Planetarions current political situation.
 

No, this is not going to be a thread about politics in round 43, more an opening of discussion about alliances as a whole in Planetarion.

I have after hc'ing three rounds now after being away for a few rounds noticed an unfortunate polarisation in alliance politics in Planetarion. Now, if its a deliberate tactic for the "big" alliances or if its a situation caused by the game mechanics, I can't really tell, but maybe opening a discussion about it is important.

A few years back did Jester release his "lemons" thread, which was a reaction towards the alliance focus of the current game. I do belive that there are a fair few people who think that his arguments were wise, and he introduced it as a fact that in order for alliances to govern themselves, a no limit on members should be imposed.

Now, some 20 rounds after that thread, I feel that a new discussion about alliances and alliancelimits should be held. Maybe something even the Planetarion developers in Cin and Appocomaster can give some general outlays on this.

Let me just first recap what the current community is torn between.

Some feel that the limit should not be there. and that whomever wants to join an alliance should do so.

Some feel that the current limit governs the game, and that there is nothing wrong with the current state of alliances.

Some feel that the alliance limit should be reduced dramatically, to maybe 30-40-50 members in order to make politics more interesting and more dynamic.


And then there are some who feel there should be no alliances at all, that all alliances should be removed, and that we should introduce private galaxies instead.

Personally I think my views have been pretty vocal about what I want, but I will here try to outlay the pro's and con's for every stance. If someone feel im being partically positive about one, let me just say at first, that I am in favour of a smaller alliance system. 30-50 members.

First. The no limit option. Remove all alliance limits, and let whomever join etc.

Pros: Easier to get into so called established alliances.
Cons: Will cause less poltical dynamics, wont help with the newbie problem, that a new player will still be ousted by an alliance with a so called active clause. New players who are active might do well, if they arent active the first week, they might end up kicked and roided.

Keep it as it is option
Pros: none really.... but its a way to give half and half so that it earns people who want small alliances better chances (50 score limit) and so that "bigger" alliances can keep an open door policy to some extent.
Cons: causes a stagnate diplomacy. Several rounds with the same people working together and causing a somewhat unhealthy enviroment, and lack of interest.

Reduce to 30-50 members.
Pros: makes alliance wars more competative. Makes it harder for "big established" alliances to do alliance bashing, caused politics to become more than brute force.

Cons: People might not get to play with their friends (allthough you still have the buddypack system) People is required to be more active to be a member of a "big" alliance. Might not be enough officers to run a high core.

Remove alliances entirely

Pros: causes the game to become more galaxyfixated, galaxies will become more important. Will make it easier for new players to do well, since galaxy will be their only entry into Planetarion.

cons: People are attached to the alliance system, and like to have it. Galaxies will become more ruthless with regards to new players.


So all these options have lots of pro's and cons, and I do not disagree with that.

However, why not change things now and then? We do keep changing stats every round, we switch between singel targetting and multi targetting. We experiment with buddypacks and we do change other things.

I would LOVE to see a round with no alliance limits, and a round with only 40 members, just to SEE how it works.

It is difficult to know how things work before we have actually tried it, and I really feel that the current system needs a fresh approach. And I think that many people agree with me that some new approaches to alliances is needed. So can we TRY to change it for a round?

Re: Planetarions current political situation.
 

On this particular idea, would it not then create Cluster alliances to get the extra eta reduction? Or perhaps for some alliances to attempt group there planets and galaxies within a cluster?

Actually I am not sure there is a Cluster eta reduction anymore, what with all the limits on who you can and cannot defend?

Re: Planetarions current political situation.
 

the ideas are interesting. another thing is thought that alliances have a well developed tools ect ... if you change to 30 man allies will all of them be able to be competative int his area ect ... i mean really its jut goin to be more boring imo ...

an interesting idea also is change the focus of each round, the rounds seem about 1 week too long, so each round could be a gal round a cluster or parallel round ect. but againt hat would hurt alliances as they will come back for alliance round and everything will be screwed up

Re: Planetarions current political situation.
 

