PA is still STALE.

[Troglodyte]

There's always a comedian

[noah02]

Originally Posted by Troglodyte

I don’t require any gratitude. I think my main concern is how people just keep saying, nope that’s a crap idea and end it there… that’s all dandy but WHY?????????????????????

Why is 24 Hours attacks bad, why is this thread utter garbage?, what are your motivating factors… what are your pro’s and cons, not because I said so. Do you understand the bigger picture of the suggestion? Can you think of ways to improve the suggestion or alternative suggestions? Do you agree perhaps that people do have to spend too much time on PA to have a competitive planet or not ? and Why or do you not agree with this statement and why ? ….. do u see where I’m going with this

It pisses me off when ppl respond like this. “this thread has no hope…or bad idea… or please stop posting stupid suggestions” and then they never say WHY it’s a bad suggestions. There is no rebuttal if ppl just slate the idea.

How can you build on an idea if you don’t justify the reasons for a bad idea. I have no problem with people disagreeing …that’s how ideas develop.

I would have to really say that one person being super active doesnt make a blind bit of difference compared to someone being super inactive because I have been in the situation of being super active and got hammered every 5 mins because i was super active so had the roids but lost them instantly for them few hours ofline being in an inactive galaxy and then been a bit inactive in a brilliant galaxy in round4 or 5 and getting incomings like 4 times through the whole round and just nearly scraping the top 100 with my planet.
But then again this round just missed top 100 again being active sometimes and not so active (hospital and army courses) and Being in an excellent galaxy with ppl in my Sig and being in SiN who have supported me and Helped me acheive something.


What I am saying is its not about the individual and never wil be its about the right galaxy and being in an alliance. If you havent got that you havent really got a chance.

[noah02]

Originally Posted by Troglodyte

There's always a comedian

Theres always a teddy bear thrown

[Troglodyte]

Originally Posted by noah02

What I am saying is its not about the individual and never wil be its about the right galaxy and being in an alliance. If you havent got that you havent really got a chance.

1)Do we accept this?

2)Is there not a way to nullify those factors?

3)Would it increase the base of players if there was not such a demand on being in the right gal and the right alliance ?

4) What happens when you’re in the same gal but in opposing alliances? Isn’t that a conflict of interests?

*oh boy, I ‘m scared shitless for making a suggestion , knowing the wrath that will follow. I think the individual should not belong to an alliance, but the gal as a whole should. So if you are 1 big player in a gal and belong to 1up… the only way that that person can remain in 1up is for the entire gal to belong to 1 up.

[Orion Treet]

Originally Posted by Troglodyte

ok, now we are getting somewhere ..

1) How much time do you need to put into PA to be competetive ?
2) At which time limit do you decide that the game is consuming too much time ?
3) For PA to have the biggest base, what would the ideal time limit be ?
4) How much time do u put into the game ?

1- 10 hours per week
10 - 20
30- 40
50-60
70-80
80 +

1) I'd say at least like 2 hours a day ON IRC which adds up to 10-20 hour a week.
2) Hard one, depends what else you're doing at the time, I'd say the moment it starts being a priority above say friends etc. And that is different per person and time/situation.
3) Umm, don't quite get that one
4) Last round I put in like 10 hours a day on most days and 5-6 hours sleep while I had nothing the next day, but that was an exeption since it was a period I had just quit school and didn't have a job yet. Besides that I was in top gal so some activity was required or I'd be kicked (almost happened ) In rounds before that after I'd really gotten settled into the game between 3-4 hours a day.

[Orion Treet]

Originally Posted by Troglodyte

*oh boy, I ‘m scared shitless for making a suggestion , knowing the wrath that will follow. I think the individual should not belong to an alliance, but the gal as a whole should. So if you are 1 big player in a gal and belong to 1up… the only way that that person can remain in 1up is for the entire gal to belong to 1 up.

Don't be afraid to make sudgestions, just make sure before you do you have thought out what the conciquinces would be of it, and not have others do that and be pissed that you didn't. So when you think of something first think for yourself what it would mean for the game, and active as well as inactive players, and only then once in you're mind it wouldn't have a very bad effect on anyone (could say still give a slight advantage to smaller alliance/planets) but that it improves the game for everyone, not just one group, cause that automaticly disadvantages the other one.

[I am Idler]

Originally Posted by Troglodyte

1)Do we accept this?

2)Is there not a way to nullify those factors?

3)Would it increase the base of players if there was not such a demand on being in the right gal and the right alliance ?

4) What happens when you’re in the same gal but in opposing alliances? Isn’t that a conflict of interests?

