|
|
3 Jul 2014, 10:00
|
#501
|
Inquisitor
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: England
Posts: 2,207
|
Re: R57 gossip thread
Quote:
Originally Posted by Krypton
Confirmed Cowards
|
We're confirmed cowards because we fought back against you? Or is this due to the fact other alliances hit you as well as Spore?
I'll say for the record I never asked ND to hit you. My presumption (as I do not speak for ND) is that they saw what was happening with Spore and wanting to get in on it and have been fairly close to Spore through the round.
It's not my role or business to really do p3nguins politics for them. I do politics for Spore and if this means the politics bring up unfavourable outcomes for hostiles, so be it. Why would I do anything politically to help out a hostile alliance to mine?
Even if we discount p3nguins as being hostile, the question remains. It's YOUR job to do politics for your own alliance, not mine.
__________________
----------
That uniform you're wearing
So hot I cant stop staring.
Zhil
[Spore] Executive
[1up]
[Fury]
Inquisitorial Lord Protector of His Emperor's Glorius Empire
[20:19:04] <mazzelaar> I have to say a big up to Zhil - without those 8 def calls you covered we would've been screwed. | r12 End Ceremony
|
|
|
3 Jul 2014, 10:08
|
#502
|
a bucket
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Chatham, UK
Posts: 1,073
|
Re: R57 gossip thread
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zh|l
My presumption (as I do not speak for ND) is that they saw what was happening with Spore and wanting to get in on it and have been fairly close to Spore through the round.
|
It seems unlikely that an alliance would drop a nap and attack its previously napped alliance simply because they could see that alliance was likely to be beaten by another couple of alliances. Is this not entirely what NAPs are supposed to prevent? If you do this to someone you put yourself at risk of others thinking they can do the same to you. So I think there must have been more reason than you state.
And while I dont agree with the namecalling I am pretty sure the cowards related to having other alliances hit us too. As I noted though not having multiple alliances hit us would have made several of your reasons for hitting us irrelevant and wrong; it would not be rational to fight us one on one, and there would be little chance of gains in ranks (while putting your main number 1 planet contender seriously at risk).
As previously stated you were not simply 'fighting back' as we were not intentionally hostile.
__________________
Proud to have been TGV!
aargh! died in Jenova! | idled in ROCK | disappointed in Audentes | been Roguish | p-p-previously a p-p-p3nguin
Ascendancy
Otterly an Otter.
|
|
|
3 Jul 2014, 10:09
|
#503
|
Inquisitor
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: England
Posts: 2,207
|
Re: R57 gossip thread
Quote:
Originally Posted by booji
The first (a) may well be correct but that does not mean that p3n were intentionally hostile towards spore. At the time we were almost the only major alliance gal raiding and as a xan alliance we were sending out a lot of attack fleets (there were times where we were allowed to 3 fleet) so I suspect p3n was looking more hostile to you (and indeed every other ally we were not napped with) than we meant to be.
|
It was intentional. I have this confirmed on multiple accounts.
Quote:
Originally Posted by booji
(b) is simply not true - a few members wanted to hit you back for hitting us, which sounds like basically the same as some of your members wanting to hit us back for hitting you. I suspect just as yours were wrong about us targeting you our members were wrong about you targeting us.
|
What I dislike the most in Planetarion is those who lie to me. P3nguins suffers from a very loose command structure which I feel has contributed to your issues when dealing with other alliances (mine included). p3nguins DID ask for another alliance to hit Spore with them prior to us doing any ptarget of them. That is fact. Spore thus had to respond accordingly.
Quote:
Originally Posted by booji
(c) not too sure what this means! (edit - it does rather sound like this might mean what Recluse said! Without something similar or an assured 2 or 3 on 1 situation it was not going to be a rational choice. In either case it would mean BF wanting a teamup on p3n, with or without coercion applied to spore or ND)
|
Unfortunately I'm unable to comment further on my reasoning to why it was a logical and rational choice. Believe me, you were but Recluse is wrong for reasons I already pointed out. I;m not going to comment for Black Flag as I am not their representative, but Spore was quite willing to fight back against what we saw as p3nguin aggression.
Quote:
Originally Posted by booji
(d) fair enough - and admittedly the only way you were likely to increase rankings was in a gangbang!
|
You guys should try 5-7 alliances on you at once. Spore has had this plenty of times. It's not my job to make things easy for p3nguins - just to look out for Spore interests. I'd call other alliances hitting p3nguins to have been in Spore interests, don't you?
