[Light]

Originally Posted by rUl3r

It could also mean PA team thought about it and decided to leave it as it is.

We will see wont we.

I´ve spoken to quite some people about it and they all said it is a fun idea and they can´t see anything unfair about it. What´s your point?

My point was, we can all say "most people ive spoken to" have said such and such.

It does not matter. I got roided by a teamup on the 2nd day. It affected my planet rank, and I found it quite unfair other people did not get roided.
I think we should limit roiding in the first week to one free land per planet so everyone gets a fair share of roids.

Nope, as this game is about attacking for roids and defending for roids in planet, galaxy and allianced based play. Its just the question of weither donations should have a huge impact as well.

Repeatedly saying he got an unfair advantage doesn´t make this more true.

2x the value of the #2 planet. How is that not an unfair advantage? Its unbalanced compared to other strategys and it gives him a huge short term boost with no real drawbacks. Yes, you can argue its balanced for the galaxy but its certainly not balanced for planets.

As a rough guess I´d estimate PA team is likely to listen to the whiners. I think I mentioned examples for this earlier in this thread. If you cry enough, you usually get something banned. PA team don´t want to upset people, and those who come up with those "irregular" strategies usually giggle when you try to have one banned and think about the next. It´s a fairly easy way for PA team to make you shut up and pretend things in your little world are allright.

Thats how come we have private galaxys this round?

Are you aware donations from the gal fund are limited to planets below average score?

They arnt limited by the amount of resources able to be donated to that planet in relation to the average score. Whereby, you cannot donate X amount of resources to someone which would take them above the average score. So you should only be able to donate to someone to get them to the average galaxy score.

See above, all people I´ve spoken to said it sounds like fun.

See my previous point, we can all say that about anything, its meaningless. Its just a thing people try to say to pretend everyone else agree's with them.

The question to keep donations the way they are, boils down to weither or not we want donations to play a key part in the game deciding planet ranks. Then if the question is yes, it becomes a question of by how much, should a whole galaxy be able to donate to the planet from the start? or should the max amount start small and grow as the galaxy grows (or round progresses). Is donating 7 startup bonuses to one planet balanced in terms of planet rank or should it be limited to a lower number? if at all?

No-ones answered these questions other than to say 'its fun' or 'it keeps the round from stagnating'. If you want it kept in the game, come up with a way to balance it with other starting strategys. I tried to start doing this by bringing up the point of doing it through goverments (where one goverment gives you X amount of resources but has lower income or something) to balance it out.