|
|
26 Sep 2006, 20:42
|
#1
|
Up The Hatters!
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Kenilworth Road
Posts: 3,012
|
Alliance size
I see not advantages in having a all 80 limit for the game atm.
The importancy of giving the smaller alliances atleast some backup is important for the game and for the game's survival. With the limit to 80 players that means that the bigger alliances always will have a spot up for anyone who might want to change and it makes it even harder for the smaller alliances to keep a relativly stable core of players.
I just wonder what was the reasons for having such a high limit, and what other smaller alliances HC's thinks of this limit.
__________________
Planetarion veteran
|
|
|
26 Sep 2006, 20:54
|
#2
|
CRASHING BEATS 'N FANTASY
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Cold Country.
Posts: 1,912
|
Re: Alliance size
New alliance size just implies that having more than 70 members is actually crap unless those are the usual inactive scanners.
__________________
Ią! Ią! Munin F'tagn! - [*scendancy]
|
|
|
26 Sep 2006, 20:56
|
#3
|
Registered User
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Norway
Posts: 367
|
Re: Alliance size
so why increase the size, when there are not many alliance's who are full anyways.
Sounds like a bether idea to make the limit lower
__________________
NewDawn - Soaring where angels fear to fly
|
|
|
26 Sep 2006, 20:57
|
#4
|
Up The Hatters!
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Kenilworth Road
Posts: 3,012
|
Re: Alliance size
But the no limit on the top 5 alliances allows for a heavy recruitment run on smaller alliances and I think that might lead to alot of alliances being stripped for players. It also makes it starting a new alliance even more difficult than before. I thought that the game wanted something new instead of returning to old habits.. Strip recruiting alliances isnt the right way to go, but with this new alliance limit you will probably see elements of this going on.
I think that the game benefits from having several more small communities around instead of huddling up in larger alliances...
__________________
Planetarion veteran
|
|
|
26 Sep 2006, 22:11
|
#5
|
Hamster
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Crewe, England
Posts: 3,606
|
Re: Alliance size
It does seem extreamly excess. The extra people the top5 alone can now take is at a point where they alone can pretty much wipe out a core of one of the smaller alliances. And while obviously the top5 wont all recruit from one alliance the knock on effect will be one where those at the bottom of the food chain find themselves losing out as the top tier recruit from the second tier alliances, the second tier replace their losses with the people from the third tier ect ect.
We were just starting to get a game where the depth of alliances was improving and a game where it wasnt just a thankless task taking trying to bring new people through as you could do that while still achieving something but now i worry that we are going back to the post p2p pre pax days where any alliance wanting to do their bit for the community is driven out as its not worth the effort
__________________
Wakey
PD and Suggestions Moderator
Co-founder of [F-Crew]
The Farnborough Crew
Cos anything else is just an alliance
Join our public channel at #f-crew
|
|
|
27 Sep 2006, 20:25
|
#6
|
of The Empire of Krom
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 3
|
Re: Alliance size
Larger alliance limits means inevitably fewer alliances, as the vast majority want to be in a successful organisation. Fewer alliances equals less variety, and cannot help the growth of this game. I can see no advantage to the increased alliance limits, and i do hope it is amended.
|
|
|
27 Sep 2006, 20:46
|
#7
|
snadwich fetcher
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: ONE LOVE
Posts: 660
|
Re: Alliance size
I've always advocated a smaller alliance limit and I see no reason for that position to change.
Smaller alliances forces the skilled/organized players to split up - creating a significantly more diverse universe to play around in.
__________________
Nude On!
|
|
|
27 Sep 2006, 20:52
|
#8
|
ROCKing around the world
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: UK
Posts: 7
|
Re: Alliance size
I think an alliance limit of 80 for all alliances is a very bad idea. Why? because the smaller alliances will see more members leaving to join the bigger allies or not joining them in the first place (smaller alliances struggle to find enough 'core' members anyhow). So this as I see it would reduce the number of alliances that are able to play..etc
So basically with this limit of 80 you will see the already/bigger alliances becomming even more powerful - smaller alliances unable to support themselves; therfore less alliances, less diversity/competion amoung the lower ranks leading eventually less people playing. Now we don't want that (neither does jolt), so why not go back to something like we had last round with a cap on the top 5 / 10 allies?
