Round 37 = Boring?

[CBA]

This round just seems to be ticking along with little interesting/innovative tactics etc being used. Standard set of boring politics...

Galaxy systems seems to be really boring as well, priv gals having to put up with the same 7 people day in day out with no additions. Random galaxys just idling away knowing that they will end up winning because of their size.

Single Targetting doesn't help make the game any more interesting?

I'm just wondering what peoples opinions on this round are. I'm finding the round quite boring and very similar to other rounds with nothing fun going on.

[JonnyBGood]

The game has been essentially the same for 20 plus rounds now and most changes are aimed at limiting the possibility of innovation. It's hardly surprising that tactics are that limited. Of course I'm not exactly sure if this is genuinely your opinion or if this thread is just an experiment to see how much loaded language you can use in one post before the universe implodes.

[qebab]

Hey, next time we get 130 fleets incoming I'll let you try to cover stuff with what ingal defense we have! That way it'll be more interesting for you.

Edit: Also discuss more football in the galaxy channel please.

[CBA]

Originally Posted by qebab

Hey, next time we get 130 fleets incoming I'll let you try to cover stuff with what ingal defense we have! That way it'll be more interesting for you.

Edit: Also discuss more football in the galaxy channel please.

And JBG I am genuinely bored with the current state of the game and this galaxy system we have definitely doesn not help.

[Mzyxptlk]

Originally Posted by CBA

priv gals having to put up with the same 7 people day in day out with no additions.

That's the whole point.

[nolezy]

Originally Posted by CBA

priv gals having to put up with the same 7 people day in day out with no additions

What'd you guys make it? 4 days?

[JonnyBGood]

I've said myself a few times that I'd like to see a full random gal round. Mix things up etc

[Sun_Tzu]

Picking targets this round as BC has simply become silly. Everything's so fenced.

Also pro full random round, or at least a bp/random round.

[CBA]

JBG - how would your random galaxy system take into account the exile system?

[zebra]

In how many rounds have the #1 and #2 allies been napped? In how many of those rounds has one of those two allies been asc?

[Mzyxptlk]

Originally Posted by zebra

In how many rounds have the #1 and #2 allies been napped? In how many of those rounds has one of those two allies been asc?

In fairness, when the nap with Apprime was formed, we were 5th and Apprime were 3rd and when the nap with NewDawn was formed, they were 2nd and we were 5th.

[M0RPH3US]

Originally Posted by Mzyxptlk

In fairness, when the nap with Apprime was formed, we were 5th and Apprime were 3rd and when the nap with NewDawn was formed, they were 2nd and we were 5th.

well naps can be broken! can they ?

but why would you, atm your pretty safe knowing the block cant harm you guys enough, at least not both at the same time, while you can easily concentrate on evolution at the same time

just the question which one of asc or apprime will win the roid race
cause i doubt any of you is willing to wage war with each other, sadly

[Mek]

Originally Posted by M0RPH3US

just the question which one of asc or apprime will win the roid race
cause i doubt any of you is willing to wage war with each other, sadly

Have asc and app ever 'waged war' against each other when the opportunity has arisen?

[JonnyBGood]

Originally Posted by M0RPH3US

just the question which one of asc or apprime will win the roid race
cause i doubt any of you is willing to wage war with each other, sadly

It is indeed really sad that we're not brave enough to drop the NAP with apprime and join the other 4 alliances who are going to hit them. Our lack of testicular fortitude really is something amazing

[Kjeldoran]

Originally Posted by Mzyxptlk

In fairness, when the nap with Apprime was formed, we were 5th and Apprime were 3rd and when the nap with NewDawn was formed, they were 2nd and we were 5th.

Lol, if someone would use that arguement against you, you'd have schred it to pieces really. So why use it yourself now?

Like Morph says, naps can be broken.

[Veedeejem!]

Round is pretty much decided.

BA will probably win planet, Asc or App will win ally.

[Kjeldoran]

Originally Posted by Veedeejem!

Round is pretty much decided.

BA will probably win planet, Asc or App will win ally.

I approve of BA winning.

[rUl3r]

Originally Posted by Veedeejem!

Round is pretty much decided.

BA will probably win planet

Dear god no. FailArmy will probably just crash again.

[_Kila_]

Originally Posted by Veedeejem!

Round is pretty much decided.

BA will probably win planet, Asc or App will win ally.

Please don't let BA win

[Mzyxptlk]

Originally Posted by Kjeldoran

Lol, if someone would use that arguement against you, you'd have schred it to pieces really. So why use it yourself now?

