Planetarion Forums

Planetarion Forums (https://pirate.planetarion.com/index.php)
-   Planetarion Suggestions (https://pirate.planetarion.com/forumdisplay.php?f=95)
-   -   Alliance Size for next round (https://pirate.planetarion.com/showthread.php?t=198951)

CBA 23 Sep 2010 15:54

Alliance Size for next round
 
FOR ONCE DO SOMETHING FUN/NEW/EXCITING

reduce tag limit to 30.


More action, More politics, More fighting, No stagnation. Hoooraaay!!!!!!!!!

Mzyxptlk 23 Sep 2010 16:04

Re: Alliance Size for next round
 
Here's the official Ascendancy response: "Oh god, not this shit again."

gzambo 23 Sep 2010 16:13

Re: Alliance Size for next round
 
cant find more than 29 people to play with you CBA ?

Light 23 Sep 2010 17:39

Re: Alliance Size for next round
 
Delete the tag limit.

Its been shown time and time again, that the tag limit does not force competition or better the game in any way. It only serves to allow crappier alliances to stand a chance and dictate politics due to their member size being close to (if not the same) as the top tier alliances.

It becomes even worse, when one of these crappier alliances actually achieves a high rank. As they are crappier and cannot backup their position with warfare, there main option is to block or stagnate the universe rather than create extra competition.

Alliances will be crap, regardless of what the limit is. The tag limit just forces some alliances to block rather than recruit, the tag limit this round was 80 but each war consisted of 160+ on each side. The tag limit does not prevent uneven wars as alliances can/will/should still block to gain a number advantage.

We also dont have enough experienced players with the time to be decent HC's/DC's/BC's to sustain multiple alliances to a high calibre. If we lower the limit, we dont get more alliances.. as we dont have the players willing to create and maintain those alliances. I think mz pointed this out in an earlier thread with statistics.

As we've now had the tag limit in for some time and its been holding back the community. I dont think its a good idea to simply delete the tag limit instantly but instead gradually increase it overtime until we get to a point where alliances arnt playing near full tag.

jermain 24 Sep 2010 10:07

Re: Alliance Size for next round
 
hmmm, different thought. Delete Alliances for a round, make gal sizes 30-40 man or something and have gal wars. Something new atleast. Ofcourse an ally could just create 2 gals etc. but it does create a new side to things all being in one location.

MrLobster 24 Sep 2010 10:47

Re: Alliance Size for next round
 
Unfortunately Alliances wont go away just because they are deleted in game. They existed before any alliance feature was placed into the game, and will continue to exist if anything is removed.

Mzyxptlk 24 Sep 2010 10:50

Re: Alliance Size for next round
 
On the bright side, removing alliances would also remove ally limits!

HaNzI 24 Sep 2010 11:03

Re: Alliance Size for next round
 
what about whoever has server access do ctrl+alt+delete on all backups of this game. That would probably change everyones lives to the better

Marka 24 Sep 2010 13:32

Re: Alliance Size for next round
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Light (Post 3199764)
Delete the tag limit.

Its been shown time and time again, that the tag limit does not force competition or better the game in any way. It only serves to allow crappier alliances to stand a chance and dictate politics due to their member size being close to (if not the same) as the top tier alliances.

Where is the problem in more diverse politics?
Quote:

Originally Posted by Light (Post 3199764)
It becomes even worse, when one of these crappier alliances actually achieves a high rank. As they are crappier and cannot backup their position with warfare, there main option is to block or stagnate the universe rather than create extra competition.

You mean different than this round when 2 allies had 75% of T100 planets and where napped for most part?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Light (Post 3199764)
Alliances will be crap, regardless of what the limit is. The tag limit just forces some alliances to block rather than recruit, the tag limit this round was 80 but each war consisted of 160+ on each side. The tag limit does not prevent uneven wars as alliances can/will/should still block to gain a number advantage.