First off let me say, nice post.

However, removing alliances entirely, will not remove them from the game. They would still be there, just not in the current format that you see them. To be honest though, it might be refreshing change. After all, this is how the game originally started. Having not played myself for a long time I was suprised to see that Alliances have taken to the in game system, as it was rarely, if ever used by the top alliances. But then surely that must show that it has come a long way?

I like the idea of bringing back private galaxies though.

In a game with the current player base, I am all for smaller alliances. An 80 member limit is obviously advantageous and I can see why people wouldn't want to get rid of it.

Although this being my first (part) round since R13 or whenever it was, I am somewhat out of the loop so my comments may be irrelevant.

Re: Planetarions current political situation.
 

have politics been boring this last couple of rounds?

i have no problem with small reduction in alliance size but big cuts would just force us to kick people who play casual, they would just quit the game rather than starting with a new alliance. often these are our longest serving core players who are taking it easy do to rl.

solution to that would end up with 2 tag alliances like the old days.

I would prefer that PA didn't make it so hard for a small alliance or new player to actually play, the stats this round are awful in that you need team-ups to attack and alliances of mixed class are vulnerable.

Re: Planetarions current political situation.
 

removing alliances in-game just puts us to pre-PAX days, you would just have bigger alliances as they would no longer be controled.

Re: Planetarions current political situation.
 

i still think 50 player tag is best option more tags more politics more fun thats how i see it

Re: Planetarions current political situation.
 

I do think that the stats affect smaller alliances a lot more than bigger alliances, especially now as the alliances tend to tell every member what race or what fleetsetup they are going to play with.

This actually causes a lot of differences between the players, and personally I think this is a slight unfair advantage. Personally, I would prefer that stats were tested by a small group of players, and only shown to everyone at start up, or that we kept the same stats over again, to maintain it. For a new player (a few does exist) it is confusing to have stats totally change every round. ( I know however that the base would never accept this, but if we want to get some new players to the game, thats the way to go.)

So stats DOES affect how alliances do, and it is also creating a tough enviroment for the people who are without tag, or in a smaller alliance. I do personally feel that a smaller tag would give people more options playingwise. Especially the ones without a tag. Rounds between r10 and r22ish, we actually did get a few people who were allianceless who were in top 100, that happens more or less never now. (Except if they're in a fortress gal)

I am not saying radical change would be only good, change is never JUST good, but change is needed to create interest, and to create an enviroment that would be more fairer and equal for all players.

Re: Planetarions current political situation.
 

Ah, it's that time of round again. Actual arguments in the first post, for a change, so at the very least we might be able to use the first page of this thread as a reference for future instances, which will undoubtedly occur. It's been a while since I actively participated in this discussion, so I guess I'll give it a go.

I will attempt to remain as objective as possible in this post. I will assign labels to my arguments for easy cross-referencing. Here goes.

A1) Agreeing that increasing or removing the limit will make it easier to get into big alliances. Alliances that are full or alost full will be more hesistant to recruit than alliances that aren't.

A2) Agreeing that fewer alliances will make politics less dynamic. Removing the limit doesn't necessarily lead to fewer alliances, though I accept that it probably will, considering the wider Planetarion ecosystem.

A3) Disagreeing that it won't help with the newbie problem. Assuming the newbie problem is that demands placed upon them are too high, then by A1, increasing or removing the limit lowers those demands. It's not the solution (no single thing is), but it's a step in the right direction.

A4) Adding that about half of politically active alliances tend to under-recruit if anything. See the division between Ultores, DLR & Apprime and NewDawn, Conspiracy & xVx. Most (if not all) superpowers are in the under-recruiting group, thus higher tag limits will make them weaker.