If it's so easily shredded, do it.

[Kjeldoran]

Originally Posted by Mzyxptlk

If it's so easily shredded, do it.

The sheer fact that if you only napped them when you were #5 and they were respectively #3 and #2 and if you would indeed be concerned that #1 and #2 would be napped and go to the finishline like that --> If that really bothered you (read: the alliance), then you'd have cancelled that nap.

But perhaps it isn't? Which is ofcourse all fair and square.

[zebra]

Originally Posted by Mzyxptlk

In fairness, when the nap with Apprime was formed, we were 5th and Apprime were 3rd and when the nap with NewDawn was formed, they were 2nd and we were 5th.

How many rounds has asc not started 1/2 but climbed there later in the round (or been clearly stronger than allies ahead of them)? In further fairness, app and asc have been 1/2 more than any other ally, but that still doesn't answer my question.

[Mzyxptlk]

Originally Posted by zebra

How many rounds has asc not started 1/2 but climbed there later in the round (or been clearly stronger than allies ahead of them)?

Paging JBG to thread 198741. JBG to 198741.

Originally Posted by zebra

In further fairness, app and asc have been 1/2 more than any other ally, but that still doesn't answer my question.

One could argue that we were stronger (in part) because our politics were good. Plus, in at least some of those cases we ended up #1 which left no incentive for us to break naps. At all, ever.

[JonnyBGood]

Originally Posted by zebra

In how many rounds have the #1 and #2 allies been napped? In how many of those rounds has one of those two allies been asc?

Round 29, ascendancy and ct, round 31 ascendancy and xvx, round 33, ascendancy and evolution (although this is a bit arguable considering evo only overtook apprime on the final day of the round when cardi kicked a ton of people from tag) and round 34, ascendancy and apprime.

As regards rounds in pa history where the final #1 and #2 allies have been napped: Round 2, Round 3, Round 5, Round 7, Round 8, Round 9, Round 10, Round 10.5, Round 13, Round 18, Round 22, Round 25 and the rounds mentioned above.

Originally Posted by zebra

How many rounds has asc not started 1/2 but climbed there later in the round

Assuming this means finished as #1/#2 Round 16, 21, 26, 29, 30 and 34.

(or been clearly stronger than allies ahead of them)?

I don't know what this means. I don't think we've ever significantly underachieved except in round 25 when distwhoring was such a cap on our score though.

[LordNieminen]

Zebra, to roid a galaxy and to have a single race fleet theoretically roiding me solo are two different things.

If someone needs massive overkill aka 3-4 alliances to roid single galaxy they just suck ass or stats do, this time it's the single targetting stats what are in fault with salvage rules. So yer round is boring as hell, I have given exactly one day my full concentration to gain roids, rest of the time it's 20mins to pick/launch with my team up cbk.

edited: and in my estimate Asc isn't overpowering strong, too many forts and way too top heavy, if they get concentrated on, they will loose roids if not for any other reason then the zik dominance in their alliance.

[_Kila_]

Originally Posted by jonnybgood

assuming this means finished as #1/#2 round 16, 21, 26, 29, 30 and 34.

21?

[_Kila_]

Originally Posted by Mek

Have asc and app ever 'waged war' against each other when the opportunity has arisen?

Round 32 Asc organised a big block vs Apprime?
Round 33 Asc went head to head with Apprime?

Originally Posted by M0RPH3US

just the question which one of asc or apprime will win the roid race
cause i doubt any of you is willing to wage war with each other, sadly

I can't speak for anyone else but I don't really give much of a shit about winning this round, I think we're supposed to not win anyway...

[Mzyxptlk]

Oh, no, no, no. I didn't insult you. I merely said you were stupid. But if you persist on interpreting it another way, that's your choice.

[Kjeldoran]

Originally Posted by Mzyxptlk

Oh, no, no, no. I didn't insult you. I merely said you were stupid. But if you persist on interpreting it another way, that's your choice.

I have no ill intentions towards you. I didn't mean anything insulting towards you (as I explained to you in PM).

But ok, call me stupid. so be it.

[LordNieminen]

It's a boring round, you need massive overkill to land on top galaxies.

[zebra]

Originally Posted by LordNieminen

It's a boring round, you need massive overkill to land on top galaxies.

Originally Posted by LordNieminen

...no more of this ST tbh, there's limits how annoyed I get if some newb can launch a theoretically succesfull wave to me even if i'm 10-20 times he's size in fleet value just because of races and if I kill 95% of he's fleet.. he's still on + side in the score.. I mean gimme a break.

