Alliance size

[Crowly]

If what you're saying is true then this game is already dead, because you're not going to change the behaviour of the big alliances, they're not going to start accepting new players when instead they could just have another good player.

I don't believe that's true, I believe that you need to change the game in order to either make the big alliances accept new players or let the alliances that do play on a more equal footing.

How long do you really think that the small alliances are going to hold on being completely unable to survive? When they go the big alliances still won't be accepting new people and as I said in my first post, it'll be the same 600 people playing each other over and over.

[neroon]

40-50man alliances
all score is counted in tag
ftw

even if its goin to b X1, X2, X3 then its still more fun as X1 wont have -1 defence if they wanted to defend X2 ppl..

[Buddah]

unlimited numbers in tag, 30 count for score or smth.

[Kargool]

Originally Posted by Zaejii

i would 100% agree with this, had i not seen it go wrong in SWG. they changed the game to attract new players and all the old ones quit. the player base went from ~350k to ~25k.

make stuff attractive for new players, and allow ways to incorporate them. in the end, however, it is how the community as a whole welcomes new players. most galaxies will immediately exile them, while others will guide them, help them to think for themselves, and keep them interested and playing for many rounds.

Well, it can always solve it by not having an exile option, only that planets get exiled if they have been inactive for a certain time. In my opinion, the attitude towards newer players and their eventually being exiled from atleast 3/4rd of the galaxies around causes them to decide this is not a game for them. I dont think you get instantly addicted to planetarion, more that you get addicted the more included you get into things.

However, the casual players needs to be protected from the evil exile monster, and one option to do so is to only make it possible to exile players that are inactive for a certain amount of time 72 ticks springs to mind as a feasible option.

However, is the general playerbase willing to accept this change in order to brew more planetarion players? I belive so, as soon as they start to see the effect it may have.

[tobyy]

kindof offtopic but somebody should talked about it
couldnt pa team up incress the cost to exile people? say after 5 exiles you double the cost!

[quote]Galaxy Exile Costs

Galaxy Exiles cost more each time. The formula to calculate the costs for each type of resource is:

Galaxy Exile Cost = (Value/10)*(Number of galaxy exiles so far for gal+2)/2. [/quote[

[Membrivio]

Originally Posted by Zaejii

i would 100% agree with this, had i not seen it go wrong in SWG. they changed the game to attract new players and all the old ones quit. the player base went from ~350k to ~25k.
make stuff attractive for new players, and allow ways to incorporate them. in the end, however, it is how the community as a whole welcomes new players. most galaxies will immediately exile them, while others will guide them, help them to think for themselves, and keep them interested and playing for many rounds.

Originally Posted by Appocomaster

This is a lovely post and I didn't know of this example (whilst obviously being horrible for SWG). It restores my faith

I am sorry to say, but unrestore your faith m8: this is like comparing apples with oranges. This very thing has happened in an earlier stage with PA --> P2P, Races? Or am I wrong? Thus, imo different situations, and therefore it is not viable for comparison.

In this particular situation of PA you cannot get much lower, i.e. change is required to attract new players. It is the game (broadest sense) that needs a change which will make the community change too. And not the other way around. At this very moment the community can behave like this because teh community is so small and these cnuts make up a big part of the game. Make these people marginal and you can offer an excellent game to newcomers, imo IF you offer the "upgraded" game. My two cents, again

[Zirikk]

http://pirate.planetarion.com/showthread.php?t=192776
Will this ever happen?

[Appocomaster]

Originally Posted by Zirikk

http://pirate.planetarion.com/showthread.php?t=192776
Will this ever happen?

Was planned for this round or next round, but the idea got shot down rather throroughly when I tried to allow private galaxies to be in alliances, or similar

[Nadar]

Kargool, stop worrying so much about size

[LukeyLove]

Id like skill to return to the game, and the activity/skill of the members defining how well the alliances do. Instead of this 'LOL I CAN THROW MORE FLEETS ON ONE WAVE THAN YOU' which seems to have begun :\

-> Smaller Allys of 60 max, pref nearer 30-40! This would also give the smaller allys a chance to improve and keep their better members, rather than joining the masses in the top four alliances.

