|
|
30 Apr 2009, 11:51
|
#51
|
Orbit HC
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 184
|
Re: Drastically lower alliance tag limit
Quote:
Originally Posted by Heartless
But "ignoring the larger" alliance surely is unrelated to the tag limit. Alliances could do that right now, so there's no need to change the tag limit to get that result.
|
Yes, I see your point if you're referring to the goal being the win. However if you reduce the alliance size to the point where the vast majority of alliances are playing on a much more level field then surely more goals are likely to coincide and get everyone fighting.
This is just conjecture, you understand.
Quote:
That's what I wanted to point out, maybe in a little too witty way.
|
You are a very objectionable individual but Oscar Wilde, you are not.
|
|
|
30 Apr 2009, 11:56
|
#52
|
mz.
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 8,587
|
Re: Drastically lower alliance tag limit
Quote:
Originally Posted by ReligFree
Lowering the alliance limits will lead to far more fluid politics and would reduce domination from individual alliances. I understand the argument that you have your own communities in your alliances, but when that community is pissing all over the Planetarion community I wonder what's more important.
|
I thought it was very short-sighted to attribute all the blame for lower player numbers on alliance sizes?
__________________
The outraged poets threw sticks and rocks over the side of the bridge. They were all missing Mary and he felt a contented smug feeling wash over him. He would have given them a coy little wave if the roof hadn't collapsed just then. Mary then found himself in the middle of an understandably shocked family's kitchen table. So he gave them the coy little wave and realized it probably would have been more effective if he hadn't been lying on their turkey.
|
|
|
30 Apr 2009, 12:09
|
#53
|
Registered User
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: UK
Posts: 601
|
Re: Drastically lower alliance tag limit
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mzyxptlk
I thought it was very short-sighted to attribute all the blame for lower player numbers on alliance sizes?
|
Never mentioned alliance sizes, simply stated that with Asc so dominant in #1 tag spot this round it's led to other things happening.
But yes the point I was trying to make is you can't blame player numbers solely on alliances, it's a combination of the poor funding, poor marketing, poor reliability and a multitude of other things which have led to a reduction in numbers so instead of picking holes in one very small area of a post feel free to actually interpret the rest of it and respond.
Just thinking as well, who does the 90 alliance limit benefit *this* round other than Ascendancy? xVx recruited a few on the back of not warring Ascendancy so it's reasonable to argue that they may not have had this number of members if the limit was not 90. So arguably you could say Ascendancy? Can't see any other alliance...
__________________
[DLR] [Conspiracy Theory] [1up] [Faceless] [Elysium] [LCH] [NewDawn] [Apprime]
|
|
|
30 Apr 2009, 13:26
|
#54
|
CRASHING BEATS 'N FANTASY
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Cold Country.
Posts: 1,912
|
Re: Drastically lower alliance tag limit
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crowly
Yes, I see your point if you're referring to the goal being the win. However if you reduce the alliance size to the point where the vast majority of alliances are playing on a much more level field then surely more goals are likely to coincide and get everyone fighting.
This is just conjecture, you understand.
|
The playing field is level already. Despite the fact that only 2/3 of a tag's members currently count to the alliance score, there's also the option for every alliance to recruit the same amount of planets. That's all that is required to ensure that there is a level playing field. If alliance A simply fails to compete, well, that's how life goes - and it is going to happen no matter how this particular playing field is designed.
Currently there are 5 alliances being able to compete for the maximum potential, and a sixth alliance being very close to use the maximum scoring amount of members. So might it be that the current outcry is simply people that want to break Ascendancy's domination? Most likely. Is the correct way to do so reducing alliance sizes? I don't think so.
It would be more useful to make war more profitable again, to allow players different choices in the way they want to maximize the score for their planet / galaxy / alliance. Because that's where the problem with current PA is: it's too one-dimensional, i.e. focussing on "attacking and defending" only, while at the same time it:
a) discourages defending by making it totally unrewardable.
and
b) makes war unprofitable because in order to win a war you need to keep your direct opponents low on roids, giving you less chances to maximize your own alliances score, allowing all other alliances that stay out of war to gain on you or run away.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mzyxptlk
Alright, I just made another graph.
http://img139.imageshack.us/img139/9154/image2kut.png
The red line is the total number of members in alliances in each round, using the primary Y-axis.
