[Declined] Alliance Solutions

[Conall]

After reading Trogs post about alliances I noticed several people talking about teaching new players how to play the game and I have noticed that thought process over a number of threads as well.

An idea sprang to mind. I haven't put much thought into it so I am sure there are holes in it but I'll throw it out there anyway.

Sub alliances. What if players below a certain level of size, say below 50% of average player score, could be added to and alliance without being counted against their maximum number of members. This would give smaller planets the opportunity to learn from the larger alliances, and it would give alliances another recruiting tool. And if all the little guys wanted to ban together to take on the big alliances they could do that as well, might make it more interesting. At least they could could post some serious numbers for a defense call even if the fleets were small.

I realize there are likely to be abuses hidden in this suggestion, but no serious ones spring to mind. So fire away, let see if there is any merit to this idea.

[wakey]

You would reduce the number of alliances in the game by half, if not more. Fewer alliance = fewer targets = More stagnation. The game needs more alliances rather than fewer as that means more compitition .

[Conall]

I dont think it reduce the number of alliances much, if at all. Only about half the planets in the game are actually in an alliance to begine with (56% to be exact). And this suggestion is targeted at the bottom 25% of planets in the game, which statistically far fewer than half are in an alliance. I cannot see it reducing the number of alliances to the degree any serious impact on the number of alliances. I think if the smaller planet had the opportunity to join a large alliance then it would actually increase competition tbh.

Although there may need to be an incentive to get the top alliances to take these players into their fold.

[The Real Arfy]

If a player wants to serve their/an alliance, they would show it. i can only see top-10 alliances taking in those from the alliances ranked #10 - #25, as this happens now. If a player knows that bigger alliances have more of an incentive to take in lower ranked players, they will jump at this opportunity and apply right away.

[Appocomaster]

I think it would be nice if the bigger alliances helped smaller players, but if there were any other way but informally recruiting - generally via IRC and active gal mates - it'd be good. However, things like specifiying new player when signed up wouldn't work well as experienced players would do it to get into alliances (as spys...). Also, scanners could sneak in as small / new players. Basically, it's new players vs the big alliances trying to squeeze as much of an advantage as possible over rivals...

[Gerbie]

I'd rather see a small player join a well organized alliance (which often means they get bigger) then some unorganized alliance started by some player who has insufficient experience and capacity to help out. The alliance limit is a boundary against that for some of the larger alliances. I.m.o. lower the maximum alliance limit a bit and allow alliances to recruit a few smaller planets as compensation.

[Appocomaster]

Originally Posted by Gerbie

I'd rather see a small player join a well organized alliance (which often means they get bigger) then some unorganized alliance started by some player who has insufficient experience and capacity to help out. The alliance limit is a boundary against that for some of the larger alliances. I.m.o. lower the maximum alliance limit a bit and allow alliances to recruit a few smaller planets as compensation.

surely they'd have less room to recruit the small players? And if the small players didn't count towards an alliance member limit, how do you define a small player?

[Gerbie]

Originally Posted by Appocomaster

surely they'd have less room to recruit the small players? And if the small players didn't count towards an alliance member limit, how do you define a small player?

Someone below 50% of the universe average score? Just draw a line somewhere and see how it works.

[Appocomaster]

so all the alliance scanner planets etc wouldn't count? Hmm... actually it sounds better than I first thought. I guess you'd have to have some sort of graph to show the distribution of planets between the maximum and minimum values - which could be made from the history part of the pa db if nothing else, I guess - so you can see what sort of % you could mark as a "new player" and then say anyone below that score doesn't count. sounds fair, though obviously the alliances would be wary about spys.

[mist]

ok, take an example. 1up'll do. they start taking people below 50% the universe score. are their members going to be happy about having to use one of their fleet slots to defend someone who's entire fleet wouldn't make any noticable difference to them were they to return the favour? who's not going to be online anyway?

the best that could come out of this would be the small players getting access to decent tools and hc - but which large alliance is going to remove potential targets?

can't see it working. only use would be to let alliances have their scanners in tow

-mist

[Conall]

Originally Posted by Appocomaster

surely they'd have less room to recruit the small players? And if the small players didn't count towards an alliance member limit, how do you define a small player?