Block rather than recruit...
I believe the main issue right now is that all alliances draw from a pool of 200-300 decent players. At a certain point (usually 1 week before round even starts) you can recruit whatever you like but there is not much left worth grabbing.
The theory behind small tags is that you force those players into more different tags - not 4-5 like we have now, thus creating a more diverse landscape.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Light (Post 3199764)
We also dont have enough experienced players with the time to be decent HC's/DC's/BC's to sustain multiple alliances to a high calibre. If we lower the limit, we dont get more alliances.. as we dont have the players willing to create and maintain those alliances. I think mz pointed this out in an earlier thread with statistics.

It's infintely more complicated and time-consuming to run alliance with 80 ppl compared to 30 ppl - probably resulting in more players willing to step up as HC.
Quote:

Originally Posted by Light (Post 3199764)
As we've now had the tag limit in for some time and its been holding back the community. I dont think its a good idea to simply delete the tag limit instantly but instead gradually increase it overtime until we get to a point where alliances arnt playing near full tag.

How exactly has it been holding back the community?
How would have a lack of tag limits been better for the community?
Without size limits - what prevention do we have from two 200-ppl-allies forming that ruin the round for rest?

I am of the opinion that PA hasn't tried out an effective alliance limit yet (in the region of 25-35), which might force the creation of maybe 10 competitivie alliances. Not saying that it will be better, just sayin that it can't be much worse than the powerblock we had for most of this round.

jermain 24 Sep 2010 13:43

Re: Alliance Size for next round
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by MrLobster (Post 3199783)
Unfortunately Alliances wont go away just because they are deleted in game. They existed before any alliance feature was placed into the game, and will continue to exist if anything is removed.

Of course allies wouldnt disappear, as i said they would just create 2-3 30 man gals etc. However it does shake up the way wars would be fought throwing all the planets into individual galaxies together. Atleast its a change!

Confraria 24 Sep 2010 15:37

Re: Alliance Size for next round
 
why do ppl still reply to Light posts? even more upsetting, why do ppl even bother reading Light posts?

t3k 24 Sep 2010 15:57

Re: Alliance Size for next round
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Marka (Post 3199789)
It's infintely more complicated and time-consuming to run alliance with 80 ppl compared to 30 ppl - probably resulting in more players willing to step up as HC.

I can vouch for that 100%.

Not saying I agree on the tag limit one way or another, but that statement deserves to be quoted for truth.

Cowch 25 Sep 2010 00:52

Re: Alliance Size for next round
 
I'm skeptical that enough people would form new alliances to take all the active players.

Light 25 Sep 2010 02:19

Re: Alliance Size for next round
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Confraria (Post 3199809)
why do ppl still reply to Light posts? even more upsetting, why do ppl even bother reading Light posts?

Lets take your recent posts shall we...

You say, each player should get 5 planets to themselves! and 25 planets to a galaxy. Awesome suggestion, top notch.. no idea why no-one followed up the idea.

Your other posts go into the 2003's... So, why do people read my posts? As they're more relivant and on target than yours.

I dont even know who you are, i dont care to know who you are.. your post history is poor, your suggestions are worse than cba's and your attitude stinks.

Light 25 Sep 2010 02:31

Re: Alliance Size for next round
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Marka (Post 3199789)
Where is the problem in more diverse politics?

its not more diverse politics, its just block wars. PA hasnt had interesting and indepth politics in along time. I admit im wrong when im wrong and when i joined PA again i misjudged Asc, They were the dominate alliance by far and i took that against them. When in reality, they deserved to be dominate as they were by far the best alliance.

Now Asc has gone casual, we dont have an alliance at the top of the rankings dictating politics, so they're beneficial for PA or for the round. Insted, we have shit politics by shit alliances all trying to avoid war.

Quote:

You mean different than this round when 2 allies had 75% of T100 planets and where napped for most part?
Yes, that was my point. Alliances will be shit if they want to be shit, it doesnt matter what the tag limit is. If an alliance would recruit to victory and you impose a tag limit, they'd simply block to victory instead. The tag limit really doesnt serve much purpose, we've seen time and time again, it doesnt create more competition. The last proper competition was Asc vs Omen and that was nothing to do with the tag limit.