[Fuzzy]

i quite like luke's above response. obviously there are advantages and arguments for both extremes, unresticted allies (or with 100 person limit etc.) vs. smaller allies (eg. 30-40 members)

however all things considered the advatanges of smaller tag size for me outweigh the positives of larger tag size.

To first focus on the negative aspects of smaller alliances: lack of BC's and HC's.

My first impression was that "no way is the idea of lots of 30-40 man alliances realistic, given the lack of 'leaders' in the game atm" - however my view has changed. Many posters claim ascendancys popularity (applicant wise) and success has been due to its lack of rigid 'structure' of allies of the past. Whilst i disagree with this argument to some extent, i find it interesting to draw upon it in this discussion. With more traditional and hierarchical alliance structures i believe a more care-free attitude has developed amongst the players. "oh i cba to DC incs or plan attacks - ill just be a member this round" seeming to be an increasingly common attitude in the short time ive played pa. lack of people willing to take responsibility has been clear to see in the past 2 alliances ive been involved in especially - audentes and omen. In both alliances it was the same players putting in hours of work everyday, with few WILLING to share the load. is this a problem with a solution?

in my opinion lowering the ally size gradually is the only way to get people to be more involved. the fact is people ARE capable of doing their own work, planning their own attacks, organising defense, but many couldnt be bothered when they could just join an ally like ND/CT/Omen and expect to be spoonfed targets and not have to help deal with incomings. alternatively many of those who ARE 'leaders' of the traditional model get fed up of constant responsbility and hours of work HC'ing etc. and as a result join ascendancy to be in a place where they arent overburdened and can be a part of a team which values personal responsibility. Keeping alliance caps high or even unlimited only enables and possibly encourages the 'culture of dependancy' which is prominent in pa atm (sorry for sounding like a 1970's right wing sociologist), which overburdens the more 'super-commited' players and makes the more casual player too lazy.

making allies smaller and more tight knit will imo increase participation across the board and bring people back into playing the game for THEMSELVES rather than just following orders or letting others make their decisions and do their work for them.

of course whatever decision is made about ally sizes will entail an element of risk...that is inevitible, which is why i think a gradual lowering of ally size is the best solution, with a target of 40-60 people per ally being an end goal for the current playerbase.

if sizes drop a little it doesnt have hugely dramatic changes on alliances, for instance a drop to 80 for round 31 would imo be ideal. any notion of huge change is absurd, you cant upset the apple cart too much by jumping from 100 member limits to a 40 member limit...i hope no one would wish to see such drastic change.

in all honesty without change i cant see the situation of alliances in pa improving. having larger alliances puts much too great a burden upon those already overworked HC's and officers who are willing to keep this game competitive by fighting the stronger and more established allies (mainly Asc, CT and ND). the gradual winding down of alliance sizes will encourage greater teamplay and involvement amongst smaller, more core groups and hopefully more individual responsibility (which is drastically needed)

first post, apoligies for making it such a long one! being prompt is not my forté

[Gate]

Originally Posted by LukeyLove

Id like skill to return to the game, and the activity/skill of the members defining how well the alliances do. Instead of this 'LOL I CAN THROW MORE FLEETS ON ONE WAVE THAN YOU' which seems to have begun :\

I don't think alliances of 30-40 would stop that.

Under that system, NewDawn1 (30 members) + NewDawn2 (30 members) + NewDawn3 (30 members) would be able to throw just as many fleets as current NewDawn (81 members)

The biggest change this would make, as far as I see it, is that the ingame tools would be less useful. NewDawn would have an advantage because their tools are great, whist new starting alliances would be more limited if they don't have a coder since ingame tools can only be used within the alliance.

Not saying that 30-40 limits is a bad idea, but you have to accept that the good allies will just split into several little tags. In a way this could be really interesting though.

[Zaejii]

if you're going to have alliances that small, you should just as well bring back private galaxies.

[Gate]

Originally Posted by Zaejii

if you're going to have alliances that small, you should just as well bring back private galaxies.

I was thinking of ways to sort the whole galaxy thing out actually.

How about random big galaxies where people don't get the current ingal eta bonus, but they can def at ally eta (or maybe all at eta7). I see these gals having 20-30 or so people in them. These can't be disbanded b

At any point groups of people can form private galaxies of 10-12 players and invite people to join them. They act like current galaxies. Galaxy disband is available and if a gal disbands it dumps them back into the random big galaxies to try again.

