User Name
Password

Go Back   Planetarion Forums > Planetarion Related Forums > Planetarion Suggestions

Reply
Thread Tools Display Modes
Unread 18 Jul 2008, 20:12   #1
Aedolaws
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 158
Aedolaws is on a distinguished road
Alliance Flags, (New) Battlegroups, and in-game politics system

========================================================
The idea, in a nutshell, for those too lazy to read my by now very long post
========================================================

By making some (radical but easy?) changes, we will allow more players, both hardcore allied and softcore Bs and solos/n00bies to follow, and indeed play, universe politics. And I mean not only a few HCs. I mean everyone!

Given that if people think they don't have a realistic chance of winning at something chances are they will give up and not return ($pay$), by creating different games within the game we will develop several ways of winning and thus we will satisfy more players. And therefore, profits will likely increase, the game should survive longer...

============================================================

(1) Alliance flags

Why not add this? Each alliance & BG can design their own flag. (simple crap, although I do not know how much coding this will take). Once the HC decides to allow it (i.e. mid-round when most people got their coords), then players may choose to display their flag next to their planet, in the gal status and in their fleets.
While many top alliances will try to keep this secret most of the round. Many minor alliances and BGs may not. And even some players within alliances and BGs may opt to show it early on, out of vanity and b/c their coords are already known.

** all barbarians and rebels will show from tick 1

----------------------

(2) Changing the nature of alliances (of the game). The A- Class

Now, I propose, for the sake of RADICALLY CHANGING the current game dynamics (currently in favor of 60+/rookie+ alliances) to favor small clusters of friend/players that: A players can only attack A players, however, A players can be attacked by As and Bs.

All allied players would be branded with an A in the galaxy and fleets screens as soon as they tag. (but it will not show the flag unless HC and players choose to)
Then 'perhaps', in order to balance back the loss of targets, we might even remove the cap/bashing limit between A players. That is, every A player is fair play to another A player (politics allowing ofc, and please, notice the 'perhaps')

** A players main benefit ofc is the -1 defense bonus + the logistics infrastructure. ('Perhaps' we should increase XP points for defending.) And other long term lofty goals.

---------------------------

(3) (New) Battlegroups - The B- Class

Why not allow players to play in smaller groups (short term {1 round}) IN-GAME? A true struggle of a small (but my guess mostly rookies and vets) teams of rl or PA friends? Have a 5 players per BG cap. And keep their rankings separately. Their own top 10/20/50 list. <=== if any of all of my ideas should be implemented, it is this one. I think this is the key to PA survival (and no, I do not wish to kill traditional alliances, I know they are by now an intrinsic part of PA, and they should remain so.)

Battlegroup players are branded with a B, but unlike A players who can only attack other A players, or Cs other Cs, Bs can attack everyone (subject to the bashing limit). NOW, the key to these small bands of attackers is that:

YES! they will be immune from A players attacks. A players have to defend, and have allied/friendly B players pin their hostile BGs. Is all about politics. BGs will be offensive small bands going for XP to keep and roid to loose later. Alliances will be defensive/political monsters administering large #s of rocks and compromises.

YES! they will be immune from C attacks. Cs also have to do as best as they can within their gals or puny organizations. (thats why they will likely opt to move up in the hierarchy).

YES! The idea is that B players should focus on B players for the sake of rankings (so should A on A, or C on C), attacking each other, competing against each other. Surely most Bs will be recruited by alliances. But the idea is that they will be true battlegroups, devoid of the alliance defense stringencies, but perhaps benefiting from being recruited by one (i.e. logistics). They can attack anyone, yet they are immune from As and Cs.

As a negative, we should deny defense bonus to BGs, or perhaps punish them with a +1 defense (instead of -1). They will, just as their name suggest, be mostly groups of close friends focusing on offensive. (If you want to play defensively, join an alliance).

----------------------------

(4) In-(as in part of the)-game alliances - The C - class

Perhaps then, make default in-game alliances (i.e. the barbarians and the rebels).

All players automatically join one by default (i.r. the barbarians [no central command/no politics/no benefits {a.k.a. current settings but with a name and showing in the top 20 table}]) and then perhaps, if they choose, they may join 2nd one (the rebels [central command/limited politics]) as part of the tutorial crap or one of the noble houses (other extrinsic alliances).