__________________
----------
That uniform you're wearing
So hot I cant stop staring.
Zhil
[Spore] Executive
[1up]
[Fury]
Inquisitorial Lord Protector of His Emperor's Glorius Empire
[20:19:04] <mazzelaar> I have to say a big up to Zhil - without those 8 def calls you covered we would've been screwed. | r12 End Ceremony
|
|
|
3 Jul 2014, 10:15
|
#504
|
Inquisitor
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: England
Posts: 2,207
|
Re: R57 gossip thread
Quote:
Originally Posted by booji
It seems unlikely that an alliance would drop a nap and attack its previously napped alliance simply because they could see that alliance was likely to be beaten by another couple of alliances. Is this not entirely what NAPs are supposed to prevent? If you do this to someone you put yourself at risk of others thinking they can do the same to you. So I think there must have been more reason than you state.
|
I cannot speak for ND and to the reasons they dropped the NAP. I believe it was simply to get involved on a side and they chose the Spore side due to our tighter relations.
Quote:
Originally Posted by booji
And while I dont agree with the namecalling I am pretty sure the cowards related to having other alliances hit us too. As I noted though not having multiple alliances hit us would have made several of your reasons for hitting us irrelevant and wrong; it would not be rational to fight us one on one, and there would be little chance of gains in ranks (while putting your main number 1 planet contender seriously at risk).
|
Then every alliance in this game is a coward. p3nguins included. Having backup plans and links in politics is essential in this game. You cannot go to war without knowing how other alliances would react. I had to measure what the universe response would be to every option Spore had. Hitting p3nguins back and escalating was the best.
Quote:
Originally Posted by booji
As previously stated you were not simply 'fighting back' as we were not intentionally hostile.
|
Already pointed out p3nguins intentionally aimed for Spore in response to our galaxy raiding including fake attacks on non-Spore in your gal raids in order to focus more on Spore.
I think the correct terminology would be that p3nguins were not really wanting war, but then even that opens up a can of worms to why p3nguins conducted itself the way it did without communication to Spore.
__________________
----------
That uniform you're wearing
So hot I cant stop staring.
Zhil
[Spore] Executive
[1up]
[Fury]
Inquisitorial Lord Protector of His Emperor's Glorius Empire
[20:19:04] <mazzelaar> I have to say a big up to Zhil - without those 8 def calls you covered we would've been screwed. | r12 End Ceremony
|
|
|
3 Jul 2014, 10:33
|
#505
|
a bucket
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Chatham, UK
Posts: 1,073
|
Re: R57 gossip thread
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zh|l
Already pointed out p3nguins intentionally aimed for Spore in response to our galaxy raiding including fake attacks on non-Spore in your gal raids in order to focus more on Spore.
I think the correct terminology would be that p3nguins were not really wanting war, but then even that opens up a can of worms to why p3nguins conducted itself the way it did without communication to Spore.
|
I dont know about communications but I have paid attention to our targets each night and we have never hit more than a couple of spore's on a night before we both started ptargeting each other. You are simply too well spread out so cant really intentionally hit your forts because you dont really have any. It is possible Spore got a lot of retals from p3n planets - but that usually happens when you are already attacking the alliance that retals!
__________________
Proud to have been TGV!
aargh! died in Jenova! | idled in ROCK | disappointed in Audentes | been Roguish | p-p-previously a p-p-p3nguin
Ascendancy
Otterly an Otter.
|
|
|
3 Jul 2014, 11:31
|
#506
|
KK
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 662
|
Re: R57 gossip thread
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zh|l
We're confirmed cowards because we fought back against you? Or is this due to the fact other alliances hit you as well as Spore?
I'll say for the record I never asked ND to hit you. My presumption (as I do not speak for ND) is that they saw what was happening with Spore and wanting to get in on it and have been fairly close to Spore through the round.
It's not my role or business to really do p3nguins politics for them. I do politics for Spore and if this means the politics bring up unfavourable outcomes for hostiles, so be it. Why would I do anything politically to help out a hostile alliance to mine?
Even if we discount p3nguins as being hostile, the question remains. It's YOUR job to do politics for your own alliance, not mine.
|
This all started when the majority of our incs were Spore. I do agree that you had most reason to attack us though, but it's not a question of politics anymore.