Quote:

Block rather than recruit...
I believe the main issue right now is that all alliances draw from a pool of 200-300 decent players. At a certain point (usually 1 week before round even starts) you can recruit whatever you like but there is not much left worth grabbing.
The theory behind small tags is that you force those players into more different tags - not 4-5 like we have now, thus creating a more diverse landscape.
Not really, Active players tend to want to play with other active players. Thats why the majority of rounds, we have a firm favourite.

Lets take for exampe osiris, people in osiris didnt join osiris due to the tag limit. They joined due to the HC or maybe the previous round, no-one said X is full and Y is full, so i shall join Osiris. They joined as its the alliance they thought they'd feel most comfortable in (and that pre-round, osiris was expect to do well).

Another example would be the xVx/Asc round. With only xVx and Asc at near full tag, you cant use the argument that it forced people to join other alliances. People go where they want to go, and alliances tend to recruit whoever they want,

Quote:

It's infintely more complicated and time-consuming to run alliance with 80 ppl compared to 30 ppl - probably resulting in more players willing to step up as HC.
Not really, whatever your member count, you still need 24/7 DC coverage and thats where most alliance fail.


[/quote]
I am of the opinion that PA hasn't tried out an effective alliance limit yet (in the region of 25-35), which might force the creation of maybe 10 competitivie alliances. Not saying that it will be better, just sayin that it can't be much worse than the powerblock we had for most of this round.[/quote]

Im of the opinion, that if PA has to reduce alliance limits to 30.. then PA is completly dead.

You even said yourself, you dont even know if it would be better, then why the hell are you suggesting it.

Monroe 25 Sep 2010 04:35

Re: Alliance Size for next round
 
I'm in favor of larger allies rather than smaller, it allows more training of new players as the bigger allies can't fill up their tag with top skilled players, and so are almost always willing to take a risk with at least a few new players. In a universe with a 50- alliance limit the top allies can't afford any newbies, and so the newbies don't get to see how the top allies function.

Another major issue with 50- member allies is you cannot put enough fleets together for a decent attack, this means allies will have to block for attack purposes just to have a decent chance. In my opinion any attempt to greatly restrict the size of allies would simply lead to battle groups being formed who will work together as de facto allies.

Marka 25 Sep 2010 10:41

Re: Alliance Size for next round
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Light (Post 3199850)
Yes, that was my point. Alliances will be shit if they want to be shit, it doesnt matter what the tag limit is. If an alliance would recruit to victory and you impose a tag limit, they'd simply block to victory instead. The tag limit really doesnt serve much purpose, we've seen time and time again, it doesnt create more competition.

You are arguing that this and this will happen when you actually can't know because....we never had a low tag limit.
Either you have a very good crystal ball or you are selling assumptions as arguments.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Light (Post 3199850)
Not really, Active players tend to want to play with other active players. Thats why the majority of rounds, we have a firm favourite.

And isn't that exactly the problem, having firm favourites?
Active players are usually those able to adapt best. They will find a group they want to play with.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Light (Post 3199850)
Lets take for exampe osiris, people in osiris didnt join osiris due to the tag limit. They joined due to the HC or maybe the previous round, no-one said X is full and Y is full, so i shall join Osiris. They joined as its the alliance they thought they'd feel most comfortable in (and that pre-round, osiris was expect to do well).
Another example would be the xVx/Asc round. With only xVx and Asc at near full tag, you cant use the argument that it forced people to join other alliances. People go where they want to go, and alliances tend to recruit whoever they want,

Why you think it is helping your argument citing two failures of the system?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Light (Post 3199850)
Im of the opinion, that if PA has to reduce alliance limits to 30.. then PA is completly dead.

You even said yourself, you dont even know if it would be better, then why the hell are you suggesting it.

You don't know if it would not be better, why the hell you are shouting it down with incoherent arguments?

Linkie 25 Sep 2010 10:45

Re: Alliance Size for next round
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Marka (Post 3199861)
You are arguing that this and this will happen when you actually can't know because....we never had a low tag limit.
Either you have a very good crystal ball or you are selling assumptions as arguments.

We have seen what happens when tag size is decreased though, and presuming that trend continues, it's fairly simple to picture what happens when they are further decreased. And even though theorycrafting is just that, theory, it still has merit if it is based on real experience/arguments.