B1) First of all, mentioning that the current system includes a limit on number of scoring planets that's lower than the actual alliance limit (two limit system). Even though many of the same arguments apply, I feel this is a significantly different approach than the system where the limits are the same (one limit system).

B2) Questioning whether the current system causes political stagnation. Please elaborate.

B3) Questioning whether having people work together for multiple rounds induces an unhealthy environment.

B4) Adding that the current system encourages splitting your alliance into two ranks of players: counting and non-counting. On average, counting players, by definition, contribute less to your alliance than non-counting planets. It is then no more than logical to prioritize counting players over non-counting players when assigning defence or picking targets, which is bad for internal atmosphere. This argument does not apply to the two limit system.

B5) Adding that the two limit system encourages toleration of crashing, by reducing the impact thereof, making the game less hardcore.

C1) As per A2, agreeing that more alliances makes the political landscape more volatile, and also agreeing that this is a good thing.

C2) Disagreeing that the distinction between "big established" alliances and other alliances is pertinent. Even if we change the distinction to either "superpower alliances" and "other alliances", or "top alliances" and "training alliances", disagreeing that lowering the tag limit makes bashing alliances harder.

C3) Agreeing that people not being able to play with their friends is a bad thing.

C4) Agreeing with your concern that there might not be enough people willing and able to lead alliances if the number of alliances is to double or more. Adding that in a social game like Planetarion, there is almost nothing worse than seeing your alliance fall apart mid-game.

D1) Agreeing with everything you've said. Straightforward and sensical.

D2) Adding that in in-game terms, this is the exact same solution as removing the tag limit, except worsened by the removal of ingame alliance tools and worsened further by increasing information asymmetry in favour of alliances. Therefore, not seeing the point of it.



Like I said, no opinions. Do with it what you will.

Re: Planetarions current political situation.
 

I'd be pro-smaller tags of a single limit of 50 members. I'd be against 'no alliances' and indifferent to anything else.

mz is right though, it can suck having something fall apart mid round so running an alliance shouldn't be undertaken lightly. Nor is the "nothing less than total victory" attitude going to get you very far, as statistically the chances of disappointment is too high.

Winning PA is achieved only by not screwing up enough to cost you the round, and only then as long as enough people are ok with you finishing in first. The format of ingame alliances only has a small part to play, as the community is largely consistent round-to-round and so the mentality behind politics is always going to come out no matter what limitations and restrictions are put in place.

It's all a moot point anyway, as Jagex or whoever the fk owns us now want the domain not the game. That's why Cin & Co were almost allowed to use the game engine to create a new game but weren't allowed to keep the name.

11 years of linkbuilding makes planetarion(.com) some very valuable property. Perfect for a new game, perhaps...

Re: Planetarions current political situation.
 

i dont see an issue with the current size and i think there is enough 'permanant' alliances to make the politics intresting... they have definatly improved in the last few rounds....

Maybe making everybody count to score would be better tho - would mean allainces couldn't hide crashes in there non counting players.

I know there is the scanner arguement to this with allainces scanners having to scount to score but surely that will affect everyone and nullifies that problem...

Re: Planetarions current political situation.
 

last few rounds we have had a close race for #1, so whats the problem

Re: Planetarions current political situation.
 

removing alliances ingame wont mean alliances dissapear, will just mean they play slightly different. ie, they will fortress more and still attack together.

smaller alliance limit does not mean harder to bash alliances it means easier as def pool is reduced whilst potential attacking fleets is not.

i am for no limits on alliances. i think it would help the game grow.

Re: Planetarions current political situation.
 

I am, like others, pro smaller alliance sizes. Max tag size of 40 would suit me. Alliances have proven time and time again they can function well with circa 40 members (p3ng/App/Asc/DLR et cetra).

Why not give it a go..?

More alliances, more alliances politics, different dynamics to the game would be so much better in my opinion.