We've been running into walls with other ideas so I thought I'd try come up with something different.

[Munkee]

I have a feeling the only way alliances like crowlys will end up surviving is if there is some form of alliance bash limit. Totally un-workable, but atm i feel the lower allies are just farm for the current t5. Whether people view that as being the same is up to them but lets face it any of the t5 can hit the likes of 11:9 when they fatten up and pretty much farm them as they know orbit def will be drained fast.

Currently as has been said, it is obviously whoever outputs enough fleets wins.

One of the major problems has been the galaxy sizes they completely change the dynamics of the game for smaller alliances. Smaller galaxies = more manageable gal raids for the smaller allies. Bigger allies often tend to not run with just 1 gal, especially at the start of round. I know ct has around 3 running most nights and puts out the same number of fleets on each of those gals as a "smaller" ally would. However, the problem comes when the round gets going and the galaxies start to get bigger.

I feel that due to being able to exile/disband we end up with the shit gals that everyone solo's to farm barely on bash limit, the semi active gals trying to become good with 3 or 4 planets over 1k roids and then the active gals.

With the system currently running it at over 20 planets per gal i dont see how the smaller alliance get a look in to hit the active galaxies. If a top ally wants roids from gal raids, it can just stick the whole ally on 1 gal say around 80 people avg in t5 allies with 20 planets per gal thats POSSIBLY 4 waves per planet with just 1 attack fleet being used (shit example i know due to lack of teams etc). But with the amount of planets in gals atm it seems its whats being forced to happen. The eta 5 def needs to be over run, so any active gal would require even a whole t5 ally to hit it. So if we go back to our "smaller" alliances say 50 members vs 20 planets thats barely over 2 waves per planet. Something very manageable to defend with grounded fleets in gal and a tiny bit of help from ally.

So whilst the big gals are too hard to hit for small allys (and we end up with current situation of no one but t5 allys being able to hit current #1 gal) it also means that if the gals were kept to low numbers like 10, that the top allies end up just being able to over run the ingal def and farm the gals.

What im trying to say amongst all this shit is, it seems smaller alliances currently, are ****ed both ways. They will be able to roid smaller galaxies say a 10 man limit, but will also get bashed hard by larger alliances this way and farmed due to their ingal def being over run so all def must come from ally. They will also be ****ed with larger gal limits 20+ as ingal def becomes much more substantial against their lower fleet numbers.

I wouldnt blame the larger alliances for destroying the game for the smaller ones, i just feel that changing gal sizes, but keeping the alliance limit high wont make any difference at all. Its about output of fleets nowerdays. The alliance limit would need to be brought down and keeping extra tagged alliances playing alone (no extra tags for the big allies wanting to play with 100 ppl) before the gal limits will benefit any "small" ally, but then all we have just done is turned everyone in to a small ally. Once again.. pointless systems

[GReaper]

Originally Posted by Munkee

I have a feeling the only way alliances like crowlys will end up surviving is if there is some form of alliance bash limit. Totally un-workable, but atm i feel the lower allies are just farm for the current t5. Whether people view that as being the same is up to them but lets face it any of the t5 can hit the likes of 11:9 when they fatten up and pretty much farm them as they know orbit def will be drained fast.

Lower ranking alliances are never able to compete, which is why I often wonder if theres any point in alliance rankings for the majority of people. Sometimes they may declare war against someone just above them in the rankings to see if they can improve a bit, but unless your alliance is in the top 3 (varies a bit each round) all you can do is alter your outcome slightly.

High alliance limits results in too much defence, although it usually means old friends can come back for a round and play in their favourite alliance as it's far more likely they've got spare slots. Lower limits end up with more elitist recruiting, harder to join and play with friends, with some people thinking it'll allow smaller groups of skilled people to have a chance.

The more times this gets discussed every round (raise it next round please! oh my god it must be lowered next round!), the more I ponder about the suggestions about scrapping the limits, scrapping alliance rankings and just go for galaxy/planet rankings. Would be far far easier than trying to manipulate alliances on a round by round basis and might result in a more interesting game.