Paisley 25 Sep 2010 11:07

Re: Alliance Size for next round
 
80-100 tag limits are fine
large enough to allow good alliance play but small enough to prevent every multi and his dog tagging up

CBA 25 Sep 2010 14:04

Re: Alliance Size for next round
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Light (Post 3199848)
I dont even know who you are, i dont care to know who you are.. your post history is poor, your suggestions are worse than cba's and your attitude stinks.

Sorry but how is smaller alliance size's bad suggestions?

Mzyxptlk 25 Sep 2010 14:07

Re: Alliance Size for next round
 
Maybe try reading one of the other 10+ threads about it?

Sun_Tzu 25 Sep 2010 14:36

Re: Alliance Size for next round
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by CBA (Post 3199873)
Sorry but how is smaller alliance size's bad suggestions?

Because I say it is.

neroon 25 Sep 2010 15:32

Re: Alliance Size for next round
 
im still staying to my pov and approve this suggestion :P

ellonweb 26 Sep 2010 00:48

Re: Alliance Size for next round
 
This has been discussed to death; the thread should have been locked after Light's thorough response.

[B5]Londo 26 Sep 2010 08:58

Re: Alliance Size for next round
 
Ive said this to every tag limit thread Ive seen: a very low tag limit of 30-40 will result in current alliances running two or 3 tags, and worse there would be a flagship tag and two support tags. Politics would not e more diverse for that as the HCs etc of the alliances would remain the same and they would play politics with all their tags as a unit. The larger number of tags at full size wont breed competition because the support tags would soon fall away and the splitting off of a second tag puts an even greater emphasis on good defence organisation being able to use inter-tag defence within the alliance thus helping the established alliances even more. All it does is create a discriminatory system within alliances where the less active are even more a second class citizen than they already are.
The only good possibility is that its easier to find 30 good players than 60 for setting up a new ally, but if someone wants small but 1337 they dont need a low tag size to do it.

Cooling 26 Sep 2010 09:15

Re: Alliance Size for next round
 
If nobody thinks tag limits are a good idea - including most of the (few) people who aren't complete retards - why are they still persisted with, round after round, for no reason whatsoever? Honestly its become farcical just how shit the current dev team are. You'd be better of having the game run by a pack of spastic monkeys.

Monroe 26 Sep 2010 15:28

Re: Alliance Size for next round
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Cooling (Post 3199901)
If nobody. You'd be better of having the game run by a pack of spastic monkeys.

This was tried but the spastic monkeys wanted too many bananas, the current dev team was decided upon as a cheaper alternative. ;)

WallBiter 27 Sep 2010 17:01

Re: Alliance Size for next round
 
In keeping with the theme, I agree that we should at least try something to shake up ally structure. How many rounds has this game been rather predictable and stagnate in this respect now?

I would love to see a round where ally's are limited to 40 or less members.

In addition I would love to see a round where a planet can only defend in tag and in gal.

I would love to see how ally's would work without the ability to have support tags and blocks... though preventing NAPs is impossible.

JonnyBGood 27 Sep 2010 18:35

Re: Alliance Size for next round
 
This is ridiculous. Is this thread on the internet version of punked or something?

Illuvatar 27 Sep 2010 20:57

Re: Alliance Size for next round
 
Seriously, I feel with that guy some posts above me..
I mean ok its a forum, but could some people just stop
adding such a SPAM here.. :D maybe opinion+ 2-3 points
why would even get a jagex guy to read this thread

On topic:
50 ppl is imo pretty good, maybe we can get Statistics of
the players intag last Round? Appoco? Removing all taglimits
might be a solution too, even tho i'm pro taglimit for obvious
reasons;)

Knight Theamion 27 Sep 2010 22:41

Re: Alliance Size for next round
 
why isn't this thread deleted yet?

Tiamat101 28 Sep 2010 07:48

Re: Alliance Size for next round
 
Set the ally limit at 40 with 30 counting. If the only Argument against this is that there aren't enough hc quality players need i remind everyone that EVERY round for the past 4-6 rounds there have been 2-3 new alliances popping up and we still have most of the older ones with low member counts. More allies equals more than just a 2 sided war. Which helps prevent stagnation.

