|
|
5 Mar 2006, 15:49
|
#1
|
PA Team
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 7,449
|
R17 Alliance limits
While we've had discussions about in alliance forums, I thought I'd open it to the PA community (after the reactions earlier this round).
What should the limit be for Round 17?
The general consensus from the established alliances is an increase by 5-10 members on the base limit, with the final cap at ~90.
Furball suggested we only count the highest 70 or so members of the alliance, so that alliances can have more members but it doesn't give a huge bonus after a certain point (apart from more defence fleets / attack / etc).
In fact, the top limit becomes less essential if we limit the amount of planets that count towards an alliance score.
What's everyone else's opinion on this?
__________________
r8-10 RaH r10.5-12 MISTU
|
|
|
5 Mar 2006, 15:58
|
#2
|
Banned
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Further to the right
Posts: 19,441
|
Re: R17 Alliance limits
I thought r15's alliance limits worked very well. I'd stick with them or something very close to them.
PS I had sex with your mum.
__________________
Some might ask what good is life without purpose but I'm anticipating a good lunch.
|
|
|
5 Mar 2006, 16:02
|
#3
|
Registered Awesome Person
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 5,676
|
Re: R17 Alliance limits
To cross-post:
Quote:
Originally Posted by furball
My personal opinion is 60/90. Plenty of room for smaller/training alliances to have lots of members. However, I'd only count an alliance's top 65-70 members as part of their score.
This way alliances that are heavy on recruiting can have some reward for that (especially those outside the top 5) but not enough to let them unduly affect the top ranks because of it. Alliances with a massive number of members (75+) shouldn't, in my opinion, hold ranks that are too high, as it is only a false indication of their strength.
The 60 limit would restrain the top alliances, and we've seen that work well this round (but I like 60 more than 55). I consider this a 'good thing'.
|
__________________
Finally free!
|
|
|
5 Mar 2006, 16:02
|
#4
|
PA Team
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 7,449
|
Re: R17 Alliance limits
Quote:
Originally Posted by JonnyBGood
PS I had sex with your mum.
|
that's more like it
__________________
r8-10 RaH r10.5-12 MISTU
|
|
|
5 Mar 2006, 18:04
|
#5
|
Registered User
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 3,174
|
Re: R17 Alliance limits
In with the 60 limit crowd
__________________
If one person is in delusion, they're called insane.
If many people are in delusion, it's called a religion.
|
|
|
5 Mar 2006, 19:04
|
#6
|
.
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 3,382
|
Re: R17 Alliance limits
like it matters, your only going to change it mid-way again next round right?
|
|
|
5 Mar 2006, 19:57
|
#7
|
Registered User
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Noruega
Posts: 2,999
|
Re: R17 Alliance limits
I dont care too much, but in my opinion it should be atleast 60.
__________________
"Cry havoc and let slip the dogs of War"
|
|
|
5 Mar 2006, 20:02
|
#8
|
Down Boy - WOOF!
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Somewhere About Here .
Posts: 530
|
Re: R17 Alliance limits
70 limit imo.
__________________
R2: -=42=- & [HR] ICD Squad Founding >> [HR] Alliance
R3: -=42=- & ICD Squad [HR] >> [HR] >> Sedition Wing [HR] >> G-II Wing [HR] >> [HR] Alliance
R4: [HR]
R5: [HR] - [DuH] Triad with [BD] & [UV]
R6: [HR] - [HyB] Alliance with [BD]
R7, R8, R9, R9.5: Nos Wing [HR]
R10: [HR]
R10.5: [HR] - [FYTFO] Alliance with ]LCH[
R11, R12, R13, R15, R16, R17: [HR]
|
|
|
5 Mar 2006, 20:02
|
#9
|
For Crowly <3
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Luton, England
Posts: 1,391
|
Re: R17 Alliance limits
65 seems to be a nice number
__________________
[14:53:26] * Keiz`afk has joined #support
[14:53:36] <Keiz`afk> THE SMUDGE CHEERLEADING TEAM HAS ARRIVED
|
|
|
5 Mar 2006, 20:05
|
#10
|
Mastermind
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 430
|
Re: R17 Alliance limits
max. 60 !!
__________________
Community Leader
|
|
|
5 Mar 2006, 20:12
|
#11
|
ND
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Amazingstoke
Posts: 2,235
|
Re: R17 Alliance limits
lowered to 50.
50 maximum, no exceptions.