From Class C, if players choose to, especially the n00bies, they can choose to play as a BG or in an alliance, once they learn they should if they want to experience that kind of PA experience.

Solo players (i.e. the barbarians and rebels) would be branded with a C. They can't be attacked by As, but they can be attacked by Bs and Cs. They don't have any def bonus and they can only attack other Cs [just to force them to take the next step, and move up in the hierarchy]).

** all free accounts will remain C - class

---------------------------

(5) In-game politics system

I picture a simple X/Y graph-like that shows which top 20 alliances and top 20 battlegroups are neutral, truced (default 100 ticks?) , at war, or allied. (perhaps excluding the barbarians who don;t have a command center, and perhaps giving rebels only the choice to truce and NAP). Forcing tagged players to play according to the uni politics (i.e. A players can not attack allied, or NAPed, or TRUCEd A player from another alliance)

We could even extend this to cluster politics. Same mechanics apply but to the cluster level. There can be tables for each cluster, and for all clusters. This will give clusters/galaxies and ministers/players something else to fight for. It may even resurrect the old gal camaraderie, and cluster's NAPs and wars. And it may finally give ministers something to do besides bitching about exiling the inactives.

Last edited by Aedolaws; 19 Jul 2008 at 02:07.
Aedolaws is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 18 Jul 2008, 22:26   #2
Fatrick
Farmer Smurf
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: N. Ireland
Posts: 123
Fatrick can only hope to improve
Re: Alliance Flags, (New) Battlegroups, and in-game politics system

I would favour the politics section, the alliance dynamics is over-complicated imo, altho bringing back alliance flags mite be a nice touch.

The battlegroups part is irrelivant, as allies that would warrant needing BGs would probably have their own tools to do BG ranks etc.
__________________
RavenWood [F-Crew] xVx ASS

I have no rival; No man can be my equal
Fatrick is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 18 Jul 2008, 22:42   #3
Aedolaws
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 158
Aedolaws is on a distinguished road
Re: Alliance Flags, (New) Battlegroups, and in-game politics system

K, but let me clarify that the BGs idea is not meant for the sake of alliances. Quite the opposite. BGs are meant to give players that do not want to play as hardcore as allies (although some will play even more hardcore) a chance to have their own legitimate competition with other BGs. BGs would be defacto mini-alliances (but without the allied def bonus, but also without the attacking restrictions). The politics, especially that of BGs and clusters, might even be more flexible than that of the big allies, thus more unstable, and therefore more fun.

It would be like having different weight categories, like boxing:

(1) The heavy champions (top 20 alliances, excluding barbarians and rebels.)

(2) the middle-weights (top 20 BGs)

(3) the light-weights (barbarians and rebels, clusters and gals)

===========or using other images

(1) The major nations/noble houses
(2) The rogue states/paramilitary groups
(3) everybody else

============================

The idea is to allow different games within the same game and to modify the big XPed alliance focused PA dynamics that imo is killing the game. We need to target new players and all players' egoes (we need a main account system) and to keep the ranking of all 3 groups for the sake of increasing player's satisfaction and thus the likelihood of an increase in the volume of players.

Last edited by Aedolaws; 19 Jul 2008 at 01:29.
Aedolaws is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 20 Jul 2008, 07:19   #4
Mzyxptlk
mz.
Alien Invasion Champion, Submarine Champion, Tiger Punch Champion, Barts Watersports Adventure Champion
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 8,587
Mzyxptlk has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.Mzyxptlk has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.Mzyxptlk has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.Mzyxptlk has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.Mzyxptlk has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.Mzyxptlk has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.Mzyxptlk has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.Mzyxptlk has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.Mzyxptlk has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.Mzyxptlk has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.Mzyxptlk has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.
Re: Alliance Flags, (New) Battlegroups, and in-game politics system