__________________
One DEADLY ROCKer & Proud
#ROCK
|
|
|
27 Sep 2006, 21:14
|
#9
|
Welsh palestinian!
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Aberystwyth
Posts: 148
|
Re: Alliance size
The bigger the allaince limit the more concentrated the better players are, this just makes the game boring for new and existing players not in the top5 allys who will just own everyone else, this will just drive them away from the game or force them to join these allys. An alternative for smaller allys is to merge to even try to match the score or even member count of the top5 allys, but the majority wont want to do this.
Many people have said there is not enough players in the game, and this is just going to make it worse.
__________________
Orbit - Vision - xVx - Newdawn - p3nguins - Apprime - Zebra Punch
|
|
|
27 Sep 2006, 21:20
|
#10
|
deserves a medal
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 1,211
|
Re: Alliance size
We're gonna own everyone else? Yay \o/
__________________
"I have with me two gods, Persuasion and Compulsion."
|
|
|
27 Sep 2006, 21:20
|
#11
|
snadwich fetcher
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: ONE LOVE
Posts: 660
|
Re: Alliance size
Is there some PA-Team justification for increasing the Alliance limit when the member base is decreasing?
(edit: forgot 'the')
__________________
Nude On!
Last edited by Barrow|Pony; 27 Sep 2006 at 21:29.
|
|
|
27 Sep 2006, 22:19
|
#12
|
CRASHING BEATS 'N FANTASY
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Cold Country.
Posts: 1,912
|
Re: Alliance size
That is a good question barrow. The old alliance limits actually were introduced to counter certain effects like top alliances draining all active people in pa. And now that we see a lot of alliances returning / being established they revert it? For what reason? Just to have another entry in the changelog?
__________________
Ią! Ią! Munin F'tagn! - [*scendancy]
|
|
|
27 Sep 2006, 22:42
|
#13
|
Bored
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: A Persistant Universe
Posts: 1,583
|
Re: Alliance size
They increased alliance limits... thats insane.
__________________
Germania
Fury
Mercury & Solace
Conspiracy Theory, Wrath, 1up, ICD, Eclipse
|
|
|
27 Sep 2006, 22:44
|
#14
|
PA Team
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 7,449
|
Re: Alliance size
What I find interesting is that on the Alliance forums, containing alliance HC (of which Kargool was one before he got himself replaced) there was a thread discussing this and limit dropping to 80, and in the 6 weeks the suggestion has been there we've not had any major disagreements (as many for upping the limit as dropping it).
I made a PUBLIC thread which is half way down this page and was last posted on 4 days ago: http://pirate.planetarion.com/showthread.php?t=192025
As many people called for no limit or said the limit was about ok as anything else - some asked that I dropped the "70" limit to 65 or so, but I don't view that as the important one as it doesn't affect the total number of members.
Why all these complaints NOW when it was clear over a month ago what the situation was?
__________________
r8-10 RaH r10.5-12 MISTU
|
|
|
27 Sep 2006, 22:51
|
#15
|
Banned
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Further to the right
Posts: 19,441
|
Re: Alliance size
People only make noise when things don't go their way dear.
__________________
Some might ask what good is life without purpose but I'm anticipating a good lunch.
|
|
|
27 Sep 2006, 22:59
|
#16
|
CRASHING BEATS 'N FANTASY
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Cold Country.
Posts: 1,912
|
Re: Alliance size
Quote:
Originally Posted by Appocomaster
Why all these complaints NOW when it was clear over a month ago what the situation was?
|
The thread you mentioned can hardly be taken as a justification, can it? About 20 people, most of them clueless about what their suggestions would actually cause, discussing the issue.
Stop trying to catering the lemmings (no, I don't mean hirr ) and use your own brain for once. Please. YOU run the game. You can ask for input on your ideas but NEVER, and let me repeat that, NEVER (no,not even in a million lightyears) justify any change with "but the majority wanted it". You may as well jump off a cliff then, just because most people may suggest it.