If we get rid of tag limits then whats to stop an ally to recruit to 200 people and using 150 of them as def planets. Its stupid you know how hard it is to find enough targets for 80 people let alone 150. By removing the tag limits it essentially Eliminates any chance for a start up alliance because anyone that wants to play competitively will HAVE to join one of the 2 allies, and then we'd end up like the US Government with 2 Allies always fighting and nothing changes.

Confraria 28 Sep 2010 10:36

Re: Alliance Size for next round
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Light (Post 3199848)
Lets take your recent posts shall we...

You say, each player should get 5 planets to themselves! and 25 planets to a galaxy. Awesome suggestion, top notch.. no idea why no-one followed up the idea.

If u look closer in that thread there's plenty of crazier suggestions than mine, and never crossed my mind anyone would be interested in follow up that idea.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Light (Post 3199848)
Your other posts go into the 2003's... So, why do people read my posts? As they're more relivant and on target than yours.

The fact i dont post at the same frenetic rhythm as you have nothing to do with the fact that i think your posts are most of time tedious and insipid.
Ah, and only others can say if your posts are relevant and on target..

Quote:

Originally Posted by Light (Post 3199848)
I dont even know who you are, i dont care to know who you are.. your post history is poor, your suggestions are worse than cba's and your attitude stinks.

I dont care if you know who i am, i dont care if you care to know who i am either, my post history is poor you say, your post history is way too long and pointless say i.

Knight Theamion 28 Sep 2010 11:02

Re: Alliance Size for next round
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Tiamat101 (Post 3199965)
Set the ally limit at 40 with 30 counting. If the only Argument against this is that there aren't enough hc quality players need i remind everyone that EVERY round for the past 4-6 rounds there have been 2-3 new alliances popping up and we still have most of the older ones with low member counts. More allies equals more than just a 2 sided war. Which helps prevent stagnation.

If we get rid of tag limits then whats to stop an ally to recruit to 200 people and using 150 of them as def planets. Its stupid you know how hard it is to find enough targets for 80 people let alone 150. By removing the tag limits it essentially Eliminates any chance for a start up alliance because anyone that wants to play competitively will HAVE to join one of the 2 allies, and then we'd end up like the US Government with 2 Allies always fighting and nothing changes.


No. No. No.

Read the other gazillion threads about this.

Seriously, why hasn't this thread been deleted yet?

JonnyBGood 28 Sep 2010 13:38

Re: Alliance Size for next round
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Tiamat101 (Post 3199965)
Set the ally limit at 40 with 30 counting. If the only Argument against this is that there aren't enough hc quality players need i remind everyone that EVERY round for the past 4-6 rounds there have been 2-3 new alliances popping up and we still have most of the older ones with low member counts. More allies equals more than just a 2 sided war. Which helps prevent stagnation.

If we get rid of tag limits then whats to stop an ally to recruit to 200 people and using 150 of them as def planets. Its stupid you know how hard it is to find enough targets for 80 people let alone 150. By removing the tag limits it essentially Eliminates any chance for a start up alliance because anyone that wants to play competitively will HAVE to join one of the 2 allies, and then we'd end up like the US Government with 2 Allies always fighting and nothing changes.

This is ****ing retarded and demonstrably untrue. Alliance limits have been shown to have zero impact on the number of alliances playing the game. What has an impact is whether people feel like playing or not and while alliance limits have a minute impact on this it's nowhere near a significant one. What would actually happen if tag limits were dramatically lowered is every alliance kicks its worse players or puts them into a support tag. Either way these players get sidelined and made even more irrelevant than they already are.

We've had bad rounds with high tag limits and great rounds with low tag limits and vice versa. PA history shows that what happens with no tag limits is not the concentration of everyone into 2 alliances. It's the same rather random, mildly chaotic process of occasional creation we've seen since the introduction of tag limits.

Makhil 28 Sep 2010 15:42

Re: Alliance Size for next round
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by JonnyBGood (Post 3199976)
Alliance limits have been shown to have zero impact on the number of alliances playing the game.

with a 40 player limit, there will be more alliances at the limit, if not more alliances, it means more competition... on the paper. And that's a positive step.