I see no reason to give PA Team control over politics, and your idea of alliance classes is retarded.
__________________
The outraged poets threw sticks and rocks over the side of the bridge. They were all missing Mary and he felt a contented smug feeling wash over him. He would have given them a coy little wave if the roof hadn't collapsed just then. Mary then found himself in the middle of an understandably shocked family's kitchen table. So he gave them the coy little wave and realized it probably would have been more effective if he hadn't been lying on their turkey.
Mzyxptlk is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 21 Jul 2008, 12:47   #5
Mistwraith
Bad Girl
 
Mistwraith's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: right here..right now
Posts: 1,055
Mistwraith has much to be proud ofMistwraith has much to be proud ofMistwraith has much to be proud ofMistwraith has much to be proud ofMistwraith has much to be proud ofMistwraith has much to be proud ofMistwraith has much to be proud ofMistwraith has much to be proud ofMistwraith has much to be proud of
Re: Alliance Flags, (New) Battlegroups, and in-game politics system

Quote:
Originally Posted by Aedolaws
============================================================

(1) Alliance flags

Why not add this? Each alliance & BG can design their own flag. (simple crap, although I do not know how much coding this will take). Once the HC decides to allow it (i.e. mid-round when most people got their coords), then players may choose to display their flag next to their planet, in the gal status and in their fleets.
While many top alliances will try to keep this secret most of the round. Many minor alliances and BGs may not. And even some players within alliances and BGs may opt to show it early on, out of vanity and b/c their coords are already known.

** all barbarians and rebels will show from tick 1

----------------------

.
how very pre PAX - it was done, it wasnt popular, it got scrapped, tho it wasnt flags it was alliance tags.
__________________
R1 - noob
R2,3,4, - ICD | R5 -ICD HC |R6 - HR Command | R7 - HR Command/NoS
R8,9,9.5,- HR HC /NoS Exec | R10 - HR HC | R10.5 - HR HC (FYTFO with LCH)
R11 -> NOW HR HC
(a round history not condusive to suceeding in exams, having a life or much sleep )
I'm not misunderstood ... I'm EVIL
Mistwraith is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 21 Jul 2008, 13:52   #6
Wishmaster
LDK
 
Wishmaster's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Norway
Posts: 2,220
Wishmaster is an inspiration to us all and we should try to be more like himWishmaster is an inspiration to us all and we should try to be more like himWishmaster is an inspiration to us all and we should try to be more like himWishmaster is an inspiration to us all and we should try to be more like himWishmaster is an inspiration to us all and we should try to be more like himWishmaster is an inspiration to us all and we should try to be more like himWishmaster is an inspiration to us all and we should try to be more like himWishmaster is an inspiration to us all and we should try to be more like himWishmaster is an inspiration to us all and we should try to be more like himWishmaster is an inspiration to us all and we should try to be more like himWishmaster is an inspiration to us all and we should try to be more like him
Re: Alliance Flags, (New) Battlegroups, and in-game politics system

There aint enough players to divide the universe even more.
Nor is there a need to change any of this.
__________________
[Omen]

Quote:
Originally posted by Newt
I would give me right testicle to be in a gal with you wishmaster!!! wonder if thatd be enough to bribe spinner with hmmmm
<JC`> i sent him a msg saying Wishmaster 0wns, so he recalled
Wishmaster is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 21 Jul 2008, 16:34   #7
HaNzI
Apprime Troll HC
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 857
HaNzI has a spectacular aura aboutHaNzI has a spectacular aura aboutHaNzI has a spectacular aura about
Re: Alliance Flags, (New) Battlegroups, and in-game politics system

Behold, the bringer of justice. PA shall be a better place when Aedolaws with his posters of Batman and Superman under his arms, will save us all from the anarchy in PA.
HaNzI is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 21 Jul 2008, 22:54   #8
sayonara
Shai Halud
 
sayonara's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Sunny Leeds \o/
Posts: 2,127
sayonara is just really nicesayonara is just really nicesayonara is just really nicesayonara is just really nicesayonara is just really nice
Re: Alliance Flags, (New) Battlegroups, and in-game politics system

Aedolaws, part of the enjoyment of PA is taking part in alliance activities and trying to get accepted to the bigger ones by becoming good at the game.

Dividing up the players into A groups and B groups is a completely unrealistic way of compensating for people who can't or won't put the effort in to getting a good experience out of the round. It will have to be a water-tight system anyway, to prevent abuse, and the only ways I can think of doing that will be so Draconian as to put most people off from playing.

