Gobsmacked - New Alliance Scoring System

[Furyous]

Another alarming issue is one of planets that are closed for cheating. They can join alliances and later be deleted for cheating, yet their contribution to the alliance is not negated from the alliance score. They could have cheated all round and contributed 'false' score to any number of alliances. Even if the alliances knew nothing about that member cheating, they do not deserve to accrue score that has been gained through cheating. If MH consider something serious enough to delete the entire achievement of a player, then it is certainly serious enough to take that score from the alliance(s) too.

While planet closures have been fairly infrequent of late, if alliances are allowed to retain the score of deleted members, they then have an incentive to be apathetic to members who they know farm roids and ships and account share. Even if these members are caught by the MH team and deleted, the score that they have illegally gained will remain with the alliance. In fact it would be in an alliance's interest to encourage it's members to gain extra score through cheating, as the only ones to suffer if caught are the cheating members.

I am currently awaiting confirmation from PA team and multihunters of their procedures and guidelines for planet closure and its affect on all the alliances with which the planet has been involved.

Personally, I adovocate that if a planet is deleted for cheating at any point during the round (even if they have only been proven to cheat on the last day of the round), that the score contributed by that planet to all the alliances it has been involved with is revoked. It is the only way to discourage cheating under this system.

[Ali]

Originally Posted by Phil^

i think thats pretty much the idea (although with the changes lokken mentioned )

there was no need to alter the alliance scoring mechanism imo. The proposed changes have had ( substantial ) flaws revealed in them and found to be unworkable and abusable in their current form.
It looks like a knee-jerk reaction to the tactics used by ascendancy and 1up in previous rounds, not a step towards improving the game tbh.


What are you proposing in your suggestion for a part-drop in score?

The scoring system was not broke. If it isnt broke why fix it. You could vastly restrict recruiting in last half of round and/or the period or amount of people you can add after dropping a member and it would do better than this imo and most others

[Kal]

Originally Posted by Ali

The scoring system was not broke. If it isnt broke why fix it. You could vastly restrict recruiting in last half of round and/or the period or amount of people you can add after dropping a member and it would do better than this imo and most others

the general reason for changing something that isn't broken is to improve up on it - whether is has in this case is debateable, but your arguements usefullness is not.

[lokken]

The simple question to ask first on this issue is this:

Do players find the late tagging antics of Ascendancy and 1up acceptable?

Once you've established the answer is no, you've got to think of tinkering with the current system to do this. The obvious way to do it is to simply say, if a planet joins an alliance the score he brings does not count to the alliance score, only his growth does. This means late tagging is stopped cold. If people leave the alliance, that score or score gain to the alliance should be lost.

What I am proposiing is not a massive change to the way things currently are; I've simply identified a potential problem (if it is one at all) and simply proposed a straightforward solution to it. A fundamental change is not required.

[JonnyBGood]

Originally Posted by lokken

Do players find the late tagging antics of Ascendancy and 1up acceptable?

This question assumes two things I'd disagree with. First that it matters what people think and second that there should be an action called tagging up.

[wakey]

Originally Posted by Furyous

I'm sorry Wakey, but you do talk some complete nonsense at times, and your perspective is rather blinkered.

1) This thread is not about F-crew. It never has been about F-crew. You are trying to make it about F-crew. Game mechanics should never be used to stop you from losing members (and/or their score).

I suggest you learn to read because your see that others were the ones whom started making this about F-Crew. My post was to point out the falshoods in their wild claims

Originally Posted by Furyous

3) This thread is not about poaching. It never has been about poching. You are trying to make it about poaching. Game mechanics should never be used to stop you from losing members (and/or their score).

As much as you lot here want to spin it poaching is a major part of this issue. The ideas one that was come up with to counter some of the negative effects of poaching and hence its primarly a system to counter poaching killing none top10 alliance.