Personally, I think a lot of the problems lie within the basics of the game. You got a 60 man tag limit, 8 50 man+ tags within a game of 731 players. And it's impossible to attack any galaxy without starting a war. I was early teens when I started and I used to play with my school friends. We weren't even in allies, but it was enjoyable. Now, it's really quite pathetic. It's all about dickswinging and who has the most fb friends. A real lack of community feel. Probably explains why the player pools shrinking. Bring back cluster 100+ days!
Tbh, I came back for this round w/p3ng and unless they make some serious changes within the game it'll be my last.
|
|
|
3 Jul 2014, 11:32
|
#507
|
KK
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 662
|
Re: R57 gossip thread
The game really limits new starters as well. How is anyone ever going to be able to enjoy it when they first sign up
|
|
|
3 Jul 2014, 11:49
|
#508
|
a bucket
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Chatham, UK
Posts: 1,073
|
Re: R57 gossip thread
If 700 players is the current norm then a tag limit of 30 or 40 would probably make more sense. Has a limit so low ever been attempted? If so why did it not work?
__________________
Proud to have been TGV!
aargh! died in Jenova! | idled in ROCK | disappointed in Audentes | been Roguish | p-p-previously a p-p-p3nguin
Ascendancy
Otterly an Otter.
|
|
|
3 Jul 2014, 12:09
|
#509
|
Awesome
Join Date: May 2005
Location: The Hague
Posts: 291
|
Re: R57 gossip thread
Quote:
Originally Posted by booji
If 700 players is the current norm then a tag limit of 30 or 40 would probably make more sense. Has a limit so low ever been attempted? If so why did it not work?
|
How would a limit of 30 or 40 work, you will still get gang banged by 3-5 other alliances and greatly handicap your possibilities to def vs those. A smaller tagsize is only rewarding if you have that number in fully active members.
__________________
Apprime PR - taking away ur problems since 2008
|
|
|
3 Jul 2014, 12:17
|
#510
|
a bucket
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Chatham, UK
Posts: 1,073
|
Re: R57 gossip thread
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zh|l
d) We needed roids and to possibly better increase our alliance ranking.
|
So objective achieved?
5 up1 Spore 57084 53 81,390 3,292,411 164,620,589
6 down1 p3nguins 36411 52 100,429 3,291,545 164,577,271
__________________
Proud to have been TGV!
aargh! died in Jenova! | idled in ROCK | disappointed in Audentes | been Roguish | p-p-previously a p-p-p3nguin
Ascendancy
Otterly an Otter.
|
|
|
3 Jul 2014, 13:42
|
#511
|
Registered User
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 517
|
Re: R57 gossip thread
Quote:
Originally Posted by Krypton
The game really limits new starters as well. How is anyone ever going to be able to enjoy it when they first sign up
|
I only know PA since r50 so I can't know how good it was. But in my POV there are alliances which simply give up in the face of big adversities and alliances which are successful in finding different objectives and enjoying the game in that situation p3ng finds itself. Imo the best example of that second type of ally (since r50) is faceless.
__________________
mxy
|
|
|
3 Jul 2014, 13:45
|
#512
|
Paso Leaute
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 919
|
Re: R57 gossip thread
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zh|l
You guys should try 5-7 alliances on you at once.
|
Like wow, since i left pa there can't have been more than a thousand players at any point, with 60 in an alliance thats basically two thirds of the universe or more, ergo it seems very unlikely.
However, assuming it is true it just illustrates the problem you have here, a gang bang on a mid rank alliance is just wrong, gang bangs are supposed to go up the rankings not to support the top alliance (with the honourable exception of if said alliance has been caught cheating).
All the they were hostile to you, or perhaps thinking they might hit you, or they sneezed in your direction is a total irrelevance; you say one thing and they refute it, its meaningless.
__________________
An optimist may see a light where there is none, but why must the pessimist always run to blow it out?
|
|
|
3 Jul 2014, 13:53
|
#513
|
a bucket
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Chatham, UK
Posts: 1,073
|
Re: R57 gossip thread
Quote:
Originally Posted by fortran
But in my POV there are alliances which simply give up in the face of big adversities and alliances which are successful in finding different objectives and enjoying the game in that situation p3ng finds itself. Imo the best example of that second type of ally (since r50) is faceless.
|
So we simply put our objective as get roided back to Tick 300 (we had 32k roids in tick 300, now we have 35k so we are not far off) and we will find ourselves fulfilled!