I would ever go as low as 30 man tags... Would make the game completely different :)

With 10 man gals it would force cooperation, even for gal raiding... Would make for a very interesting, at least political, game.

Re: Planetarions current political situation.
 

isn't so long ago that we had gals with 25 members!!

Re: Planetarions current political situation.
 

Whatever ****s up alliances the most - pick that option.

Re: Planetarions current political situation.
 

I do think that maybe we could try a round with less members in the alliance, with tools like the merlin bot and the ingame arbiter/attack system TGV has managed just fine these last 3 rounds. I don't really see the harm in trying, and if the alliances are warned in advance it would really give them time to prepare for things. I also know that mPulse is willing to offer any alliance hosting for a merlin bot/webbie system.

Re: Planetarions current political situation.
 

1) no limit

+ easier to get into alliances
+ everybody can play with whoever they like. this prevents the blocking politics where a bunch of friends lead key positions in different alliances which are anyways led like 1 alliance
+ with a certain % instead of a fix number of players which contribute into score every alliance has a pool for new players which dont harm them
+ epic wars between maybe just 2 alliances

- Politics might get obsolete if it really ends in just 2 alliances

2) Leave as it is

+ Everyone gets the chance to play a game they know for like 10 years
+ Politics possible

- current player diversity doesnt allow any different naps/blocks than we see every god damn round
- New players don't get any chance
- Training alliances are missused as farms (believe me, i know it)

3) Limit alliances to 30-50
+ Competitive wars
+ Better diplomacy/politics option if player distribution is healthy

- ... if not: 1 alliance will own all others
- alliances will be even more strict on how they let in
- the game will become even more hardcore as smaller tags mean that a higher activity level is vital
- No chance for smaller alliances without hardcore players

Re: Planetarions current political situation.
 

you would never get just 2 alliances, people hate each other too much

limit alliances to 30-50.... you will get multi tag alliances, blocks of more alliances, alliances will be more affected by inactivity or holidays.. that thing called real life! new players will never get a chance.

Re: Planetarions current political situation.
 

We are playing block vs block every round. NOthing would really change except ppl would have to give up their hc claims and merge.

An alliance limit of 30-50 would be a reason for me not to play as I've played one round with a (i think) 50 limit which was absolutely hardcore horiffic. People need to be super active if you want to have anything close to a working defense system.
There is absolutely no reason for tag limits. As you said, ppl hate each other so the danger of just 2 alliances existing is ignorable. People will have alliances, smaller alliances will have to form blocks - yes. Part of politics i forgot to mention in my post.

Re: Planetarions current political situation.
 

With the current amount of players in planetarion i would find it really interesting to play with alliance limit on 50, with top40 adding to the score. That would be enough to have 10 or even more fulltag alliances with active player base.

Re: Planetarions current political situation.
 

I am presuming you don't mean that folk go and sign up multiple accounts just to increase the defence pool (aka support planets) as the mechanisms are there to do it if the tag limit is dropped.
That would be an artificial increase.



However if there was a Xmas special round where there was a no tag limit I would not say no to trial it.

Re: Planetarions current political situation.
 

The problem with smaller tags is that they can then be full of hardcore players, making the difference in alliances much higher, which can result in faster stagnation. Right now you see smaller tags that could have more but don't, since they can't find enough of the players they want. Then again, own fault in not having full tag, you could give newer players a chance and risk having some shitty people intag since there's room.

For ex ND, we have many people playing this game on half-time, which all are old members having been around for ages, basically playing cause of ND and not the game. Then we always take in new players every round, some get into the community, others go inactive and get kicked, or some just don't even like playing and keep hanging around on #newdawn without a planet. That's what forms nearly half the alliance. Other half is the more hardcore players, making ND a more balanced alliance still able to be competitive. With 50 man tag this is already damn hard, as there are easily 2-3 other tags with 50 people all playing hardcore.