Also, what Jonny said. Those satisfied with the system never speak. And if I recall correctly a lot of people were fed up with constant alliance size changes anyway, so why start another thread on that when most do not care about it anymore?
__________________
Ią! Ią! Munin F'tagn! - [*scendancy]
|
|
|
27 Sep 2006, 23:08
|
#17
|
Hamster
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Crewe, England
Posts: 3,606
|
Re: Alliance size
Quote:
Originally Posted by Appocomaster
What I find interesting is that on the Alliance forums, containing alliance HC (of which Kargool was one before he got himself replaced) there was a thread discussing this and limit dropping to 80, and in the 6 weeks the suggestion has been there we've not had any major disagreements (as many for upping the limit as dropping it).
I made a PUBLIC thread which is half way down this page and was last posted on 4 days ago: http://pirate.planetarion.com/showthread.php?t=192025
As many people called for no limit or said the limit was about ok as anything else - some asked that I dropped the "70" limit to 65 or so, but I don't view that as the important one as it doesn't affect the total number of members.
Why all these complaints NOW when it was clear over a month ago what the situation was?
|
Perhaps its because people assumed some kind of intelligence to be shown, we have a game that isn't growing its memberbase but which due to the focus the last few rounds has seen the depth and quality of alliances increase significantly giving an improved way into the game for new players. An idea being floating to significantly raise the alliance limit hence doesn't seem like something that's actually serious
It might also be because the people it will truly effect feel that their views aren't important or simply don't think it effects them (after all an alliance expecting 30 man alliance can sit there before a round and go "I'm no where near the limit how does that effect me.
Also the alliance forum has us being ALLIANCE REPS. Kargool was there as a rep for Omen and an increase in the limit probably helps them and with that hat on its could be considered to be his duty to support things that help that alliance. This post since then was done when he wasn't in that position and he posted as a player who isnt speaking for an alliance but as an individual player
__________________
Wakey
PD and Suggestions Moderator
Co-founder of [F-Crew]
The Farnborough Crew
Cos anything else is just an alliance
Join our public channel at #f-crew
|
|
|
28 Sep 2006, 01:39
|
#18
|
Up The Hatters!
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Kenilworth Road
Posts: 3,012
|
Re: Alliance size
Quote:
Originally Posted by wakey
Also the alliance forum has us being ALLIANCE REPS. Kargool was there as a rep for Omen and an increase in the limit probably helps them and with that hat on its could be considered to be his duty to support things that help that alliance. This post since then was done when he wasn't in that position and he posted as a player who isnt speaking for an alliance but as an individual player
|
I had myself removed from the alliance HC forums long before round 18 started.
To Appoco:
I honestly didnt think that the alliance size discussion was something to be taken seriously. There are so many threads in PD and if people should by now assume that things that are disputed (yes, the alliance limit thread is highly disputed if you read it Appoco) will be implemented will I be looking forward to the PDS systems return and the return of the holy cargoship.
I actually only see two people openly suggesting an 80 members limit and I dont really see that many coming with viable arguments for upping the memberlimit and removing the block on top 5 alliances. May I suggest that in the future the PA-Crew makes a list of changes they want to do (2-3 weeks before roundstart), so that people can discuss it, the PA-Crew can get the input they need and want, and that the community can expect some regularity within the given pre round preperations. Everything always gets so mixed and so more or less casually put out to the players and I really think that PA needs some consistency to make it work.
And come on, be a smart fella and see that the 80 members alliancelimit is a bad idea so that I dont have to come back to Planetarion after the round to tell you how bad of an idea it was
__________________
Planetarion veteran
|
|
|
28 Sep 2006, 11:51
|
#19
|
Registered User
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 260
|
Re: Alliance size
The perfect solution would be to actually make a game as interesting and exciting as PA used to be, make it free, finance it by advertisement and remove the alliance limits.
__________________
(XelNaga) Everybody please vote for Planetarion at http://www.mpogd.com !!!! We are second, we have to get first place back!
(SethMace) omg 2nd!!!