The score loss it saves will significantly negate any score loss that not having 65 members loses you. As such when you weigh the pros to alliances that are lower down against the cons that were raised with this post you come out with pro's being the winner

And in a ideal world game mechanics shouldnt be used to stop any action happening but this isnt an ideal world. Players and Alliances would rather believe that the whole game universe revolves around them and everyone else is insignifcant and can be ignored. If they were a little more aware of the fact that they are just a tiny cog in this community then the community could probally manage itself and we wouldnt need rules and systems put in place that restrict us but no we have a community that would rather canablise itself

Originally Posted by Furyous

4) Oh and point 4 finally comes on topic. A new alliance like Virall's, or a less than full alliance like SiN (for example) are severely limited in going for the #1 position. They are in effect forced to mass recruit as many people as they can, because they cannot fully benefit from recruitment later in the round. Just because F-crew are happy to operate with fairly loose membership requirements, does not mean that other alliances should not be allowed the time to set their aims a bit higher. Under this system, they have to dilute their member quality in order to get a full memebership asap and stand a chance of winning. On a similar issue: Say I was top 100 but never joined an alliance. I depended totally on galaxy defence and was a member of a battlegroup. It's more or less exactly what I did last round so don't say it's unrealistic. If I join an alliance with the score that I have personally erned while out of any tag, I sure as hell want that score to benefit my alliance.

What universe are you living in ffs. Take a look at the rankings for the last couple of rounds, alliances like SiN dont have a chance of even getting top10 now BECAUSE THEY LACK MEMBERS. If your an alliance who is well outside the top10 and your overly picky with your members your stay outside the top10 as SiN continually show. You arent going to attract boat loads of players over your average, you cant do what higher alliances do and poach people as your below other alliances so not appealing ect ect. If you want to be top10 and are a new alliance or one struggling to get close you have to take risks with your members, if however your happy to be picky with members then you have to live with having an artifically high average score but low rank.

On your second point you may want to give your alliance your score BUT I have to ask why you think they deserve to have your score? What have the alliance done to deserve it apart from recruit you? Is it right that an alliance like 1up with a name that is well known and means something can pick up large amounts of score simply because of their name?

Originally Posted by Furyous

6) You cant get away with leaving when you're attacked, but there is no issue with leaving when you _know_ you are going to be, or when you receive one of many waves (as proven with a jgp), in which case only the first wave (or those launched when you leave) affect your alliance score. I also haven't seen MH saying anything about swapping players in and out to create an alliance score 'invinsibility' as punishable.

Yes you can leave prior to an attack but if its one of many waves you would no doubt have to let them all land. After all an attack launches and your jpg, you see 5 waves coming. As far as the games concerned those attacks have launched and your lose alliance score to them

Originally Posted by Furyous

9) You wouldnt need a huge score lead with a week to go to pull it off. You could even do it for a laugh. I mean, wouldn't it be hilarious to win with one member

Seriously how much score can a single person gain in a day, is that likly to be more or less than an alliance with 10+ members. Let me see somehow I think its probally a case that the 1 person alliance would gain less score a day than the 10+ person one, just like it currentrly is. That means that most alliances in the game will be quickly catching and any gaps going to come down quick. On a bad day towards the end of the round a top5 alliance was foing around 4mill gains a day and a good day could see nearly 10mill. Now if one alliance is doing between 4-10mill gains and one alliance drop all but 1 of their members and is doing between 50-500k they are going to be caught fast

[JonnyBGood]

Originally Posted by wakey

The score loss it saves will significantly negate any score loss that not having 65 members loses you. As such when you weigh the pros to alliances that are lower down against the cons that were raised with this post you come out with pro's being the winner

I have a feeling this will prove detrimental to a lot of lower down alliances as some of the incentive to actually hang onto your members has disappeared. The incentive for other alliances to recruit them has diminished but they're still going to recruit them as it does them no harm to do so. Nor is any of the incentive for players leaving the initial alliance reduced.

And in a ideal world game mechanics shouldnt be used to stop any action happening but this isnt an ideal world. Players and Alliances would rather believe that the whole game universe revolves around them and everyone else is insignifcant and can be ignored. If they were a little more aware of the fact that they are just a tiny cog in this community then the community could probally manage itself and we wouldnt need rules and systems put in place that restrict us but no we have a community that would rather canablise itself

I think the game mechanics went wrong when they introduced the idea that the winning alliance could be summed up in score.