The blue line is the total number of active planets in each round, using the primary Y-axis.
The green line is the alliance limit of each round, using the secondary Y-axis.
The number of active players for r30 is missing, I did not have the information for that round.
|
Thanks for that information. It points out even more interesting aspects of the recent development. What it once again shows is that the number of people playing in alliances is totally unrelated to the tag limit. What's even more interesting, is the fact that alliance member counts are developing almost parallel to the rise / fall of active planet counts since round 18. This is something that PA team might want to investigate. My personal suspicion is that its only the same old players left playing the game, deciding to take a round off every now and then - a good indicator that the game needs a complete reboot to attract players which don't know it yet.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kargool
Ok, I'll elaborate. I said that alliance limits lowered might cause alliance 1 to turn into alliance 1a alliance 1b alliance 1c, etc, however, they will still be independent tags, and thus cause greater friction between the split parts of the alliances. Also causing some sort of internal competition.
Now, I am not claiming that alliance limits being lowered will be the 1 remedy for the game failing to attract a decent amount of players into the game. (For that I think Planetarion needs to remove itself from the way it is currently running.) However, it brings the playing field to a more competivie level, and makes the wars between the various tags more competitive and more fun for everyone.
If you want me to say that all alliances but xVx and Ascendancy are shit cause they can't fill up their tags, then sure, I can say that too. But the main fact is that the current situation only calls for abolishing alliances as a whole if we don't lower the alliance tags.
Am I saying this out of selfishness? Absolutely not. I could have played in both the "big" tags this round if I wanted to, however, I chose not to, cause I don't see any challenge at all for the players in the big tags at the moment.
|
Thanks for clearing this up. I do agree that splitting an alliance over several tags can cause greater friction within it, making it fall apart easier. This, however, does a lot depend upon the internal structure of the alliance, and how its members relate to each other. For the particular case of Ascendancy I am inclined to say that it won't change things, simply because of the way Ascendancy works (we do already have a high turnover while at the same hardly any bitch fighting, except end of r29).
For a comment about level playing field and making the game more competitive / fun again, see the things I said above in response to crowly. Very nice to see that even people outside Ascendancy share the opinion that this game needs a total overhaul.
__________________
Iā! Iā! Munin F'tagn! - [*scendancy]
|
|
|
30 Apr 2009, 15:03
|
#55
|
respect, unity, order
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 280
|
Re: Drastically lower alliance tag limit
Quote:
Originally Posted by Heartless
The playing field is level already. Despite the fact that only 2/3 of a tag's members currently count to the alliance score, there's also the option for every alliance to recruit the same amount of planets. That's all that is required to ensure that there is a level playing field.
|
Well, the setup pa-team gave us this round indeed allows every alliance to have up to 90 members. Reality clearly shows that most alliances can not make this number. Ofcourse the alliance that has won the past 3 rounds can get plenty, and xVx with the liths joining in had an easy ride to filling up their tag also (fighting on Asc's side will have helped this), but next to that, all the long lasting alliances in pa seem to not be able to fill their tags.
Now both you and i know that the 60 people counting for score is just bollocks that matters for nothing else then the last tick of the round. It's the difference in members that are in tag that win/loose you the round.
__________________
Together We Stand Divided We Fall
[Ðragons]
|
|
|
30 Apr 2009, 16:20
|
#56
|
mz.
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 8,587
|
Re: Drastically lower alliance tag limit
Why do you think tags need to be full? Personally, I think a situation in which most tags have 10 free spots is much more desirable.
