Max Resources Adjustment Needed?

[KoRnNut]

Planet Name =The Vital Life Force= Leader =Ka=
Score 129195792 Metal 87982500
Crystal 88269875


Planet Name Butter Leader Bigknob
Score 85058392 Metal 86715674
Crystal 76863190

Planet Name Bruchtal Leader Elrond
Score 68838672 Metal 67185494
Crystal 65477208

Planet Name The Rock Leader Darkness
Score 65292380 Metal 79416430
Crystal 87172782

Planet Name L|ght Leader Shad0ws
Score 61729832 Metal 76378235
Crystal 75072040

Planet Name Me! Leader Music Gets The Best
Score 42634024 Metal 94856593
Crystal 72629445

I think it's a sure sign of stagnation when Top Planets have to go through leaps and bounds of obstacles, simply to stay small enough to attack people 5 times smaller than them. I didn't sector scan Dreadnaught but I imagine he does this as well, in good fashion as well since he he a staunch supporter of removing or lowering the 20% Rule.

I'm not really sure how I feel about the legitimacy of it right now. My gut tells me this is very evil and detrimental to our well beloved game, Planetarion. If Top 100 players are treated more strictly as far as stockpiling resources(with exception of Eonium ofc), could it allow a little more balance in the game? What do you guys think?

Should a Top 100 planet be allowed to stockpile more than 12-15% of his score in Metal and Crystal? If a Top 100 player has to spend his resources every 2-3 days, is that treating them unfairly? I have sincere doubts that there are very many Top 100 planets that disappear for 4 days or more and fail to login at any time. Some of them being absent for 6 ticks or more is a rarity.

Or is the score given for resources alone sufficient enough? Resource score is worth what? 5% of total resources where as Ship Score is worth 10% of total resources?

If a top planet worth 40 mil score spends 100 million Metal and 100 million Crystal on Ships(that's the current Max Resources Cap afaik), when those ships come off the assembly line the score for them isn't given until the following tick, correct? So now the planet is 60 mil score and able to attack 8 mil score planets as oppossed to 12 mil score planets, so long as he launches that tick before his score boost comes?

It seems like abuse, not quite sure though tbh. What do you *loverly* people think? Would a percentage rule applying to the Top 100 and their ability to stockpile resources help at all?

[Gerbie]

It's a tactic. A lame tactic though. But it works. It makes them more vulnerable as well. It's a major invitation to backstabbers.

Say there's alliance T and E. And say E wants to backstab T. They spend their resources, 18 hrs later give T a 6 hour notice. T spends it's resources. E attacks while most of T's ordered ships are still being constructed...

[Scouse]

It's perfectly acceptable, in my opinion. I've done it myself in past rounds and I'd do it again if I were in the same situation now.

[hAl]

go to 25% !!!

[Slinky]

If someone has a problem attacking below the 20% ratio and you're really that bored, just leave your alliance, that way you have an entire universe of targets, quite a lot in your attack range and soon enough everyone in your attack range.

[Hicks]

Originally posted by KoRnNut
I think it's a sure sign of stagnation

No it's not, top planets rarely spend resources even when theres a war going on (For example most were stacking during the WP/Ely vs Ecl/ToT war) simply because of the lame 20% rule.

Of all the crap things Spinner has done in Planetarion to protect the losers the 20% rule ranks up there with Round 4 salvage. When he did that he killed the freedom which made Planetarion so interesting to play, the freedom to attack anyone and anything in the universe. There's very little evidence that the 20% rule has made the game better for smaller players and decreased bashing, the bashing is still there just on a slightly smaller scale or done by several planets vs one. All the 20% rule has done is yet again make the game less fun for those who have devoted the time to do well. What should have been done is a sliding roid cap based on score so players would cap very little off ridiculously smaller people (i.e. 50% of your score) and it would reward people with large caps from people bigger than them.

When you have people like Webangel with 5k roids and 1 million points in makes a mockery of the whole 20% system.

[KoRnNut]

Originally posted by Hicks

When you have people like Webangel with 5k roids and 1 million points in makes a mockery of the whole 20% system.

WA is so *pld*! Though I must wonder, who on earth would want his 5k uninitiated roids?

[MelAn]

Originally posted by KoRnNut
....