God help us when end of this round comes, everyone who's outside top100 can launch at top10 planets and jump insane amounts if they got rightkind of fleet and enough pods.

[Colt]

You always need massive overkill to land on top galaxies, why would this round be any different....?

[Mzyxptlk]

You can't need overkill. That's the definition of overkill.

[Wishmaster]

I m so glad I m not playing this round.

But hey! ST rounds are alot more fun!!!!!!

[Hude]

Originally Posted by Wishmaster

I m so glad I m not playing this round.

But hey! ST rounds are alot more fun!!!!!!

I was thinking of replying something intelligent, but I'm just going to come down to the level that makes the same difference:

bla bla, bla bla.

[lokken]

Private galaxies need to be broken up, as right now, these organisations are dictating alliance politics, when really politics are for alliances to decide. The flip side for alliances getting back this power is that they have to manage politics and defence based on the cards they are dealt, so in a random round, they have a different kind of challenge to deal with. If we do random we should also try and compartmentalise the universe (clusters) to further encourage interaction between players.

What we should do to promote more interesting rounds is to force alliance to manage their resources better and to focus on political relationships of real convenience to gain the edge over their opposition.

[HRH_H_Crab]

Originally Posted by lokken

Private galaxies need to be broken up, as right now, these organisations are dictating alliance politics, when really politics are for alliances to decide.

Wouldn't people then just use tactical exiling to create private gals or has that been fixed in some way?

[Kjeldoran]

Originally Posted by HRH_H_Crab

Wouldn't people then just use tactical exiling to create private gals or has that been fixed in some way?

Tbh the whole idea of exiling is abit far fetched and I never really favoured it. Ok, so you end up in an inactive galaxy ... tough luck. More luck next round?

[HRH_H_Crab]

Originally Posted by Kjeldoran

Tbh the whole idea of exiling is abit far fetched and I never really favoured it. Ok, so you end up in an inactive galaxy ... tough luck. More luck next round?

During the time you were away it was demonstrated that it is entirely possible to exile into exactly the galaxy that you would like to end up in given a few attempts - and if you were small enough when you started exiling it was cheap.

It had to be timed right, but it was certainly doable - don't know if anything has been done to prevent it.

[Veedeejem!]

Originally Posted by Kjeldoran

Tbh the whole idea of exiling is abit far fetched and I never really favoured it. Ok, so you end up in an inactive galaxy ... tough luck. More luck next round?

Don't think that's a good solution to offer a paying customer.

"You're unlucky and your round is over before it even started, better luck next round and thank you for the money!
Sincerely,
PA-Team"

Not really the customer service people are looking for...

[gzambo]

Originally Posted by Veedeejem!

Don't think that's a good solution to offer a paying customer.

"You're unlucky and your round is over before it even started, better luck next round and thank you for the money!
Sincerely,
PA-Team"

Not really the customer service people are looking for...

in fairness your never likely to associate customer service and Pa Team

[lokken]

Originally Posted by Veedeejem!

Don't think that's a good solution to offer a paying customer.

"You're unlucky and your round is over before it even started, better luck next round and thank you for the money!
Sincerely,
PA-Team"

Not really the customer service people are looking for...

This is complaining that making the game more difficult is bad customer service.

In my opinion, we need to make planetarion a little more difficult to make it more entertaining. I think random would be fine, provided that premium accounts had a feature to autoreport incomings to alliance.

Building a galaxy from randoms used to be a skill that was needed to succeed. It was healthy for the game as it meant the best players were great team players as well as individuals and it helped newer players learn about the game and how to play.

If we added clusters (I propose quadrants of ~250 to start with) to the mix, and gave planets an extra source of defence and made attacking in-cluster meaningful, then we have something to build on.

Originally Posted by HRH_H_Crab

While I am not condemning the people that did what I described, I do think they used (note that I did not say "abused") the exile system in a way that it was not really intended to be used, so I personally would consider it a problem with the game (albeit one which is very close to the bottom of an incredibly long list).

I also feel that limiting exiles to once every 3 ticks probably addresses the problem as neatly as one could hope for (without removing the ability to exile entirely).

I suspect though that determined players could probably still make "private" galaxies using that technique if they really wanted to.