So ND would basically have to play with only their hardcore people from round to round in order to stay competitive, which would be an option, but not a nice one. We'd have to quit taking in new people, and at worst kick out some old members. I remember how much the 100 to 80 tag size reduction sucked.

And for what? Cause some alliances out there have the standard of "only actives lalalalal, only l337, blabla". Ohhh, unfair to have big tag. Well, go fking recruit then and stop whining, cause I see tags there that could have more players if they'd want to. And don't forget the new trend in PA of fencing through having a smaller tag. Just staying out of war through not beign competitive and play farmatarion instead.

And also, blocks are, and always will be a part of this game no matter what tag size there is. Even with 100k player base there were 2 sides fighting eachother in Planetarion. Lowering taglimits would only bring on more tags in the blocks. Maybe more fluid politics, yes, but might not be the way to solve it either. Maybe one reason of less fluid politics atm is that damn defencive nature of the stats so it's hard for even 2 vs. 1 to make a proper dent in a few nights.

And as GM said, it's been a tight race for 1st place these past rounds, so what's the actual problem as it is right now? We're currently looking at 4 potential winners this round too.

Re: Planetarions current political situation.
 

(@ManiacMagic) pa can do whatever it wants to claw its way out slowly preventing the inevitable ... but the game sucks no players ect it wont get better sry

any major change you make like this will just piss off 1/3 the player bas and of that 1/3 10 or more will just quit ... ect bla bla ... let pa die the way it is

Re: Planetarions current political situation.
 

here is an idea, let each account have 3 or 4 planets to control ... wowww maybe try that for a beta round cause i bet that would change the game aLOT never know might be fun

Re: Planetarions current political situation.
 

as long as ALL have the option it isn't a bad idea rather than those who have no issues with multi-ing / Knowledge of VNC/proxies/VPNs etc.

Re: Planetarions current political situation.
 

noe as in you sign up and you cna make 4 whole planets if u wanted/had the time ...

Re: Planetarions current political situation.
 

ccant be in the saame gal, alliances could then only have 40 or 50 players or 80 whateve, but all that players planets are a part. would be over 4k planets giving more targets and more dynamics ... lol

Re: Planetarions current political situation.
 

AMEN to this :)

Re: Planetarions current political situation.
 

= option open to all

I would have no problem with this being trialled out

Re: Planetarions current political situation.
 

This, for me, is the bigger problem. People get bored of PA if winning isn't an option, so rather than dick about with alliance member limitations - how about making the game enjoyable?

PA is shit to play, and has been for a long time, unless there's some kind of 'victory' could be had. And the number of 'victories' available by design are extremely limited. Fix that, and you've fixed PA.

Also, removing alliances in-game will kill planetarion. Alliances will still exist behind the scenes, making them even more 'exclusive' and the casual player will just **** off and new players (if we ever get any) wont be far behind them.

Re: Planetarions current political situation.
 

maybe just set it so you cant def your own planets .... would be interesting imo ... maybe try it with havok or a trial side round

Re: Planetarions current political situation.
 

I don't think my first point was made strongly enough. To get the most out of alliance play you have to make it as difficult as possible. Alliances don't care about making the game interesting so the harder it is for them, the more interesting the game gets. Reducing alliance tag numbers or removing eta advantage altogether are two fantastic tools.

Re: Planetarions current political situation.
 

nothing will be changed nor tried out for x period of time.. we`ve been all over these things for rounds after rounds after rounds and the best outcome has been the tag size change to 10 more or less planets counting to score :P

Re: Planetarions current political situation.
 

I really like ManiacMagic's idea of having more planets under your control. it would definitely make attacking easier, increasing the number of targets without increasing the member base is just what this game needs (spread out the farming).
Here is how i would like it to work...