/me feels left out

My opinion is..ppl asking to change 20% rule to 25 %(also heard somebody mention 50% already) should be kicked into thier asses..HARD

+ there are no targets left anyway...no need to take away those who are still in range.
(jap this might sound evil..and respectless towards smaller planets, but "big planets roiding small planets" is part of the game..we all were roided to death by bigger ppl one or more rounds..dunno why we should change that now)

die 20% rule

i just had to buy 20k co coz of this :/ and i still have 140mil res left.

Sigh

We should be able to declare war on the Intergalactic council.

You wouldnt see the borg not attack earth because say for example the vulcans said no u cant do it.

Down with the 20% rule

[xtothez]

Originally posted by Dreadnought!
We should be able to declare war on the Intergalactic council.

:-(

[xtothez]

also...

[Cochese]

roflmao

[rnd|One]

When people from the alliances that comprise 5% playerbase of whole Planetarion come here on PD whining that there aren't enough targets left surely the game isn't stagnated.

[isildurx]

i think there should be a limit to resources, to say 30mill of crystal and metal resource piled.

if those top planets then get to much res, theyre gonna get bored and then stagnation might be smaller, since the leading alliances\planets will start to attack eachother (hopefully).

[ComradeRob]

When will people get this through their thick skulls - making limits for top players also creates limits for everyone else. Making it harder for top planets to play the game also makes it harder for everyone else, because the rules apply to everyone.

As for forcing top players to spend resources - the current limits do this anyway. The top planet currently has around 13k roids, multiplying by 275 (including GC bonus) shows that they make around 3.5mil resources per tick - 84mil resources per day. Given that the metal/crystal limit is a combined total of 200mil, this shows that a top planet can only stockpile 2-3 days worth of resources before hittnig the limit - hardly a huge amount.

In a game with exponential growth, players should have a valid method of restricting their score growth, and resource stockpiling is currently the only way to do it.

Originally posted by xtothez
also...

fu :/ i was just using an example u geeks would understand innit

[Storebo]

Originally posted by Hicks
No it's not, top planets rarely spend resources even when theres a war going on (For example most were stacking during the WP/Ely vs Ecl/ToT war) simply because of the lame 20% rule.

Of all the crap things Spinner has done in Planetarion to protect the losers the 20% rule ranks up there with Round 4 salvage. When he did that he killed the freedom which made Planetarion so interesting to play, the freedom to attack anyone and anything in the universe. There's very little evidence that the 20% rule has made the game better for smaller players and decreased bashing, the bashing is still there just on a slightly smaller scale or done by several planets vs one. All the 20% rule has done is yet again make the game less fun for those who have devoted the time to do well. What should have been done is a sliding roid cap based on score so players would cap very little off ridiculously smaller people (i.e. 50% of your score) and it would reward people with large caps from people bigger than them.

When you have people like Webangel with 5k roids and 1 million points in makes a mockery of the whole 20% system.

I share your vision hicks. The pa i liked was the one with the freedom.. so few rules. (could have ingal wars)
And attack anyone. The rules are probably the main thing that is putting pa down. Remember playing other games between round 3 and round 4 and all thoose ****ty rules there really made me miss pa. So please... no more rules =/ (really don't like that "council" **** that keeps denying me to do stuff)

[djcomplex]

it works both ways , i know mid rnd i was stockpiling rather than spending to stay small enough to not be hit,


























it didnt work /o\

[Cochese]

If people could be trusted not to bash-roid planets 1/100th their size, the limit wouldn't be needed.

Unfortunately people can't be trusted.

(removing in-gal attacking was just silly, civil wars own)

[Storebo]

Originally posted by MelAn
/me feels left out

My opinion is..ppl asking to change 20% rule to 25 %(also heard somebody mention 50% already) should be kicked into thier asses..HARD

+ there are no targets left anyway...no need to take away those who are still in range.
(jap this might sound evil..and respectless towards smaller planets, but "big planets roiding small planets" is part of the game..we all were roided to death by bigger ppl one or more rounds..dunno why we should change that now)

back to round 4 freedom... u should be able to attack anyone who can attack u. =)
Everyone has been bashed here. And I bet most of the ones now screaming have been part of the bashing side one round or another. Most of us started playing in rounds that had little rules. A bit sad that when they start taking money for the game, they also limits the whole game every round.