__________________
The outraged poets threw sticks and rocks over the side of the bridge. They were all missing Mary and he felt a contented smug feeling wash over him. He would have given them a coy little wave if the roof hadn't collapsed just then. Mary then found himself in the middle of an understandably shocked family's kitchen table. So he gave them the coy little wave and realized it probably would have been more effective if he hadn't been lying on their turkey.
|
|
|
30 Apr 2009, 16:23
|
#57
|
You've Seen The Light
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 1,152
|
Re: Drastically lower alliance tag limit
Quote:
Originally Posted by ReligFree
However I do think this round with the number of smaller tags created with an aim of having a more fun round is a real statement. With player's who have ran big alliances choosing to do this it really reflects the way they feel about the game. Sure Ascendancy have a full tag with goodness knows how many out of tag once again, and yeah i'll get shouted down on an internet forum for saying it, but I think this rounds over already. I cannot see where the challenge is going to come from. So well done, you've got the biggest tag, the best players and have won again, this time within a week. Whats the aim for next round? pt 72 have it settled?
|
You're wrong.
The round was over pre-ticks
__________________
First shalt thou take out the Holy Pin. Then shalt thou count to three, no more, no less. Three shall be the number thou shalt count, and the number of the counting shall be three. Four shalt thou not count, neither count thou two, excepting that thou then proceed to three. Five is right out. Once the number three, being the third number, be reached, then lobbest thou thy Holy Hand Grenade of Antioch towards thy foe, who, being naughty in my sight, shall snuff it.
|
|
|
30 Apr 2009, 16:53
|
#58
|
Hamster
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Crewe, England
Posts: 3,606
|
Re: Drastically lower alliance tag limit
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mzyxptlk
http://img6.imageshack.us/img6/6690/image1ddi.png
The red line is the alliance limit of each round, using the primary Y-axis.
The blue line is the average members per alliance in each round, using the primary Y-axis.
The green line is the number of alliances playing each round, using the secondary Y-axis.
|
I don't know the exacts but those figures you are using aren't accurate, especially in relation to the alliance limit
__________________
Wakey
PD and Suggestions Moderator
Co-founder of [F-Crew]
The Farnborough Crew
Cos anything else is just an alliance
Join our public channel at #f-crew
|
|
|
30 Apr 2009, 17:20
|
#59
|
The BOFH
Join Date: Mar 2001
Posts: 463
|
Re: Drastically lower alliance tag limit
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mzyxptlk
Why do you think tags need to be full? Personally, I think a situation in which most tags have 10 free spots is much more desirable.
|
It's slightly harder to compete against other alliances if you don't have the maximum number of players.
I agree that having free spots is desirable from the players point of view in being able to find a new alliance, but for alliances wanting the most defence and the most score - surely bigger is better unless you want the prestige of winning without needing the full amount?
|
|
|
30 Apr 2009, 17:22
|
#60
|
CRASHING BEATS 'N FANTASY
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Cold Country.
Posts: 1,912
|
Re: Drastically lower alliance tag limit
Quote:
Originally Posted by berten
Well, the setup pa-team gave us this round indeed allows every alliance to have up to 90 members. Reality clearly shows that most alliances can not make this number. Ofcourse the alliance that has won the past 3 rounds can get plenty, and xVx with the liths joining in had an easy ride to filling up their tag also (fighting on Asc's side will have helped this), but next to that, all the long lasting alliances in pa seem to not be able to fill their tags.
Now both you and i know that the 60 people counting for score is just bollocks that matters for nothing else then the last tick of the round. It's the difference in members that are in tag that win/loose you the round.
|
It's actually not bollocks but the way game mechanics work. Only 60 people in your tag count towards your alliances score. And only for the time they actually were in no other tag.
I do, however, agree that a difference in members is what wins or loses an alliance a round - and with that I mean the people you manage to gather - in and out of tag, via politics or as support planets. And that is something where even lower alliance limits do not help.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wakey
I don't know the exacts but those figures you are using aren't accurate, especially in relation to the alliance limit
|
What makes you think so? Why are they not accurate? Do you have more reliable sources of information than the database dumps written by the game?
__________________
Iā! Iā! Munin F'tagn! - [*scendancy]
|
|
|
30 Apr 2009, 19:16
|
#61
|
mz.
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 8,587
|
Re: Drastically lower alliance tag limit
Quote:
Originally Posted by wakey
I don't know the exacts but those figures you are using aren't accurate, especially in relation to the alliance limit
|
I got my numbers straight from Appocomaster, who pasted them straight from the database.