On your second point you may want to give your alliance your score BUT I have to ask why you think they deserve to have your score? What have the alliance done to deserve it apart from recruit you? Is it right that an alliance like 1up with a name that is well known and means something can pick up large amounts of score simply because of their name?

Maybe not but I would be god ****ing damned if my old alliance held onto my score just because I accumulated it while I was in tag. As sid, I think, said it 'alliances don't own their members, alliances are their members'.


A better man than you or I once said "A great many laws in a country, like many physicians, is a sign of malady." I'd like to replace the words "laws" with "rules" and "country" with "game".

[lokken]

Originally Posted by JonnyBGood

This question assumes two things I'd disagree with. First that it matters what people think and second that there should be an action called tagging up.

The question I'd ask back:

Isn't ignoring the players views and their objections to a particular tactic bad customer service?

Say the ascendancy/1up tactic continues - objections will rise, more players will walk. I can only conclude that yes, it would be bad customer service. While you shouldn't necessarily do what the players tell you, you should certainly stop stuff that (if they say so) they don't want happening.

[JonnyBGood]

Originally Posted by lokken

The question I'd ask back:

Isn't ignoring the players views and their objections to a particular tactic bad customer service?

No dude, like all good businesses you convince the customer you're listening to them and then do whatever you think is in the best interests of the game.

[lokken]

Originally Posted by JonnyBGood

No dude, like all good businesses you convince the customer you're listening to them and then do whatever you think is in the best interests of the game.

What's in the 'best interests of the game' is irrelevant if players continue to see a tactic they don't want to see not stopped.

[JonnyBGood]

Originally Posted by lokken

What's in the 'best interests of the game' is irrelevant if players continue to see a tactic they don't want to see not stopped.

Then you convince people they're wrong and that it does not destroy the game and in fact the solutions they propose do.

[I am Idler]

I miss Spinner

[Furyous]

Originally Posted by JonnyBGood

Then you convince people they're wrong and that it does not destroy the game and in fact the solutions they propose do.

Quite so. It's one thing to aknowledge that a number of players are unhappy with the way some alliances have chosen to use the tagging system, and it's quite another to devise an entirely different and overly complex replacement on a whim simply to pacify those people.

[Furyous]

Originally Posted by wakey

As much as you lot here want to spin it poaching is a major part of this issue. The ideas one that was come up with to counter some of the negative effects of poaching and hence its primarly a system to counter poaching killing none top10 alliance.

This does nothing to stop poaching. It just means that YOU as the owner of that tag will artificially keep the score of those who leave.

Originally Posted by Wakey

On your second point you may want to give your alliance your score BUT I have to ask why you think they deserve to have your score? What have the alliance done to deserve it apart from recruit you? Is it right that an alliance like 1up with a name that is well known and means something can pick up large amounts of score simply because of their name?

It is MY score. It is MY planet. I PAID for the planet. I earned that score myself. I benefitted from the help of a FEW players in my past alliance and a FEW of them benefitted from my help. An alliance is just a collective of players. If I leave then NO debt is owed. My score does not belong, and has not been earned by, the tag that is owned by the HC.

Let me reiterate: It is MY score, and I want to choose where my score is represented: I want to be FULLY represented in the tag of the collective of players with which I currently play.

This new alliance scoring system takes serious power away from individual players and puts it firmly in the hands of alliance HC. That is NOT an improvement to the game. We might as well all quit the game and let alliance HC play on their own with their allocated bot armies that they have to train up and satisfy. Seriously.

[JonnyBGood]

I'd like to reiterate my earlier point that the tagging system, in that it is used to derive the winning alliance simply shouldn't exist.

[Furyous]

I have no problem with that JBG

[lokken]

Originally Posted by JonnyBGood

Then you convince people they're wrong and that it does not destroy the game and in fact the solutions they propose do.

On that basis, I accept the support planets rule in full, as that's what I think the creators believe doesn't destroy the game (and it doesn't) and that they believe it is the best solution.

The fact that it's an absolutely cack and uncertain rule for me the player should clearly be irrelevant.