[Embroglio]

Originally posted by Cochese
(removing in-gal attacking was just silly, civil wars own)

[hyfe]

Originally posted by Hicks
There's very little evidence that the 20% rule has made the game better for smaller players and decreased bashing, the bashing is still there just on a slightly smaller scale or done by several planets vs one. All the 20% rule has done is yet again make the game less fun for those who have devoted the time to do well.

Ohh come on.. 20% rule hasn't decreased bashing? ask just about anybody in the lower rankings that question, and if they are for or against it?

The few elitist people who come here moaning about it really pisses me off, as you fail to see beyond your own planets.. of course making it harder to get small planets covered/hit reduces their total incomings. Claiming otherwise is just plain silly! We all know exactly how impossible it is to survive in bad gals (from the stories of exiles), just about any measure who makes it possible to play this game in a more relaxed manner for new players is a good thing... unless you want PA to die ofc, and have 70% of the uni allied at the start of ticks; its quite amazing, even knowing this is only a game, some people here actually disgusts me.

[Toop]

Imo the 20% limit was a very good thing. Of course it makes it hard for a few planets, who have trouble finding targets, but it makes the game more enjoyable for others.

How about an E-T war instead of whining about a limit that isn't going to change anyway?

[Rumad]

Originally posted by hyfe
Ohh come on.. 20% rule hasn't decreased bashing? ask just about anybody in the lower rankings that question, and if they are for or against it?

You clearly dont remember ppl being roided down to all but cons and res score and zero roids then.

Originally posted by hyfe
The few elitist people who come here moaning about it really pisses me off, as you fail to see beyond your own planets.. of course making it harder to get small planets covered/hit reduces their total incomings. Claiming otherwise is just plain silly! We all know exactly how impossible it is to survive in bad gals (from the stories of exiles), just about any measure who makes it possible to play this game in a more relaxed manner for new players is a good thing... unless you want PA to die ofc, and have 70% of the uni allied at the start of ticks; its quite amazing, even knowing this is only a game, some people here actually disgusts me.

Actually they pay there money they deserve some fun. I dont agree with the 20% rule or that you should be able to go bashing lower. However all players deserve a chance to play.

However if the ratio was say 40% the universe would not be such a bad place and wars won be won in a far less quickly.

I also agree with the "use it or lose it" policy of resources. No need for huge amounts in the gal fund (aka poppa round 4) or in the bank.

[Hicks]

Bashing has rarely been a huge problem forcing players to quit the game, it was always over estimated in the early rounds by newbies screaming "A HUGE LEGION PLANET IS HITTING ME" when in reality it was a mediocre planet in a Legion galaxy attacking them.

Bashing small planets with no asteroids simply isn't profitable for large players they aren't some kind of sadistic breed, they're only going to hit planets which frankly "deserve it" who sit about on fairly high asteroid counts not really doing much. Do you really think that small planets who keep sensible ratios are really in danger of Dreadnought or sliekas over running their planets for 30 asteroids ?

The people who were traditionally responsible for a lot of the bashing aren't really affected by the 20% rule because they themselves aren't huge all we see now is a different kind of bashing, the medium players ganging up on small targets still while the large players sit idle and can't attack the medium players with fat roid counts. The 20% punishes two kinds of players, the very top echelon of Planetarion who have to sit about with no targets and are effectively punished for putting in the time and effort to do well and players on the losing side like xtothez and mens who with large fleets and small asteroids counts continually get overwhelming incoming from the top players who have nothing to do with their ships.

The 20% rule has greatly enhanced the level of bitterness in the community as players quibble over retals and get frustrated at the lack of targets, it's just another reason why players are draining from the game. I doubt you can provide me with any evidence of players joining the game because of the 20% rule or of small planets having so much more fun because of its introduction in fact perhaps the opposite can be said the small planets can no longer get into the game and blame some real or imaginary super alliance planet for his lack of score, there's no one left for them to hate. I on the other hand can provide off the top of my head a half dozen cases of players quitting due to the lack of targets.

All this is academic anyway, with what is promised for Round 10 things like a hard cap will be something of the past but the 20% is just another example of how Spanner's good intentioned intervention ruined a game many of us have spent the best part of 3 years playing. There were so many other ways to do what he intended to do without removing Planetarion's freedom, something which the beta testers suggested to him upteen times yet he ignored everyone.