Having researched a bit further (though rest assured I didn't doubt you were wrong), I have found no instances in which an alliance ended the round with more members than the limit I used in that graph allowed.
__________________
The outraged poets threw sticks and rocks over the side of the bridge. They were all missing Mary and he felt a contented smug feeling wash over him. He would have given them a coy little wave if the roof hadn't collapsed just then. Mary then found himself in the middle of an understandably shocked family's kitchen table. So he gave them the coy little wave and realized it probably would have been more effective if he hadn't been lying on their turkey.
|
|
|
30 Apr 2009, 22:29
|
#62
|
Hamster
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Crewe, England
Posts: 3,606
|
Re: Drastically lower alliance tag limit
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mzyxptlk
I got my numbers straight from Appocomaster, who pasted them straight from the database.
Having researched a bit further (though rest assured I didn't doubt you were wrong), I have found no instances in which an alliance ended the round with more members than the limit I used in that graph allowed.
|
You can keep standing by your wrong and misleading figures but we all know that despite your insistence they are wrong and quite frankly largely meaningless. I mean ffs how useful is a "Total alliances" figure really, a round with a high membership limit may have 100 alliances while a low may only have 50 but its about having more alliances above a certain level not having more alliances in general
And if you really want to know why your alliance limit figures are a complete falsehood its because you are treating them too simplistically. We have had rounds where your alliance rank has changed your limit, we have had rounds where some places were limited to recruiting only people below a certain score, limits where only certain people count ect ect. All of which totally skew any raw figure analysis.
The proof is in the pudding and anyone who has any kind of clue has seen that lower limits over a few rounds doesn't do any real damage the fight at the top BUT gave the lower levels the ability and resources to build a solid infrastructure around. If you want to keep your blinkers on then fine but don't even dare using misleading figures to put down others who are better placed to have an opinion on the impact.
__________________
Wakey
PD and Suggestions Moderator
Co-founder of [F-Crew]
The Farnborough Crew
Cos anything else is just an alliance
Join our public channel at #f-crew
|
|
|
30 Apr 2009, 23:37
|
#63
|
Leader of the Membrivians
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: The Netherlands
Posts: 412
|
Re: Drastically lower alliance tag limit
Ok. I really could not be arsed to read all this.
All I want to mention, once again, is that all the discussion that takes place concerns SYMPTOMS of an underlying problem, namely that the criterion/criteria on which winning PA is based is facilitating elite groups. If you wish to make this a game for the bigger crowd again, CHANGE the criterion/criteria!!! The main criterion as I see it atm is: activity. Imo this should be changed to make it feasible again for many people to play for the win!
The discussion should be about the basic premises on which PA is built, not the symptoms that are emerging from it.
EDIT: however, I expect at least 150 similar threads to come.
__________________
R1-5: Unaffiliated / R19: Zik Union
R20-27 & 30-31 Orbit DC/BC/HC (Intelking!)
R29: Rock Member/Intel Officer
R35/36: p3nguins
R37: Evolution
R48: ODDR
R49: CT
[KB] [Mercenaries] [p0ny]
The intelligent man finds almost everything ridiculous, the sensible man hardly anything. (J.W. Goethe)
|
|
|
1 May 2009, 00:06
|
#64
|
mz.
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 8,587
|
Re: Drastically lower alliance tag limit
Wakey, you seem pretty angry for no good reason, but I'll happily clarify my posts.
The total number of alliances was measured by counting all alliances with 40 or more members. All you had to do was ask, dude.
The alliance limit is just that: the maximum number of members any one alliance can have. I have ignored everything else because I can see only three rounds in which the entire top3 stayed to significantly below the limit, namely rounds 16 (60 members, 83 limit), 17 (59 members, 79 limit) and 18 (63 members, 75 limit). This is important because the schemes you mentioned were always intended to make it easier for lower tier alliances to recruit more people. Since they apparently didn't stand in the way of top alliances recruiting to the actual limit, it should be clear that (like the alliance limit itself) these schemes have had a negligible impact.