__________________
[ND]
|
|
|
5 Mar 2006, 20:25
|
#12
|
I see you!
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: In any girl
Posts: 2,825
|
Re: R17 Alliance limits
Agree with Fish.
|
|
|
5 Mar 2006, 20:44
|
#13
|
ROCK biatch
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 92
|
Re: R17 Alliance limits
I think the alliance size limit should be 70/90... 70 for been the top 5.
__________________
Insomniac
[VanX][ToF][xVx][PK][Subh][InS][Omen][Destiny][ROCK]
Proud to been a Member of Gal 1:6 R18
|
|
|
5 Mar 2006, 22:03
|
#14
|
Registered User
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Noruega
Posts: 2,999
|
Re: R17 Alliance limits
I dont want the limits to be *that* high.
The game needs more alliances, it just sucks if there are like 3-4 big ones and nuttin else.
__________________
"Cry havoc and let slip the dogs of War"
|
|
|
5 Mar 2006, 22:56
|
#15
|
Kwaak
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Netherlands
Posts: 296
|
Re: R17 Alliance limits
I think it would be ideal for the top alliance to have a small active core say 50, sub top 75 and the 'lesser' alliances to be able to have more members say 100 or more.
It would be up to pa-crew to judge alliances to be top or sub top or 'lesser'. Since the top and sub top have active enough HC, it will not be any problem to discuss it with them. The lesser alliances (also with quite the active HC 90% of the time) will be given the automatic 100 limit.
Offcourse this will be up for abuse, but pa-crew will notice this fast enough i think. The best penalty would be a split right down the middle into two alliances or even more.
The idea needs to be fine tuned, but the thought is what is important. It would be best to give the top alliances a fixed max and give the training alliances enough room to train everybody.
|
|
|
5 Mar 2006, 23:01
|
#16
|
Inactive peon
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 6,050
|
Re: R17 Alliance limits
I think either 50/80 or 60/80
|
|
|
5 Mar 2006, 23:23
|
#17
|
Registered AbUser
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 242
|
Re: R17 Alliance limits
60 has my vote
|
|
|
5 Mar 2006, 23:26
|
#18
|
Hibernating
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Team Kesha
Posts: 1,621
|
Re: R17 Alliance limits
60/80
__________________
[InSomnia]
Official designated driver
[ToF] - [eXilition] - [Rock] - [Denial] - [DLR] - [eVolution] - [ODDR] - [HR] - [Ultores] - [Apprime] - [Ironborn]
|
|
|
5 Mar 2006, 23:36
|
#19
|
Up The Hatters!
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Kenilworth Road
Posts: 3,012
|
Re: R17 Alliance limits
65 - 85
__________________
Planetarion veteran
|
|
|
6 Mar 2006, 00:17
|
#20
|
:alpha:
Join Date: May 2002
Location: London, UK
Posts: 7,871
|
Re: R17 Alliance limits
Going to be a bit controversial here, but how about having a gazillion as the alliance limit? Discuss.
__________________
"There is no I in team, but there are two in anal fisting"
|
|
|
6 Mar 2006, 01:19
|
#21
|
Dirte
Join Date: Apr 2002
Posts: 5,573
|
Re: R17 Alliance limits
Minimum 80. There are not that many good HC/Officer material around to support the amount of slackers, myself included.I miss the good old days, and even if I do understand that there are not enough players to support the oldtime sizes it's not that fun to play with 50 as with 70-100.
50 just makes the game more elitists, and who the **** wants that? (exept the elitists of course)
|
|
|
6 Mar 2006, 01:25
|
#22
|
Registered Awesome Person
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 5,676
|
Re: R17 Alliance limits
Minimum? Less elitist?
If every alliance has 80 members, the best players will go to the top few alliances rather than spreading out as they have done in recent rounds. The consequence of this is a more elitist Planetarion.
__________________
Finally free!
|
|
|
6 Mar 2006, 01:31
|
#23
|
Retired FCHC
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: UK
Posts: 169
|
Re: R17 Alliance limits
I'd say having no limit what-so-ever could be fairly interesting but it may cause alot of the smaller alliances to crumble as their members run off to find new homes with more prestigous alliances.
Keeping the limit to 50 would have even more interest in my oppinion; more alliances and a better chance for the underdogs in some respects.