[Gerbie]

Originally posted by Toop
Imo the 20% limit was a very good thing. Of course it makes it hard for a few planets, who have trouble finding targets, but it makes the game more enjoyable for others.

How about an E-T war instead of whining about a limit that isn't going to change anyway?

[MelAn]

Originally posted by Toop
Imo the 20% limit was a very good thing. Of course it makes it hard for a few planets, who have trouble finding targets, but it makes the game more enjoyable for others.

I would prefer to be roided by a top player who roid me like a good surgeon does..one little cut >> only a bit blood >> 3 ticks 15% capture >> leaving me again; than wait for the average player ( ppl who have ~ 1k roids now on the whinning side) who roid you like a slaughter does >> heavy overkill >> no good capture,just clueless >> who writes me a pa-mail after like "Damn i ****ed u hard right "

I remember round 5 when some Virus "n00bs" (no offense against Virus) n00b-roided my every day with thier whole fleet to get 5% capture over 3 ticks..that's damn frustrating in my eyes!


So if u like to be roided by the average player: VIVE la 20% rule

[hAl]

Originally posted by ComradeRob
In a game with exponential growth, players should have a valid method of restricting their score growth, and resource stockpiling is currently the only way to do it.

The best way to restrict exponential growth is to remove recources from the game exponetially. This however has nothing to do with the 20% limit.

Some people complain about the limit saying that the bashing is still being done. For instance by mediocre planet attacking together.

I agree.

But removing the limit will not change the attitude of those people. It will just add more targets to the list of top planets and more small targets to those mediocre planets. The limit just means that less people get targetted than would otherwise happen. Also it makes it less interesting for alliances at the top to be allied cause that limits their targets.

Somebody claimed that top planets do surgical strikes to remove roids. Don't make me laugh. They do what everybody else does just harder and bigger.

hAl

[Hicks]

Originally posted by hAl
The limit just means that less people get targetted than would otherwise happen.

Sitting it at home night after night isn't as much fun as it's made out to be, people play Planetarion for the battles not to build ships. 20% just limits the fun of the game.

I'm beginning to think it's all a plot to lower server load.

[ComradeRob]

Originally posted by hAl
Somebody claimed that top planets do surgical strikes to remove roids. Don't make me laugh. They do what everybody else does just harder and bigger.

At my peak this round I was 15th on roids without using support fleets or getting any 'assistance' on my attacks. My normal tactic would be to take two targets each night (using my 3rd fleet for defence). I can't overkill, because I want to get 15% per tick. You will find that, in general, top players spend most of the round playing like that. Later in the round, overkill has to be used as the enemy typically has more defence available due to the pace of attacks slowing, and the fact that they keep their whole fleets home and do not attack.

[Rocklobster[Dok]]

just remove the damn rule

[Cochese]

Originally posted by Hicks
20% just limits the fun of the game.

"The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few"

[SpazMonster]

why not just remove the 100 mill cap and make resources count for the same amount of score as ships?

[Hicks]

Originally posted by Cochese
"The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few"

The point was the enjoyment of the many isn't significantly increased by the 20% rule if anything it is decreased, yet the enjoyment of the few is significantly decreased by the 20% rule.

The 20% rule has rewarded those that it was surposed to hurt. The medium sized planets who hide behind alliance tags lowbie bashing.

[hyfe]

Originally posted by Hicks
The point was the enjoyment of the many isn't significantly increased by the 20% rule if anything it is decreased, yet the enjoyment of the few is significantly decreased by the 20% rule.

If anything its decreased?! .. making offhand remarks like that is sure easy, but i'd love a further explenation.

The 20% rule has rewarded those that it was surposed to hurt. The medium sized planets who hide behind alliance tags lowbie bashing.

as i see it: your sole arguments against this rule is thats its really 'annoying' for the top10-top20 who can't hit anyone in this war thats already won. Suck it up and live with imo, the wast majority of players couldn't care less.

You may be partially correct when adressing the shortcomings of this rule though; the random galaxies are still being bashed down to a pulp. But its my feeling that it'd be even worse if it weren't for this rule. Nobody here has claimed that this rule is 'the solution'; we just think its damn better than nothing. Instead of clamoring for the removal of this rule, come up with alternatives. In my opinion: A first step to making this rule effective would be to increase the % alot; somewhere ranging between 25%-50% would be good.