Of course stronger players will prey on weaker ones; that is a consequence of the natural order of resource ecology, and is already accounted for somewhat by PA's balancing formulae. There is not going to ever be a supreme fix for this, because whatever you do is a trade-off between having numerical balance and something resembling realism.

I don't know how long you have been playing PA, but from your forum stats I guess it is not that long in the great scheme of things (correct me if I am wrong). A lot of people like yourself are brimming with suggestions when they first join and play (done it myself), but it is generally a good idea to first play a couple of rounds and get absorbed in alliance play so that you really understand what you want to see changed.
__________________
meow
sayonara is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 22 Jul 2008, 18:06   #9
Aedolaws
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 158
Aedolaws is on a distinguished road
Re: Alliance Flags, (New) Battlegroups, and in-game politics system

Alright, no problem.

It is true than in other sports players in different categories may play with anyone, i.e. grandmasters with pre-schoolers, major leaguers with middle-schoolers, heavy-champions with fly-weights, judo masters with fat guys... or likewise teamsports are also played versus one player, i.e. voleyball, basketball, etc... Yes, they may, BUT THEY DON'T!

You know, it might be true, as you hold, as the game it is right now, to have 20% of the players forcing the other 80% to quit prematurely... and after a couple of rounds, quit for good. Is all a competition right?

But you know, for all I care, you are all correct, thats why I guess every year the community looses members... the game is too fair currently, right? Chances for a noob to have fun are 101%! right? Chances to win are 50/50 for a rookie or a vet with no intention of wasting 200 hours in alliance per round? right?


===========================================

Now, in a more personal note, since some of you can't resist always taking a punch at me.

- Myz, is not about giving PA control over politics. How did you come to that conclusion? U r retarded! Go and stare at the IRC screen more pls, maybe that way you kill the rest of your brain cells.

- Mist. I am not talking about PAX tags, I am talking about flags. NOt every player is a no lifers consumed with alliance politics and up every night and with a zeal for the utmost crappy politics dynamics I have ever experienced (for years). Anyways, this was just an aesthetic thing. No big deal.

- Wishmaster makes more sense. But I disagree in that there is no need to change "any(thing)." We need more players, for years now. My idea is to retain more players by making a fairer game, a more balanced way of playing several competitions within the universe, yet giving people the opportunity to choose what they want to play. I have come to dislike (but I still love it) PA because only the top 20 of the top 20 alliances have any decent fun (that is about 400 people), at least for the 1/2 half of the game... then everybody just gives up! except a few no lifers and top 100. Then 4 or 5 weeks of utter BS for 60% of the players, until the next round (no wonder why so many n00bs simply forget to sign up whenever the round restarts.)

- Han, stfu

- Sayonara, with all due respect, thanks for the cliches but they were of no help. I have been in top 5 alliances many rounds and have been among their top XP players a couple of times. Probably I have been around longer than you (although with many names). And believe it or not, some of my ideas have indeed been helpful at least to implement new shit (i.e. cov op). Now, I am not a techie nerd, so I have never been able to try to help in this field. So, all I have done with my ideas is to analogize to other games I have encountered, from basic chess (and I am a Master) to risk in conquer.club, to civ we have all played, to Total War, etc, etc, etc. Some of you are quick to jump and put down suggestions for X # of reasons ranging from legitimate ones to stupid/short minded ones... yet you have done no better yourselves. Want prove? The game went into comma years ago, has been sold a few times, and no one, no one, not ONE OF YOU, have been able to bring it back.

Last edited by Aedolaws; 22 Jul 2008 at 22:38.
Aedolaws is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 22 Jul 2008, 20:04   #10
Aedolaws
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 158
Aedolaws is on a distinguished road
Re: Alliance Flags, (New) Battlegroups, and in-game politics system

Lets put it this way, I will NEVER again pay for a PA account if this game does not change in a meaningful way and not simply the old stupid new stats for every round.

But hey, I am only one, just another one, who cares right?