Just paused here to have a little think, perhapes it could be a good idea to have the limit at say 50 then for every 10th member that joins an alliance after this limit, the alliance would have to suffer a penatly For example the first penalty could be that all xans no longer have their stealth abilty allowing fleet scans, a second penalty at +20 alliances members could deducted 20% of resources per tick.
There could be a load of things to act as penalties those are just two i thought up on the spot, and if the alliance fund comes into play in later rounds resources could also be deducted from there.
To be honest i havn't thought this out in full yet, just interested what other people think of this idea. I'll probably think of 101 flaws tomorrow morning lol
__________________
Amidst of the eternal waves of time.
From a change of ripple shall the storm rise
Out of abyss peer the eyes of a demon
Behold the Razgriz, its wings of black sheath
---------------------------------------------------
[F-Crew] - You know when you've been [FC]ucked
join our public chan #f-crew
|
|
|
6 Mar 2006, 01:56
|
#24
|
Registered User
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 3,174
|
Re: R17 Alliance limits
that would be horrific to code and balance even if it had the slightest chance of happening
__________________
If one person is in delusion, they're called insane.
If many people are in delusion, it's called a religion.
|
|
|
6 Mar 2006, 02:00
|
#25
|
Retired FCHC
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: UK
Posts: 169
|
Re: R17 Alliance limits
Quote:
Originally Posted by sniborp
that would be horrific to code and balance even if it had the slightest chance of happening
|
Yeh, you're right... me and my ideas getting away from me again as usual still.... nice to dream about such complex ideas sometimes
__________________
Amidst of the eternal waves of time.
From a change of ripple shall the storm rise
Out of abyss peer the eyes of a demon
Behold the Razgriz, its wings of black sheath
---------------------------------------------------
[F-Crew] - You know when you've been [FC]ucked
join our public chan #f-crew
|
|
|
6 Mar 2006, 07:56
|
#26
|
Banned
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: ******
Posts: 2,326
|
Re: R17 Alliance limits
I'm for keeping it as low as possible.
|
|
|
6 Mar 2006, 08:11
|
#27
|
:alpha:
Join Date: May 2002
Location: London, UK
Posts: 7,871
|
Re: R17 Alliance limits
Quote:
Originally Posted by Banned
I'm for keeping it as low as possible.
|
I am as well (ignore previous reply - after further consideration I realise that a gazillion is simply too much really).
__________________
"There is no I in team, but there are two in anal fisting"
|
|
|
6 Mar 2006, 08:21
|
#28
|
Avenger of Calamari
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Alberta, Canada
Posts: 939
|
Re: R17 Alliance limits
Quote:
Originally Posted by Razgriz
Yeh, you're right... me and my ideas getting away from me again as usual still.... nice to dream about such complex ideas sometimes
|
I think this idea will hoop the smaller/training alliances more than anyone else. Such a thing could be potentially abused by players who don't care about the resource missing for example when there's only 10-20 ticks left in the game. IE mass-recruiting for the win.
Then we look at say f-crew, or HR who are trying to get as many new players as possible and help them along... all of a sudden every one of their members is hit by low resources. Let's face it, they get beaten down enough already, this may just harm them more
Just some random thoughts though.
Edit: I'd say about 50-60, and give any alliance deemed 'training alliance' the ability to recruit as many as they wish. {However, I will do nothing but laugh if one of them is able to recruit enough and win it }
|
|
|
6 Mar 2006, 11:52
|
#29
|
U've been Moderated
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: getting sex0red by pretty women
Posts: 1,510
|
Re: R17 Alliance limits
not too fussed, aslong as you make sure it can't happen again that alliances have 80 members and are top 5, while the rest is limited to 55. That's just not good.
__________________
Titans forever and ever.
<Forest> i fuc*ing hate password sharers, i will log into macs bros account and get scans every 2 mins
<Tempestuous> cypher just happens to be the world's cutest creature
Last edited by cypher; 6 Mar 2006 at 16:48.
|
|
|
6 Mar 2006, 11:57
|
#30
|
Its time to roll the dice
Join Date: May 2002
Location: The barn
Posts: 876
|
Re: R17 Alliance limits
Quote:
Originally Posted by furball
Originally Posted by furball
My personal opinion is 60/90. Plenty of room for smaller/training alliances to have lots of members. However, I'd only count an alliance's top 65-70 members as part of their score.
This way alliances that are heavy on recruiting can have some reward for that (especially those outside the top 5) but not enough to let them unduly affect the top ranks because of it. Alliances with a massive number of members (75+) shouldn't, in my opinion, hold ranks that are too high, as it is only a false indication of their strength.