*oh boy, I ‘m scared shitless for making a suggestion , knowing the wrath that will follow. I think the individual should not belong to an alliance, but the gal as a whole should. So if you are 1 big player in a gal and belong to 1up… the only way that that person can remain in 1up is for the entire gal to belong to 1 up.

NO

[Troglodyte]

No to what ?

and before i forget ...why ?

[Orion Treet]

Originally Posted by Troglodyte

1)Do we accept this?

2)Is there not a way to nullify those factors?

3)Would it increase the base of players if there was not such a demand on being in the right gal and the right alliance ?

4) What happens when you’re in the same gal but in opposing alliances? Isn’t that a conflict of interests?

*oh boy, I ‘m scared shitless for making a suggestion , knowing the wrath that will follow. I think the individual should not belong to an alliance, but the gal as a whole should. So if you are 1 big player in a gal and belong to 1up… the only way that that person can remain in 1up is for the entire gal to belong to 1 up.

1) Well, I've made some sudgestions on that, like moving up bash limit to 50 or even 60%, or even alliance bash limmits, but see the sudgestions area for that. So I would like to see that become less, but it will always be that way to a certain degree.

2) To a certain extent, but I think it would also ruin part of the game tbh if you were to take it away, you can however make it less effective etc.

3) Depends on wether there was enough promotion

4) Look around the tags in the universe, that is already a LOT that way, but what you get then in a lot of fencesitters (unable to attack any large alliance members because that would break gal non agression pack with other alliance), which is no fun, LCH did it with their 2 top players last round, they kept it for long time but broke it and then got bashed, that's what happens if you fencesit.

About the last bit, how will you make up for alliance size limit? What would the max be? What if there was more than 1 alliance in a gal? All factors to think about before you make a sudgestion like that, not flaming you, just think about what you sudgest before you do it, and already talk about those problems and solutions for them so others will see you really spent time thinking about it

[noah02]

Originally Posted by Troglodyte

I think the individual should not belong to an alliance, but the gal as a whole should. So if you are 1 big player in a gal and belong to 1up… the only way that that person can remain in 1up is for the entire gal to belong to 1 up.

I know what you are trying to say here but it is a bad idea.
I mean say you got one 1up galaxy then you have one lets say angels galaxy, well then 1up being at war with the angels would then slaughter that whole galaxy rather than the one planet constantly hence giving the whole galaxy no chance and then imagine i need defence its gets reported to SiN they get me defence then a whole galaxy belonging to SiN 10 players in a gal suddenly get incomming for that one tick then christ on a bike thats gonna be a long day specially when more than 1 galaxy is going to get attacked.

My galaxy had 5 or 6 different alliances in it and came 8th due to different alliances providing there respective planets defence. I wouldnt want it any other way tbh because if your whole galaxy had incoming you were the only one online who's would you report first?
Yours to make sure you get defence and then the rest of the galaxy or report the whole galaxys and hope you are the liked one who gets dibs on first defence.

[noah02]

And I think this thread http://pirate.planetarion.com/showthread.php?t=182248 is the only one the galaxy should join.

[Blixxard]

Originally Posted by mist

is this some form of admission that the PA graphics were done using the cut and paste authoring technique?

Yes.

Originally Posted by biffy

blixxard = rumbled

[wakey]

Originally Posted by Troglodyte

Get off your high horse… What do you accept me to do? Everyone slates the ideas so I remove them. Isn’t that what you want??? You WIN …congratulations, you have successfully stopped any new comers from making suggestions. Well done.


I cant believe PA has been reduced to simpletons who sit on their high throne’s and cast judgment on nOOb's who are only trying to make suggestions. Bad suggestions or not they are still suggestions and correct me if I’m wrong isn’t that what forums are all about

There are all threads about how PA is diminishing and you come on to the scene and call people idiots. . It takes a lot of courage to stand up and make suggestions and it takes little or no brain power to slate ppl. That’s UTTERLY DISGRACEFUL! If I was joining the game now and saw how the Mods treat new comers … well all I can say to the new comers is find a new game, your Ideas are not welcome here!!! Or you probably would not put it so nicely …. Something along the lines of PISS OFF would be more appropriate from you.

But i didnt call you an idiot for your ideas as I've already said a number of times on this thread. I called you an idiot for the hissy fit your throwing because your suggestions werent received in the manner you wanted them to.

If you had bothered to read my reply to you correctly then you would have seen the line

.