Have fun with a dying game, keep killing it, see you in a couple of years or whenever you guys have another free round! (Spinner was the wisest of us all)

Last edited by Aedolaws; 22 Jul 2008 at 21:01.
Aedolaws is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 22 Jul 2008, 20:13   #11
sayonara
Shai Halud
 
sayonara's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Sunny Leeds \o/
Posts: 2,127
sayonara is just really nicesayonara is just really nicesayonara is just really nicesayonara is just really nicesayonara is just really nice
Re: Alliance Flags, (New) Battlegroups, and in-game politics system

Quote:
Originally Posted by Aedolaws View Post
- Sayonara, with all due respect, I have been in top 3 alliances in many round, and have been their top XP players. I have been around longer than you (although with many names). And some of my ideas have indeed been helpful at least to implement new shit (i.e. cov op)
Well I said correct me if I'm wrong...

Having read some of your other posts since I wrote that, I see that you have been around for a bit. I didn't mean to offend you... it was just the impression I got from the way you were describing possible changes.

I understand your frustrations, particularly with a game that doesn't seem to want to improve. It's quite depressing when you look at the extent of the changes which have actually taken place, and then consider the time period that has happened in.


You realise that you are just making the same mistake I did by looking at the forum reg date and saying "I have been around longer than you"? (Damn your editing while I was typing, damn it to the furthest edges of Hades!)
__________________
meow
sayonara is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 22 Jul 2008, 22:10   #12
booji
a bucket
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Chatham, UK
Posts: 1,073
booji is a splendid one to beholdbooji is a splendid one to beholdbooji is a splendid one to beholdbooji is a splendid one to beholdbooji is a splendid one to beholdbooji is a splendid one to beholdbooji is a splendid one to behold
Re: Alliance Flags, (New) Battlegroups, and in-game politics system

I dont like the idea of separate groups not being able to ever hit another group, wont it lead to stagnation within the alliance bloc? either there will be a problem with too few roids or there will be a problem with bigger alliances bashing the smaller alliances - this will be a particular problem if U are working on the idea that alliances will mostly be defensive as in reality the alliances for the less dedicated players may become hell to play in.
would it not make more sense to allow the alliance group players to have a certain number of times they can hit non alliance players per week? say they can hit battle group members twice a week and non aligned twice a week.
if you are intending to keep the old galaxy system intact (I dont see anything about it in your post) it might cause problems that there will not be the possibility of gal raids as alliances will only be able to hit half the targets in a galaxy making it very easy to defend.
in this instance I suspect it might make more sense to go with the idea suggested before that alliances should each have their own galaxies which in turn leads to the problem that it is difficult to move from one level to the next as you don't get to know ppl in the other levels.

I am not against the idea itself however I think it needs to be more fluid with it being relatively easy to move from group to group or else we will simply get into a similar problem we have now just on more levels. people who are being bashed in the alliance group (even perhaps whole alliances) need to have some way to drop out of the system rather than being reduced to the role the bots in 1:1 have now... or else we will have more experienced players leaving!

if all free accounts remain in group C then they will be missing out on a large part of the game, I dont think its a good idea to so much reduce their options, some ppl who would normally be alliance players may well not want to pay for the game for some reason (such as kargools protest at the removal of the support planet rule in r25). Without giving these ppl the potential to experience all aspects of the game then there may well be some who would like the alliance playing and never get a chance and leave without experiencing it.

apologies for only throwing up problems rather than thinking up solutions for them, but as I am sure U understand your concept much better than I do its probably easier for you to do!
__________________
Proud to have been TGV!
aargh! died in Jenova! | idled in ROCK | disappointed in Audentes | been Roguish | p-p-previously a p-p-p3nguin
Ascendancy

Otterly an Otter.

Last edited by booji; 22 Jul 2008 at 22:39.
booji is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 22 Jul 2008, 22:39   #13
Aedolaws
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 158
Aedolaws is on a distinguished road
Re: Alliance Flags, (New) Battlegroups, and in-game politics system

How would alliances be stagnated? The system would be just as it is now, but without the BGs and C class. It basically means that big teams can only attack big teams. But even alliances would benefit, as many players will now have yet another incentive to participate in the alliance raids. Alliances themselves would benefit from making it a true team struggle.