This post made me think of an important history lesson. Exiling wasn't invented for convenience, it was invented so that if you were in a hopeless galaxy, you could get out. So the ability to exile should really be determined by the score bracket of your galaxy rather than any other kind of limit. The question of course is how we would deal with galaxies who wanted to exile renegade planets or inactives. In my opinion the best way to achieve this is to calculate this as a percentage of their daily income.

This would go a long way to making creating "private" galaxies more difficult. In my opinion the "playing with your friends" argument is silly. Why? Because you would still contact them over IRC regardless of where you were playing and they would still probably support you.

Originally Posted by HaNzI

If you want to take us back to the discussion about fortress gals, let me first make a summary of your expected post, so i can save you some time from writing an actual post with "valid" arguments:

Fortress gals are an abonimation that gives huge unfair advantages to those who abuse the exile system. It is considered so overpowered, that any alliance succeeding in creating it, will be ensured a swift victory. It has absolutely no disadvantages, and trying to score roids in these gals is considered to be pointless.

There are disadvantages in terms of the fact that if you're overwhelmed, your alliance suffers very badly and you also suffer for the fact that you are a lightning rod for incoming. In a bigger universe, their advantage would probably decrease. But it's clear that in a small universe they are creating way more harm than good and the possibility of them should (for a round at least to see what happens) be removed.

[HaNzI]

Of course a round gets boring when Newdawn get to set the example of how much one should 'NAP eachother.

[Sun_Tzu]

Originally Posted by HaNzI

Of course a round gets boring when Newdawn get to set the example of how much one should 'NAP eachother.

Don't blame us for cardi being quite simply impossible to work with.

[Mzyxptlk]

Originally Posted by HRH_H_Crab

Wouldn't people then just use tactical exiling to create private gals or has that been fixed in some way?

The word "fixed" implies there was a problem, which I don't think there was. You can now only exile once per 3 ticks, though, if that answers your question.

[HRH_H_Crab]

Originally Posted by Mzyxptlk

The word "fixed" implies there was a problem, which I don't think there was. You can now only exile once per 3 ticks, though, if that answers your question.

While I am not condemning the people that did what I described, I do think they used (note that I did not say "abused") the exile system in a way that it was not really intended to be used, so I personally would consider it a problem with the game (albeit one which is very close to the bottom of an incredibly long list).

I also feel that limiting exiles to once every 3 ticks probably addresses the problem as neatly as one could hope for (without removing the ability to exile entirely).

I suspect though that determined players could probably still make "private" galaxies using that technique if they really wanted to.

[HaNzI]

Originally Posted by HRH_H_Crab

While I am not condemning the people that did what I described, I do think they used (note that I did not say "abused") the exile system in a way that it was not really intended to be used, so I personally would consider it a problem with the game (albeit one which is very close to the bottom of an incredibly long list).

I also feel that limiting exiles to once every 3 ticks probably addresses the problem as neatly as one could hope for (without removing the ability to exile entirely).

I suspect though that determined players could probably still make "private" galaxies using that technique if they really wanted to.

If you want to take us back to the discussion about fortress gals, let me first make a summary of your expected post, so i can save you some time from writing an actual post with "valid" arguments:

Fortress gals are an abonimation that gives huge unfair advantages to those who abuse the exile system. It is considered so overpowered, that any alliance succeeding in creating it, will be ensured a swift victory. It has absolutely no disadvantages, and trying to score roids in these gals is considered to be pointless.

[HRH_H_Crab]

Hanzi: even if galaxies were 100% random, I would imagine that those that end up at the top of the pile are likely to act much like fortress gals do now although I concede it might make things a bit more interesting until the top 5 - 10 gals consolidated their positions somewhat.

[HaNzI]

Originally Posted by HRH_H_Crab

Hanzi: even if galaxies were 100% random, I would imagine that those that end up at the top of the pile are likely to act much like fortress gals do now although I concede it might make things a bit more interesting until the top 5 - 10 gals consolidated their positions somewhat.

Are you mistaking fortress gals for fenced gals? This just didnt make any sense.

[Mzyxptlk]

Originally Posted by HRH_H_Crab

While I am not condemning the people that did what I described, I do think they used (note that I did not say "abused") the exile system in a way that it was not really intended to be used, so I personally would consider it a problem with the game (albeit one which is very close to the bottom of an incredibly long list).

Here's the problem I have with that logic. Just because a feature is used in a different manner than it was intended to be used is irrelevant. It really, really is. The only thing that's relevant is whether or not the game is improved by these uses. Nothing else matters.

It's a discussion we've had many times before, so I won't really get into it further than, no, I don't think it harms the game.