The problem is that while our objective was never number one alliance all of our other objectives are also unlikely to happen while getting so much inc. The only faintly realistic goal if this is to keep up would be the alliance surviving intact without loosing many members.
To Cain: Yes there would still be gangbangs but you would be much more likely to find other alliances to help you as there would be many more neutrals.
edit: the main problem would not be gangbangs but for alliances that rely on dcs and bcs; some might find they have too few of them.
__________________
Proud to have been TGV!
aargh! died in Jenova! | idled in ROCK | disappointed in Audentes | been Roguish | p-p-previously a p-p-p3nguin
Ascendancy
Otterly an Otter.
Last edited by booji; 3 Jul 2014 at 14:23.
|
|
|
3 Jul 2014, 14:59
|
#514
|
KK
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 662
|
Re: R57 gossip thread
You would also find fewer alliances being bullied into joining blocks and being able to play the game for enjoyment and in a non serious nature. I also think it would bring a more community feel back into the game if ally tags were say 25 members and wouldn't mean allies necessarily have to pick a side.
It could also stop this nonsense that a gal raid constitutes the inevitable many sleepless nights that follow and bring back more of an element of skill into the game, whilst removing the lack of integrity and justification shown by certain alliances (no names) in making decisions.
|
|
|
3 Jul 2014, 15:05
|
#515
|
Valle is my hero
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 2,581
|
Re: R57 gossip thread
They are all guilty of chatting shot, that is all.
|
|
|
3 Jul 2014, 15:33
|
#516
|
Just Awesome
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 165
|
Re: R57 gossip thread
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cain
How would a limit of 30 or 40 work, you will still get gang banged by 3-5 other alliances and greatly handicap your possibilities to def vs those. A smaller tagsize is only rewarding if you have that number in fully active members.
|
No surprise, Cain has a good point.
A lowered tag limit just make it easier to farm down an alliance.
For example a tag limit of 30 members.
If you have 30 very active ones, hidden either as a few forts or spread in decent galaxies, you have a good chance of competing.
If you have a general alliance with some active, some medium active and some supports, you are just easier to attack, because you have less fleets to apply in defence.
You can't effectivly team another tag in defence, but you surely can in attack.
So a lowered tag limit benefits only in attacking - making it far easier to land most alliances, however if that infact make it more fun to play ? Id say only if you are the one doing the attacking :-D
|
|
|
3 Jul 2014, 16:02
|
#517
|
a bucket
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Chatham, UK
Posts: 1,073
|
Re: R57 gossip thread
Quote:
Originally Posted by Motti
If you have a general alliance with some active, some medium active and some supports, you are just easier to attack, because you have less fleets to apply in defence.
You can't effectivly team another tag in defence, but you surely can in attack.
So a lowered tag limit benefits only in attacking - making it far easier to land most alliances, however if that infact make it more fun to play ? Id say only if you are the one doing the attacking :-D
|
Unless I am wrong and this gangbang on p3n is the rule not the ecxeption is it not the case that usually teams of alliances attack those at the top not those in the middle or bottom? And while a couple of alliances might occasionally target a smaller alliance it is usually for a night or two not a week. Any alliance can survive losing roids over a short period.
More generally a lower tag limit might even favour these medium/small alliances in terms of defence. Remember that on a normal night their incs will be proportionally smaller (just as being targeted by 3 alliances is proportionally exactly the same as being targeted by 3 alliances now). Remember all the complaints about large numbers of naps this round? Well an alliance napped to 3-4 alliances would be napped to considerably less of the universe so there would be less of the objection that those who are not napped (often the smaller alliances) are the ones who then get more incs.
__________________
Proud to have been TGV!
aargh! died in Jenova! | idled in ROCK | disappointed in Audentes | been Roguish | p-p-previously a p-p-p3nguin
Ascendancy
Otterly an Otter.
|
|
|
3 Jul 2014, 16:24
|
#518
|
Inquisitor
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: England
Posts: 2,207
|
Re: R57 gossip thread
Quote:
Originally Posted by Krypton
This all started when the majority of our incs were Spore. I do agree that you had most reason to attack us though, but it's not a question of politics anymore.