When you sign up you're given your 4 planets which can all be buddy-packed but not in the same galaxy as another of your planets.
you can run how ever you like each with its individual constructions but all the research is pooled, with up to 4 different researched undertaken at the one time (obviously if you do this it wont be as fast).
you get 4 fleets, remove base fleet.
in order to defend yourself you must have a fleet either 1,2,3,4 at that planet.
you can still send to alliances and stuff but that would leave one of your planets open for attack
a planet can hold up to 4 of your fleets so you could effectively have a main planet then 3 others...which is pretty much the same as it is now.
Planet income is combined into a pool for you to distribute how ever you like.
(doesn't have to be 4 planets can be any number)

Re: Planetarions current political situation.
 

I even find that idea constructive, but Planetarion will take even more time than it takes at this point, which will basically mean more players will stop playing. We need someone to attract people, not distract them. Nearly all browsing games have some awards for the top3-5-10 players and it's not credits to the game. I'm pretty sure you can find sponsor who u can advertise to get some pc stuff as reward, ipad or tablets. I saw at least 15 different games having this, why Planetarion after 43 rounds still doesnt?

Re: Planetarions current political situation.
 

That was round 9 last i think :P
Oops, sorry, 9.5 (whatever a 'half' round means)

Re: Planetarions current political situation.
 

They used to give out T-shirts, modelled by Denise Richards iirc

Re: Planetarions current political situation.
 

that is interesting idea, so each planet would be a fleet spots for its race ... would be difficult to organize the ships ... or could the ships stay at any plne ie can your cat fico stay at the planet with your terfico?

t

Re: Planetarions current political situation.
 

All I will say to this is a change is as good as the rest. So why the hell not try alternating things for a few rounds? If it fails surely we can just return to where we are.

Re: Planetarions current political situation.
 

Okay well 4 planets are alot to manage,

But what about just 2 Allow every player to have 2 planets

Just have a little box at the top of the game so you can switch between the two

Both planets should be run excally as 1 planet is now,

Attacking or defending or being in the same gal as your other planet should be banned.

equally it should be possible to reset one planet without affecting the other.


This idea would instantly double the number of active planets and allow alot more freedom to play..

One change i would suggest make it so a player can join an allaince not a planet. IE both planets become part of the same allaince, and Only the higher scoring one counts for allaince score.

Re: Planetarions current political situation.
 

So basically everyone ends up with a planet for ranks and then 1 or more support planets, basically promoting selfish play and attacks that will never land as everyone has a 4+ idle defence fleets at their disposal. The fact you can try and escort yourself would be negated by that mere fact. If anyone attempted to play their planets independently of each other it would be a relatively frustrating task.

I just don't see the idea of multiple planets working in PA. With completely different game mechanics and rules it's quite possible.

Re: Planetarions current political situation.
 

Not saying it has to be a perminate change it could just be done for a round or two to see if it works.

PA needs a infusion of new ideas so why not this double the number of planets in the universe will never be a bad thing, and having 2 xan planets means 6 attacks a night that lowers the chances of defense

Re: Planetarions current political situation.
 

worth a try imo and would at least liven things up for the first 400 ticks if nothing else..

make the multing leagal at last.. lots of current players do it in 1 or the other way and its also kinda not fair imo to others that dont :P

if ure saying u cant handle playing 2+ planets then dont, play with 1 instead, like now, and everything is ok. U still have ure alliancemates that have more than 1 planet and u still have ure support. Its still up to u how u wanna play it, simple.

tho i think this is also one of the changes that a group of ppl see uncomfortable for em and therefore not implemented.

Re: Planetarions current political situation.
 

This doesn't have anything with the topic, though.

Re: Planetarions current political situation.
 

has anyone thought of the fact that removing alliance from ingame would mean no alliance tools for the ones without private tech ?
for some alliance this is all they have, to take that from them would effectively destroy their ability to compete !

Re: Planetarions current political situation.
 

Yes, you're the fourth to mention that in this thread.

Re: Planetarions current political situation.
 

what happends if you prod ships at a planet and it doesnt have any fleet available?