I said nothing about galaxies, except giving something for the Ministers to do. Again, bringing the game out of the current alliance-only routine.

Anyone can play however they want, whenever they want. (just like now, but with the difference that different ranking would be kept.)

I don't see anything wrong with keeping freebies in class C. If they want more, they can pay.

I don't know how much clearer and concise can I be. Now, if you all believe that it is ok to keep the current/traditional everyone hits everyone, hell, go for it.

Last edited by Aedolaws; 22 Jul 2008 at 22:45.
Aedolaws is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 22 Jul 2008, 22:44   #14
booji
a bucket
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Chatham, UK
Posts: 1,073
booji is a splendid one to beholdbooji is a splendid one to beholdbooji is a splendid one to beholdbooji is a splendid one to beholdbooji is a splendid one to beholdbooji is a splendid one to beholdbooji is a splendid one to behold
Re: Alliance Flags, (New) Battlegroups, and in-game politics system

why would they pay for something when they have not had a chance to experience it, would it not be better for the concept to allow new players to move between groups for a round, or would fully free rounds provide for that?
__________________
Proud to have been TGV!
aargh! died in Jenova! | idled in ROCK | disappointed in Audentes | been Roguish | p-p-previously a p-p-p3nguin
Ascendancy

Otterly an Otter.
booji is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 22 Jul 2008, 22:46   #15
Aedolaws
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 158
Aedolaws is on a distinguished road
Re: Alliance Flags, (New) Battlegroups, and in-game politics system

No.

Did you read my pozt? Clazz C would have 2 alliancez, 1 with command center, the other one without it. If they want to play BG after a couple of weekz, they can do that, if they want to move to an extrinzic alliance, they can do that.
Aedolaws is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 22 Jul 2008, 23:23   #16
booji
a bucket
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Chatham, UK
Posts: 1,073
booji is a splendid one to beholdbooji is a splendid one to beholdbooji is a splendid one to beholdbooji is a splendid one to beholdbooji is a splendid one to beholdbooji is a splendid one to beholdbooji is a splendid one to behold
Re: Alliance Flags, (New) Battlegroups, and in-game politics system

Quote:
Originally Posted by Aedolaws View Post
How would alliances be stagnated? The system would be just as it is now, but without the BGs and C class. It basically means that big teams can only attack big teams.
whats the motivation with no roids?

the current game is a food chain (I dont think this is necessarily good, and I think this is at least partially what you are against) but the simple fact is that the smaller alliances need to in part prey off non aligned players, it is quite simple that alliance players are not usually the ones initiating loads of roids after the first 72 ticks = constant number of roids within the alliance bloc (possibly even declining if bgs are taking some) so we have stagnation where the smaller alliances are in the very unpleasant position of being farms (I get the impression that this is partially what you want to avoid - that atm new players are the farms so are chased away)

I simply don't see the difference with now

you need a fundamental change in the way resources are gained to make this work... or else a different aim to the game than to gain roids and from roids value and score
__________________
Proud to have been TGV!
aargh! died in Jenova! | idled in ROCK | disappointed in Audentes | been Roguish | p-p-previously a p-p-p3nguin
Ascendancy

Otterly an Otter.
booji is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 22 Jul 2008, 23:27   #17
Aedolaws
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 158
Aedolaws is on a distinguished road
Re: Alliance Flags, (New) Battlegroups, and in-game politics system

m8, u r saying alliances need the n00bs to gang bang them until they uit. That is utter non-sense and what is killing the game. There will be always roids to steal, to think alliances will run out of roids is even more illogical.
Aedolaws is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 23 Jul 2008, 05:17   #18
booji
a bucket
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Chatham, UK
Posts: 1,073
booji is a splendid one to beholdbooji is a splendid one to beholdbooji is a splendid one to beholdbooji is a splendid one to beholdbooji is a splendid one to beholdbooji is a splendid one to beholdbooji is a splendid one to behold
Re: Alliance Flags, (New) Battlegroups, and in-game politics system