The 60 limit would restrain the top alliances, and we've seen that work well this round (but I like 60 more than 55). I consider this a 'good thing'.
|
So every ally would have 60 members and then add 30 pure support planets in tag?
__________________
Real life peon.
|
|
|
6 Mar 2006, 12:06
|
#31
|
Its time to roll the dice
Join Date: May 2002
Location: The barn
Posts: 876
|
Re: R17 Alliance limits
We have been to low with 50 and to hight with 100. 75 seems fine to me.
__________________
Real life peon.
|
|
|
6 Mar 2006, 12:35
|
#32
|
I see you!
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: In any girl
Posts: 2,825
|
Re: R17 Alliance limits
Quote:
Originally Posted by Snurx
Minimum 80. There are not that many good HC/Officer material around to support the amount of slackers, myself included.
|
This argument is outdated imo. This round it's around 15 alliances with 50 or more members and many others with 30-40 members. Many of them rised this round. Yes, many of them suck this round, but what do you expect? They'll surely do better next round. A good HC/Officer isn't something you are, it's something you become.
|
|
|
6 Mar 2006, 12:40
|
#33
|
Banned
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: ******
Posts: 2,326
|
Re: R17 Alliance limits
Quote:
Originally Posted by cypher
not too fussed, aslong as you make sure it can't happen again that alliances have 80 members and are top 5, while the rest is limited to 55. That's just not bad.
|
I agree with this. If there's going to be a large difference based on rank, there should be steps between instead of a difference of 50 (45) between 5th and 6th.
|
|
|
6 Mar 2006, 12:42
|
#34
|
The Original Carebear
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Trondheim, Norway
Posts: 1,048
|
Re: R17 Alliance limits
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nadar
This argument is outdated imo. This round it's around 15 alliances with 50 or more members. Many of them rised this round. Yes, many of them suck this round, but what do you expect? They'll surely do better next round. A good HC/Officer isn't something you are, it's something you become.
|
Some people develop a talent for one or the other (intel, attacks, defense, internel affairs, diplomacy etc.).
The key word being "develop". Throwing these people out to the sharks will be very cool, but thing is, it takes more than 1 round to learn how to HC. Everyone can learn how to BC or DC in a short time, though experience make you better. And some seems to have a natural talent for it, or just unlimited amounts of time. However, most people don't, and many of those who take responsibility by agreeing to DC/BC will never rise to any skill, because of lack of time and initiative. Appointing such peoples to higher positions, as well as gloryhunters, can kill alliances, and with a low limit, the alliances recieving bad staff will be many. It's highly demotivating to play in an alliance with such staff, and people will quit early. Learning how to HC properly will take rounds of guidance, and you need members to trust you.
I say a limit of 60-80 somewhere would work, not lower than 60 (I was one of those screaming for 50 pre-round, and regret that now, even if it was a useful experience), and certainly not more than 80.
__________________
If at first you don't succeed, try, try again. Then quit. No use being a damn fool about it.
Oh crap, I might be back. I should take my own advice.
|
|
|
6 Mar 2006, 13:19
|
#35
|
Hamster
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Crewe, England
Posts: 3,606
|
Re: R17 Alliance limits
Quote:
Originally Posted by cypher
not too fussed, aslong as you make sure it can't happen again that alliances have 80 members and are top 5, while the rest is limited to 55. That's just not bad.
|
I personally think the fact alliances like F-Crew, VGN and xVx have been top 5 with significanty more members is alo moret to do with the community outside the top10 than the games machanics.
The problem on the whole seems to be 3 pronged
1) We have alliances whom used to be elite whom still think they are in the position to challenge and still be elite
2) We have new alliances made up of experianced people whom decide their quality means they can can be picky and be able to challenge
3) We have new alliance led by inexperianced players whom dont have the resources to help fellow inexperianced players and keep their membership base around
Now alot of the alliances in 1 and 2 fail to really be anywhere near the pace beause the amount of 'hardcore' alliances is basically at satuation point, no matter how many new alliances you create theres not the players to fill these. You would have to cut alliance size by a fair amount imho to create enough demand for these other hardcore alliances
Now with group 3, anyone doing a bit of reseach into these alliances isnt going to recommend them to people and the people whom do end up there often end up quitting the game or trying to look elsewhere
This obviously causes a problem, at F-Crew for example we have a small window to send people to if we dont take them. For example we have been pushing applicants to us to look elsewhere normally telling them to goto SiN, reinVENted, ROCK, xVX and VGN (Basically alliances whom are more likly to give them a chance yet have a command thats experianced and will offer them a good training experiancee) and tell them we didnt have space for them but we recommended them. Now while some have got places in these recommened alliances some for whatever reason havent been and if they cant get a chance we feel we have to ourselves if we can. It may totally screw up our average, it may also leave us with a large number of what alot of the top10 would consider inactives and thus increase our incoming at a disproportional rate to the defence they contribute.