IF 'small players" dont count toward the alliance limit then large/mid size alliances would have plenty of room to recruit them. And I defined small players as those with 50% or less of the average PA players score. That just the measure I used, it is arbitrary, but any number could be set. The bottom 25% or smallest 1000 or some other figure. Either way it gives them the opportunity to join larger (read better organized) alliances than they currently can and hopefully learn the game better. As they out grow the limitations the "hosting" alliance can choose to keep them and place them against their cap or cut them loose, by which time they will make a better candidate for mid level alliances. Either way I think it is a benefit to the smaller players and to PA.

And yes there is the problem of larger alliance creating multi accounts to spy, but we have good multi hunting tools now and alliances can take measures to protect themselved to some degree. I think th ebenefits outweigh the cost/risk.

[Gerbie]

Originally Posted by mist

ok, take an example. 1up'll do. they start taking people below 50% the universe score. are their members going to be happy about having to use one of their fleet slots to defend someone who's entire fleet wouldn't make any noticable difference to them were they to return the favour? who's not going to be online anyway?

How about people returning mid-round who want to try the game out and play more serious the next round. And who do not ask to be defended (or only by other small members). And 1up might be a bad example: they currently have no problems with the alliance size limit. Alliances that are in the mid-top10 might be willing to invest in new members that are worth it.

the best that could come out of this would be the small players getting access to decent tools and hc - but which large alliance is going to remove potential targets?

can't see it working. only use would be to let alliances have their scanners in tow

-mist

A tiny planet is not a potential target with the current 40% attack limit.

[Appocomaster]

Originally Posted by mist

ok, take an example. 1up'll do. they start taking people below 50% the universe score. are their members going to be happy about having to use one of their fleet slots to defend someone who's entire fleet wouldn't make any noticable difference to them were they to return the favour? who's not going to be online anyway?

the best that could come out of this would be the small players getting access to decent tools and hc - but which large alliance is going to remove potential targets?

can't see it working. only use would be to let alliances have their scanners in tow

-mist

it's 50% below the average universe score. Or something.
The smaller members would be happy, as they would have somewhere to send their fleets that'd be useful
Obviously if the players turn inactive for a period of time, they'd probably be asked to leave. I doubt many of the large alliances have targets in the bottom quarter or so of the universe, not extensively. The reward would be next round you have an extra player, trained by you.
You might also get a benefit if they're a coder .
I know that several alliances have brought in smaller players from galaxies that they have members in, and there have been some really good active players that have come out of it. It'd just be formalising it and encouraging it more.

[Conall]

Originally Posted by mist

ok, take an example. 1up'll do. they start taking people below 50% the universe score. are their members going to be happy about having to use one of their fleet slots to defend someone who's entire fleet wouldn't make any noticable difference to them were they to return the favour? who's not going to be online anyway?

the best that could come out of this would be the small players getting access to decent tools and hc - but which large alliance is going to remove potential targets?

can't see it working. only use would be to let alliances have their scanners in tow

-mist

It is not likely that (we will use 1up players to stick with your example ) Cheerios or Tek will be defending these guys but rather their smaller cohorts that joined with them, and possibly some smaller 1ups. But they would benefit from the structure, tools, leadership and experience of 1up and that would help them defend each other. Additionally they would learn how to attack, what to attack with etc.

[mist]

connal: what do 1up gain from this?

if small members gave more than they took the large alliances would have some already and you'd not be suggesting ways to get them to take them. if they don't, then why would anyone want them?

-mist

[Conall]

Originally Posted by mist

connal: what do 1up gain from this?

if small members gave more than they took the large alliances would have some already and you'd not be suggesting ways to get them to take them. if they don't, then why would anyone want them?
-mist

Originally Posted by Conall

Although there may need to be an incentive to get the top alliances to take these players into their fold.

You are correct - I haven't yet. I wanted to see if the idea would even float first. But if I give it a bit of thought I can come up with a few ways to incent them.