[Crowly]

Nobody who is in/runs a small alliance is under any delusion that we'll somehow improve round by round and one day be #1. We know full well that our members are here for one or two rounds and then they'll be off to a bigger/better alliance if they want to play more seriously or they'll stick with us if they want to take the game a bit easier.

However if we don't have even the tiniest of chances because the whole deck is stacked against us (big gals, 100 man allies etc) then I don't see the point in even trying to accept new players.

There also seems to be this myth that if you keep jacking up the alliance limit then the t6 will mysteriously start to accept new players - they won't. They haven't. They never will, appocco.

From counting up in this thread, the vast majority of people seem to be for lowering alliance limits, but because it doesn't agree with appocco, he ignores their posts and quotes the few that are going with his direction. A* number one management!

[[B5]Londo]

Originally Posted by Crowly

There also seems to be this myth that if you keep jacking up the alliance limit then the t6 will mysteriously start to accept new players - they won't. They haven't. They never will, appocco.

This is not entirely true; Asc has a number of ppl in tag who are new or nearly new to the game who just happened to land in an asc gal while we had tag space.

[Gate]

Originally Posted by Crowly

There also seems to be this myth that if you keep jacking up the alliance limit then the t6 will mysteriously start to accept new players - they won't. They haven't. They never will, appocco.

Why won't they? If there is space in the tag, they are better off with a player in it than not having a player in it.

There are few allies I know of that have a restricted recruitment policy against that (eg DLR). Back when I was doing work in ND I regularly accepted new and returning players. I hope some of them are still around to back me up here

[Zeyi]

I don't think you would have ND1, ND2 etc, or you might but how do they decide who gets #1.

Since thats all that matters... eventually they'll have to go head to head with each other and we could see interesting civil wars.

[[DDK]gm]

we certainly have new players in our tag and players returning from 20 round vacations.

i think the reduction in alliance size is pointless though, too little

[VenoX]

Bring back a 60-70 limit with all score counted. And fix gal sizes.

[Linkie]

Personally I think all alliances should be 7 inches or more.

[Baba]

I think that the smaller alliances suffer FAR MORE from lack of player skills (or inactivity), and ineffective ally management, than from lack of size.

I honestly don't think lowering the ally cap will make these smaller alliances "more competitive". The cream will always rise to the top.

[Crowly]

The whole point is that no new player goes from zero to pro in one go. Well, few. If you had bothered to read what the small alliance officers tend to be asking for - it's not for competitiveness it's for survivability.

Atm it is just not feasible to run a small alliance that accepts new players. Too much work and just no way to match the numbers of fleets coming our way + attack the giant galaxies etc etc.

I am fast coming to the conclusion that there really is no point in even trying to provide a place for people to learn and get into the game. Once all HC of small allies come to the same conclusion, you best hope that the big allies do accept new players, cause otherwise the game's gone.

This is not entirely true; Asc has a number of ppl in tag who are new or nearly new to the game who just happened to land in an asc gal while we had tag space.

Yes, six.

[Kargool]

Originally Posted by Gate

Under that system, NewDawn1 (30 members) + NewDawn2 (30 members) + NewDawn3 (30 members) would be able to throw just as many fleets as current NewDawn (81 members)

First of all, I think its an extremly negative approach to say that you will get newdawn 1,2 and 3 like that, however, if that happens I think that many of the both 2 and 3 groups will perhaps end up as splintergroups. We've had that in PA before that people that got "dumped" into secondary alliancetags ended up as splintergroups instead of "loyal" servants of the original alliance.

However all the times there have been cutbacks in alliance size there has been 10-15 players extra in the bigger alliances, but never alliance1,2 and 3. So I don't think its likely to happen.

[damo8]

Originally Posted by Kargool

First of all, I think its an extremly negative approach to say that you will get newdawn 1,2 and 3 like that, however, if that happens I think that many of the both 2 and 3 groups will perhaps end up as splintergroups. We've had that in PA before that people that got "dumped" into secondary alliancetags ended up as splintergroups instead of "loyal" servants of the original alliance.

However all the times there have been cutbacks in alliance size there has been 10-15 players extra in the bigger alliances, but never alliance1,2 and 3. So I don't think its likely to happen.

