Round 27 - increase alliance memberlimit to 100
But count t60 towards score.
Several allances filled the tag last round. With a higher memberlimit, it's likely that they would have provided homes to more people. Although some of these would be defectees from other alliances, it is likely the net effect would be homes for more players. We've shrunk alliances and not sprouted new HCs & officers to run new homes for people, so we've effectively been cutting the number of places for people who want to play PA 'properly'. In the long term the extra players who learn the game from joining top alliances may go on to become these HCs and officers, leading to more alliances. The top 60 score thing ensures alliances can compete if they choose to be elitist - as we saw from NoX reaching second this round. Personally I'd prefer to see alliance limits removed, but that idea is effectively being ignored and has been strongly opposed by some, so this is a more realistic alternative. |
Re: Round 27 - increase alliance memberlimit to 100
nope, i dont like this. upping the ally member limits take players away from the smaller allies. why would ppl apply to ass/hr/redemption if theres spots for them ct/nd/asc? keeping lower limits forces the top allies to recruit more toughly and letting the less active player get picked up by us, who we care for and grow them into the future of the game ;) well, maybe not, but i think u know wot i mean :)
|
Re: Round 27 - increase alliance memberlimit to 100
Wasnt there a serious flaw to this idea? I dont remember what it is though :(.
|
Re: Round 27 - increase alliance memberlimit to 100
The idea of not counting all of an alliance's members towards its score is a cop-out in my view. It leads to flagshipping and having two classes of alliance members, something that I believe is generally detrimental to the game.
|
Re: Round 27 - increase alliance memberlimit to 100
Quote:
Quote:
|
Re: Round 27 - increase alliance memberlimit to 100
Quote:
Quote:
If they don't have trouble with that, then have all members count. If all members count, that would retain stronger quality control. F-Crew, ASS etc may lose some members to the larger alliances, but on the whole it will mean that there are more spaces for players to fill up. And more spaces in alliances that have an effective infrastructure to handle these players. Basically, it will be better for the average player IMO. |
Re: Round 27 - increase alliance memberlimit to 100
Everyone can compete. Sure, you may not get first spot with fewer members, but there's nothing wrong with giving HCs incentive to recruit more people.
|
Re: Round 27 - increase alliance memberlimit to 100
Quote:
*There were 3 alliance tags filled in the top10. The other 7 of the top10 had between 60 and 70 members. Hence, I propose it is not likely more people will find homes in these alliances. Even less when just 60 members are the "real deal". (We in Orbit had actives less than our 66 members, believe me :( ) *The shrinking of alliance size had an effect that new tags were created (r25) and that new alliances were set up to accomodate players(r26). So, there are some new HC types standing up, you would think. * You assert that players only learn from joining top alliances. I disagree. I think new or returning players thrive in a non-top alliance like Redemption, F-crew, Orbit or the like. I see it as a pyramid: people rejoin (a relative large group *cough*), then they assess their abilities: join non-top or top, when non-top: they will learn too and may be able to develop to top-alliance (the top of the pyramid). Also, in a non-top alliance talent is directly rewarded by getting them active in the management of the alliance. (I now assume this is less the case in a top-alliance) *Further, it is generally stated that people in smaller or medium firms have more chance to stand out the crowd and as such be recognised as talented people. Hence, larger firms tend to subdivide themselves or recruit even more people to get the % talented people required covered. The analogy applies here, in my opinion. *Finally: the lower part (can't find the word atm) alliances would be totally fked by not limiting it. Then you would get the battle of the biggest and less people will find a real home. Therefore, I am proponent of alliance size limits of 75 (or even better 60) with all people counted. Removing alliance limits or making alliance limits less (i.e. 100 members) would be not a good thing imo. |
Re: Round 27 - increase alliance memberlimit to 100
It seems most people complaining about flagshiping are alliances that do so themselves :P
|
Re: Round 27 - increase alliance memberlimit to 100
I think the more alliances there is the better for a wargame. I don't like having member score not counting.
Can't we just calc the number of players in r26, divide by the number of alliances in r26 and make that result the member size limit for r27? and use the same process for each new round... |
Re: Round 27 - increase alliance memberlimit to 100
I dont like the this idea, in fact 75 limit sux. Id rather see 60 limit...More allys, more fun :}
|
Re: Round 27 - increase alliance memberlimit to 100
At the end of rd 25 ASS was happy to find out more members would rejoin the Smurfs in rd 26 therefore could start with a stronger core than the rd before.
