User Name
Password

Go Back   Planetarion Forums > Planetarion Related Forums > Planetarion Suggestions

Reply
Thread Tools Display Modes
Unread 1 May 2014, 00:27   #1
Clouds
Registered User
 
Clouds's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 1,386
Clouds is a splendid one to beholdClouds is a splendid one to beholdClouds is a splendid one to beholdClouds is a splendid one to beholdClouds is a splendid one to beholdClouds is a splendid one to beholdClouds is a splendid one to behold
Re: Alliance relations

I like this idea, however I wouldn't recommend that it be set in stone for the entire round. Take the Vikings/Spore nap for example.

EDIT: I would go a step further and make NAPs more formal to the extent of having them for a minimum duration and implement an in-game cooldown period.

Last edited by Clouds; 1 May 2014 at 00:33.
Clouds is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 1 May 2014, 00:36   #2
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: Alliance relations

Lock teams, team victory? Ewww :P Why remove a tactical play from the game? Why try to add even more cooperation between alliances? Personally I'd rather nobody would nap but if you nap at least you still need to be on your guard. If you can't trust your allies, they aren't very good allies.

Anyway if you hardcode a limit of up to two you can still make naps and alliances off the record.
__________________
Seraphim
Machado is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 1 May 2014, 01:20   #3
TheoDD
Registered User
Othello Champion, Solitaire Champion, Anime BlackJack Champion
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 707
TheoDD has a spectacular aura aboutTheoDD has a spectacular aura about
Re: Alliance relations

Most naps and relations is off the map... and has been for round after round.
What you see ingame is barely a small fraction of all relations and deals that is really going on.
TheoDD is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 1 May 2014, 01:28   #4
TheoDD
Registered User
Othello Champion, Solitaire Champion, Anime BlackJack Champion
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 707
TheoDD has a spectacular aura aboutTheoDD has a spectacular aura about
Re: Alliance relations

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bastet View Post
So it could be worth suggesting an incentive such as flat rate eta cross def?
Possibly, but this will most likely only benefit the few top alliances. While the others will have a even much harder time at getting through on any of them.
TheoDD is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 1 May 2014, 01:52   #5
TheoDD
Registered User
Othello Champion, Solitaire Champion, Anime BlackJack Champion
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 707
TheoDD has a spectacular aura aboutTheoDD has a spectacular aura about
Re: Alliance relations

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bastet View Post
But will it though in practice? All alliances could ally two each and gain the shared eta def bonus. Smaller alliances could arrange to merge under fewer tags if they work out before round start that their numbers might be low then those merged under one tag can ally two themselves. It's just about working the member numbers out and communicating.
Your idea only works in theory, in practise it will only benefit the biggest and most organised alliances. Doesn't help if the smaller alliances picks two allies themselves, when they already lack players on night time that are willing to send def internal. Do you really think these same players would wake up at night to defend another tag? The majority of players are just too "lazy" or affected by time zone, for this to work in practise.

So your suggestion will only make the strong, stronger and the weak, weaker.
TheoDD is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 1 May 2014, 02:10   #6
TheoDD
Registered User
Othello Champion, Solitaire Champion, Anime BlackJack Champion
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 707
TheoDD has a spectacular aura aboutTheoDD has a spectacular aura about
Re: Alliance relations

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bastet View Post
You're not really offering any sound reasons for why it won't work. I've already suggested merging tags to combat any low member numbers. TGV and TheFallen did some cross def two rounds ago and it worked nicely.

If lower member tags are willing to communicate, work together, merge and their HCs are prepared to give up their @ signs for the greater good to be absorbed into another tag then there really isn't a problem.
Your theory is all nice... But i did supply a more than viable reason for why this will only benefit the top tiers. And your example does not proove different.
TheoDD is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 1 May 2014, 02:20   #7
TheoDD
Registered User
Othello Champion, Solitaire Champion, Anime BlackJack Champion
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 707
TheoDD has a spectacular aura aboutTheoDD has a spectacular aura about
Re: Alliance relations

I'm not complaining about bad players... These players i referred to, make up atleast 60% of the playerbase. They simply only prelaunch attacks at night, and go to bed. With no interest at waking up at night. Most of these people don't even wake up at night to try and cover themselves, even tho they are fully aware at times that it's their night to get hit.