What the game needs is more alliances in that important middle ground between being the dumping grounds for the almost completly inactive and the hardcore players. Some of the aliances outside the top ten need to either
a) be more open to taking a chance on people, there are good people out there
b) Not be afraid of promoting the fact you will take those lacking score and experiance
c) Show that you have the quality and experiance in your command more so that people are more likly to recommend you
ofc I'm not saying people should decide not to play hardcore, if your happy being a small attack group like DLR and arent that bothered of ranking then thats fine or if you think you have the quality to pull it off like Ascendancy then thats fine but if it turns out you dont stop flogging a dead horse and look for some rough diamonds that could do with the experiance in some of these alliances to shape them into resonably good players (or even excellent players)
If more did that the good thing would be we should get more hardcore players coming through, so the demand for more elite alliances should increase while the amount of more casual players should also increase which is only a good thing for all areas of the game
__________________
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
|
|
|
6 Mar 2006, 13:19
|
#36
|
Angels for life !
Join Date: Jul 2001
Posts: 4,269
|
Re: R17 Alliance limits
First of all I believe the current setup is pure rubbish. You see alliances with 80+ members in the top 10 competing with others of only 55 max due to regulations. No disrespect to any alliance but imo being a top10 alliance purely because you got 40-50% more members (while others cannot recruit more) is rather pointless. It doesn't measure the strength, activity nor dedication of that alliance. All it shows is that game dynamics allows them to have more members then others.
A counter arguement here would be like: "yes, but both have the same score, whether they got 50 or 80 members so ... isn't that more fair?".
The answer on this is simple: No !!
Why? Because ranks are based on score, not on value. 80 planets will most likely have far more value then 50 planets (those just have more score because they attack far more and better). Also 80 planets have 240 fleets, 50 planets have only 150. I don't need to explain what that means I hope.
Secondly, I think 50 is too low. That's just a personal preference but I have no problem if it remains 50 (or 55). It's something ALL alliances have to adapt to and that's what we do best ... adapting our alliance round after round to whatever changed PA-Team have made.
I'd go for 70-80, more or less like we had in r15. The reason for this, in my own opinion, is that with 80 members ... the performance of 1 member has far less influence to the performance of the alliance overall then when you have only 50.
Nway, that's just my opinion on this matter.
__________________
Former Angels CEO/HC - retired! as of round 16.
FAnG Founder | CEO/HC | Ex Gaming Community Senate
Furious Angels Gaming community
FA Gaming community
No need for a disclaimer ...
|
|
|
6 Mar 2006, 13:34
|
#37
|
Registered Awesome Person
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 5,676
|
Re: R17 Alliance limits
Quote:
Originally Posted by Treveler
So every ally would have 60 members and then add 30 pure support planets in tag?
|
The alliances that use support planets wouldn't have a chance to add those 30 members, since I'd expect them to be in the top 5 anyway.
Besides, what's stopping an alliance from concentrating on its top 40 players at the moment and using the other 15-20 to support the rest? Growth at the top levels is exponential, so their lower scores wouldn't matter too much.
EDIT: cheers for picking up on potential problem though, not much critiquing elsewhere. Also, I like the idea of graduated restrictions throughout the top 10 - so something like 60(top5)/75(top10)/90(all others) would work for me.
__________________
Finally free!
|
|
|
6 Mar 2006, 20:41
|
#38
|
uber pe0n
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 87
|
Re: R17 Alliance limits
no alliances - just private gals of 20 members
__________________
Personally its not God I dislike, its his fan club I cant stand
|
|
|
6 Mar 2006, 22:01
|
#39
|
Dirte
Join Date: Apr 2002
Posts: 5,573
|
Re: R17 Alliance limits
Quote:
Originally Posted by furball
Minimum? Less elitist?