I did not say that alliances will run out of roids as it is quite obvious that the smaller alliances will regularly have their members with less than 300 roids and will therefore be the ones doing the initiating rather than the n00bs, my problem is I fail to see what the difference is between this and what is happening now, you simply shift the burden of in effect operating as a farm to them rather than the n00bs

you probably played both this round and last round it is quite obvious that there are a lot more roids in the universe this round than last round because there are more players and more players are therefore initiating...
reduce it to the alliance bloc of about 800 then that bloc will have relatively few roids with fierce competition (= bashing) over those there are. This may well be the point of your suggestion, if this is the case then I am against it, but I imagine your suggestion is against this, in which case it makes sense to try to find another way round the problem (perhaps having bots spread through the universe or else changing the nature of the game to being for a slightly different objective)
__________________
Proud to have been TGV!
aargh! died in Jenova! | idled in ROCK | disappointed in Audentes | been Roguish | p-p-previously a p-p-p3nguin
Ascendancy

Otterly an Otter.
booji is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 23 Jul 2008, 12:06   #19
smith-
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 51
smith- is an unknown quantity at this point
Re: Alliance Flags, (New) Battlegroups, and in-game politics system

Aedowlaws, when EVERYBODY starts arguing with you, it's a fair indication that you're in the wrong to some extent.

I've read your posts and have to say I disagree with you on a fundemental level. Your suggestions are obviously well thought out, but you HAVE to understand that this doesn't make them "good". I want to see the game improved too, but that doesn't mean I'm going to support any and all suggestions of change.

It all seems a bit too WoW for my liking. If I wanted to become a 7'3" Pixie sporting a mowhawk, a collection of level 16 ricepaper boots and an axe carved from the very heart of my ex girlfriend, then I would most definitely play "That Game". You can't just take the best ingredients of all these other games you play/have played and throw them into a pot hoping to make a damned good cake at the end of it.

If you feel that you can't be here without moaning about the fact that nobody agrees with you, or that the game is going to die (especially if people don't listen to your ideas), or anything else for that matter, then perhaps it's best if you do disappear for a couple of years. Because I have to say mate, your moaning is going to put new players off. I came back this round after a 2~ year break and your attitude isn't making me want to stick around. Imagine how brand new people feel?
__________________
tried of idioters.
smith- is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 23 Jul 2008, 16:00   #20
Aedolaws
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 158
Aedolaws is on a distinguished road
Re: Alliance Flags, (New) Battlegroups, and in-game politics system

smith, you are wrong. All kids in kindergarten can disagree with the teacher forcing them to take a nap after lunch, that does not make the teacher wrong... to any extend. Most of the German population agreed with the Nazis, that did not make Nazism right, to any extend. Likewise, most Jews in Judea disagreed with Jesus, yet, that did not make him wrong, to any extend.

Besides, this is the suggestion forum, and all it takes is for u to ignore my posts, u don't have a gun to your head, so don't give me that crap.

Who said nobody agrees with me? I have a few people agreeing with me, others giving me good reput, others telling me so on irc. Perhaps people are afraid of getting flamed and getting bad reputation points simply for agreeing with me or posting their own ideas.

There are a groupuscule that dominates this forum, that dominates the game indeed. They are like women with synchronized periods, they all go off at the same time and for the same reasons. They can't see past their current understanding of the game, they are so into it, that it is rationally impossible. They want to play their game, the game they know how to win, whatever the costs, even if it means economic suicide.

For me, showing every 1 or 2 years, without any allegiances or compromises, is much easier to see the entire forest with objective eyes... especially when I have been in and out of it several times, and given that I have a basic understanding of finance & intellectual property and have seen a few cases that could be analogized to the current PA comma, how some overcame their difficulties and how others who refused to evolve were swallowed or simply pushed out of business by new challengers or by old companies who were wise enough (or paid someone) to CHANGE!

Your WoW analogy is plain weird, and reveals much of your "character." (pun intended)

If you feel the urge to read yourself again, go to the bathroom, sit down, relax, let it go...