Personally, I think a lot of the problems lie within the basics of the game. You got a 60 man tag limit, 8 50 man+ tags within a game of 731 players. And it's impossible to attack any galaxy without starting a war. I was early teens when I started and I used to play with my school friends. We weren't even in allies, but it was enjoyable. Now, it's really quite pathetic. It's all about dickswinging and who has the most fb friends. A real lack of community feel. Probably explains why the player pools shrinking. Bring back cluster 100+ days!
|
I agree that the game is getting smaller and smaller. You are correct that it seems wars are easier to start. (This is both a good and bad thing).
The issue is more to how many alliances currently view incomings as such a huge thing. Maybe I'm just more tolerant, but I hardly put a gal raid with 1 Spore getting it (maybe gosh 2) as something hostile and thus do not base politics around that.
Too many alliance HC are too quick to shout "war!" which is what leads to the increase in deals and what may seem focus on certain alliances which don't use this tactic (or have as many deals).
If alliances growed a bigger set of balls in general and learnt to cope with random incoming you'd probably see a better shift in politics - yet it's a pipe dream.
__________________
----------
That uniform you're wearing
So hot I cant stop staring.
Zhil
[Spore] Executive
[1up]
[Fury]
Inquisitorial Lord Protector of His Emperor's Glorius Empire
[20:19:04] <mazzelaar> I have to say a big up to Zhil - without those 8 def calls you covered we would've been screwed. | r12 End Ceremony
|
|
|
3 Jul 2014, 20:14
|
#519
|
Error
Join Date: May 2003
Posts: 359
|
Re: R57 gossip thread
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zh|l
I agree that the game is getting smaller and smaller. You are correct that it seems wars are easier to start. (This is both a good and bad thing).
The issue is more to how many alliances currently view incomings as such a huge thing. Maybe I'm just more tolerant, but I hardly put a gal raid with 1 Spore getting it (maybe gosh 2) as something hostile and thus do not base politics around that.
Too many alliance HC are too quick to shout "war!" which is what leads to the increase in deals and what may seem focus on certain alliances which don't use this tactic (or have as many deals).
If alliances growed a bigger set of balls in general and learnt to cope with random incoming you'd probably see a better shift in politics - yet it's a pipe dream.
|
This PRELAUNch attack system **** the game.
Easy to attack. Def its harder day by day.
__________________
#braSilFTW
|
|
|
3 Jul 2014, 21:48
|
#520
|
Registered User
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 898
|
Re: R57 gossip thread
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zh|l
If alliances growed a bigger set of balls in general and learnt to cope with random incoming you'd probably see a better shift in politics - yet it's a pipe dream.
|
omg your not kidding, ptarget for 6 incs.
its quite strange having no politics, more should try it.
__________________
R4-5 DDK
R6 Vanx
R7-R10 FAnG
R10 Eclipse
R10.5-R13 FAnG
R20-23 CT
R23 (CT BG) ToF
R24-R82... CT
|
|
|
3 Jul 2014, 22:44
|
#521
|
Dictator
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 634
|
Re: R57 gossip thread
We did... You see where we ended up
|
|
|
4 Jul 2014, 10:04
|
#522
|
Just Awesome
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 165
|
Re: R57 gossip thread
Quote:
Originally Posted by booji
More generally a lower tag limit might even favour these medium/small alliances in terms of defence. Remember that on a normal night their incs will be proportionally smaller (just as being targeted by 3 alliances is proportionally exactly the same as being targeted by 3 alliances now).
|
Simple example.
You have one wave coming with 5 fleets. This require 7 fleets to cover.
You require the same amount of fleets regardless of tag limit, just your pool of def fleets is smaller. And yes the random incs might be proportionally smaller, but any kind of targetting hurts you harder when tag is smaller, simply because you have less potentional def fleets.
For sake of example, lets say now tag limit is reduced to 30.
Ultores would then have to cut tag to half, but its not unlikely those two 30 member tags would continue to cooperate? Maybe even ingame nap and be able to defend eachother, but atleast attack together.
If they now wish to target alliance X, they can do so with the same force as always - but alliance X will now have 50% less (potentional) allydef..