So how do you communicate with people asleep? And how will merging tags help these players? So they are now a full tag, with people sleeping... And they have 2 allies that also like to sleep. (If i were in a TOP tier alliance, there would be a cold day in hell, if I chose to ally an alliance that would never send us defence.) The top tiers will handpick there choises, leaving the others with limited options.

And there will always be huge difference of skill, dedication, organisation between alliances... Even if all the small ones merged into full ones. They would still be farms.
TheoDD is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 1 May 2014, 02:37   #8
TheoDD
Registered User
Othello Champion, Solitaire Champion, Anime BlackJack Champion
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 707
TheoDD has a spectacular aura aboutTheoDD has a spectacular aura about
Re: Alliance relations

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bastet View Post
Can you provide details of where you're getting these stats and percentages from?

All you're doing is whinging about inactives. If they're that lazy kick them and recruit other players. If your members are that unwilling to put the effort in then disband and apply elsewhere. To me this boils down to one thing: the HCs of these inactive alliances are hell bent on trying to keep their power and @ sign and to keep their dying alliances afloat. As admirable as that sounds if it's that bad just disband and let the inactives rot and apply elsewhere. There's no shame in that.

All of this is nothing to do with the suggestion, it's just pointless moaning and it's something that can easily be fixed if people put the effort in or relocate,
How am i whining about inactives? I can't see once that i mention inactives.
As for details, for someone who has played 40 rounds... You should know some history by now...
TheoDD is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 1 May 2014, 02:39   #9
fortran
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 517
fortran is a jewel in the roughfortran is a jewel in the roughfortran is a jewel in the rough
Re: Alliance relations

Along with the suggestion of using Alliance Points instead of Score to Ranking, these Alliance Relations features could be bought spending those Alliance Points or Fund Resources. Examples of possible features:
- Alliance formation charged per alliance
- Cross def enabling, charged per number of ticks
- Scans and ingame scanning request service sharing, charged per number of ticks
- -1 eta reduction, charged per number of fleets
__________________
mxy
fortran is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 1 May 2014, 11:05   #10
Plaguuu
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 477
Plaguuu is just really nicePlaguuu is just really nicePlaguuu is just really nicePlaguuu is just really nicePlaguuu is just really nice
Re: Alliance relations

Bastet let me put it to you easy:

Two strong alliances can def eachother = 40 + 40 nightly active players = 80
Two weak alliances can def eachother = 5 + 5 nightly active players = 10

Which benefits mosts you think ?

5 or 10 you still get stomped in ptarget while 40->80 can take you from huge losses to 0 loss
Plaguuu is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 1 May 2014, 11:12   #11
Kaiba
Valle is my hero
 
Kaiba's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 2,581
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: Alliance relations

Quote:
Originally Posted by Plaguuu View Post
Bastet let me put it to you easy:

Two strong alliances can def eachother = 40 + 40 nightly active players = 80
Two weak alliances can def eachother = 5 + 5 nightly active players = 10

Which benefits mosts you think ?

5 or 10 you still get stomped in ptarget while 40->80 can take you from huge losses to 0 loss

All this is completely irrelevant, you cannot control something that does not rely on coding to implement. Alliances/NAPs/Wars/Orgies happen all the time in PA without ingame showing it.