Well, the increase in alliance limit generally fuk** up our plans not to mention the fact that there were new alliances forming (and next rd two additional allies are coming back!) It made recruiting pretty difficult, and even Redemption shared those problems among other alliances. With the increase of alliance limit, the bigger allies' members would be almost impossible to hit by the little ones during galraids (as out of tag peeps could tag up with more places forming within the alliance). Plus it would cause the biggies a problem with picking a non-allied gal for attack methinks ( - depends on the attack rules, yes, tho imo weakening ur own alliemate's gal is a silly idea. :)), unless galaxies would be reduced to 10-13 planets so more gals would exist in the universe. (if i recall well this galaxy-size problem was discussed in an other thread before, tho:P) So yeah, I dont support the idea of increasing allie limit. |
Re: Round 27 - increase alliance memberlimit to 100
Quote:
Additionally I support mz: There is nothing wrong with giving HC incentive to recruit more people / keep people happy in their alliance. |
Re: Round 27 - increase alliance memberlimit to 100
Quote:
|
Re: Round 27 - increase alliance memberlimit to 100
would increasing the member limit to 100 not lead to in effect about 3 'super' alliances that have managed to fill the tag, atm only denial, ND and xVx and possibly ascendancy have much chance of getting anywhere near a 100 member limit. this would obviously then reduce the numbers in the smaller alliances, probably leaving a fair number on 50-60 members, which would in effect be a 2nd tier of alliances.
so would this be a good thing? the big 3/4 could fight it out for 1st place while all the smaller alliances could be engaged in their own wars, at the moment we see very little in the way of wars between the smaller alliances, which probably makes things less interesting for their memberbase as they are less likely to have a target for the round, would it not be more fun for the members to have a target of defeating x alliance? ofc this probably mostly occurs because the HC's of such alliances are unwilling to get into wars... any chance of some rewards? afterall if not fighting for 1st place what are you fighting for? |
Re: Round 27 - increase alliance memberlimit to 100
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
Re: Round 27 - increase alliance memberlimit to 100
I did not say that other alliances dont have a chance to reach 100 members. I was simply stating the pretty obvious fact based upon this round memberships that those 4 alliances mentioned are by far the most likely to make it to 100, probably at the expense of others (although if it is to be a free round this may not be the case).
Im pretty sure U knew what I meant :p |
Re: Round 27 - increase alliance memberlimit to 100
I still think we should have peoples tags as public knowledge. All major alliances get the info pretty quickly, the only people who dont know are newer players. This would also allow alliances to actively seek out members who are not in an alliance.
|
Re: Round 27 - increase alliance memberlimit to 100
Quote:
|
Re: Round 27 - increase alliance memberlimit to 100
Quote:
Basically, if X alliance wants more members, instead of just a forum post to go by, they can actually have active recruitment personel who will seek out new promising members (or whatever) by finding players with no tag and talking to them. |
Re: Round 27 - increase alliance memberlimit to 100
Quote:
|
Re: Round 27 - increase alliance memberlimit to 100
Quote:
Also, I am not fond of having "tiers". It should not be about the numbers, but about the quality of the memberbase. In addition, every alliance should have at least a theoretical chance at #1 spot, otherwise it would be a odd game to play. |
Re: Round 27 - increase alliance memberlimit to 100
Quote:
|
Re: Round 27 - increase alliance memberlimit to 100
Quote:
Quote:
|
Re: Round 27 - increase alliance memberlimit to 100
once an alliance has been around for a while its simple... ppl are much more likely to join a bigger alliance than a reletively smaller one as they believe (possibly wrongly) that a bigger alliance is more likely to be helpful to them.
