (like yourself), as it has not been something they personally ever spent time considering.

That is not a personal attack on you or anyone else though, very few people in Planetarion have ever made decisions that would help the game aswell as their alliance. The last few rounds, however, have suggested to me that more people were going in the right direction (intentionally or not). Hence it is interesting to see what people think.

[Zo0f]

Originally Posted by hook

My point was however, and I do believe that's the point Kjeldoran and Nadar agreed to, that when making decisions, your alliance and your members should be first priority, above all others. I never stated you wouldn't take other things into account, but when the day comes you'd have to choose between what the community needs / wants you to do, and what's best for your alliance, the community can go to hell.

Indeed, the difference is that the choice is not so black and white. Like all decisions there is a balance of effects each course of action has. A course that helps the game aswell as your alliance is far harder to weigh up against a course that only helps your alliance. That is what leads people to:

Originally Posted by Nadar

That the actions an alliance takes is good for the game is just a bonus.

(note: sorry to quote you again Nadar, but it was perfect for what I wanted )

[Tis]

1) As an HC, I mostly just sit in #public and abuse people

2) As a member, i typically get bored and wander off half way through the round....








(Alliance > game, but in most areas they go hand in hand... a runaway block round, for example, is neither good for the game (people quit when they have no chance/get bored of being bashed), nor for the alliance (no real fun for members)).