Changing the way the game is ranked to make offensive attacking and warring pay off more than simming your planet is the way to stop the stagnation. There is plenty of suggestions on how to do this, some even recently as the last week. Go look at them and add to them to make the game better rather than bitching back and forth about something that doesnt even impact the problem and will NEVER be implemented.
Kaiba is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 1 May 2014, 12:00   #12
Plaguuu
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 477
Plaguuu is just really nicePlaguuu is just really nicePlaguuu is just really nicePlaguuu is just really nicePlaguuu is just really nice
Re: Alliance relations

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kaiba View Post
All this is completely irrelevant, you cannot control something that does not rely on coding to implement. Alliances/NAPs/Wars/Orgies happen all the time in PA without ingame showing it.

Changing the way the game is ranked to make offensive attacking and warring pay off more than simming your planet is the way to stop the stagnation. There is plenty of suggestions on how to do this, some even recently as the last week. Go look at them and add to them to make the game better rather than bitching back and forth about something that doesnt even impact the problem and will NEVER be implemented.
He was talking about eta reductions on def. That obviously wouldnt happen unless you did it ingame. And I was simply telling how this would be better for strong alliances compareed to weak.

Im not pro or against it I just wanted to clarify smth that seemed hard for some people to understand
Plaguuu is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 1 May 2014, 14:27   #13
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: Alliance relations

Quote:
Originally Posted by TheoDD View Post
Would be fun if appocomaster added prelaunched fleets stats, to the history page. CT is a proper farm alliance... They will most likely never be good at defence, as most their members are in the situation i so nicely put up a few posts ago. Same goes for most other alliances.
I agree a lot of people PL. It's not ideal, but we're not 16 year old high schoolers anymore. Many of us have wives and kids or husbands and kids or mittens and cats and kittens and dogs and full time jobs.

You claim most (so I can assume a majority) of CT players doesn't wake up to send def. Same goes for most other alliances? What do you base that on? Are you in CT?

I don't think the % (whether it is your claimed 60% or not) is lower or higher than it ever was either, to be honest. I think there's just less people playing in general, so the gap between a fully active alliance, if you will, and less active ones is bigger because there are less fully active alliances to compete with one another. I think that's your main problem right there, dwindling playerbase.
__________________
Seraphim
Machado is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 1 May 2014, 14:47   #14
TheoDD
Registered User
Othello Champion, Solitaire Champion, Anime BlackJack Champion
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 707
TheoDD has a spectacular aura aboutTheoDD has a spectacular aura about
Re: Alliance relations

Quote:
Originally Posted by Machado View Post
I agree a lot of people PL. It's not ideal, but we're not 16 year old high schoolers anymore. Many of us have wives and kids or husbands and kids or mittens and cats and kittens and dogs and full time jobs.

You claim most (so I can assume a majority) of CT players doesn't wake up to send def. Same goes for most other alliances? What do you base that on? Are you in CT?

I don't think the % (whether it is your claimed 60% or not) is lower or higher than it ever was either, to be honest. I think there's just less people playing in general, so the gap between a fully active alliance, if you will, and less active ones is bigger because there are less fully active alliances to compete with one another. I think that's your main problem right there, dwindling playerbase.
I never said the % is higher or lower than any other round. As for CT players not waking up to def, is based on history of attacking CT...
First wave usually gets defended by those online at the time being, maybe a few that wakes up on request. The waves comming after usually flies by without any defence. Only reason i used CT as an example to begin with, was because Bastet pointed out they were swapping back and forth between 3rd and 4th this round. Something tells me they haven't had as much incs this round as they usually get.