(SethMace) we must block with 3rd to take them down!!!11
(Marneus) also the damn thing aint always right 4 + 79 = i type 81 and it kicked me back to the login again grrr
|
|
|
28 Sep 2006, 12:29
|
#20
|
Good Son
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Finland
Posts: 3,991
|
Re: Alliance size
Quote:
Originally Posted by wakey
Also the alliance forum has us being ALLIANCE REPS. Kargool was there as a rep for Omen and an increase in the limit probably helps them and with that hat on its could be considered to be his duty to support things that help that alliance.
|
Now, mind you, I didn't participate in the conversation regarding alliance limits, and I did not issue any statements on the thread regarding it. rain has not been a high commander of the Omen alliance since r17, and the fact that he still probably has access there isn't because he'd be an Omen representative, but because the (lack of) people handling the area is simply incompetent to remove him. It took me ages to get him swapped away from #alliances too. And I was actively working on it. There has been no propaganda whatsoever from the Omen side in order to heighten the alliance limits.
__________________
"Oh, wretched race of a day, children of chance and misery, why do ye compel me to say to you what it were most expedient for you not to hear? What is best of all is for ever beyond your reach: not to be born, not to be, to be nothing. The second best for you, however, is soon to die". Silenus, tutor to Dionysos, speaking to King Midas.
|
|
|
28 Sep 2006, 16:59
|
#21
|
Registered User
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 846
|
Re: Alliance size
Quote:
Originally Posted by Appocomaster
Why all these complaints NOW when it was clear over a month ago what the situation was?
|
well you could have said it 2 years ago it wasnt actual back then and not then you made that crap tread.
why not up it to 200 ppl while youre at it? same shit really.
make the limit 50-60 or something and more ppl are happy
|
|
|
28 Sep 2006, 19:32
|
#22
|
snadwich fetcher
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: ONE LOVE
Posts: 660
|
Re: Alliance size
I don't think it is terrifically productive to bicker about why feedback came when and where it did. I know I've got reasons that apply to me, but who gives a shit?
The question at hand revolves around an appropriate alliance member limit. The consensus seems to be that 80 is too big and if we're to accept this as paying members, I think it's not unreasonable that we understand the reasoning behind choosing 80 as opposed to say...50.
Personally, I think setting alliances at 25-40 would do wonders for the game - you'd split up the effective memberships, making more potential contenders with a more diverse universe to meddle about in. Also increase options for recruitment into alliances with actual experience and dedication.
But, let's discuss it instead of throw mud, eh.
__________________
Nude On!
|
|
|
28 Sep 2006, 19:40
|
#23
|
.
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 3,382
|
Re: Alliance size
no, **** you and your goddam "logic", we don't need it here at planetarion
|
|
|
28 Sep 2006, 19:41
|
#24
|
snadwich fetcher
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: ONE LOVE
Posts: 660
|
Re: Alliance size
baby steps. baby steps.
__________________
Nude On!
|
|
|
28 Sep 2006, 22:45
|
#25
|
ToF FTW!
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Amsterdam, NL
Posts: 18
|
Re: Alliance size
Go ahead please.
ToF is perfectly ok with 80 members limit.
Strength in numbers
__________________
-=Tides of Fire=-
|
|
|
28 Sep 2006, 23:48
|
#26
|
SiNķng is a lifestyle
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Woodenshoeland
Posts: 241
|
Re: Alliance size
I'm don't have acces to that part of the forum either. Otherwise you would have seen me discussing the alliancesizes. As everyone in #alliances already knows I'm a strong advocate of fixed alliances sizes and of lowering the limit to 50 players.
And to shut-up my adversaries on beforehand, yes that is in the best interest of my alliance SiN.
What I do find odd for a change is that even Wakey wants a lower size, where I recall him as one of the biggest supporters of a higher limit. Aswell as some xVx HC's, just to make the list complete.
__________________
Cloggystyle should be one of the SiNs
Now serving the DarkLords
|
|
|
29 Sep 2006, 00:50
|
#27
|
Flame me...
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Ohio, USA
Posts: 152
|
Re: Alliance size
50 seems a good number to me. It will allow for better competition, from more sources.