I'll be honest with you. I thought (hoped?) that the graph would show that high alliance limits were good for the size and number of alliances. Unfortunately the data doesn't support that, and as such I've not argued that, or indeed anything at all. My personal opinion on alliance limits is fairly well known, but I have gone to some length to avoid tainting the objective data. I think it's unfortunate you are apparently unable or unwilling to do the same.
As for your own reasoning, "everyone knows" makes for a lousy argument and I'm not even going to comment on your claim to expert status. I hope you will back up your opinion with with arguments and facts so we can talk some more about this.
__________________
The outraged poets threw sticks and rocks over the side of the bridge. They were all missing Mary and he felt a contented smug feeling wash over him. He would have given them a coy little wave if the roof hadn't collapsed just then. Mary then found himself in the middle of an understandably shocked family's kitchen table. So he gave them the coy little wave and realized it probably would have been more effective if he hadn't been lying on their turkey.
Last edited by Mzyxptlk; 1 May 2009 at 00:18.
|
|
|
1 May 2009, 00:17
|
#65
|
mz.
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 8,587
|
Re: Drastically lower alliance tag limit
And while we're at it, Heartless asked me to make another graph, I figured I'd share it with you guys as well. Hopefully it doesn't make Wakey angry again.
http://img144.imageshack.us/img144/9788/image1roi.png
The red line is the alliance limit of each round.
The blue line is the average members per alliance in the top 1-5 in each round.
The green line is the average members per alliance in the top 6-10 in each round.
The pruple line is the average members per alliance in the top 11-15 in each round.
The orange line is the average members per alliance in the top 16-20 in each round.
__________________
The outraged poets threw sticks and rocks over the side of the bridge. They were all missing Mary and he felt a contented smug feeling wash over him. He would have given them a coy little wave if the roof hadn't collapsed just then. Mary then found himself in the middle of an understandably shocked family's kitchen table. So he gave them the coy little wave and realized it probably would have been more effective if he hadn't been lying on their turkey.
|
|
|
1 May 2009, 11:13
|
#66
|
Leader of the Membrivians
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: The Netherlands
Posts: 412
|
Re: Drastically lower alliance tag limit
Too much arbritrary choices underlying such a graph, for instance: why not grouping in top1-4, etc or top1-3 etc. For convenience, I suppose. Convenience is the death of good science, my dear Mz.
Imo it effectively shows nothing but nice coloured lines in a rectangle, Mz.
Could you maybe clarify your intention, share your thoughts. show us your inferences that you draw from this graph? Or Heartless, as that is the one who asked for it. What does it say according to you, and what does that mean. Should that be taken as significant or not?
I'm curious.
__________________
R1-5: Unaffiliated / R19: Zik Union
R20-27 & 30-31 Orbit DC/BC/HC (Intelking!)
R29: Rock Member/Intel Officer
R35/36: p3nguins
R37: Evolution
R48: ODDR
R49: CT
[KB] [Mercenaries] [p0ny]
The intelligent man finds almost everything ridiculous, the sensible man hardly anything. (J.W. Goethe)
|
|
|
1 May 2009, 12:24
|
#67
|
mz.
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 8,587
|
Re: Drastically lower alliance tag limit
Alright, this post started as a two paragraph answer to your questions, but has grown into a full article as I wanted to clarify more and more. Enjoy the read. :P
Hypothesis
The goal of my research was finding out if tags have often been full, and if so, which level of tags have had an easier time to fill their ranks. The reason we wanted to know this was because we supposed that people would stop bothering to play the game if they couldn't get into a certain level of alliance, be it a top alliance, a decent alliance or training alliance. To complete the picture, I also considered the information about active non-alliance players.
Method
The data I used for alliances comes from two sources. Appocomaster was my primary source, he gave me the needed information for rounds 14-25 and 27-29. He also gave me the data for round 26, but this information was clearly erroneous because it was taken after havoc, while the data from r30 was missing completely. I used the PAwiki to fill the gaps. I think it's safe to say that round 30 is still fresh enough in our minds that these figures could not be tampered with, while the graph shows normal values for round 26. I am therefore confident that these two pieces of data are correct, despite not coming from the most credible of sources.