Also what you fail to realise is very few ideas ever start out as a perfect diamond, they start out as rough peices of carbon that need evolved into something tangiable and then need their flaws filed out and the edges smoothed to give something workable

As you can see from my first post I made it clear that I have nothing against poor ideas as I know full well they can breed good ideas

Also as i've stated on this thread already its fairly common knowledge i'd like more 'small' players posting on these forums and again I will state that its not you posting that makes you an idiot but the fact you went about and deleted all your threads no matter what the subject was on (some werent even suggestions) and no matter what discussions were going on from the suggestions

[Linkie]

Originally Posted by Troglodyte

1)Do we accept this?

2)Is there not a way to nullify those factors?

3)Would it increase the base of players if there was not such a demand on being in the right gal and the right alliance ?

4) What happens when you’re in the same gal but in opposing alliances? Isn’t that a conflict of interests?

*oh boy, I ‘m scared shitless for making a suggestion , knowing the wrath that will follow. I think the individual should not belong to an alliance, but the gal as a whole should. So if you are 1 big player in a gal and belong to 1up… the only way that that person can remain in 1up is for the entire gal to belong to 1 up.

Alliances is what has made PA into what it is. If you remove alliances, we'll be playing simplanet, without any interaction with other people. The "social" aspect is what makes PA so interesting, most people would get sick of the game pretty fast if it wasn't for this.

[Alessio]

About the first post

Time demand 2 high pff The game is playable If u only check ur planet in the morning and in the night/evening for a few secs.. if u can't check ur planet in the morning, once when u come home, and once b4 u go to sleep or something then why play at all... 3 checks a day can make ur day... but 2 will do, coz u ussually dont have to check when u come home bcz ussually nothing has happened (apart from structures being build etc)...

Universe having 2 be balanced?? The universe is reset every few months.. hows that for balancing the universe?

Its tottally not true that u need all ur time to be on IRC.. coz most of the time ur fleets are out and its useless to be on irc.. or are supposed to be out if u actually played the game... if u check in the morning or evening then theres always some peep that needs to be attacked or deffed so u dont have to be on IRC for very long.. The Eta's etc in this game are just right..

And its easy to get in a decent alliance btw.. just talk to a recruitment officer
so theres nothing wrong with that u have to be in a decent alliance in PA..
And noone starts at the top so nubjes are bound 2 be lose more roids, noone starts in an alliance like 1up..
(+ its kinda fair that players who are more dedicated to the game are in a better situation)

[Ultimate Newbie]

Originally Posted by TheRat

There has never been stats better than those of R11, and if any of you sorry asses are capable of doing them better than Sid, I offer $5 and a piece of cheese.

Shall i send you my address so you can post them please? I'm rather fond of cheese.



Wakey: i'm quite dissapointed with you. I normally agree to you to a large extent on your posts, like now, but as a moderator you have to act responsibly and with respect towards others. Flaming an individual left right and centre isnt the way to solve a problem - leading them to a more amiable solution is far more successful. It is fairly well known that if you challenge someone's beliefs (however misguided), they are more likely to dig and and defend it, whereas if you agree with certain aspects (and some of his notions are fair to an extent, imo) and lead them to adopt a more netural position, you resolve the matter more quickly.

Futhermore, i want to hear more about this 80/20 'rule' of yours . tbh the only country with a similar gini coefficient is Brazil - were approximately 80% of the nation's wealth is held by the top 20% of people. Australia is like 0.38 and European nations like luxemboug are like 0.25 (the smaller the number, the more equitable the distribution of wealth).

I agree with wakey's statement that the length of time between attack and landing is largely irrelevent, but the length of the 'window' in which defence can be sent is very important. By taking a day to land a fleet wont solve any problems if there is still a 1 hour window to send defence - as mentioned before it would prolly just create frustration.

Whilst i agree (again) with wakey when he says that the universe will never be balanced, i dont think that the idea can be dismissed out of hand. A fresh look at limiting factors, such as E for fuel in the earlier rounds (what's the limiting factor these days? the %age of minimum score or the Resource Handling researches, or both?) could go a long way to making the universe more balanced, which imo would make it far more interesting for top players in particular - as not only will they have more planets to attack for a longer period of time, but more people can attack them (which a larger chance of success) to keep them on their toes ). Thinking outside the square here would, imo, be benificial to the game - and to be dismissed out of hand like you did wakey kinda irks me.

Now, i cant remember what else wakey has said, so i'll continue to read this thread from TheRat's post on

[Ultimate Newbie]

Originally Posted by I am Idler

24 hour attacks are horrible because YOU WONT EVER EVER GET THROUGH ON A TARGET.