We all know this game has been going downhill for long, removing one of the few rules that go some way to protecting the small guys is *not* the way to go.

[Hicks]

Originally posted by hyfe
If anything its decreased?! .. making offhand remarks like that is sure easy, but i'd love a further explenation.

Maybe read my previous posts rather than make "funny" one liners.

[SpazMonster]

Originally posted by Hicks
Maybe read my previous posts rather than make "funny" one liners.

maybe comprehend what he said (and the clarification he asked for) before making irrelevant comments

(for the record I think limiting targets sucks [ala 20% rule] , exponential growth sucks, having your head too far up your ass to have a little fun attacking within your alliance sucks, and being constipated sucks)

[Hicks]

Originally posted by SpazMonster
maybe comprehend what he said (and the clarification he asked for) before making irrelevant comments

If I wanted to show people how to read I'd be a teacher.

I made two posts one of which I even went as far to describe what was lost when the 20% rule was introduced in as many words, heck even the first post I made came up with an alternative suggestion and I get then get told I'm bitching "clambering for it's removal without thinking of solutions".

I'm not wasting my time clarifying it when the only thing that will get posted back by people who view the game as a straight split between the haves and have nots with the haves being responsible for the have nots situation is "YOUR JUST LOOKING OUT FOR TOP 20 PLANETS !!@ FURY BASHERS !"

[Scouse]

Originally posted by SpazMonster
why not just remove the 100 mill cap and make resources count for the same amount of score as ships?

Ah, some sense.

However, as has been said, there might not be any limit next round, etc. So we can't really comment on what should be changed when we don't know what their ideas are.

[hyfe]

Originally posted by Hicks
If I wanted to show people how to read I'd be a teacher.

Your argument goes something like this:

20% rule leads to target shortage. Which leads to general discontent, and quibbling over targets among the largest planets. Any by 'Largest planet' I assume you mean something about roughly top100 right? This is also a quite alliance specific thing, because it only affects the winner.

In addition to that; its your opinion that it really doesn't help the people its supposed to help, since most the 'bashing' is done by medium sized planets anyway, and they will just hit people close to the 20% cap now.

So your message is something akind to this:
1. 20% rule doesn't help at the lower scoring planets
2. 20% rule is annoying and frustrating for the top planets, and for the planets these top planets must hit.

Now: feel free to tell me exactly why you think this rule is negative for the random galaxies? As reading your previous posts again certainly doesn't give any insights.

Either way; as you may already know; i couldn't care less about what happens to the winners after the war have been won. If the game rules makes it difficult for you to go through with a r5/r7 bashing scenario after already owning the game, don't expect much sympathy from me. As a Defence Commander this round, I know alot of people in our camp got to roid again, and actually keep those roids when WE started warring against ET. Its my opinion that these people managed to get their planets going again largely part to the 20% rule. I also believe if that rule wasn't there; it would have taken even longer before you guys had split up.

I made two posts one of which I even went as far to describe what was lost when the 20% rule was introduced in as many words, heck even the first post I made came up with an alternative suggestion and I get then get told I'm bitching "clambering for it's removal without thinking of solutions".

It may look like you're right about my needing to learn how to read. Because I certainly haven't seen any alternate solutions in your posts.

I'm not wasting my time clarifying it when the only thing that will get posted back by people who view the game as a straight split between the haves and have nots with the haves being responsible for the have nots situation is "YOUR JUST LOOKING OUT FOR TOP 20 PLANETS !!@ FURY BASHERS !"

Ohh.. but I do actually view this game as a straight split between haves & don't haves.People who put as much time into the game as I do don't mind incomings. As a madcows officer, this round was the most enjoyable round I've played yet actually.

Its the people who only logs in once a day, the semi-actives, and generally the lower end of food-chain we need to protect. Without them this game dies.

[Hicks]

Originally posted by hyfe
So your message is something akind to this:
1. 20% rule doesn't help at the lower scoring planets
2. 20% rule is annoying and frustrating for the top planets, and for the planets these top planets must hit.

It's amazing how negative you can make something if you play with words isn't it ?
1.The benefit to extremely small planets that are the ones the rule was designed to protect is negligible. The larger plants rarely attacked them anyway. The small planets who may or may not be newbies get hit day after day by rubbish 5 million point bashers who sit there getting fat with what is effectively an immunity.
2. The 20% rule is frustrating for top players because it denies them medium sized targets and forces them to concentrate on an increasingly roidless group of large players. The medium sized targets they should be hitting are the players who are eating the planets at the bottom of the food chain. Since these planets don't lose asteroids to the top planets anymore they have even more incentive to bash small planets.