Each ally currently would be able to do tag 1, tag 2, and tag 3, so it wouldnt make much difference.

The support planet rule would need to return for anything like this to happen.
Without the support planet rule, alliance limit cannot be dramatically dropped.

[_Kila_]

Originally Posted by Kargool

First of all, I think its an extremly negative approach to say that you will get newdawn 1,2 and 3 like that, however, if that happens I think that many of the both 2 and 3 groups will perhaps end up as splintergroups. We've had that in PA before that people that got "dumped" into secondary alliancetags ended up as splintergroups instead of "loyal" servants of the original alliance.

However all the times there have been cutbacks in alliance size there has been 10-15 players extra in the bigger alliances, but never alliance1,2 and 3. So I don't think its likely to happen.

Descendancy anyone?

[Heartless]

Originally Posted by _Kila_

Descendancy anyone?

And don't forget transcendancy.

[Membrivio]

Originally Posted by Baba

I think that the smaller alliances suffer FAR MORE from lack of player skills (or inactivity), and ineffective ally management, than from lack of size.

I honestly don't think lowering the ally cap will make these smaller alliances "more competitive". The cream will always rise to the top.

Get your face out of your bum. Thanks.

Oh, and what Crowly said :P

[Phrazer]

Originally Posted by Baba

I think that the smaller alliances suffer FAR MORE from lack of player skills (or inactivity), and ineffective ally management, than from lack of size.

I honestly don't think lowering the ally cap will make these smaller alliances "more competitive". The cream will always rise to the top.

Excuse me, but who the **** do u think you are?? Do you think because you see a different page when u click the "alliances" button, or when you join a different channel on IRC it gives you the right to look down upon other people?? Ive got news for you, ive been in T4 alliances and i get offered a place in them every round, and you know what, i dont even put them on my Sig because as soon as i saw the attitude of people like you i was ashamed to be associated with them and left as soon as i possibly could!!

Very few people work harder or with more dedication then my HC team, you could not pay me to go anywhere else, and you presume to look DOWN on us?? Jeeze man get a grip!! Ive got news for you, if it wasnt for the wicked bunch of people in my alliance i would have quit this bitter, relic of a game a LONG time ago!!

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Crowly again

[Mzyxptlk]

He is right. The members of alliances outside of the top5 are less active and are less skillful than top alliances, which is reflected in the rankings. As a result, people who are active will want to join stronger alliances, because they will do better there. I have spent at least 10 rounds in ROCK (I actually know what I'm talking about) and every single round, I've seen between 3 and 10 people leave because ROCK couldn't defend their planets, due to low activity and on average small planets. I have no reason to believe this is any different in similar and worse alliances.

So, to turn the insult around, take your own head out of your arse, and realise that just because you put in a lot of effort yourself doesn't make your alliance good at the game. I'm sure you do your best, and I assume (hope) that you have a lot of fun doing what you do, but please, go feel self-righteous somewhere else.

[Phrazer]

Me self righteous??
Grow up!!
I believe it was other peoples self righteous arrogance that ****ed me off in the first place!! Ofc we lose the odd player to a bigger ally, but what we also have are people returning when infact they realise that the greener grass/shiney lights come at a price (And i actually know what im talking about as well, cos ive been there/done that as well)

My gripe was with his attitude towards lower rank mobiles, which quite frankly stinks, and is one of the reasons that the player base has declined to fewer members worldwide than an average secondary school!!

[t3k]

Phrazer not being funny but if what you claimed was true, and your HC team WAS as dedicated/skilled as other HC teams, then Orbit wouldn't keep sucking so much.

You lose players to bigger alliance because in those bigger alliances, people tend to do better. Yes you get the likes of your Asc and your Omen, whos playing environment is very hostile to new people/people who have different personalities - but you also get much friendlier playing environments in CT and ND.

To claim that you'd be 'ashamed to ascociate yourself with any of the top 4 alliances' (paraphrasing) is extremely ignorant and yes, you're coming across very self righteous.

And Phrazer - just because somebody disagrees with you, or tells you something you dont want to hear - doesn't mean they're being immature.