__________________
r1: [Ark]HC
r2: [Ark]-[Tuba]
r3: [Tuba]
r4: [Tuba]HC
r11: [SiN]
r12: [SiN]HC
r13: [eX]
r19: [TGV]
r20: Destiny
r21: What? Are you kidding?
Ooooomph! Come back Noah02!
|
|
|
29 Sep 2006, 17:05
|
#28
|
Hamster
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Crewe, England
Posts: 3,606
|
Re: Alliance size
Quote:
Originally Posted by Clogg
What I do find odd for a change is that even Wakey wants a lower size, where I recall him as one of the biggest supporters of a higher limit. Aswell as some xVx HC's, just to make the list complete.
|
I have never supported a higher limit across the board. What I have and still do support is a dynamic limit. Top alliances are obviously the most appealing alliances for any player and the more room they have to take players the more of the quality they monoplolise. A dynamic limit restricts the numbers that the top alliances can have, spreads the quality out more and allows alliances to offset their lower quality a bit with a few more members. Its allows mismatched alliances to compete on a slightly more level playing field this produces greater depth and more compitition
__________________
Wakey
PD and Suggestions Moderator
Co-founder of [F-Crew]
The Farnborough Crew
Cos anything else is just an alliance
Join our public channel at #f-crew
|
|
|
29 Sep 2006, 17:14
|
#29
|
Registered User
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: England - Kinda near Liverpool
Posts: 6
|
Re: Alliance size
As part of a smaller alliance i would also welcome a limit of around 50 members, that way we would be able to compete more.
Over the last 3 rounds we have struggled to attract more than 40 members never mind 80, and there is a catch 22 effect that comes with this, as we find it hard to climb the ranking without a larger member base but without climbing the ranking we will never create a member base equal to that of a top 5 alliance.
This is really discouraging to smaller alliances and does make us think WHY BOTHER?? And i think you'd all argee that without the smaller alliances playing their part, PA would loose some of its appeal?
Reguarding 'what the majority say' i can see why they are listened to. But it does need to be noted that there are thousands of people just like myself that never get involved in the forum discusions as we don't feel qualified to put our thoughts forward, and hence get our needs overlooked.
|
|
|
29 Sep 2006, 18:31
|
#30
|
snadwich fetcher
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: ONE LOVE
Posts: 660
|
Re: Alliance size
Quote:
Originally Posted by Barrow|Pony
Is there some PA-Team justification for increasing the Alliance limit when the member base is decreasing?
|
yes? no?
__________________
Nude On!
|
|
|
29 Sep 2006, 18:36
|
#31
|
CRASHING BEATS 'N FANTASY
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Cold Country.
Posts: 1,912
|
Re: Alliance size
Quote:
Originally Posted by Barrow|Pony
yes? no?
|
You mean apart from "because a small non-representative poll says so"?
__________________
Ią! Ią! Munin F'tagn! - [*scendancy]
|
|
|
29 Sep 2006, 18:46
|
#32
|
snadwich fetcher
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: ONE LOVE
Posts: 660
|
Re: Alliance size
Quote:
Originally Posted by Heartless
You mean apart from "because a small non-representative poll says so"?
|
I'm not picky. :/
in addition - there is an entire department of PA team devoted to dealing with and responding to community complaints. don't worry guys - i'm sure we'll get this fixed.
__________________
Nude On!
Last edited by Barrow|Pony; 29 Sep 2006 at 20:43.
|
|
|
1 Oct 2006, 10:13
|
#33
|
thinking, that's all.
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 867
|
Re: Alliance size
The only mistake you can really make with alliance limits (apart from having them at all!) is changing them dramatically one round to the next.
Maybe i'm being shortsighted.. there's benefits to be had too! Right?
__________________
[1up], Ascendancy Events Organiser & eXilition HC
|
|
|
1 Oct 2006, 13:12
|
#34
|
Dirte
Join Date: Apr 2002
Posts: 5,573
|
Re: Alliance size
How many players are there left? Now compare that number to the amount of good officers left.
