Large Alliances ruin PA for everybody else

[DarkHeart]

Originally Posted by DarkHeart

As to alliances - Everybody can agree that to be successful, you need to be active.

Originally Posted by Chika

I was reading you post with interest until that line. Inaccurate.
peace

Originally Posted by JonnyBGood

Third everything in PA involves spending a lot of time online, that's the nature of the game at the minute.

I chose quote from Jonny since he's an ally mate (and is he HC?) of yours but to be honest I could of chose any one of a million quotes to back up my statement, the one from Jonny just seemed most prudent. I stand by what I said. (Unless you mean every1 on pa could agree with something is an impossibility )

[Forral]

Originally Posted by Coltaine

Interesting how the initiator never came back and explained his queer statement, yet specialists and experts still argue about.. 'what?'

If this is aimed at me, I'm sorry for... abandoning my thread?

I made this thread because I wanted to get my thoughts out there, my frustration may have been aimed at the wrong place (the obvious aggressors) but I still think at least the sentiment of my post has merit.

The fact is, you can't rely on the community to improve the game, players need obvious incentives to change the way they play. It seems attacking your equals is not rewarding.

The only solutions I can think of right now are:

1. Negative bravery factors
2. A limit to the maximum amount of 'warp gates' (read - inc fleets) that can fit around a planet. Changes depending on the planets score relative the the Universe average.

[JonnyBGood]

Originally Posted by DarkHeart

I chose quote from Jonny since he's an ally mate (and is he HC?) of yours but to be honest I could of chose any one of a million quotes to back up my statement, the one from Jonny just seemed most prudent. I stand by what I said. (Unless you mean every1 on pa could agree with something is an impossibility )

I should probably clarify my statement. It's possible to get away without doing that much in PA and still do well planet wise but someone else (in ascendancy we call them chumps) needs to be doing the work for you. The work does have to be put in by someone at some point though.

[Bedda0815]

Originally Posted by Forral

If this is aimed at me, I'm sorry for... abandoning my thread?

I made this thread because I wanted to get my thoughts out there, my frustration may have been aimed at the wrong place (the obvious aggressors) but I still think at least the sentiment of my post has merit.

The fact is, you can't rely on the community to improve the game, players need obvious incentives to change the way they play. It seems attacking your equals is not rewarding.

The only solutions I can think of right now are:

1. Negative bravery factors
2. A limit to the maximum amount of 'warp gates' (read - inc fleets) that can fit around a planet. Changes depending on the planets score relative the the Universe average.

I think it's clear that there should be more incentives for attacking players of the "same level" and there have been alot of threads with alot of suggestions who to get this done.

Your first suggestion is new (atleast to me). The currect bravery factor formula gives 0 bravery for planets 60% or smaller the size of the attacker. If we stick to this 60% the top players will have very few targets which won't decrease your XP (Atm it would be like 200 targets for #1 player).
In my personal opinion 200 targets are not enougth. But a new formula with a new threshold can be developed.
Addionally this would also lead to the points where ppl don't want to gain score at all (so that they won't loose xp when attacking). There are alot of discussions about resource saving and how to stop that, so this suggestion will only increase the problem with resource saving.

I don't think your second suggestion would be useful. There will be just to many ways to abuse this.
This "maximum number of inc fleets" must take prelaunches into account or it would be useless.
If prelaunched fleets would be counted it would be easy to fill all slots with prelaunched fleets. So it would be possible to prevent a player from being attacked alltogether.

I'm in favor with allowing new methods instead restricting some, anyway.

So my ideas (as I've already stated them a few times):
Allow alliances to have enought players in their alliance AND in their tag (this seems to be diffrent things nowadays) to fight a war. (Don't ask me about a presice number but i think something between 100 and 250 will work)

Alliances should only be meassured by their war effords and not by boring score gaining. How this meassuring should take place is a big problem with alot of suggestions. The easiest would be to remove alliance rankings and let the community declare the winner, even if this would lead to flamewars in the forum.

[Travler]

This game had alot more players when there were no alliance limits. If anything I think that the limits should be raised or removed. Big alliances are alot of fun and half the joy of joining one is just making it in.

The xp formula is the reason why there are more attackers than defenders. You cannot score as much defending as you can for roiding.