[[ND]Byrney]

Originally Posted by Phrazer

Me self righteous??
Grow up!!
I believe it was other peoples self righteous arrogance that ****ed me off in the first place!! Ofc we lose the odd player to a bigger ally, but what we also have are people returning when infact they realise that the greener grass/shiney lights come at a price (And i actually know what im talking about as well, cos ive been there/done that as well)

My gripe was with his attitude towards lower rank mobiles, which quite frankly stinks, and is one of the reasons that the player base has declined to fewer members worldwide than an average secondary school!!

So basically what you're saying is your HCs are as dedicated as those in t4 allies, your players are as good as in t4 allies yet you continue to duke it out for 7th-8th place?

Come on man, what Baba said is true, your players aren't as active or as dedicated as those in the t4 allies, why is that so hard for you to accept? He wasn't looking down on you either, he was pointing out that a drop in tag size wouldn't help the tier 2 allies become more competitive.

[Kargool]

I think what Phrazer is trying to say is that some people don't really care about alliancerank, but like the community a few of the lower ranked alliances have. I have had that experience myself that people have come back to my old alliance because they disliked it in the "bigger and better" alliances just because they liked the community that was created in the alliance that I ran.

Some might think a top rank is the most important thing for an alliance, others think that a good community is important. And I think that top ranking alliances tend to forget that from time to time. Give Phrazer some slack, he does know what he's talking about, and from his point of view he thinks that Orbit is a great place to be, and should be allowed to do so.

[Fuzzy]

i guess it was the 'ineffective alliance management' comment which pushed phrazer's buttons.

personally i have nothing but the utmost respect for members and officers of the 'lower tier' alliances. they add a lot to this game and community imo, and its refreshing to see some people play this game a bit more casually without throwing their toys out of the pram every time they get roided (which i imagine must be a lot). some of the people ive played with in 'top 4' allies this past few rounds could learn a few lessons by playing a round in a smaller ally :P

of course lowering the ally tag isnt going to make groups like f-crew and orbit be comparable to ascendancy/omen/dlr etc. but imo thats not to say that it wouldnt cut the gap just that little bit and perhaps make things a little more interesting across the board - so to speak. it would certainly give them a better chance to retain their players as atm it seems the top allys are still crying out for players and will recruit promising players from the lower allies at the drop of a hat.

ofc this is all a moot point anyway as
a/ it would take a huge drop in ally size for this to ever potentially happen
b/ even if allies were restricted ingame its highly unlikely they would respect those limits (both omen and asc at least exceeded the 100 member limit this round, how likely is it people will be happy to stick to 50 members only?
c/ whilst sounding good in theory, a competitive and ambitious player will always try to find a way into the best ally possible

[Phrazer]

Thanks Kargool, well put

Sorry but when i see an alliance i helped found and have been apart of for a long time branded rubbish by people who know nothing about us i tend to get a little defensive!!

[Mzyxptlk]

Originally Posted by asust3k

Yes you get the likes of your Asc and your Omen, whos playing environment is very hostile to new people/people who have different personalities

I can't speak for Omen, but for Ascendancy, it's quite untrue.

[t3k]

I didn't neccessarily mean to newer players - I dont think I was clear here.

To rephrase: compared to other alliances, there seems to be a lot more 'testosterone' flying around. People are harsher with their insults and generally have more aggressive attitudes. There's more of a cynical and 'killer instinct' about Asc - one of the reasons they're so dangerous to play against.

I didn't mean to imply that new players/additions to the team aren't accepted in to the group.

Compared to Rock though mz, who try to all be friends for the most part, Asc is less worried about 'being nice' I'm sure you'll agree.

[Membrivio]

I think Fuzzy is right about that the "ineffective alliance management" comment pushed a button of Phrazer. It did push my button as well. In addition, mz's observation that our members are less skilled pushed a button as well. Both issues I wish to address.

I think that we, from an objective standpoint, are quite effective in managing our alliance. The crux lies however in the boundaries Orbit has set for itself. We wish to be an alliance where the community is important. Activity is wanted, but we shall never do things like texting, calling etc for defence fleets. We also do not expect to not prelaunch and to be around every night at 3 am gmt. Why? Because we see it is a game and we acknowledge the fact that people do have rl's. These boundaries make that our optimal performance lies lower than a "top tier" alliance. I would like to emphasize here that we CHOOSE to have these boundaries. Members know this. Comparing an alliance such as Orbit against ND, CT, ASC and the like is thus comparing apples with oranges.