Ofcourse, alliance X might be in same situation and have split its previous tag into two cooperating tags, but that will not benefit them so much in defence.
|
|
|
4 Jul 2014, 10:40
|
#523
|
Registered User
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 84
|
Re: R57 gossip thread
Why is this an issue though? What's wrong with making it easier to attack and land? This is a war game after all......and for most attacking and roiding is the most fun.
If anything it would just mean that the roid swapping would be increased and the so called 'elite' players would get roided more often.
To be honest i'm all for smaller tag sizes. I think you'd find that you would also get more newer alliances joining the party as getting 30 members is a lot easier than getting 60.
No doubt the larger allies would just split and still co-operate but everyone would be in the same boat.
PA has got boring, we need a change. This could a be a good one. Let's give it a try for one round and see what happens.............
Dont' fear change, embrace it..... xD
|
|
|
4 Jul 2014, 10:48
|
#524
|
Just Awesome
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 165
|
Re: R57 gossip thread
Quote:
Originally Posted by jermain
Why is this an issue though? What's wrong with making it easier to attack and land? This is a war game after all......and for most attacking and roiding is the most fun.
If anything it would just mean that the roid swapping would be increased and the so called 'elite' players would get roided more often.
To be honest i'm all for smaller tag sizes. I think you'd find that you would also get more newer alliances joining the party as getting 30 members is a lot easier than getting 60.
No doubt the larger allies would just split and still co-operate but everyone would be in the same boat.
PA has got boring, we need a change. This could a be a good one. Let's give it a try for one round and see what happens.............
Dont' fear change, embrace it..... xD
|
Unless you wanna trollplay, the getting defence part is a significant factor in enjoying PA. And given nothing really changes in PA, the same deals, HCs and blocks will form. The big change is that whoever gets blocked against will be demolished a lot sooner.
|
|
|
4 Jul 2014, 11:02
|
#525
|
Internal Error
Join Date: May 2002
Location: the Netherlands
Posts: 696
|
Re: R57 gossip thread
From a solo-player point of view, the game enjoyment is alot higher when you're able to attack solo / without a big team.
__________________
Nitros
[]LCH[] ..lets change history
|
|
|
4 Jul 2014, 11:03
|
#526
|
Valle is my hero
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 2,581
|
Re: R57 gossip thread
As far as I'm aware CT and ND don't even use the in-game defpage for incommings. They use there own bots so technically the wouldn't even split tag. I would imagine all the scanners/newbs in one half and all good players/defwhores in another.
I love the idea of smaller tags but in a game where 80% of alliance play isn't done in-game there is no way to regulate it and stop the same stuff happening. Instead of 3 on 1 it will be 6 on 1. Same people attacking, different tag names.
|
|
|
4 Jul 2014, 11:07
|
#527
|
Registered User
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 1,038
|
Re: R57 gossip thread
plz no more talk of tag sizes else bbutcher will cry
__________________
Did some stuff, played here n there done just about all there is to do
|
|
|
4 Jul 2014, 11:35
|
#528
|
Propaganda Chief
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Under the Rainbow
Posts: 4,740
|
Re: R57 gossip thread
Quote:
Originally Posted by Blue_Esper
plz no more talk of tag sizes else bbutcher will cry
|
Too late.
__________________
RainbowS
RB Ely MISTU Angel Fusi0n 1up ToF VisioN CT FAnG ROCK
|
|
|
4 Jul 2014, 12:14
|
#529
|
Registered User
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 84
|
Re: R57 gossip thread
Quote:
Originally Posted by Motti
Unless you wanna trollplay, the getting defence part is a significant factor in enjoying PA. And given nothing really changes in PA, the same deals, HCs and blocks will form. The big change is that whoever gets blocked against will be demolished a lot sooner.
|
So again, whats wrong with that? Getting destroyed a lot sooner means blocks will last a few days instead of a few weeks. Roids and ally scores will yoyo much more.....Will be much more entertaining.
I see your point about getting defence but with a 30 man tag you could still get defence and get enjoyment from that.
A few years ago I used to play another game (pa clone) that had 30man tags and 5man priv gals. It was far more fun than pa and much more personal.
A system could also be implemented ingame where you could only attack or defend allies you had declared war or allied to ingame. This would mean you would only have a number of possible targets to hit or defend. There could also be a time limit of dropping a war on an alliance making it more strategic of who you are friends / enemies against. This would need a lot more thought but again its a CHANGE and CHANGE is what we need.