Knight Theamion 28 Sep 2010 16:06

Re: Alliance Size for next round
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Makhil (Post 3199982)
with a 40 player limit, there will be more alliances at the limit, if not more alliances, it means more competition... on the paper. And that's a positive step.


After I stopped my eyes from bleeding, which they were because of your post I am going to give it one last shot, you can also read other thread where this has been debated to death. You know, with arguments and logic!

When you reduce tagsize, it does not mean that people suddenly get the urge to start new alliances; 'normal' players do not suddenly turn into 'dcs' and 'hcs' or whatever you want to call them. They just stay normal players, but now without an alliance because their previous alliance kicked them because they were just that 'normal'.

So. STOP BEING A FREAKING RETARD. ALL OF YOU

Membrivio 28 Sep 2010 17:06

Re: Alliance Size for next round
 
Hmm I vaguely remember this has been discussed before... Could that be?

Like in here: http://pirate.planetarion.com/showthread.php?t=198667
and here: http://pirate.planetarion.com/showthread.php?t=198796
and here: http://pirate.planetarion.com/showthread.php?t=197926
and here:http://pirate.planetarion.com/showthread.php?t=197759

and for instance in here:
http://pirate.planetarion.com/showthread.php?t=197585

Read and analyse. If someone comes up with a new argument which hasnt been brought up yet: reply.

If not: for the sake of god delete this thread (and maybe CBA with it :D )

Makhil 28 Sep 2010 17:57

Re: Alliance Size for next round
 
And I disagree with the arguments given. I'm sure a 40 player limit per alliance would prove you wrong... it has been debated but not tested and I don't trust your superior intelligence (and possibly biaised).
I understand your fear of having more enemies to fight though and your conservative approach to alliances even if it's nearing the game to its death with each new round.

JonnyBGood 28 Sep 2010 18:32

Re: Alliance Size for next round
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Makhil (Post 3199982)
with a 40 player limit, there will be more alliances at the limit, if not more alliances, it means more competition... on the paper. And that's a positive step.

With a 40 player limit the moon would turn orange. With purple spots.

Just because you say something doesn't make it true. Why are more alliances going to be created? Who will do the creating? Why will they be the ones to do so? From where will they get their members? Why will this lead to more competition? Why are there countless examples from pa history that contradict almost everything you claim?

Makhil 28 Sep 2010 19:38

Re: Alliance Size for next round
 
Where did i write more alliances would be created ??? I just wrote more alliances would fill their tags.
More competition would come from more full alliances feeling they have a chance. Meaning more difficulties for an alliance to nap the whole universe, and more difficulties for an alliance to bully its way through the round by the sheer number of their members.

I understand some people are afraid of it.

Please tell me the countless PA rounds where the limit size was 40 member per alliance...

JonnyBGood 28 Sep 2010 19:48

Re: Alliance Size for next round
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Makhil (Post 3199997)
Where did i write more alliances would be created ??? I just wrote more alliances would fill their tags.
More competition would come from more full alliances feeling they have a chance.

Like who? Even early on in the round it was readily apparent that NFI's top 40 planets were miles ahead of pretty much everyone else's. They were just more active. Are HeX and HR suddenly going to start competing for #1 because the tag limit has dropped to 40 people?

Quote:

Meaning more difficulties for an alliance to nap the whole universe, and more difficulties for an alliance to bully its way through the round by the sheer number of their members.
This is just gibberish with no argument behind it. Why wouldn't it be the case that a more even universe means that you have to build up a series of NAPs to protect yourself from getting gangbanged by 10 other alliances which are the same size as you?

Quote:

I understand some people are afraid of it.
Ignoring the fact this isn't a valid argument do you think I am? I've played in alliances that have deliberately handicapped themselves by playing well below the tag limit. I've played in alliances where we've won the round with less than 50 people. I've also done the opposite and played in alliances with 100 members and alliances with more members than the tag could hold. How does your retarded ad hominem apply to me?

Quote:

Please tell me the countless PA rounds where the limit size was 40 member per alliance...
This is irrelevant. If you were proven wrong?