If every alliance has 80 members, the best players will go to the top few alliances rather than spreading out as they have done in recent rounds. The consequence of this is a more elitist Planetarion.
|
As it is now, a new player has almost no chance of getting into a good alliance, simply beacause they need the gunpower only experienced players have.
How many alliances have fallen apart these last rounds? Or new attempts just been shutdown? Of course it's good to have more players in more alliances, but it's better to have the top 10 recruiting, as that is where it's fun to play at. Find a way to recruit more players instead of forcing the ones who allready play to spread out.
Come to think of it, 80 sounds fine to me. And not 80 for some and 50 for others, based on rankings.
If you can only have 50 players, you will look for the best ones. Of course some alliances will always be elitist, but why force all (the best) to be?
I think 80 would be fine. And no difference, 80 for all.
__________________
"Freedom, morality, and the human dignity of the individual consists precisely in this; that he makes waffles not because he is forced to do so, but because he freely conceives it, wants it, and loves it."
|
|
|
7 Mar 2006, 08:07
|
#40
|
Inactive peon
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 6,050
|
Re: R17 Alliance limits
Quote:
Originally Posted by cypher
not too fussed, aslong as you make sure it can't happen again that alliances have 80 members and are top 5, while the rest is limited to 55. That's just not good.
|
to get upto 80 they would have to be out of the top 5 for a reasonable amount of time though. its not like they can pop out recruit loads and pop back in.
|
|
|
7 Mar 2006, 08:09
|
#41
|
Inactive peon
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 6,050
|
Re: R17 Alliance limits
Quote:
Originally Posted by Banned
I agree with this. If there's going to be a large difference based on rank, there should be steps between instead of a difference of 50 (45) between 5th and 6th.
|
there are steps in the speed they can recruit just not in the maximum number, i'm unconcinved that steps in the maximum number would work very well - i can see the mid ranked alliances doing very badly under that.
|
|
|
7 Mar 2006, 09:40
|
#42
|
Angels for life !
Join Date: Jul 2001
Posts: 4,269
|
Re: R17 Alliance limits
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kal
to get upto 80 they would have to be out of the top 5 for a reasonable amount of time though. its not like they can pop out recruit loads and pop back in.
|
Nonetheless they are in the top5 and they have +80 members while the rest only have 55 max.
__________________
Former Angels CEO/HC - retired! as of round 16.
FAnG Founder | CEO/HC | Ex Gaming Community Senate
Furious Angels Gaming community
FA Gaming community
No need for a disclaimer ...
|
|
|
7 Mar 2006, 09:41
|
#43
|
Banned
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: ******
Posts: 2,326
|
Re: R17 Alliance limits
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kal
there are steps in the speed they can recruit just not in the maximum number, i'm unconcinved that steps in the maximum number would work very well - i can see the mid ranked alliances doing very badly under that.
|
A stepping based on score isn't a good idea at all, really. The problem is that underperforming early can be abused.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kjeldoran
Nonetheless they are in the top5 and they have +80 members while the rest only have 55 max.
|
Not right now they aren't
[F-Crew] has been top5 in about 100 ticks so far this round.
|
|
|
7 Mar 2006, 09:43
|
#44
|
Angels for life !
Join Date: Jul 2001
Posts: 4,269
|
Re: R17 Alliance limits
Quote:
Originally Posted by Banned
Not right now they aren't
|
My deepest apologies for that
__________________
Former Angels CEO/HC - retired! as of round 16.
FAnG Founder | CEO/HC | Ex Gaming Community Senate
Furious Angels Gaming community
FA Gaming community
No need for a disclaimer ...
|
|
|
7 Mar 2006, 10:58
|
#45
|
thinking, that's all.
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 867
|
Re: R17 Alliance limits
50-60 sounds fine, anything more and it becomes oh so hard to manage. It's still quite realistic with a 60 limit for people to set up new alliances in just one round.