The same applies to the large number of players who think the rankings have little value because alliances simply tag up late. I disagree with them, but if they don't see the rankings as having any kind of value because they attribute a certain kind of activity to violating that, what's the point in them bothering to play?

I read your posts and I get the impression - "I want people to play PA this way", when while I agree with that, there are rather larger numbers of the user base who don't and would (in my view) happily walk off if their concerns (and I doubt they care how this is achieved) aren't put to rest.

[JonnyBGood]

Originally Posted by lokken

On that basis, I accept the support planets rule in full, as that's what I think the creators believe doesn't destroy the game (and it doesn't) and that they believe it is the best solution.

Just because decisions shouldn't be democratic doesn't mean undemocratic decisions are always right. Just because you shouldn't act in what the consumer believes are his best interests doesn't mean you shouldn't act in his best interests.

The same applies to the large number of players who think the rankings have little value because alliances simply tag up late. I disagree with them, but if they don't see the rankings as having any kind of value because they attribute a certain kind of activity to violating that, what's the point in them bothering to play?

Some people play for non-pure-ranking reasons.

I read your posts and I get the impression - "I want people to play PA this way", when while I agree with that, there are rather larger numbers of the user base who don't and would (in my view) happily walk off if their concerns (and I doubt they care how this is achieved) aren't put to rest.

Good riddance then. It's supposed to be a war game and I'd rather see it close down than become a mockery of itself.

[Kargool]

Originally Posted by JonnyBGood

Good riddance then. It's supposed to be a war game and I'd rather see it close down than become a mockery of itself.

I find that abit unfortunate that someone who's a moderator and a foreground person in PA actually says something like that. I dont mean you should agree to whatever the PA admins should want to do, but I still feel that this sentance was abit harsh.

And if you think that this is a wargame I dont agree tbh. The game has more and more turned into a cloak and dagger game where the winners are the ones who take biggest advantage of the exploits they discover in the gameengine.

[JonnyBGood]

Originally Posted by Kargool

I find that abit unfortunate that someone who's a moderator and a foreground person in PA actually says something like that. I dont mean you should agree to whatever the PA admins should want to do, but I still feel that this sentance was abit harsh.

Sometimes, it's better to be blunt about your opinions than to continue taking people's coats as the titanic sinks.

And if you think that this is a wargame I dont agree tbh. The game has more and more turned into a cloak and dagger game where the winners are the ones who take biggest advantage of the exploits they discover in the gameengine.

That's because of the number of bloody terrible rules and additions to game mechanics we've seen. And I didn't say I think it is a wargame, I said it's supposed to be a wargame. That said I think you've overstating the case, cloak and dagger and disguising your strength/score are all parts of warfare.

[Furyous]

Originally Posted by Lokken

The same applies to the large number of players who think the rankings have little value because alliances simply tag up late. I disagree with them, but if they don't see the rankings as having any kind of value because they attribute a certain kind of activity to violating that, what's the point in them bothering to play?

Well they are quite simply wrong. All rankings have no value until the last tick of the game anyway. I don't see any logic behind forcing alliances to show their full strength in tag all round: After all, the tag is simply a formal version of a flag for all members wave, saying: 'look at us, look how well we've played the round'. When alliances used to be judged based on their presence in the t100 galaxies and planets, nobody complained that those galaxies didn't advertise that they contained certain alliances early enough.

All alliances have intel departments whose job it is to work out the whereabouts of their rivals' members. Should they do their job properly, they can see exactly how strong rival alliances are (and act accordingly). The fact that same perspective is not necessarily given to all on the alliance screen ingame should be of no consequence.

I think this will make the game so boring, in fact, I might not play the round.

[Paisley]

Originally Posted by Furyous

All alliances have intel departments whose job it is to work out the whereabouts of their rivals' members. Should they do their job properly, they can see exactly how strong rival alliances are (and act accordingly). The fact that same perspective is not necessarily given to all on the alliance screen ingame should be of no consequence.

I think this will make the game so boring, in fact, I might not play the round.

True about what you are saying about an allys intel department.
I do see pros and cons with the new alliance score system.
How do we get a happy medium that can please the majority of people, lets be honest we can't please them all.