Further, within the set boundaries I believe we are effective, as can be seen from comparing our alliance vs the other lower tier alliances: we are #7, the proud "best of the rest".
I think we do pretty good for a lower tier alliance and I know, I think (and I hope) that our members agree with us. The retention of the playerbase indicates that we do fairly good. The new recruits coming from other lower tier alliances indicate we do pretty good. The players that think that our boundaries too much negatively affect the achievement of their personal goals depart and they do, but are always welcome to return (any exceptions ofc ;p).
In sum, I think that we are quite an effective managed alliance within the set boundaries.

Next, mz's remark. You state that "lower tier alliances" are less active and less skilled (paraphrased). I agree that we are less active (cf. the abovementioned boundaries). However, I disagree with you that we are less skilled. Where did you draw that conclusion from? "Your experience of playing PA for years and being good at it?"
I dare to say that a good proportion of our members is quite skilled in playing this game. The thing is that they just cba to be that active such as you Asc'ers. Activity is not a skill. It is a (too much of a) requirement in this game. Thus, your drawn conclusion that we are less skilled is based on what? Anecdotes? You cannot conclude about what you do not know or do not know enough about imo.

Finally, I wish to comment on mz's last remark that, I quote, "just because you put in a lot of effort yourself doesn't make your alliance good at the game". But we are good! No, not in your perspective maybe (so get your head out of your arse too please), but we are good within the set boundaries that we chose. Could it be better? Of course it can. But we improve gradually and that is good enough it for us!

P.s. kudos for Kargool.

[Heartless]

Without much quoting, I do quite like Membrivio's statement right there. This does, however, raise a question: is alliance size really that important in such a situation? Wouldn't it benefit Orbit far more if the game would require less activity than it does right instead of limiting the size of alliances?

[MrLobster]

Originally Posted by Gate

I don't think alliances of 30-40 would stop that.

Under that system, NewDawn1 (30 members) + NewDawn2 (30 members) + NewDawn3 (30 members) would be able to throw just as many fleets as current NewDawn (81 members).

You can give alliance def bonus of +2 ticks.

In the old days of 250k players, yes 100 man alliances worked, but this day and age you have to try and balance the playing field.

I dont think that it would be Newdawn1 + Newdawn2, but perhaps Newdawn + NewDawnJnr. So you have a core set of players in the top alliance, while lower level players are in the Jnr squad.

An alliance of 25 will find it hard to stop an alliance of 50, but its easier than stopping an alliance of 100.

We need more galaxies to attack, so less double booking occurs.

We could just try smaller galaxys/alliances (12 / 50 respectivly) for one round, and if it doesnt work, then think again.

[Mzyxptlk]

We have tried it. Not so long ago the alliance limit was 60 and galaxies topped out at 13.

What exactly do you mean by "if it doesn't work"? What do you hope to achieve?

[Tietäjä]

Abolish alliance defence ETA bonus, make defending faster by default.

[Membrivio]

Originally Posted by Heartless

Without much quoting, I do quite like Membrivio's statement right there. This does, however, raise a question: is alliance size really that important in such a situation? Wouldn't it benefit Orbit far more if the game would require less activity than it does right instead of limiting the size of alliances?

First of all, I must emphasise that the game should not be designed in the way it benefits Orbit most, for the simple reason that you would get battlep0nies as a ship and such :P

Second, I am not convinced that I understand what you mean by "such a situation" and which statement you are referring to.

Could you elaborate please? Then I will be able to offer you my thoughts

[HeimdallR]

Originally Posted by Baba

I think that the smaller alliances suffer FAR MORE from lack of player skills (or inactivity), and ineffective ally management, than from lack of size.

I honestly don't think lowering the ally cap will make these smaller alliances "more competitive". The cream will always rise to the top.

activity isn't the same as being skilled mate,
and people like me that played for lower ranked allies most of the rounds are there for the community like the one you enjoyed in HA at one time.
and didn't you notice we had some skilled players there to, that just couldn't afford to be active enough.