If the smaller alliances are afraid that theire members will leave in a hurry, why not just get better instead of complaining?
|
|
|
1 Oct 2006, 13:50
|
#35
|
[TGV]
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Australia
Posts: 116
|
Re: Alliance size
bigger limit = bigger loss to planetarion on a whole
it makes the smaller allies crappy, makes peoples love for the game die, and then there will just be a 10 of alliances all with 80 players and no one else!
__________________
Round 13 - Coven - Peon
Round 14 - Coven - Officer
Round 15 - TGV - Officer
Round 16 - No PA
Round 17 - TGV - Officer
Round 18 - Omen - Officer
Round 19 - TGV - HC
Round 20 - TGV - Officer
Round 21 - TGV - Officer
Round 22 - 42 - No PA
Round 43 - TGV - Peon
|
|
|
1 Oct 2006, 16:55
|
#36
|
CRASHING BEATS 'N FANTASY
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Cold Country.
Posts: 1,912
|
Re: Alliance size
Quote:
Originally Posted by From the current news on portal
After the reaction as to how high the alliance limit was, the number of members counting towards the alliance score has been changed from the top 70 to the top 60. The maximum number of members in the alliance remains at 80.
|
Does PA Team actually realize that the 70 was not the problem but merely the total of having 80 players?
__________________
Ią! Ią! Munin F'tagn! - [*scendancy]
|
|
|
1 Oct 2006, 17:06
|
#37
|
Bline
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Texas, US
Posts: 233
|
Re: Alliance size
Quote:
Originally Posted by Heartless
Does PA Team actually realize that the 70 was not the problem but merely the total of having 80 players?
|
omg im agreeing with heartless.
The Alliance limit size meant nothing in the end as tof showed us with there top 5 spot
|
|
|
1 Oct 2006, 17:13
|
#38
|
snadwich fetcher
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: ONE LOVE
Posts: 660
|
Re: Alliance size
This Solution Does Not Address The Problem.
additional problem: the no-all-caps feature on this forum.
__________________
Nude On!
|
|
|
1 Oct 2006, 17:15
|
#39
|
[Vision]
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: The Netherlands
Posts: 897
|
Re: Alliance size
I doubt it :/.
Anyway as i said on #planetarion. It doesn't really change anything to the setup. What matters for most alliances is the amount of ppl they can recruit to help them out as alliance, whether they would count to the total alliance score or not initially doesn't matter as all other alliances have exactly the same problem. If they have the 60 score-counting members there is no real reason f or them not to recruit up to 80.
At worst they have 20 dead-weight planets in their tag, at best they recruited 20 top planets who win them the round. It just provides a larger buffer for them to exchange crap players with good ones without it affecting the score alot.
Also, the old problem (of recruiting big planets from smaller alliances) that was somewhat fixed last round, by having the score gained while being in a alliance not counting when joining another, is now back. Last round it might have been more profitable to keep spots open for smaller planets who might gain score easier (XP & growth), but now there is a nice buffer of 20 that can be used for things like that. You can recruit a planet from anywhere and any size to assist your alliance, it won't drag the average down and at the same time adds a very nice extra value that doesn't show for the outside.
__________________
[Vision] in a lost dream, contributing to The 5th Element at present
|
|
|
1 Oct 2006, 17:30
|
#40
|
Hamster
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Crewe, England
Posts: 3,606
|
Re: Alliance size
Quote:
Originally Posted by Heartless
Does PA Team actually realize that the 70 was not the problem but merely the total of having 80 players?
|
I also personally believe the change makes things even worse. I mentioned to Appoc that imho a system where only xx amount of people count towards the score is not really compatible with a system where only the score you gain in an alliance counts.
Poaching a player from another alliance last round meant that while you may get another active player it didn't add much to your score and dragged your average down. Seeing as alliances are often very possessive of their average score it gave a penalty for recruiting from other alliances. This actually resulted in a fairly noticeable reduction in 'poaching' which was a good thing as it meant less destabilising of alliances midround.