Why? i thought it was all about battle calculators, defence windows and the competence of your defender's alliance/galaxy that determined success or failure of an attack, not how long it takes to reach a target. Do your crews die or go nuts from space if the journey is longer than 12 hours?

Originally Posted by I am Idler

If you want to stay competetive and not be around that much, I suggest you join LCH or Vision and sit on their fence for a bit

Ouch

[Ultimate Newbie]

Oh, on the topic of unallied players being at a massive disadvantage and being driven into the ground, perhaps there could be (greater) incentives for defending planets without a tag (ie not allied), even if there is +1 ETA from usual.

The idea that sprang to mind was Thieves in R2 - i understood that they were used alot to defend small planets to steal attacker's kill fleets alot. Thus, even though defending these random planets had nothing to do with saving their ships or roids - rather it was sheer greed - the end effect was that these planets were still defended. Perhaps something along these lines could be considered, though i understand that reintroducing (the original) Theives is prolly not the way to go

[Gerbie]

Originally Posted by Ultimate Newbie

Oh, on the topic of unallied players being at a massive disadvantage and being driven into the ground, perhaps there could be (greater) incentives for defending planets without a tag (ie not allied), even if there is +1 ETA from usual.

The idea that sprang to mind was Thieves in R2 - i understood that they were used alot to defend small planets to steal attacker's kill fleets alot. Thus, even though defending these random planets had nothing to do with saving their ships or roids - rather it was sheer greed - the end effect was that these planets were still defended. Perhaps something along these lines could be considered, though i understand that reintroducing (the original) Theives is prolly not the way to go

We have salvage for killed enemy ships. Any incentive like this makes salvage/XP/ship/... farming possible. It's too easy to abuse.

[Ultimate Newbie]

Originally Posted by Gerbie

We have salvage for killed enemy ships. Any incentive like this makes salvage/XP/ship/... farming possible. It's too easy to abuse.

Well, salvage in itself (in its current form) isnt really enough incentive to use a fleet slot to defend someone you dont know against someone else you dont know - especially if you could have used that fleet to attack either of them.

so, i was really trying to troll for random ideas - but its pretty stupid as anything i put forward is slapped down or ignored anyway .

As an aside about salvage: it actually irks me - last round i was a def wh0re, sending some 200ish defending fleets. but i rarely got any salvage as the attacker would recall from the defended target - no battle, no casualties, no salvage for Soveh . nop XP etc either.

heh

[Veil05]

Originally Posted by Ultimate Newbie

Oh, on the topic of unallied players being at a massive disadvantage and being driven into the ground, perhaps there could be (greater) incentives for defending planets without a tag (ie not allied), even if there is +1 ETA from usual.

The idea that sprang to mind was Thieves in R2 - i understood that they were used alot to defend small planets to steal attacker's kill fleets alot. Thus, even though defending these random planets had nothing to do with saving their ships or roids - rather it was sheer greed - the end effect was that these planets were still defended. Perhaps something along these lines could be considered, though i understand that reintroducing (the original) Theives is prolly not the way to go

yes but then surely allainces could have an extra 50 planets in there allaince not on the tag. but can still be defended alot quicker. maybe im totally off topic, if so. ignore me.

[Gate]

Originally Posted by Ultimate Newbie

Why? i thought it was all about battle calculators, defence windows and the competence of your defender's alliance/galaxy that determined success or failure of an attack, not how long it takes to reach a target. Do your crews die or go nuts from space if the journey is longer than 12 hours?

The whole point though, is what does it actually add? Especially for galaxy def: does the galaxy get the normal (up to 4 hours with full text) time to get online, or do they get 12 hours to turn up? This may favour more inactive gals, but it makes attacking far harder, and could stagnate the game. If the defence window remains the same, then what is the point? It changes almost nothing (except perhaps allowing defender to build more ships in tme, but this would favour bigger players with more roids, and would again encourage stagnation)

[I am Idler]

Originally Posted by Ultimate Newbie

Why? i thought it was all about battle calculators, defence windows and the competence of your defender's alliance/galaxy that determined success or failure of an attack, not how long it takes to reach a target. Do your crews die or go nuts from space if the journey is longer than 12 hours?



Ouch

not really, but the people and available fleets that a alliance have available is always a factor, especially since noone except the random unallied launches single attacks at planets.

And lets not forget the incredible boredom that follows even longer waiting periods for something to happen

[Gate]

Originally Posted by I am Idler

not really, but the people and available fleets that a alliance have available is always a factor, especially since noone except the random unallied launches single attacks at planets.

No-one except random unallieds and Gate

Though usually my attacks were retals, and were sometimes very profitable