Let's spruce this old goose up a bit.
Last edited by jermain; 4 Jul 2014 at 13:57.
|
|
|
4 Jul 2014, 12:37
|
#530
|
YAAARRGH!
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Scotland
Posts: 481
|
Re: R57 gossip thread
Have p3nguins ever been deliberately hostile to anyone? It seems you are hostile by accident to quite a few people and don't expect any sort of repercussions from it- just an observation
|
|
|
4 Jul 2014, 13:10
|
#531
|
KK
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 662
|
Re: R57 gossip thread
Quote:
Originally Posted by jermain
So again, whats wrong with that? Getting destroyed a lot sooner means blocks will last a few days instead of a few weeks. Rounds and ally scores will yoyo much more.....Will be much more entertaining.
I see your point about getting defence but with a 30 man tag you could still get defence and get enjoyment from that.
A few years ago I used to play another game (pa clone) that had 30man tags and 5man priv gals. It was far more fun than pa and much more personal.
A system could also be implemented ingame where you could only attack or defend allies you had declared war or allied to ingame. This would mean you would only have a number of possible targets to hit or defend. There could also be a time limit of dropping a war on an alliance making it more strategic of who you are friends / enemies against. This would need a lot more thought but again its a CHANGE and CHANGE is what we need.
Let's spruce this old goose up a bit.
|
I get it and I like it. Would also slow down the gathering of intel and exile whores as there would be far more galaxies in the game
|
|
|
4 Jul 2014, 13:11
|
#532
|
KK
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 662
|
Re: R57 gossip thread
Although, certain alliances seem to find it fun to plant spies in competitors, so maybe not the most useful solution.
|
|
|
4 Jul 2014, 14:10
|
#533
|
Old Skool
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Copenhagen, Denmark
Posts: 278
|
Re: R57 gossip thread
Go lookup the 200+ posts in "suggestions" regarding tag size and limit, instead of discussing it here.
instead tell me why BF are struggling gaining roids, are someone landing them?
or are they just getting deffed out?
|
|
|
4 Jul 2014, 15:22
|
#534
|
YAAARRGH!
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Scotland
Posts: 481
|
Re: R57 gossip thread
We have performance anxiety Killeah
|
|
|
4 Jul 2014, 15:23
|
#535
|
KK
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 662
|
Re: R57 gossip thread
Quote:
Originally Posted by Killeah
Go lookup the 200+ posts in "suggestions" regarding tag size and limit, instead of discussing it here.
instead tell me why BF are struggling gaining roids, are someone landing them?
or are they just getting deffed out?
|
Why? Ace has already admitted to me that tag limit is set by Alliance HC's. And why would that change anything, seeing as the people that probably vote are the only ones with full tags...
In other news...BF suck. That's probably why they're static
|
|
|
4 Jul 2014, 15:27
|
#536
|
YAAARRGH!
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Scotland
Posts: 481
|
Re: R57 gossip thread
Yup, we suck. p3nguins are amazing though. Wish we were doing as well as them.
Krypton any pointers please? Help a brother out pal
|
|
|
4 Jul 2014, 15:30
|
#537
|
KK
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 662
|
Re: R57 gossip thread
Get a new ally pal
|
|
|
4 Jul 2014, 15:33
|
#538
|
YAAARRGH!
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Scotland
Posts: 481
|
Re: R57 gossip thread
You have some space in p3ng with all the emo quitting goin on there, can I join?
|
|
|
4 Jul 2014, 15:36
|
#539
|
KK
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 662
|
Re: R57 gossip thread
Would have to prop you, but I get the impression it might fail...
|
|
|
4 Jul 2014, 15:39
|
#540
|
YAAARRGH!
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Scotland
Posts: 481
|
Re: R57 gossip thread
Awww, well worth a try though!
Say Hi to Paris, Advantix and Badass from me, please!
|
|
|
4 Jul 2014, 15:43
|
#541
|
KK
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 662
|
Re: R57 gossip thread
Trying to stay clear of that bf bs, but sure thing pal.
|
|
|
4 Jul 2014, 15:51
|
#542
|
YAAARRGH!
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Scotland
Posts: 481
|
Re: R57 gossip thread
You are very bitter Krypton
P3ng have no-one to blame for their problems, but themselves. Don't hate on others because of that. It is saddening because I had high-hopes for p3ng, if I hadn't been involved in setting up BF after FAnG disbanding it would have been my first choice.