You also missed the part about the removal of freedom from Planetarion which was one of its most attractive qualities.

Originally posted by hyfe
Now: feel free to tell me exactly why you think this rule is negative for the random galaxies? As reading your previous posts again certainly doesn't give any insights.

R A N D O M G A L A X I E S ? They still have those ? If this was a random round perhaps you would have a case, since it isn't and there has been almost no new players since Round 6 then you don't.

Originally posted by hyfe
Either way; as you may already know; i couldn't care less about what happens to the winners after the war have been won. If the game rules makes it difficult for you to go through with a r5/r7 bashing scenario after already owning the game, don't expect much sympathy from me. As a Defence Commander this round, I know alot of people in our camp got to roid again, and actually keep those roids when WE started warring against ET. Its my opinion that these people managed to get their planets going again largely part to the 20% rule. I also believe if that rule wasn't there; it would have taken even longer before you guys had split up.

No, the top VvomM galaxies managed to roid for two reasons:
(1) The VvomM galaxies which were actively roiding once the WE/ET war started had made personal deals with one side or the other for protection if they helped in the war effort. That's why several galaxies have made great recoveries.
(2) The majority of WEET ships were tied up fighting one another and didn't have time for VvomM. We assign from a master list of targets, once the war started VvomM were removed.

WEET didn't split because of lack of targets. It was barely a contributary factor.

Originally posted by hyfe
It may look like you're right about my needing to learn how to read. Because I certainly haven't seen any alternate solutions in your posts.

Originally posted by Hicks
What should have been done is a sliding roid cap based on score so players would cap very little off ridiculously smaller people (i.e. 50% of your score) and it would reward people with large caps from people bigger than them.

If you'd like me to explain this to you in more detail so you can understand I'll take the time.

Originally posted by hyfe
Its the people who only logs in once a day, the semi-actives, and generally the lower end of food-chain we need to protect. Without them this game dies.

Here's what you fail to see, the semi active, logs in once a day player doesn't have any asteroids so isn't worth being hit by any of the top players, the players the rule was designed to protect were never in danger. They have always been in danger from the medium sized players who get fat off bashing them, something that they are still able to do. The only thing the 20% rule has done is protect the medium sized bashers.

[ComradeRob]

Originally posted by hyfe
Its my opinion that these people managed to get their planets going again largely part to the 20% rule.

Wrong. It's because we started assigning targets from a target list which comprised only of WE targets (and I assume WE did a similar thing and assigned only ET targets). This resulted in us simply not hitting anyone else, thus allowing those others (who had previously been targets of our attacks) to grow again. The 20% rule had nothing to do with this.

Originally posted by hyfe
I also believe if that rule wasn't there; it would have taken even longer before you guys had split up.

Also incorrect. Roid/score ratios were the problem, not target score. We were not having any problems finding planets big enough to hit, the problem was that these planets didn't have enough roids to be worth hitting. Again, the 20% rule had nothing to do with this, just old-fashioned roid/score ratios. I was the guy assigning targets for Eclipse attacks, so I have first-hand knowledge of what our targets were like and what our problems were.

I am not actually advocating getting rid of the 20% rule - it fulfills a useful role in the game, though it does feel rather 'artificial'. By far the larger problem, in my opinion, is the general lack of roids and roid growth within the universe after a certain point in the round. But this is an old debate and there's not much point in going over it again

[Gerbie]

Originally posted by Hicks
R A N D O M G A L A X I E S ? They still have those ? If this was a random round perhaps you would have a case, since it isn't and there has been almost no new players since Round 6 then you don't.

A significant portion of the universe is random (20% or so). And they need all the protection they can get.

No they managed to keep their asteroids for two reasons:
(1) The VvomM galaxies which were actively roiding once the WE/ET war had made personal deals with one side or the other for protection if they helped in the war effort. That's why several galaxies have made great recoveries.
(2) The majority of WEET ships were tied up fighting one another and didn't have time for VvomM.

(1) is true for like a handfull of galaxies out of 4k.
(2) well that's what the other guy said, it was the same for Vommv and other gals

WEET didn't split because of lack of targets. It was barely a contributary factor.