Makhil 28 Sep 2010 21:41

Re: Alliance Size for next round
 
The best way to prove how wrong you are would be to actually have a round with a 40 member limit. But with your gang pulling the strings I doubt it will ever happen and I'm very sad about it because I believe this attitude is one of the reasons the game is in such a poor state.

JonnyBGood 28 Sep 2010 22:10

Re: Alliance Size for next round
 
What gang? The zero of us who are on pateam? What attitude? Using reasonable extrapolation from a large number of rounds with tag limits as low as 60 and as high as 150 that tag limits have no impact on the quality of a round? What strings?

As a matter of interest do you also wear a tinfoil hat to keep the government out of your thoughts?

Either way I'm fine with a round of 40 member tag limits. I don't think they're massively worse than 60 or 70 member limits, both of which we've done fine with*. I doubt there'll be a significant drop off in the overall numbers playing the game. And hey, the round might be good. My point is a) whether or not the round is good or not won't depend on the tag limits and b) you're a gibbering buffoon.

*I'm going to use the opportunity to have an ascendancy draft which I think will be ****ing awesome.

Tiamat101 28 Sep 2010 22:55

Re: Alliance Size for next round
 
The Alliance tag is huge if an alliance has to split 40 members into a support tag you know what that does, thats 40 planets that can only defense themselves and not the main tag.

By leveling the playing field, allies such as HR and Hex ,who don't have such a high profile draw to them as say ND or ASC or CT, will actually be able to have impact on end of round situations. Right now the allies that do well are the ones with either a) active multi using planets or b) High member counts. It has nothing to do with leadership in fact most of the leadership choices are stupid point and case this past round, OSI who the round before that was a great alliance and because of some poor preround choices and bad management self-destructed.

Also to your other point if you left the alliance tag open for 2-3 rounds then you would see a dramatic and obvious 2 power shift, as players that want to do well in HR/HEX/xVx/ODDR etc will be forced to leave there ally to join one of the big allies because of fear of being hit in the crossfire. Whats better a 200 man tag that is almost impossible to hit because of sheer number of planets, or a 30 man tag that is SO easy to hit that they just end up being feeding grounds for the 2 main allies. It happens every round one of the things that limit the number of "feeder" allies is there member counts. You dont need great Dc's to cover calls if there are defense fleets laying around calls will get covered. And Yes i do think normal players can be DC's/BC's/HC's it just takes some time to get use to it.

JonnyBGood 28 Sep 2010 23:14

Re: Alliance Size for next round
 
This is tedious and repetitive but I'm feeling patient today.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tiamat101 (Post 3200009)
The Alliance tag is huge if an alliance has to split 40 members into a support tag you know what that does, thats 40 planets that can only defense themselves and not the main tag.

You can def out of tag with an allied alliance.

Quote:

By leveling the playing field, allies such as HR and Hex ,who don't have such a high profile draw to them as say ND or ASC or CT, will actually be able to have impact on end of round situations.
No, they won't. They don't currently have an impact because they have no value because they lack the active, motivated players who do build value during the round and give a shit about the end of the round. Compare the difference in impact between xvx, with 10 planets, and hex, with 40 this round.

Quote:

Right now the allies that do well are the ones with either a) active multi using planets or b) High member counts. It has nothing to do with leadership in fact most of the leadership choices are stupid point and case this past round, OSI who the round before that was a great alliance and because of some poor preround choices and bad management self-destructed.
This is laughable. Who the hell is in category a)? The allies that do well are the active ones. You do need a certain number of members to actually win the round but this makes sense. The goal of PA should be universal domination. You can never achieve that with 4 planets.

Quote:

Also to your other point if you left the alliance tag open for 2-3 rounds then you would see a dramatic and obvious 2 power shift, as players that want to do well in HR/HEX/xVx/ODDR etc will be forced to leave there ally to join one of the big allies because of fear of being hit in the crossfire.
Again, complete bunk. Largely these players either do well regardless because they're active and motivated, see xvx and their number of planets in the t100, or don't care enough and don't, see hex/oddr/hr's combined 1 planet in the t100.