But, I can say, having done interviews for alliances before, that there are many applicants and you reject some that might pan out because alliances have limited space. In fact some alliances have minimum size requirements that lock out 60% of the universe by tick 400. Not all alliances will want to participate, but some will.

[mist]

i'd have thought the incentives to get alliances involved were the central foundation of the idea?

[Conall]

Not really. First I think many alliances will do it for no other reason than a potential recruiting tool. Second, if there were major flaws - there is no reason to come up with incentives. The focus of the idea is not how to create a windfall for the alliances but how to help smaller players and get more people involved.

[mist]

with a few exception, people are in for themselves. even wakey - champion of the 'little people' - is doing it because he likes doing it/because he hopes it'll result in a mode fun game to play. so if you want the big alliances to help smaller people you need to give them a reason to do it.

[Conall]

Since you are wanting to move on with then incentive issue I take it you have no problem with the initial concept them?

[Appocomaster]

I think there is an incentive for fresh blood and for potential new alliance players. Generally the current reaction for small players is "monitor them and see how they go next round". This way you could get them into the alliance and start teaching them

[wakey]

Conall: Ive notice dyou have this thing about the bottom 25% of the game. Something you need to realise about these bottom 25% is that they are mostly inactives who have no intention of ever being anywhere near active enough to a valued part of this community. A game like this relys on people contributing and no matter how hard you try and persuade these people to contribute most wont budge, hey most of them arent even in an alliance as the cba to apply for one and those who do get bounced around from alliance to alliance as they are useless even for small alliances. Putting them into a top alliance isnt going to change this as its not an alliance problem for their lack of activity, its a problem with themselves.

Anyway what we need to remember is the games always been at its best when theres not only been a strong top 10 BUT also a strong chasing pack. This is something that has been improving, just a couple of rounds the depth was extreamly shallow, we now have a top 10 witha number of alliances battling for the last couple of places in the top 10 and after that we have a fairly resonable top 20 alliances. The depth starts to die a bit after this but it is an improvement. To take it a step further though we need more help for those alliances outside the top 10, they need help building on the quality they all pretty much have at their core and this is something that the bigger alliance simply could help with. Alliances could publish their tools for example for the smaller alliances to take advantage of, they could be around to advise smaller alliances ect ect. I know many might say "Why should they do this?" and simply because its good for the game and anything good for the game will at some point be good for them.

For example i've recently been hearing good things about Sid and co's training of their MO's. So how about some posts from some of these people with some good guides based on the training you give potential MO's which could then be brought to everyones attention and ould prove invaluable for everyone in the game. After all this is something this game has lacked ever since private galaxies came into existance, the old big community that was all mixed up gave us a free flow of information between all players to allow them to better themselves and their alliances, now the communities split into tiny communities based pretty much along alliance lines and the flow of info between these communities is fairly limited and imho thats something which shouldnt be happening and which we can all improve

[Appocomaster]

The training thing was meant to be part of the mentor team, they produced the manual which was uploaded to: http://www.planetarion.com/guidebook.php before they merged with the support team. On the tools front, maybe from the community a few coders could get together, whether or not they're alliance coders, and come up with some open source tools for any alliance to download? Even if it's a basic parser, arbiter (with or without ability to connect with an IRC bot), member list, some sort of point setup thing for attack / defences done by most of the bigger alliances, etc...

(I admit the bottom 25% of planets probably aren't up to developing, but I think that inactive free accounts should be deleted / removed to c200 more often next round than this round)

[mist]

i'm not particularly convinced by the origonal idea. however, i think its biggest failing point is that the alliances wouldn't use it. hence the first thing to 'sort out' seems to be in that direction

-mist

[Appocomaster]

Originally Posted by mist

i'm not particularly convinced by the origonal idea. however, i think its biggest failing point is that the alliances wouldn't use it. hence the first thing to 'sort out' seems to be in that direction

-mist

use what? a guide? tools? ...?