Hmmz. It's suppost to be a funny reply or do you really believe what you write?

Here's what you fail to see, the semi active, logs in once a day player doesn't have any asteroids so isn't worth being hit by any of the top players, the players the rule was designed to protect were never in danger. They have always been in danger from the medium sized players who get fat off bashing them, something that they are still able to do.

Perhaps there should be even more protection for them then. Increasing the percentage would reduce that.

The only thing the 20% rule has done is protect the medium sized bashers from moving asteroids up the food chain.

It wasn't the only thing, but this is a major positive effect on the game.

[Cochese]

As Rob indicated (I think), the 20% limit is merely a 'patch', for a larger and more complex issue (which could very well be 'fixed' next round, finally...though I can't be 100% sure). It doesn't totally solve the problem.

At this point, it would make more sense to reset the game, or maybe dole out roids and some resources to the bottom half of the universe, than to "remove" the 20% limit--which would probably hold you over for another week or two, before you found yourselves right back at square 1.

Personally I think with such a small, dedicated memberbase that more pro-active administration is needed--call the winners now, then have havoc or something until r10 is ready.

Setting a timeframe of "3 months" and sticking to it relentlessly is just pointless, and satisfies virtually no-one.

[ComradeRob]

Originally posted by Gerbie
Hmmz. It's suppost to be a funny reply or do you really believe what you write?

He's actually right though.

Nobody in Eclipse wants to be hitting 2mil planets. What we (or at least our top planets) would like is to be able to do is hit 10mil planets.

10mil planets are hardly 'n00bs' or people in need of protection - in fact they're probably the very 'bashers' terrorising the 2mil planets that people love to complain about.

[Gerbie]

Originally posted by ComradeRob
He's actually right though.

Nobody in Eclipse wants to be hitting 2mil planets. What we (or at least our top planets) would like is to be able to do is hit 10mil planets.

Well your top planets should actually use some skill and attack planets over 20% of their own size. Preferably over 50%. There are plenty of those. The fact that they are cowards and are allied to them is their own fault.

[ComradeRob]

Originally posted by Gerbie


Well your top planets should actually use some skill and attack planets over 20% of their own size. Preferably over 50%. There are plenty of those. The fact that they are cowards and are allied to them is their own fault. [/b]

If, by some chance, TFD were the #1 alliance, would you start attacking your fellow alliance-mates because you can't find any targets?

[Hicks]

Originally posted by Gerbie


Well your top planets should actually use some skill and attack planets over 20% of their own size. Preferably over 50%. There are plenty of those. The fact that they are cowards and are allied to them is their own fault. [/b]

So an alliance winning is cowardly now ? Many of those guys worked their asses off to get to where they are and fought hard in three wars, now you expect them to turn on their friends and comrades ?

[Hicks]

Originally posted by Gerbie
A significant portion of the universe is random (20% or so). And they need all the protection they can get.

Rubbish, I can probably get someone on PA Team to dig up an exact figure in the morning.

Originally posted by Gerbie

(1) is true for like a handfull of galaxies out of 4k.
(2) well that's what the other guy said, it was the same for Vommv and other gals

(1) There aren't 4k galaxies, the VvomM galaxies which were able to sucessfully come back as hyfe described were those who made deals with WEET. I doubt very much you are a member of one of the good VvomM galaxies and I doubt you have the contacts within WEET to verify this.
(2) What ?

Originally posted by Gerbie

Hmmz. It's suppost to be a funny reply or do you really believe what you write?

So on one hand we have a Senior Officer in a WEET alliance, on the other hand we have some TFD guy. Who is more likely to know about what caused the WEET split ?

Originally posted by Gerbie

Perhaps there should be even more protection for them then. Increasing the percentage would reduce that.

Then you compound the problem even more as you add another tier of players who can bash lowbies with immunity.

Originally posted by Gerbie

It wasn't the only thing, but this is a major positive effect on the game.

Which is ? Oh wait I see it now ! The thousands on new players the 20% rule has brought to the game

[MrL_JaKiri]

Originally posted by Hicks
So on one hand we have a Senior Officer in a WEET alliance, on the other hand we have some TFD guy. Who is more likely to know about what caused the WEET split ?

Two in fact. Rob commented earlier.