I could point out several alliances in the same boat as CT...
TheoDD is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 1 May 2014, 21:04   #15
Appocomaster
PA Team
 
Appocomaster's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 7,449
Appocomaster spreads love and joy to the forum in the same way Jesus wouldAppocomaster spreads love and joy to the forum in the same way Jesus wouldAppocomaster spreads love and joy to the forum in the same way Jesus wouldAppocomaster spreads love and joy to the forum in the same way Jesus wouldAppocomaster spreads love and joy to the forum in the same way Jesus wouldAppocomaster spreads love and joy to the forum in the same way Jesus wouldAppocomaster spreads love and joy to the forum in the same way Jesus wouldAppocomaster spreads love and joy to the forum in the same way Jesus wouldAppocomaster spreads love and joy to the forum in the same way Jesus wouldAppocomaster spreads love and joy to the forum in the same way Jesus wouldAppocomaster spreads love and joy to the forum in the same way Jesus would
Re: Alliance relations

Hey guys, this is "Planetarion suggestions" not "Planetarion handbags".
I've deleted most of the posts which are more aimed at each other and less aimed at constructive discussion. I honestly could delete almost the same again which are more squabbling and less constructive.

In summary:
It's a bit cheeky to presume to know the activity of an alliance better than it's HC, so please at least pretend to be polite on here.

However, Bastet, though I have to say that they could perhaps have put their point better, I agree in principle that if you compare 3 top alliances who are NAPed now to 3 lower alliances who are NAPed now before and after the -1 ETA advantage, the difference between the alliances would be bigger after.

I am trying to think of a way to describe why bigger alliances will be stronger.

I guess it's as simple as allowing them to pool their resources. The top alliances have more of something - value, activity, organisation, whatever, that makes them higher ranked. Whatever it is, this advantage will allow them to continue to use this edge more than their lower ranked opponents.

Also, this may split up the blocks a bit, but it is uncertain as to whether it would make the game more competitive - the top alliances could NAP and, more generally, it will only increase defensive abilities (by increasing the defence pool) and it may actually break up attacking together (unless the current number of NAPs is continued and just external to the game).

With regards to alliances "merging" into the same tag before they have their NAP, I've been part of alliances merging for a round and the command structure gets really murky and then often afterwards the new "alliance" falls apart as there are too many HCs wanting to do things their own way. It's not that easy to keep working in the long term, and some alliances would prefer to do their own thing than merge.


Looking at the wider picture, if there's an alliance defence ETA shared, there may be a discussion about whether they should be able to see each other's defence (or a subset of it, maybe on a "allies can view this incoming" tick box thing), otherwise having that ETA advantage is fairly pointless.

Finally, in terms of the length of NAPs stuff, I think that whilst a minimum length of NAP (say 72 ticks) may be possible, Planetarion gains a lot from epic backstabbing where one alliance breaks free and tries to sink the knife into their "allies" as quickly as possible. I was up at 4am in Round 10.5 when Phraktos tried to take out MISTU and FAnG, when FPM had a strangehold on the universe, and kudos to them, they did it to try and make the game interesting and caused one night of damage on their former allies and then were completely demolished the next few nights, but it's that sort of moment that is memorable and exciting.

Backstabbing should always be a part of Planetarion
__________________
r8-10 RaH r10.5-12 MISTU
Appocomaster is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 2 May 2014, 00:07   #16
DrunkenViking
Retard0r
 
DrunkenViking's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Norway
Posts: 1,164
DrunkenViking has much to be proud ofDrunkenViking has much to be proud ofDrunkenViking has much to be proud ofDrunkenViking has much to be proud ofDrunkenViking has much to be proud ofDrunkenViking has much to be proud ofDrunkenViking has much to be proud ofDrunkenViking has much to be proud ofDrunkenViking has much to be proud of
Re: Alliance relations

I don't really see the suggested restrictions helping. Sure you'd see less OOT def, but that's not too common anyway, people will still NAP and block as they please. I for one have never appreciated long term NAPS and "cool down periods" at all. These things(even if it offers a certain level of security) stagnates the game, if you hardcode it you'd only make things more likely to stagnate. If anything, remove the ingame naps completely imo.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Appocomaster View Post
Backstabbing should always be a part of Planetarion
On a sidenote; you sound just like dingo
__________________
-Chimpie

* We do not exist *

* G-II * NoS * VsN * Ascendancy * Osiris * xVx * Ultores *

DrunkenViking is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 16:23.


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