Now the first system gave alliances a way out of the problem, the newly recruited players would give no score but at the same time wouldn't count towards the score so wouldn't effect the average. This means there's little issue with recruiting from other alliances as if they do well they will gain enough score to be in the counting part of the alliance but of they don't then you haven't lost anything. Now obviously with the reduction on the counting being reduced but the total remaining the same you give even more scope to do it
__________________
Wakey
PD and Suggestions Moderator
Co-founder of [F-Crew]
The Farnborough Crew
Cos anything else is just an alliance
Join our public channel at #f-crew
|
|
|
1 Oct 2006, 17:39
|
#41
|
:alpha:
Join Date: May 2002
Location: London, UK
Posts: 7,871
|
Re: Alliance size
Quote:
Originally Posted by Barrow|Pony
additional problem: the no-all-caps feature on this forum.
|
WHAT NO-ALL-CAPS FEATURE ON THE FORUM?
__________________
"There is no I in team, but there are two in anal fisting"
|
|
|
1 Oct 2006, 18:36
|
#42
|
[Vision]
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: The Netherlands
Posts: 897
|
Re: Alliance size
On the current setup for alliance limits (60 score counting members, 80 as max members in tag) Night-Sky had the following idea:
Stick to it like it is. But instead of allowing anyone to be recruited within the 60-80 members range, only allow recruitment for planets that are (for example) 75% under the alliance its average. This would allow for new players to be recruited as trainie by top alliances without it damaging their average or anything. To avoid abuse early on (with planet scores being so close) the 60-80 membercount range could be blocked untill tick 500.
__________________
[Vision] in a lost dream, contributing to The 5th Element at present
|
|
|
1 Oct 2006, 18:51
|
#43
|
Hamster
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Crewe, England
Posts: 3,606
|
Re: Alliance size
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wandows
On the current setup for alliance limits (60 score counting members, 80 as max members in tag) Night-Sky had the following idea:
Stick to it like it is. But instead of allowing anyone to be recruited within the 60-80 members range, only allow recruitment for planets that are (for example) 75% under the alliance its average. This would allow for new players to be recruited as trainie by top alliances without it damaging their average or anything. To avoid abuse early on (with planet scores being so close) the 60-80 membercount range could be blocked untill tick 500.
|
An alliance like Hidden Agenda could have major problems under such a system though. Their exceeded 60 members but alot of their members were low ranked new players and thus their average was pretty low. So while a top alliance could probably recruit some fairly good players who were under 75% their average what kind of players would HA be able to recruit at 75% of their average?
__________________
Wakey
PD and Suggestions Moderator
Co-founder of [F-Crew]
The Farnborough Crew
Cos anything else is just an alliance
Join our public channel at #f-crew
|
|
|
3 Oct 2006, 11:25
|
#44
|
Orbit HC
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 184
|
Re: Alliance size
We need to reduce alliance size, not increase it.
|
|
|
3 Oct 2006, 12:12
|
#45
|
Up The Hatters!
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Kenilworth Road
Posts: 3,012
|
Re: Alliance size
Originally Posted by From the current news on portal
After the reaction as to how high the alliance limit was, the number of members counting towards the alliance score has been changed from the top 70 to the top 60. The maximum number of members in the alliance remains at 80.
---------
Oh dear.. Here I was being all constructive and open about why the new alliancelimit was a flawed decision and then they go and fix it by not fixing the main problem. This is like building a new house while the fire is still ablaze in the old one...
__________________
Planetarion veteran
|
|
|
3 Oct 2006, 13:15
|
#46
|
Orbit HC
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 184
|
Re: Alliance size
It worked for London...
|
|
|
3 Oct 2006, 15:15
|
#47
|
Bline
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Texas, US
Posts: 233
|
Re: Alliance size
id still like to see alliance sizes reduced further to make for more interesting and heated alliance battles
|
|
|
3 Oct 2006, 17:02
|
#48
|
aka Night-Sky - xVx HC
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: somewhere out there
Posts: 116
|
Re: Alliance size
what a bulls.. as always..
A: i understand that smaller alliances got problems with the alliancelimit..
but.. imo.. to every player it should be possible to join one alliance..
no matter how big or small..
my idea opens it up that larger alliances.. got to be more friendly to the
new guy in the game..