[Ali]

There is no need to change the system and the old system is much superior, at worst they could change the limits for booting/adding especially in the last half of the round but this new system is breaking the game not fixing it (wher eno fix was needed tbh)

its just a case of pa team listening to those who moan and complain (the vocal MINORITY) which in this case must have convinced them something was broke or needed fixing when a revamp of the alliance scoring system would make things much worse. The only fix to some of the new alliance scoring system flaws could be potyential "fixes" if applied to the old alliance scoring system which IS superior anyways.

That is assuming you think its broke but preventing the late tagging would be putting very restrictive adding limits to alliances in the second half of round so they can still tag up by then, or a not returning to ally you left or were kicked from so they cant add/drop/add/drop etc members...

[paolo]

In the way it is now, it makes kicking a 'traitor' and roiding him/stealing his ships very profitable near the end of the round, since you get to keep his current score and gain his current score

[JonnyBGood]

Originally Posted by paolo

In the way it is now, it makes kicking a 'traitor' and roiding him/stealing his ships very profitable near the end of the round, since you get to keep his current score and gain his current score

Oh. I didn't think of that. I bet you that's what sid was thinking of though!

[Synthetic_Sid]

Originally Posted by JonnyBGood

Sometimes, it's better to be blunt about your opinions than to continue taking people's coats as the titanic sinks.


That's because of the number of bloody terrible rules and additions to game mechanics we've seen. And I didn't say I think it is a wargame, I said it's supposed to be a wargame. That said I think you've overstating the case, cloak and dagger and disguising your strength/score are all parts of warfare.

What make's you so sure it's even MEANT to be a wargame? Seems to me that's just what you'd like it to be - as isee very little evidence that's what PA team want it to be. When every major change is totally AGAINST winning by playing the game as a wargame then how on earth do you conclude the game's meant to be a wargame?

As soon as bashlimits and XP were introduced it was apparent to me that PA team had ZERO interest in running wargame - as the fundamental concept behind both of those additions is entirely against winning by playing PA as a wargame.

PA is MEANT to be a score-acquisition game. You may not like that fact - but it IS a fact. That's where all the changes are directed towards.

Ironically this latest change MAY allow the smarter allianaces to win by wargame-like tactics. But that's just by exploiting the shortsightedness of the game designers not something which they intended.

[Synthetic_Sid]

Originally Posted by JonnyBGood

Oh. I didn't think of that. I bet you that's what sid was thinking of though!

Bet you that you'd lose that bet.

[JonnyBGood]

Originally Posted by Synthetic_Sid

What make's you so sure it's even MEANT to be a wargame? Seems to me that's just what you'd like it to be - as isee very little evidence that's what PA team want it to be. When every major change is totally AGAINST winning by playing the game as a wargame then how on earth do you conclude the game's meant to be a wargame?

What is Planetarion?


Planetarion is a science fiction war game

From www.planetarion.com



PS Towards the top, in the middle.



PPS I do acknowledge your point about the confused way PAteam are going about this though.

[JonnyBGood]

Originally Posted by Synthetic_Sid

Bet you that you'd lose that bet.

I'm not a total fish




My that's my best double entendre for a while.

[Synthetic_Sid]

Originally Posted by JonnyBGood

From www.planetarion.com



PS Towards the top, in the middle.



PPS I do acknowledge your point about the confused way PAteam are going about this though.

That's just advertising blurb. That's what PA is meant to be SOLD as - NOT what PA's designed to be. And yeah - I'm using "design" in the loosest possible meaning of the term.

[JonnyBGood]

I was using "supposed to be" in a fairly loose meaning as well, ie originally conceived as, advertised as, talked about as.

[Synthetic_Sid]

Just to clarify what i think PA IS meant to be. It's designed to appeal to the Wakeys of this world. To let the mediocre think that they're average and with a bit of luck could be "good". The design appears to be based around ensuring noone "loses" and that the maximum number of people can convince themselves that they "won" or at least "did well". Needless to say those goals are totally orthoganal to the goals of wargames - which have clearly defined winners AND LOSERS.