Quote:

Whats better a 200 man tag that is almost impossible to hit because of sheer number of planets, or a 30 man tag that is SO easy to hit that they just end up being feeding grounds for the 2 main allies.
Where exactly do you think an alliance is going to recruit 100 players from? Do you think ND will merge with CT? Or apprime with ascendancy? If someone recruits massively all that happens is that they a) become everyone's #1 target and b) get a huge influx of both spies and shit players. In the short run if an alliance looks too dangerous pre-round or early round people will band together to fight them. Of course if we leave the tag score in place this will be largely irrelevant as beating an alliance of 200 planets with 4 alliances of 50 in terms of an individual alliance passing them out is virtually impossible. Which is part of the reason why I'd prefer to see tag rankings abolished. We didn't need them pre-pax to have good rounds. We can go without having an extra jerkoff talk about nothing in the eorc.

Quote:

It happens every round one of the things that limit the number of "feeder" allies is there member counts. You dont need great Dc's to cover calls if there are defense fleets laying around calls will get covered. And Yes i do think normal players can be DC's/BC's/HC's it just takes some time to get use to it.
It's not that they can't do it. It's that most people don't have the time or inclination to do it.

Makhil 29 Sep 2010 05:29

Re: Alliance Size for next round
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by JonnyBGood (Post 3200006)
What gang? The zero of us who are on pateam? What attitude? Using reasonable extrapolation from a large number of rounds with tag limits as low as 60 and as high as 150 that tag limits have no impact on the quality of a round? What strings?

The forum gang with the few of you who moderates it.
The attitude of trying to preserve the interest of a few (like an alliance) over the many (like the rest of the players).
All your reasonnable extrapolation proves is that no tag limit was set low enough to have an impact.
It's like saying "we've tried at temperatures from 40 to 10 degrees and water doesn't freeze... so water can't freeze"

Sun_Tzu 29 Sep 2010 06:06

Re: Alliance Size for next round
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Makhil (Post 3200015)
The forum gang with the few of you who moderates it.
The attitude of trying to preserve the interest of a few (like an alliance) over the many (like the rest of the players).
All your reasonnable extrapolation proves is that no tag limit was set low enough to have an impact.
It's like saying "we've tried at temperatures from 40 to 10 degrees and water doesn't freeze... so water can't freeze"

Luckily, the scientific understanding (of economics, psychology and the social sciences) backs up our position.

ps. As you cool down a liquid you can observe that the atoms move less frantically, thus you can extrapolate that with further cooling said atoms will eventually reach a standstill. This is how we know there's a point of absolute zero(0 Kelvin), even though it has never been reached. Your example only shows your lacking understanding of physics, and actually backs up our position, not yours.

Marka 29 Sep 2010 07:20

Re: Alliance Size for next round
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Sun_Tzu (Post 3200016)
Luckily, the scientific understanding (of economics, psychology and the social sciences) backs up our position.

Where is the scientific study relating to alliance sizes in online games? :P
I believe that economics might disagree, regarding the distribution of a limited resource (moderately skilled players) in a market to create optimal competition (avoiding monopols & cartels).

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sun_Tzu (Post 3200016)
ps. As you cool down a liquid you can observe that the atoms move less frantically, thus you can extrapolate that with further cooling said atoms will eventually reach a standstill. This is how we know there's a point of absolute zero(0 Kelvin), even though it has never been reached. Your example only shows your lacking understanding of physics, and actually backs up our position, not yours.

The extrapolation is not accurate according to quantum physics, thus 0 K can never be reached :D

Kaiba 29 Sep 2010 07:30

Re: Alliance Size for next round
 
Tho i am pro small tags - i dont think you need to lower the limit to acheive this. Most alliances regulate there own numbers to what suits them and there capabilities.

Most allies will stop near the 50 player limit cos this a managable amount of members. Alliances with ND will have more because they are a far more experienced alliance and can therefore cope with larger numbers.

If Appocomaster can get the 'alliance points system' sorted and fair then it should take the numbers of players in a tag out of the equation slightly. Cos having a large tag will give you more score and lower the number of points you'll be able to gain against others via the alliance points system. I beleive it will see smaller tags created that way naturally.


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 22:47.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.1
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2002 - 2018