Alliance limit
Ok, I can't figure out how to make a poll (perhaps regular people can't) and no one will tell me, so I'll just ask for opinions in replies for now.
What range do you find acceptable for the alliance member limit? Personally I think the proposed 90 for next round is no less ridiculous than the 100 we had this round. I'll be happy when I see it set between 40-60 |
Re: Alliance limit
Agreed 90 isnt a big enough decrease.
|
Re: Alliance limit
There's already a thread of this on the pd forum. Also, hcs and bcs probably have the best opinions on this
|
Re: Alliance limit
Erm, the best opinions on this? I think that there is a lot of people who probably have plenty of opinions, and some even better than HC's and BC's based on a gameplay point of view.
|
Re: Alliance limit
Quote:
|
Re: Alliance limit
Quote:
|
Re: Alliance limit
Yes, but who is in a better place than those people to illustrate how many people, on average, it takes to attack a galaxy? To organise and run a day to day alliance?
Unfortunately, the PA Team have not been allowed to play the game for so long that we need to talk to others to base some decisions on some information provided by their experience, as we simply don't know all the facts. |
Re: Alliance limit
I'm a DC and I can tell you that reducing the size would be a good thing.
Which is better for the game? 1) 30 alliance of 50 2) 16 alliances of 90 The suggestion of "I want to play with my friends" is a little inaccurate, I dont think many people know 90 people they want to play PA with. Each alliance would start with a core group, who mainly leave a previous alliance, either by disagreements or trying something new. Then they would go about recruiting people who they know. New alliances cant be formed atm, as the bigger ones swamp them. Look at it like this, 1) Your a pretty active and decent player. 2) Your in one of the lower tier alliances 3) Your current alliance isnt the most active. Where can you go from here, your hardly getting defence, and most of your attacks are getting deffed due to poor target coverage. |
Re: Alliance limit
Quote:
|
Re: Alliance limit
it takes 1 attackfleet to attack a galaxy.
it might take more to land. if fcrew were 100, they prolly still couldnt have landed a single fleet on a top gal. it depends on galaxys not alliances |
Re: Alliance limit
Quote:
|
Re: Alliance limit
Quote:
How do I know how big an alliance should be to take on a galaxy a night? I could spend hours painstakingly tracing alliance attacks over a period of weeks, and trying to average them out, or I could just ask the alliance BCs, many of whom have probably been around for a few years. MrLobster: the second question is "how many people are capable of managing / running an alliance?" In rounds 4/5/6, I was in quite a few small, semi active alliances. I saw lots of bad HCing - I even tried to steal an alliance and do some myself. I know that to a certain extent, players have to learn to manage alliances through experience. If alliance limits are cut drastically, we could end up with lots of alliances at the end of the round. Or we could end up with a few extra alliances and a lot fewer players. It's a bit of a gamble! I'm only willing to take such a gamble on a free round, and perhaps when tools are improved slightly and we have better generally support - manuals improved, which Pete is organising, and possibly a few more alliance features, to support those without tools themselves. What I do worry about is those less active players in alliances, that may be rejected from smaller alliances where activity counts. |
Re: Alliance limit
Quote:
:) I was looking for general figures this round and previous rounds, actually. It was only an example of the sort of thing that should be kept in mind |
Re: Alliance limit
Quote:
|
Re: Alliance limit
Quote:
In r25 there were about 14 alliances I know are worth the name, this round there are about 16. The difference is that in r14, more of the allies were at membercap (~11 compared to ~3), but still, there were only 4 allies that were ever going to finish top 4... The other difference is that those 'competent' alliances had a total of 790 members by round end in r25. This time around there's about 990. The smaller memberlimit round had fewer alliances, fewer people in alliances, but more alliances at membercap. People thought this was the last round which skews it a bit, but look through the history and I can't see much change. Something that is a little tempting is 30-40 member tags, in which case you'd have to accept that top alliances would just have several tags. Is this better than what we have at the moment? It might be interesting. |
Re: Alliance limit
Quote:
|
Re: Alliance limit
the best for alliances is to be left ouside of the game. No defense travel time bonus, they make the tools they like/can, they recruit the people they want/can. PA should be playable solo, then should work on galaxy level.
|
Re: Alliance limit
Quote:
Quote:
|
Re: Alliance limit
Absolutely right, Kila - although wannabe Omen members only contributed a few of the problems that we've suffered this round - and I kicked some of them for ignoring our rules once too often. I had to stop myself or we'd have been down below 50 members by now.
However, most of our problems have been caused by too few HCs, BCs & DCs. |
Re: Alliance limit
Quote:
Please try to avoid making yourself look stupid by posting a ridiculous suggestion. If you have a genuine answer I'll be very happy to hear it. |
Re: Alliance limit
Quote:
1. why do players want to play in these other alliances? (ie. ascendancy/omen etc.) whilst i see your point, i dont think its all as 'pure' as you like to make it out. certain groups will always ofc have greater appeal in society to other groups. This is rarely down to some element of morals that group has etc, but more often due to what the individual can gain from being a part of that group. loyalty only seems to last as long as people can gain from it (without trying to be too much of a cynic) by allowing everyone free will to join who they want etc you put more and more power in the hands of the already powerful: ofc you cant force a player to stick it out with a group like Rock or Orbit, but giving them the option to join asc/omen/ct/nd etc after 1 round in these smaller allies and theyll never have a chance to DEVELOP that loyalty to a particular group. (look at our gal this round _kila_ - considence, AJ and ClimaX all being relatively new players in smaller allies who joined asc. ofc this is their choice, but why did they join ascendancy? imo it was to experience playing the game at a higher level and to have that chance to experience winning. there is nothing wrong with this! but this is trend that will continue to repeat itself round after round if the mechanics allow it, its human nature) im not trying to say alliance caps are ideal for promoting loyalty, but my point is motives for wanting to join big allies in this game like omen/asc/ct arent 'oh i like how the play' or 'i have friends there' but imo its more like 'i can get a better planet rank there' or 'theyre more likely to win'. without meaning to get personal ill bring up 2 examples of players i know who highlight this (i hope im not breaking forum rules by doing so!) 1. elviz - how many times does he switch allies? nox r26, denial r27, ct r28, asc r29+30 2. mikee - joins audentes r29, leaves for asc mid-round. leaves/gets kicked from asc r30 and joins omen. leaves omen and afaik reapplies/rejoins asc now these are two ISOLATED EXAMPLES. i am the first to point that out, however they illustrate my point that its not this undieing loyalty to groups which makes people join them, but individual gain. (im also aware there are others who stick it out with the same groups round after round when they could join 'better' allies: i guess stuhlman at vgn and lukeylove and ND are example of this). it comes down to were you think the balance lies within the playerbase between self interest and loyalty. with a smaller ally cap i believe we will see more strong core groups of players develop (look at DLR and Factory), be competitive and mostly importantly SURVIVE round after round, whereas the larger, more ambitious new allies just cant cut the proverbial mustard (NoX, Audentes, Omen being examples of this in the past few round) another essay :confused: |
All times are GMT +1. The time now is 13:38. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.1
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2002 - 2018