[Synthetic_Sid]

Anyway, back to playing the Arcade for me. The rules make sense there.

[Kal]

Originally Posted by Synthetic_Sid

Just to clarify what i think PA IS meant to be. It's designed to appeal to the Wakeys of this world. To let the mediocre think that they're average and with a bit of luck could be "good". The design appears to be based around ensuring noone "loses" and that the maximum number of people can convince themselves that they "won" or at least "did well". Needless to say those goals are totally orthoganal to the goals of wargames - which have clearly defined winners AND LOSERS.

However as this is a game that takes place over a not insignifcant period of time there needs to be ways to slow down how quickly one side wins the wars. Additionally I think its fair to say that the game aspect implies fun, and fun implies not getting so depressed that you stop playing - there needs to be a balence.

That said, come and help me define what Planetarion should be - poke me at some point on irc.

[Synthetic_Sid]

Originally Posted by Kal

However as this is a game that takes place over a not insignifcant period of time there needs to be ways to slow down how quickly one side wins the wars. Additionally I think its fair to say that the game aspect implies fun, and fun implies not getting so depressed that you stop playing - there needs to be a balence.

That said, come and help me define what Planetarion should be - poke me at some point on irc.

If you want to define what PA is MEANT to be, then the very first stage (as I've said since about round 3) is defining what your target market is. Are you aiming at people with 24/7 net/irc access OR at people who are willing to commit a substantial amount of time per day to playing OR at people who want to log in once or twice per day?

Once you've defined your target market then the gameplay MUST be designed so that amount of commitment is sufficent to win. Less isn't enough and more doesn't gain any substantive advantage. And you DON'T then design the gameplay to cater for the whims of those unable to fit in your target niche.

Until PA can define WHO it's aimed at, how the fk is it meant to define WHAT game it is that the market segment aimed at would prefer to play?

Trying to cater to everyone is a sure-fire recipe for not having ANYONE happy with the end product.

[Kal]

Originally Posted by Synthetic_Sid

If you want to define what PA is MEANT to be, then the very first stage (as I've said since about round 3) is defining what your target market is. Are you aiming at people with 24/7 net/irc access OR at people who are willing to commit a substantial amount of time per day to playing OR at people who want to log in once or twice per day?

Once you've defined your target market then the gameplay MUST be designed so that amount of commitment is sufficent to win. Less isn't enough and more doesn't gain any substantive advantage. And you DON'T then design the gameplay to cater for the whims of those unable to fit in your target niche.

Until PA can define WHO it's aimed at, how the fk is it meant to define WHAT game it is that the market segment aimed at would prefer to play?

Trying to cater to everyone is a sure-fire recipe for not having ANYONE happy with the end product.

I agree entirly

[Furyous]

Originally Posted by Synthetic_Sid

Bet you that you'd lose that bet.

Don't gamble with Sid.

[Paisley]

Question... can we do a PA poll on the ally score changes just to do some

"market research?"

[Synthetic_Sid]

Originally Posted by Paisley

Question... can we do a PA poll on the ally score changes just to do some

"market research?"

There's no point.

1. They haven't defined who the "market" is.
2. They can't ensure only only those in the "market" vote.

EDIT: to clarify. If you believe anyone with access to PA forums is the "market" then you should seriously consider either deleting your account or at least not posting in the PA-related forums. Yes, I've had a few beers. Yes, I might be being a bit obnoxious. And yes, I'm right.

[furball]

Originally Posted by Synthetic_Sid

EDIT: to clarify. If you believe anyone with access to PA forums is the "market" then you should seriously consider either deleting your account or at least not posting in the PA-related forums. Yes, I've had a few beers. Yes, I might be being a bit obnoxious. And yes, I'm right.

He's correct on all fronts. Yes, he probably has had a few beers...



Sid, get onto GD and post a thread named "da o yuo want spelappee". Please.

[Furyous]

A poll of forum members on what they think about the alliance score system change would be most useful, since the whole change has come about because of some people whinging on the forums in the first place.

[Heartless]

Originally Posted by Synthetic_Sid

But that's just by exploiting the shortsightedness of the game designers not something which they intended.