the simple fact that certain alliances came close to having 75 members this round means that they have more members to ask gal m8s/friends and overall have a wider base of contacts and are as such more likely to be able to recruit enough ppl to reach 100 ppl. taking a hypothetical example, if someone in middle ranked alliance x is asked would he like to join middle ranked alliance y he is only really likely to want to join if y has a particularly good reputation or else he knows ppl in y, otherwise he will stay in x. On the other hand he is much more likely to say yes to top alliance z because there are obvious benefits (or percieved benefits) over his current middle alliance. (ppl aspire to join the top alliances, I know I did when I was in TGV even tho I rationally know I was probably better off where I was) please correct me if I am barking up the wrong tree but this is what has always happened in pa, no? |
Re: Round 27 - increase alliance memberlimit to 100
Quote:
Quote:
|
Re: Round 27 - increase alliance memberlimit to 100
Quote:
|
Re: Round 27 - increase alliance memberlimit to 100
Quote:
|
Re: Round 27 - increase alliance memberlimit to 100
Quote:
|
Re: Round 27 - increase alliance memberlimit to 100
Quote:
|
Re: Round 27 - increase alliance memberlimit to 100
i was just about to post a thread about reducing the amount of max players to like 60
dunno why u think there would be any benefit of rising the number, well u explained, but i have to disagree... i won´t go into all details now, cause all is been said by others allready... just one thing Highering the number will force alliances to merge if they want to compete for #1 spot, and merging alliances mean less HC´s and less Officer´s so kinda the negative outcome of what u seem to try to reach. If we we stay with 75 (which is the maximum we even should think about imo) the chances several alliances compete for #1 spot are higher then if we rise it to 100 leveling it down to 60 would still be best, as we could actually have a interesting competition for the #1 spot. now imagine we higher the amount to 100 and in the end its ND and CT on 100 members and the next alliances lets say Vengeance e.g. at 80 now ND and CT are naped to each other... what a great round of fun would that be ??? |
Re: Round 27 - increase alliance memberlimit to 100
Quote:
You really know the deal... no need to play stupid. |
Re: Round 27 - increase alliance memberlimit to 100
Anyhow limiting recruiting in any form... indd limits recruiting and so lowers the possible amount of players in game.
People can balance the differences/advantages made by recruiting with poltical play for example. There is no need for alliance member limits. |
Re: Round 27 - increase alliance memberlimit to 100
Quote:
i kinda think its the other way round, PA is lacking Top Alliances cause there arnt enough "active" players. And i dont see the a change there with rising the alliance limit. |
Re: Round 27 - increase alliance memberlimit to 100
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Imagine we decrease the limit to 60. Everyone that can't be in his tag of choice skips the round, halving the universe in size. The top 6 alliances are all napped and teaming up on the number 7 and 8. Jesus comes down from heaven and declares that Planetarion sucks. Millions convert to Christianity at once, and the number of planets in Planetarion crashes as a result. The pope organises a witch hunt for Planetarion players. All are crucified. I realise there's little evidence in support of this scenario, but at least it has that in common with yours. |
Re: Round 27 - increase alliance memberlimit to 100
Quote:
yes there are players who consist of a core of the smaller alliances who play with that alliance round after round however most ppl just join the smaller alliances as a stepping stone. As such smaller alliances tend to have a very high turnover of players, the only one I know in my limited experience of planetarion is TGV, it probably had only about 30-40% of its member base stay the same between rounds 24 and 25. as to your demand that these alliances go out and recruit more members I suspect that they recruit considerably more then the bigger alliances it is simply that they take on members who will leave at the end of the round, or else they take on new players who decide that planetarion is not the game for them and leave. For these alliances I suspect the real problem is retaining members rather then recruiting... however increasing the member limit of the big alliances makes it that much more difficult both to retain old members and to recruit new as there is a better option. All things being equal most people will go for whoever offers them the best chance of winning, as such we artificially introduce caps to allow other alliances to compete and prevent us having these few 'super' alliances dominating everything. nb this is all suspicion on my part, having never been a HC of a smaller alliance in pax I dont know, would one of the small alliance HC's care to enlighten us? |
Re: Round 27 - increase alliance memberlimit to 100
If you take a quick look at signatures on the PA Forums, you'll see that the people who feel they need to brag about their alliance history often have 3 or more names in their sig from the last 8-10 rounds. You should also keep in mind that every round has its one day flies, and these are often the top alliances. Both these facts contradict your claim that top alliances keep their members for more rounds than smaller alliances.