The information about non-alliance members comes from Appocomaster as well, even for round 26 (something worth keeping in mind). Information for round 30 is missing.
Because alliance names change on an almost per-round basis while the players do not (common knowledge), analysing the evolution of individual alliances would have been a waste of time. Furthermore, to categorise alliances I would have had to introduce a subjective element, in order to be able to decide which alliances were "better" or "worse than others.
Instead I opted to analyse rankings. This avoids the natural fluctuations in individual alliance's performance and member count, if alliance X doesn't play a certain round, a new alliance Y will take its place, often taking in a lot of alliance X's former members.
I initially refrained from putting ranks into categories for fear of losing information. However, when I displayed each rank separately, the graph became a unintelligible mess of colour. I mitigated the issue by categorising the ranks.
I divided into 4 groups of 5 because generally speaking, the top1-5 plays a separate game from the top6-10, and the top11-20 plays a separate game once again; I split this last group into 2 of 5 to keep consistency across the board and because I noticed that though in earlier rounds the top16-20 often had a reasonable number of players, in later rounds this was not the case. I did not wish to throw away this distinction. If you disagree with any of this, I would be interested in your reasoning.
it is worth noting that the peaks in rounds 22 and 27 coincide with these being free rounds. Though beyond the scope of this post, it worries me that the peak for round 27 is much smaller than the one for round 22.
Analysis
The data suggests that people prefer being in top alliances over being in decent alliances and that they prefer being in decent alliances over being in training alliances. It also demonstrates that top alliances do not have such strict recruitment policies as is often supposed.
http://img12.imageshack.us/img12/8968/image3wdb.png
http://img12.imageshack.us/img12/420/image1twv.png
It can safely be said that the bottom tags (11-20) have lost a significant number of members over the last 17 rounds, while the top alliances (1-5) barely lost any; the trend lines (not shown) are quite clear. The group closest to training alliances (active non-alliance player) shows an even worse drop, from 1851 in round 16 to 533 in round 29.
Conclusion
The conclusion we drew from the data was yet again that the alliance limit has had virtually zero impact on the game, or at least much less than other influences, such as whether or not a round is free, the fact that a certain alliance is playing or whatever other reason you can think of.
What worries me more than anything is the huge drop in non-alliance players. These are the people Planetarion needs, fresh blood, not the 1000 or so veterans that have been playing this game on and off since round 18.
__________________
The outraged poets threw sticks and rocks over the side of the bridge. They were all missing Mary and he felt a contented smug feeling wash over him. He would have given them a coy little wave if the roof hadn't collapsed just then. Mary then found himself in the middle of an understandably shocked family's kitchen table. So he gave them the coy little wave and realized it probably would have been more effective if he hadn't been lying on their turkey.
|
|
|
1 May 2009, 12:39
|
#68
|
Mind-boggling
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Devon, England
Posts: 1,468
|
Re: Drastically lower alliance tag limit
mz can you properly quote Appocomaster, please, which year was he viewed etc? also can you complete your references and bibliography, other than that, not a bad report.
__________________
You have enemies? Good. That means you've stood up for something, sometime in your life. (Winston Churchill)
R21-Randy Dandys Winners R21
1:9:5 -SoClose- -YetSoFar-
You have pending friend requests from Newt.
|
|
|
1 May 2009, 12:57
|
#69
|
Ent|lunch
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Liverpool
Posts: 539
|
Re: Drastically lower alliance tag limit
So based on Mz's report (and not a bad analysis), alliance limits has no bearing on the game whatsoever? The graph just hurts my eyes so im going off your report. I can see alliance limits of 200 not changing much as there are still X amount of peoople who play the game, regardless of were they are distributed.
But would lowering it to, say 30, have any impact on the game? I'd hazard a guess at "No", but would like clarification.
__________________
[F-Crew] - You know when you've been [FC]uked
"Don't tell people how to do things, tell them what to do and let them surprise you with their results."
"Ars longa, vita brevis, occasio praeceps, experimentum periculosum, iudicium difficile"
|
|
|
1 May 2009, 13:02
|
#70
|
Registered User
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: In bed with your mum.