What game designers? I cannot remember any game designer for pa since rounds. Only fance titles pa team gives to themselves (and none of them is "game designer").

[Paisley]

Originally Posted by Synthetic_Sid

There's no point.

1. They haven't defined who the "market" is.
2. They can't ensure only only those in the "market" vote.

Far from it... work on the basis of the current "market base".
1. The people who play PA.
2. One way to Judicate the vote would be to state your user ID/alternative from your sign ups to the PA team for the vote to be valid. (I'm sure they would love the extra pm )

Conditions would be as follows....

Do you play PA?

Yes here is my used I.D/Alternative... Please vote on the poll
No I only post on GD... thanks for your time

What options to use in the vote?
Also should only Paid account be allowed?
Is a different matter.

[Synthetic_Sid]

Originally Posted by Paisley

Far from it... work on the basis of the current "market base".
1. The people who play PA.
2. One way to Judicate the vote would be to state your user ID/alternative from your sign ups to the PA team for the vote to be valid. (I'm sure they would love the extra pm )

Conditions would be as follows....

Do you play PA?

Yes here is my used I.D/Alternative... Please vote on the poll
No I only post on GD... thanks for your time

What options to use in the vote?
Also should only Paid account be allowed?
Is a different matter.

I was discussing what PA is meant to be - not what a mess it currently is. If you genuinely believe design by committee or modification by popular demand is the way to get a great product then sure - take notice of what forum polls say. Otherwise your post is on an entirely different topic to mine.

[jerome]

the arcade might have rules that make sense, but most of the high scores are held by that dirty cheating Gaus(or something) type! also a good number of those damned games don't register high scores

[Synthetic_Sid]

Originally Posted by jerome

the arcade might have rules that make sense, but most of the high scores are held by that dirty cheating Gaus(or something) type! also a good number of those damned games don't register high scores

Yeah - just trying to knock his Turbo Turtle score off. Takes an hour to beat his current high score though - and if phone gos at work midway through I'm screwed.

[furball]

Originally Posted by Furyous

A poll of forum members on what they think about the alliance score system change would be most useful, since the whole change has come about because of some people whinging on the forums in the first place.

Not really, since it's not an accurate cross-section of the community. Voters will be biased towards the top alliances because we're generally more active on the forums. Whether or not that's a good thing - who knows. But polls have rarely done much good in the past.

I think it'd be better to get each alliance to vote on the change, giving them 4 options:
1) No change
2) Keep to what PA-Team initially proposed
3) Make the change proposed by _are_, current VGN HC
4) Impose a limit x weeks from the end of the round, banning planets from joining an alliance.

[Paisley]

Originally Posted by Synthetic_Sid

I was discussing what PA is meant to be - not what a mess it currently is. If you genuinely believe design by committee or modification by popular demand is the way to get a great product then sure - take notice of what forum polls say. Otherwise your post is on an entirely different topic to mine.

For the record I dont have a formed opinion about this... I see pros and cons to it.

I am suggesting this for the reason of what do the PA people think about it as a whole and not on the basis of who can shout about it the loudest.

[Synthetic_Sid]

Originally Posted by Paisley

I am suggesting this for the reason of what do the PA people think about it as a whole and not on the basis of who can shout about it the loudest.

If you believe that PA team "as a whole" have a coherent view of the game's future development then I suspect you're beyond hope.

[Synthetic_Sid]

Originally Posted by furball

Not really, since it's not an accurate cross-section of the community. Voters will be biased towards the top alliances because we're generally more active on the forums. Whether or not that's a good thing - who knows. But polls have rarely done much good in the past.

I think it'd be better to get each alliance to vote on the change, giving them 4 options:
1) No change
2) Keep to what PA-Team initially proposed
3) Make the change proposed by _are_, current VGN HC
4) Impose a limit x weeks from the end of the round, banning planets from joining an alliance.

Nah, still wouldn't demonstrate much. For any proposed change there are two entirely seperate questions which need to be answered:

1. Is the objective of the change desirable?
2. Does the proposed change deliver on the defined objective?

Until these two questions can be seperated and debated coherently as individual entities any "vote" is entirely meaningless.