__________________
[1up], Ascendancy Events Organiser & eXilition HC
|
|
|
7 Mar 2006, 11:05
|
#46
|
Banned
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: ******
Posts: 2,326
|
Re: R17 Alliance limits
Quote:
Originally Posted by bwtmc
50-60 sounds fine, anything more and it becomes oh so hard to manage. It's still quite realistic with a 60 limit for people to set up new alliances in just one round.
|
To be fair, people have set up alliances with ~200 people in just one round (ages ago though, when the pool of available players was larger).
|
|
|
7 Mar 2006, 12:36
|
#47
|
Hamster
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Crewe, England
Posts: 3,606
|
Re: R17 Alliance limits
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kjeldoran
First of all I believe the current setup is pure rubbish. You see alliances with 80+ members in the top 10 competing with others of only 55 max due to regulations. No disrespect to any alliance but imo being a top10 alliance purely because you got 40-50% more members (while others cannot recruit more) is rather pointless. It doesn't measure the strength, activity nor dedication of that alliance. All it shows is that game dynamics allows them to have more members then others..
|
You say no disrespect and then you make such an ill informed and insulting comment like "being a top10 alliance purely because you got 40-50% more members"
Yes we have more members BUT our top 10 position is not because of those extra members, otherwise everyone over 55 members would be in the top10. Theres a simple reason why some alliances such as F-Crew have more members and thats because we dont pull the elitiist bullshit of alliances like Angels, we dont look down on people whom have a low score, we dont decide they are worthless and insignificant and instead we make sure they get a chance either with us or elsewhere and when we give them a chance we dont then kick them if they dont then login every single hour.
Now of the people we have recruited we have had maybe TWO people whom were above our average score, you can increase this to 5 is we exapand it to 75% of our average score that some alliances use. This means that the majority of the people we have recruited have been easierly under 500k. Infact at this very moment the members from 55-81 account for just 8.09% of our total score. now you do the maths thats just 11.7million which would leave us on 133million if we were to impose the kind of elite limits that Angels do (This would also raise our average to over 2.4mill which is alot more competative). This actually shows the whole problem with peoples perception that average score is what decideds the quality of an alliance, if your an elite alliance you artifically boost your average due you your recruitment and if your an alliance whom givs people a chance you aritifically lower your average
So KJ kindly STFU with your bitterness that Angels are being lagging behind their fellow elite alliances and are instead having to battle it out with the more open alliances. As we all know Quality is better than Quantity * so if these alliances are staying with you they are doing something more than just having more members, they have earnt their place and deserve their place while doing a great deal of good for the game by giving people a chance. If you really have a problem with this then maybe you should think about doing something to actually stop Angels under performing rather than knock alliances whom are acheiving more than they are expected to with their lower quality members whom others have turned away or discarded
*Just in case anyone brings up the fact that more members means more fleets, more members also means more incoming to cover and also means your normally recruiting lower quality members whom are less active, send less defence and send less attacks so once agin thats not something thats as clear cut as people try and make out
__________________
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
|
|
|
7 Mar 2006, 12:39
|
#48
|
Angels for life !
Join Date: Jul 2001
Posts: 4,269
|
Re: R17 Alliance limits
Quote:
Originally Posted by wakey
You say no disrespect and then you make such an ill informed and insulting comment like "being a top10 alliance purely because you got 40-50% more members"
|
Are you or are you not top5 PURELY and ONLY because you have more members? A simple yes or no is enough. That was my point, nothing else.
If you had 55 members like the rest, you wouldn't be top5.
That's a very simple and basic observation imo. This isn't meant as an insult or anything.
__________________
Former Angels CEO/HC - retired! as of round 16.
FAnG Founder | CEO/HC | Ex Gaming Community Senate
Furious Angels Gaming community
FA Gaming community
No need for a disclaimer ...
|
|
|
7 Mar 2006, 12:40
|
#49
|
The Original Terran
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Afghan atm
Posts: 1,633
|
Re: R17 Alliance limits
63 I reckon it should be because its a nice random number that isnt rounded off to be traditional.
__________________
introduction-Gramma
The following is a list of problems found in various places throughout the manual and game. We love you Noah!
Written by Kloopy Wed Mar 16 22:06:43 2005
Retired just for a bit....
Proud to have been 1up, SiN, Wolfpack, Bluetuba and the leader of ARK.
|
|
|
7 Mar 2006, 12:44
|
#50
|
The Original Carebear
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Trondheim, Norway
Posts: 1,048
|
Re: R17 Alliance limits
Quote:
Originally Posted by noah02
63 I reckon it should be because its a nice random number that isnt rounded off to be traditional.
|
64 would be better! (It's rounded off too, just not in the traditional way. Penny to the first one to see it!)
__________________
If at first you don't succeed, try, try again. Then quit. No use being a damn fool about it.
Oh crap, I might be back. I should take my own advice.
|
|
|
|
All times are GMT +1. The time now is 17:44.
| |