Posts: 664
|
Re: Drastically lower alliance tag limit
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mzyxptlk
Hypothesis
The goal of my research was finding out if tags have often been full, and if so, which level of tags have had an easier time to fill their ranks. The reason we wanted to know this was because we supposed that people would stop bothering to play the game if they couldn't get into a certain level of alliance, be it a top alliance, a decent alliance or training alliance. To complete the picture, I also considered the information about active non-alliance players.
|
"Supposing it was the tiered quality of alliances with the resulting whitewash, and not the rejection of admission," said JungleMuffin. After carefull thought, mz could somewhat agree.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by JonnyBGood
Can people please stop pretending they have no chance of winning at tick 300, you just end up looking retarded later.
|
^^^^ Can you blv that sh*t?
|
|
|
1 May 2009, 13:39
|
#71
|
idle
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Germany
Posts: 968
|
Re: Drastically lower alliance tag limit
havnt read all posts, so apologizes if i say something which was mentioned allready
reducing alliance limit alone wonīt solve anything, alliance xyz will just kick/add ppl from/to tag, like they need it, to have the best alliance score and win in the end, so if alliance xyz has 120 players lined up, they will still dominate the round, be it 40 in tag or 50 or 60.
the support planet rule is shit, as it needs to be controlled by MH, which canīt even fullfill everything they have to atm (checking for cheaters, abuisive names, mails etc...)
it will only lead to unfair decissions, cause 1 gets closed but the other doesnt, thats deffo not what PA needs
if the suggested limits should be lowered (i agree they should, 60 sounds good to me)
you will have to change the adding to tag stuff
atm planets get all their scored added to a tag, if they played without tag all round.
this will need to be changed to score starts with0 when you join a tag, no matter if you played somewhere else or not
__________________
m0rph3us formerly known as Bugz
"Itīs not about how hard u hit, its about how hard u can get hit and still keep moving forward! How much u can take and still move forward!"
|
|
|
1 May 2009, 13:44
|
#72
|
Leader of the Membrivians
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: The Netherlands
Posts: 412
|
Re: Drastically lower alliance tag limit
Thank you, Mz. It was a pleasure to read your well constructed report on this matter. Kudos!
Following your conclusion I understand that alliance size does not matter. Also, I would say that is due to the particular state PA is in. In addition, when I connect it to my earlier point, namely
Quote:
All I want to mention, once again, is that all the discussion that takes place concerns SYMPTOMS of an underlying problem, namely that the criterion/criteria on which winning PA is based is facilitating elite groups. If you wish to make this a game for the bigger crowd again, CHANGE the criterion/criteria!!! The main criterion as I see it atm is: activity. Imo this should be changed to make it feasible again for many people to play for the win!
The discussion should be about the basic premises on which PA is built, not the symptoms that are emerging from it.
|
then I can say that what I have asserted is amplified by your findings/conclusion: PA has become an elite player game... and hence the active casual player is less present and will become even more absent if the game stays as is. (hi Achilles o/)
Hence, it is time to rethink the basic premises of PA, and I would like to ask Pete whether he could put time in recreating what PA once was: a game for many.
Edit: I made a thread for it: http://pirate.planetarion.com/showthread.php?t=197774
__________________
R1-5: Unaffiliated / R19: Zik Union
R20-27 & 30-31 Orbit DC/BC/HC (Intelking!)
R29: Rock Member/Intel Officer
R35/36: p3nguins
R37: Evolution
R48: ODDR
R49: CT
[KB] [Mercenaries] [p0ny]
The intelligent man finds almost everything ridiculous, the sensible man hardly anything. (J.W. Goethe)
Last edited by Membrivio; 1 May 2009 at 14:03.
|
|
|
1 May 2009, 14:10
|
#73
|
Kwaak
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Netherlands
Posts: 296
|
Re: Drastically lower alliance tag limit
I really don't get the discussion. By enforcing a member limit to alliances, alliances have to reject players effectively steering players away from the game.
I am for getting rid of the limits. The alliances will find an optimal number themselves.
|
|
|
|
All times are GMT +1. The time now is 03:51.
| |