|
Re: Round 27 - increase alliance memberlimit to 100
Ahh they might move between top alliances but how many will move 'down' from a Denial to an ASS unless its to take up a HC position ofc
|
Re: Round 27 - increase alliance memberlimit to 100
Quote:
|
Re: Round 27 - increase alliance memberlimit to 100
Quote:
|
Re: Round 27 - increase alliance memberlimit to 100
Quote:
This obviously is not necessarily a good thing because ppl who dont know loads of ppl R excluded. (But they should still be able to bet in by a good record) if 'the ones I want to play with' actually means I dont know em but i think I should be able to play with the best anyway - thats the situation that existed for most of the early rounds where there was no limit at all -no ingame alliance mechanism. The way i see it the ingame alliance mechanism demands a limit - because otherwise a mass recruiter can win without any skill at the game (except mass recruitment ofc) the obvious solution to that is to have alliance victory not on total but on average score. Then all are happy because even without a limit the top alliances will not hoover up all the quality players because they would become very selective - a bigger alliance would be harder to maintain quality control of. There are obvious (And major) problems with this as it is likely to head towards a Legion/Fury situation, but I am just pointing out the other possibility |
Re: Round 27 - increase alliance memberlimit to 100
The increase in memberlimits have not helped on the number of planets playing this round. Infact the number went significally down this round compared to last. I think that it had some to do with a few alliances that decided not to play, and their members deciding the same, and also that a fair few people did not like the increase. I do not think that an increase in the alliance limits will get more players in. The expiriment with higher limits r26 showed exactly that.
|
Re: Round 27 - increase alliance memberlimit to 100
Karg is damn right, bring back limit to 60 !
|
Re: Round 27 - increase alliance memberlimit to 100
Quote:
Speaking from my own experience r25 I was in Subh - I thought they were pretty useless so I sought what I thought would be a better alliance for r26 - Jenova, now with hindsight I got more defence from Subh in r25 than I did from Jenova in r26 but this does not mean that my automatic recourse is to go back to Subh (granted it dosent exist - redemption counts) rather my automatic response is to look up the ladder to lets say for the sake of argument - NoX. It is quite likely because NoX flagships that I would recieve even less defence there but the psychology says that I join on the hope Im one to be flagshipped. |
Re: Round 27 - increase alliance memberlimit to 100
Quote:
@Londo: You're not making sense. If every round, so many people jump to better alliances, then sooner or later these alliances will be full. The only way this trend you're suggesting can persist is if the better alliances lose and gain members at an equal rate. If that's the case, then top alliances lose as many members every round as the other alliances, something I mentioned earlier in this topic. |
Re: Round 27 - increase alliance memberlimit to 100
Quote:
the post is not necessarily about each individual alliance but about each group, many swap within the big alliances but they done really move, similar to the way that urwins disappears and its members move to denial. sorry if I appear to be having difficulty getting my point across :( |
Re: Round 27 - increase alliance memberlimit to 100
Quote:
I am talking about general patterns that I am seeing around me and what I seen over these 8 years that I played. But the fact is there been several players, even groups who try to seek the suppousedly best alliance entering for the round and join it. And so increase their own chance of success. Somehow these players and groups hardly ever leave without an alliance spot... I believe even the alliances taking them in would get only temporary "gain", that would help them in long run to recruit players, who seek "improvement" and better chance of success. (Because hardly no one gives credit for a player that fought well in smaller/less succesfull alliance and done well, possibly die before the end. How ever the round winner is more likely to get recognition and new offers for a planet spot for example.) |
Re: Round 27 - increase alliance memberlimit to 100
Quote:
We're still looking at a problem that's caused by the alliances, not by the game mechanics. The only thing that's stopping a "small" alliance (they're not really small) from becoming bigger is (according to you) the fact that they don't play hardcore enough, (if you allow me to paraphrase) the fact that they suck too much. By that logic, these alliances will never be in the running for top alliance anyway (in fact, when was the last time you saw F-Crew proclaim they even had a desire to be #1?), so your point is moot. @Ave I'm sorry, but I really don't see how that has anything to do with the current discussion. |
Re: Round 27 - increase alliance memberlimit to 100
the best thing with the current setup is an alliance can have covert-ops and scanners intag without them taking up a tag space where score matters.
I think it should be kept the same for this round rather than changing alliance limits every round. |
Re: Round 27 - increase alliance memberlimit to 100
This seems to be wandering from the point - there will always be 'smaller' alliances as a refuge for the not so active, what is really squeezed is the middle which is far more fluid than the bottom who are always bottom. Those alliances that are, like TGV was, able to recruit good ppl by virtue of being an alliance of last resort for good players - VGN perhaps fills that role now. essentially if the limit rises more move to the top and some of these alliances collapse - as these alliances are politically active and regard themselves as having a chance at a high ranking (even if its fairly unlikely) this means the politics becomes less interesting
|
All times are GMT +1. The time now is 08:32. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.1
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2002 - 2018