[wakey]

Originally Posted by Appocomaster

The training thing was meant to be part of the mentor team, they produced the manual which was uploaded to: http://www.planetarion.com/guidebook.php before they merged with the support team. On the tools front, maybe from the community a few coders could get together, whether or not they're alliance coders, and come up with some open source tools for any alliance to download? Even if it's a basic parser, arbiter (with or without ability to connect with an IRC bot), member list, some sort of point setup thing for attack / defences done by most of the bigger alliances, etc...

(I admit the bottom 25% of planets probably aren't up to developing, but I think that inactive free accounts should be deleted / removed to c200 more often next round than this round)

Yes I know thats what the mentoring team was supposed to do but as I said at the time making this official always doomed it. Community projects when made official like this are always doomed to fail as too much control is given over them by PATeam and Jolt and it stifles them. You have seen it with the portal, the mentor team went the same way and its why us mods are always fighting tooth and nail to have these forums made any more official than they are. If Jolt had there way these forums would be alot less community focused and alot more controlled when it coems to what people can say on them..

Community projects need room to breath and cant afford to be stiffled by red tape as it just kills them and the situation is made worse when you get all the attention seekers coming out of the woodwork whom arent intrested in helping improve things but just want a title so dont put the same type of effort into it. These type of things should be done for a title or because people are forced to BUT because they want to as thats when they are at their best. I still belive theres some of the old helping spirit in this community and if we can start focusing it such methods to help the community get stronger would have a benifit

[Conall]

Originally Posted by wakey

Conall: Ive notice dyou have this thing about the bottom 25% of the game. Something you need to realise about these bottom 25% is that they are mostly inactives who have no intention of ever being anywhere near active enough to a valued part of this community. A game like this relys on people contributing and no matter how hard you try and persuade these people to contribute most wont budge, hey most of them arent even in an alliance as the cba to apply for one and those who do get bounced around from alliance to alliance as they are useless even for small alliances. Putting them into a top alliance isnt going to change this as its not an alliance problem for their lack of activity, its a problem with themselves.

Wakey - for the most part I agree, the majority of these players will never participate at a level to be of use to any alliance. However, there is a percentage I beleive would. I saw a few this past round that couldnt get into alliances that were any help to them at all because of limitation put on the alliances. Two I know just gave up and quit PA and I have no idea what happened to a third. They were not going to get into any of the alliances I could help them get in, but they did want to join and participate and I think these 3 could have be decent players, they just needed a home. I do know that one of the 3 bounced to 2 or 3 alliances that had no organization, he did not learn anything and they were of little help to him. So while I agree that most won't join the community a fair amount will, and they are more likely to already have friends and gal mates that are in similar situations.

Originally Posted by wakey

Anyway what we need to remember is the games always been at its best when theres not only been a strong top 10 BUT also a strong chasing pack. This is something that has been improving, just a couple of rounds the depth was extreamly shallow, we now have a top 10 witha number of alliances battling for the last couple of places in the top 10 and after that we have a fairly resonable top 20 alliances. The depth starts to die a bit after this but it is an improvement. To take it a step further though we need more help for those alliances outside the top 10, they need help building on the quality they all pretty much have at their core and this is something that the bigger alliance simply could help with. Alliances could publish their tools for example for the smaller alliances to take advantage of, they could be around to advise smaller alliances ect ect. I know many might say "Why should they do this?" and simply because its good for the game and anything good for the game will at some point be good for them.

Exactly, frankly I dont see 1up or Angels or LCH taking many if any of these players, but as you drop down the list of alliances they are likely more willing and in more need of new blood than those above them. I think the biggest impact will be on the alliances 10-25.

It is funny you mention the tools because I had the same idea last night, what if tools were published to allow smaller alliances to use them. Biggest draw backI saw was most people who create these tools won't let them be used as open source and alliances won't trust using the tool of someone in another alliance is hosting them. But I am still working on that in my head.