B: i already tought that a small alliance like orbit/bline/boss whatever
would respond in this way.. but u know.. ur only small cose..
a: maybe u dont putt enough effort in it..
b: not picky enough with letting ppl in
c: no dedication
C: and pilgrim the alliances battles.. are always there and there always
there and there always interesting.. it got nothing to do with size..
but with the choice of a command team to go for it..
so it got to do with courage, and not with alliance size
D: smaller alliances lead to spilitting up in differnt tags of the big ones..
and u honestly think.. the would not work togheter ?
infact u will see more blockforming..
i play this game now for 6yr's an i saw a lot of things..
this would be my conclusion of what would happen...
and i geuss.. the hc's and other players.. that play for that time aswell.
agree.. wich exeption of wakey ofc.. but he never agrees on me with anything
__________________
A Proud Tribute Member
past alliances :
r 01 - r 02 none
r 03 - r 04 TFD / ToT
r 05 - r 10,5 WP
r 11 LCH
r 12 - 90 Vision / xVx
r 91 - 100 Wave Zero / Syndicate
present alliances :
Tribute
since mid round 101
|
|
|
3 Oct 2006, 18:06
|
#49
|
Up The Hatters!
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Kenilworth Road
Posts: 3,012
|
Re: Alliance size
Quote:
Originally Posted by NRG-izer
what a bulls.. as always..
A: i understand that smaller alliances got problems with the alliancelimit..
but.. imo.. to every player it should be possible to join one alliance..
no matter how big or small..
my idea opens it up that larger alliances.. got to be more friendly to the
new guy in the game..
B: i already tought that a small alliance like orbit/bline/boss whatever
would respond in this way.. but u know.. ur only small cose..
a: maybe u dont putt enough effort in it..
b: not picky enough with letting ppl in
c: no dedication
C: and pilgrim the alliances battles.. are always there and there always
there and there always interesting.. it got nothing to do with size..
but with the choice of a command team to go for it..
so it got to do with courage, and not with alliance size
D: smaller alliances lead to spilitting up in differnt tags of the big ones..
and u honestly think.. the would not work togheter ?
infact u will see more blockforming..
i play this game now for 6yr's an i saw a lot of things..
this would be my conclusion of what would happen...
and i geuss.. the hc's and other players.. that play for that time aswell.
agree.. wich exeption of wakey ofc.. but he never agrees on me with anything
|
Can I ask you a simple question: By the limiting of alliances that has worked the last few rounds have you not seen:
A) a round that has the top20 looked alot closer in score (if we disregard the top alliance)
B) Has it not been alot more fun to see more alliances step up and suprise and entertain?
C) Doesnt the possibility of having more alliances to choose from appeal more to the players than to be just another player in an alliance with 80 members?
D) Isnt the lack of options atm being one of the biggest issues with PA?
I've played a few rounds myself and I predict we will see a gap between the top and the lower ranks alot higher than before, this will eventually make people who plays for a lower ranked alliance feel more or less unimportant for the game itself and will make them play alot less active. You gotta see the whole picture.
But I'll shut up now and not care, the pa team wont change their mind on this horrendus decision and well, lets just say im happy I quit when I did.
__________________
Planetarion veteran
|
|
|
3 Oct 2006, 18:39
|
#50
|
[Vision]
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: The Netherlands
Posts: 897
|
Re: Alliance size
Quote:
Originally Posted by wakey
So while a top alliance could probably recruit some fairly good players who were under 75% their average what kind of players would HA be able to recruit at 75% of their average?
|
I'm sorry, but it seems you missed the word 'example' in my post. I merely pointed out a way of doing this. It can easily be linked to alliance rankings, or be based on alliance planet average vs universe planet average. It would become a slightly more exotic function, but allow for the smaller alliances to still take in decent players if you so wish. (btw you're free to comment, but its not hard to propose a different formula to the example i posted instead of just saying it won't work out for lower ranked alliances).
__________________
[Vision] in a lost dream, contributing to The 5th Element at present
|
|
|
|
All times are GMT +1. The time now is 18:38.
| |