[Heartless]

Originally Posted by Membrivio

First of all, I must emphasise that the game should not be designed in the way it benefits Orbit most, for the simple reason that you would get battlep0nies as a ship and such :P

That's not what I wanted to say there... :-)

Originally Posted by Membrivio

Second, I am not convinced that I understand what you mean by "such a situation" and which statement you are referring to.

Could you elaborate please? Then I will be able to offer you my thoughts

With "such a situation" I was refering to "decreasing alliance size". Because even if that happens, it does not help to improve an alliance like Orbit, nor make it able to compete better with alliances like, let's newdawn or ascendancy. Simply because the lesser active people in ND / ASC will drop out of the core tag ensuring that there are still 60 hyperactive people.

So my conclusion is that changing or limiting alliances actually does not help alliances like Orbit in their desire to compete with those alliances at the top. Instead you might want to either ensure that Orbit has a) a larger possible pool to actively recruit people from, and / or b) that activity has an upper limit on the rewarding scale.

[Membrivio]

Originally Posted by Heartless

With "such a situation" I was refering to "decreasing alliance size". Because even if that happens, it does not help to improve an alliance like Orbit, nor make it able to compete better with alliances like, let's newdawn or ascendancy. Simply because the lesser active people in ND / ASC will drop out of the core tag ensuring that there are still 60 hyperactive people.

So my conclusion is that changing or limiting alliances actually does not help alliances like Orbit in their desire to compete with those alliances at the top. Instead you might want to either ensure that Orbit has a) a larger possible pool to actively recruit people from, and / or b) that activity has an upper limit on the rewarding scale.

Again, I need to emphasise that what benefits Orbit most is not the issue.

Second, you assume that we have the desire to compete with the top alliances, I think this is currently practically not the case. At least, not in this situation of activity vs activity. It follows then that my conclusion is that activity should indeed be limited on the rewarding scale. Other criteria should be decisive in achieving a good rank imo. Of course activity is a criterion in playing this game, but it should not be THE criterion.

Third, I have shown in a previous post in this thread that Orbit in this situation even had no theoretical chance in this round. I think that every alliance should have a theoretical chance on being #1. At this moment activity requirement and pure numbers make the difference.

I agree it would open up a larger pool to actively recruit people from. But now we come to the crux, hah! But...we don't have the people i.e. officers for it. Indeed, if we have such skilled people, then it should be possible ofc to implement the Asc structure and such and become a huge alliance.

Au contraire, as we have also lots of new players and people who are time constrained, as stated before, we do not have the people for it. New players require extra attention --> given by the Officers. And as scientifically has been proven: smaller groups learn faster.

Further, the universe is too small atm: 1600 planets of which 187 in c200 atm.. makes 1400 planets, 1125 planets are already in an alliance. leaves 275 planets. Say that a max of 5% of these players fit within our community = 14 players more. Makes Orbit an alliance of about 80 planets at the max. Makes that the alliance size in this perfect imperfect situation still needs to be limited.

In my opinion there are 2 ways to dissolve the problem of theoretical competitiveness:

1. decrease requirement of activity --> makes it also more accessible to new players but it requires changing the game (preferably also changes in the game governance structure, i.e. implement leadership into PA Team with a vision and a structural plan based on this vision)
This could open the way for unlimited alliances. Should happen in a structured way though. Less time spent is needed so more people can help out. Still a larger playerbase is needed.

2. If that does not happen (changing the game, which is quite likely tbh): decrease alliance size in order to make the battlefield theoretically more level and increase it as playerbase increases.
Galaxy size should decrease anyways, because 25 planets in a galaxy is just crazyness with 1400 active players.
In addition: keep praying someone will develop a vision of the game, and will structurally work on the improvement of the game following this vision.

Well, I hope I answered your question O.o

[Heartless]

Membrivio: Thanks for clearing this up. Especially thanks for bringing up these numbers, I just checked them myself and they are actually interesting.

I guess we're pretty much on a downward spiral right there: Reducing alliance sizes does not shift people from the "market leading" alliances towards the "niche product" alliances (just compare alliance limit with planets in the universe for the past dozen rounds or so to get this confirmed), while on the other hand increasing / removing alliance limits would actually move people from "niche product" alliances to join the "market leaders".

Maybe these issues really can only be countered by changing the market alliances operate in, i.e. increase the playerbase.