Originally Posted by wakey

For example i've recently been hearing good things about Sid and co's training of their MO's. So how about some posts from some of these people with some good guides based on the training you give potential MO's which could then be brought to everyones attention and ould prove invaluable for everyone in the game. After all this is something this game has lacked ever since private galaxies came into existance, the old big community that was all mixed up gave us a free flow of information between all players to allow them to better themselves and their alliances, now the communities split into tiny communities based pretty much along alliance lines and the flow of info between these communities is fairly limited and imho thats something which shouldnt be happening and which we can all improve

I have seen a few players out there willing to help like that but they are few and far between. Some are affraid they will hurt their alliances, others don't have the time and others while well meaning and may have the technical skills don't have the skills to teach others well. Again, I keep rolling ideas around in my head as to how to solve that problem.

[mist]

i thought the ely tools were open source nowadays?

-mist

[Conall]

Originally Posted by mist

i'm not particularly convinced by the origonal idea. however, i think its biggest failing point is that the alliances wouldn't use it. hence the first thing to 'sort out' seems to be in that direction

-mist

Well I disagree. The first thing is to find a solution that works, incentives are generally easy to develop.

So a couple quick ideas a s incentives.
1. The "developmental" players score counts toward an alliances over all score. Even in the top 10 a few million points would have changed placement od a few alliances. Not to mention the impact on the 10-25 group. 10 dev players with average socre of 500K is 5 mill - changes alot of things in rankings.

2. For every 5 "developmental" player an alliance has, their max cap for larger players is raised by 1 to a max of 10 above the cap. This will have may have little advantage to the top 5 or 10 but 10-25 it could make a big difference. And I am not even sure it would help top 10 allianices the more I think about it.

3. Recruiting tool for the alliance

4. Plus 2 travel to and from "development" players. Big incentive to let them in an alliance. 200 BS isnt much but with an additional tick to get them there, could make the difference.

Thats a few quick ideas off the top of my head.

[Conall]

Originally Posted by mist

i thought the ely tools were open source nowadays?

-mist

I know Pilkara's code was opened (not sure the bcalc was though).

But I havent seen anything like arbiters, MO/DC Tools, Intel engines, PA customized BOT being released. Perhpas they have been and I missed it tho.

[mist]

at least two of those make bot planets hugely inviting

[Conall]

yeah?

[Appocomaster]

if theres a limit players would be small enough it wouldnt matter.
you could do it a different way, like anything 1/4 or less of the average score of the alliance?

[mist]

if they're too small to make a difference the alliances won't want them. if they're not then they can make a difference. your argument is self defeating

-mist

[Conall]

Mist - you are forgetting the cap alliance have - that changes the whole picture.

Clearly you don't like the idea, I am not sure why because I haven't seen a solid arguement as to specifically why it won't work from you yet. Only comments that it won't work.

If you are happy with the status quo of shrinking player base great, but some of us are not and are trying to propose some ideas that might reverse that trend. I am not saying every idea that comes up here is good, but so far all the post from you have been negative and not a word on HOW to make it work.Perhaps it won't work, but as much as you post on these forums I would assume you have some input that might be beneficial. I would find it refreshing to hear some ideas from you.

[mist]

i rarely post ideas anymore, as most of my thoughts arn't acceptable to the mainstream and get shouted down as being 'not planetarion'.

as i keep saying, i have no problem with the concept of putting smaller planets in large alliances. quite the contrary, i think it would be a good way to get people integrated in to the game. however, as i keep saying, i don't think it's possible to do because i don't think the alliances you want to aim this at will take them.

-mist

[Kal]

I personally agree with mist and don;t see this working - why would a big planet want a waste a valuable fleet defending a tiny planet

[Gerbie]

It depends on who you want to aim this at. Most alliances defend their members. All their members.

[Kal]

Originally Posted by Gerbie

It depends on who you want to aim this at. Most alliances defend their members. All their members.

yes but it is still a waste of a fleet - its better to defend small with small and big with big. So if the is a significant size differential between the current members and the new members under this scheme it will lead to at the very least defence prioritisation for current members.

[Judge]

What happens when the "small players" who were recruited as such, grow significantly so that they are no longer "small" by the original crirea (whatever it is/was)?

Do they simply loose the membership, or does the alliance have to kick them or do they have a cap placed on their growth ?

seems to me a number of holes can be found.

[Kal]

this won;t work, but the intentions were good - declined