I hope they survive to play next round
|
|
|
4 Jul 2014, 16:05
|
#543
|
KK
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 662
|
Re: R57 gossip thread
Course we'll be back lol. You've done us a favour.
Not bitter, just sad that an ally could win despite being so undeserved, having been on the side of 3 blocks vs one ally with virtually no incs for the entire round....
|
|
|
4 Jul 2014, 16:11
|
#544
|
KK
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 662
|
Re: R57 gossip thread
And if having no one to blame for our problems but ourselves = not joining a 4 on 1 block vs ultores...so be it.
|
|
|
4 Jul 2014, 16:12
|
#545
|
YAAARRGH!
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Scotland
Posts: 481
|
Re: R57 gossip thread
Welcome to pa
We have had plenty incs - i wont debate that with you here, you can see the stats at the EOR. As for black flag winning - I think you will find that Ultores are in a stronger position than Black Flag for the round win. We will see what happens at the EOR though.
Also, Not sure which 3 blocks you mean, but certainly I only remember being part of one, hitting Ultores with CT and Faceless.
You might have ND, Spore and BF hitting you now, but from what Ive heard thats due to your lack of pols and hostility. Black Flag didnt retaliate when you p-targetted us early round, and then went on to war Ultores, because you were already being bashed by Ult and FL - there was no need for a gangg bang. Revenge is a dish best served cold, as they say.
I kind of respect your alliance for trying to play without politics - but unfortunately I don't think its a recipe for success in PA nowadays.
|
|
|
4 Jul 2014, 16:18
|
#546
|
KK
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 662
|
Re: R57 gossip thread
From how we see it, we've had no flexibility in our politics right up until we chose to hit Spore after receiving a few nights of incs from them.
I fail to see how Ultores are in a stronger position...a better alliance yes...but not a stronger position...
|
|
|
4 Jul 2014, 16:21
|
#547
|
YAAARRGH!
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Scotland
Posts: 481
|
Re: R57 gossip thread
They are growing fast and heavily warring the mining page, I dont think BF can match their growth. Plus they have heroes, and galactic cowboys out of tag members aiding their cause.
That makes a tag of about 94 people effectively.
|
|
|
4 Jul 2014, 17:33
|
#548
|
Registered User
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 1,038
|
Re: R57 gossip thread
we didn't war mining page, we got hot n heavy and made sweet sweet sensual love to it.
we are an alliance of lovers not fighters
__________________
Did some stuff, played here n there done just about all there is to do
|
|
|
4 Jul 2014, 17:48
|
#549
|
Dictator
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 634
|
Re: R57 gossip thread
My memory sucks so im going to use this thread as a diary
<Connovar> Hola - about yet?
<munkee> Yes
<Connovar> i was talkin to one of your members earlier, Krypton
<munkee> Hes
<munkee> Yes
<Connovar> Like i was saying to him, I am not handling bfs pols, but I would like to facilitate an end to our hostilities, if possible. I have several friends in p3ng, and dont like to see any alliance being bashed. It happened to my last attempt at an alliance (fallen) and its not fun
<Connovar> he said you are the man to speak to
<munkee> Yea
<munkee> Kind of silly to be asking now
<Connovar> it is - but, like i told krypton, our pols man souls was intermitently trying to get in touch with you guys, im not sure he had the right man tho
<Connovar> plus his kids have stopped him being as active as we would have liked :P
<Connovar> he did ask for my help, so apologies for being late
<Connovar> So do you think we would be able to come to some sort of ceasefire agreement?
<munkee> I think after the last week you're completely ****ed from getting the answer you are after so id say good luck and enjoy rest of round
<Connovar> Regrettable! I would suggest having someone less emotional as pols man next round
<Connovar> its why i dont do pols, too hot headed
<Connovar> i would probably have given me the same answer
|
|
|
4 Jul 2014, 18:02
|
#550
|
YAAARRGH!
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Scotland
Posts: 481
|
Re: R57 gossip thread
[17:42] <Connovar> Good luck to you guys also, and for next round
Missed the last line munkee!
Can certainly see why p3nguins have failed so miserably this round with pols - I feel genuinely sorry for all the good players who are being let down by incompetent HC.
|
|
|
|
All times are GMT +1. The time now is 03:57.
| |