Last edited by Aedolaws; 23 Jul 2008 at 16:22.
Aedolaws is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 23 Jul 2008, 16:19   #21
Phil^
Insomniac
 
Phil^'s Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2003
Posts: 3,583
Phil^ spreads love and joy to the forum in the same way Jesus wouldPhil^ spreads love and joy to the forum in the same way Jesus wouldPhil^ spreads love and joy to the forum in the same way Jesus wouldPhil^ spreads love and joy to the forum in the same way Jesus wouldPhil^ spreads love and joy to the forum in the same way Jesus wouldPhil^ spreads love and joy to the forum in the same way Jesus wouldPhil^ spreads love and joy to the forum in the same way Jesus wouldPhil^ spreads love and joy to the forum in the same way Jesus wouldPhil^ spreads love and joy to the forum in the same way Jesus wouldPhil^ spreads love and joy to the forum in the same way Jesus wouldPhil^ spreads love and joy to the forum in the same way Jesus would
Re: Alliance Flags, (New) Battlegroups, and in-game politics system

Quote:
Originally Posted by Aedolaws
Most of the German population agreed with the Nazis, that did not make Nazism right, to any extend
Godwins law.
__________________
Phil^
Phil^ is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 23 Jul 2008, 16:23   #22
mathematician
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 52
mathematician has a spectacular aura aboutmathematician has a spectacular aura aboutmathematician has a spectacular aura about
Re: Alliance Flags, (New) Battlegroups, and in-game politics system

this game is hostile to casual players and newcomers:
- a single mistake (crashing a fleet or running into a fleetcatch) can ruin your entire round
- if you don't spend xxx h per day in irc, you will be regarded as inactive and exiled around, until you end up in a dead galaxy
- newcomers who try out the game will soon find themselves on the receiving end of incomings, they get bashed and then quit.
- all new suggestions which favor the lower end of the playerbase will be rejected by the expert players who fear running out of targets and/or easy roid "farms"

if this does not change, PA will continue to get less players every round.
mathematician is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 23 Jul 2008, 16:25   #23
Aedolaws
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 158
Aedolaws is on a distinguished road
Re: Alliance Flags, (New) Battlegroups, and in-game politics system

interesting Phil, I wasn't aware, it makes sense. Thanks
Aedolaws is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 23 Jul 2008, 17:13   #24
smith-
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 51
smith- is an unknown quantity at this point
Re: Alliance Flags, (New) Battlegroups, and in-game politics system

Quote:
Originally Posted by Aedolaws View Post
smith, you are wrong. All kids in kindergarten can disagree with the teacher forcing them to take a nap after lunch, that does not make the teacher wrong... to any extend. Most of the German population agreed with the Nazis, that did not make Nazism right, to any extend. Likewise, most Jews in Judea disagreed with Jesus, yet, that did not make him wrong, to any extend.
So you're a teacher and I'm a Nazi?

Look, I've tried to make a point and I tried to do so without namecalling. If people are being supportive of you, they're not doing so in the correct manner. If people think your ideas should be given serious consideration then they should publicly demonstrate this, as to give the rest of the community some kind of understanding as to how well your ideas are being received.

At the moment, to the casual eye, you're the only one fighting your corner. Prove me wrong, by all means. All I was trying to say is that I disagree with you; I should be more than entitled to do this without being labled a 'kid', a 'Jew' or a 'Nazi'.
__________________
tried of idioters.
smith- is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 23 Jul 2008, 17:30   #25
Aedolaws
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 158
Aedolaws is on a distinguished road
Re: Alliance Flags, (New) Battlegroups, and in-game politics system

I did not label you anything. Don't put words in my mouth. You made your point and I countered it. I didn't mean to offend you in any extraordinary way and if you are oversensitive I beg your pardon.

I don't have to prove anything to you or anyone else at this forum. There is no money on it.

Last edited by Aedolaws; 23 Jul 2008 at 18:24.
Aedolaws is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 23 Jul 2008, 17:38   #26
sayonara
Shai Halud
 
sayonara's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Sunny Leeds \o/
Posts: 2,127
sayonara is just really nicesayonara is just really nicesayonara is just really nicesayonara is just really nicesayonara is just really nice
Re: Alliance Flags, (New) Battlegroups, and in-game politics system

I think he's just trying to point out that you can't realistically expect to poo-poo a counterargument by waving bad analogies about. He doesn't seriously think you are calling him a Nazi.

Nobody is asking you to prove anything Aedolaws, we are just giving you our honest feedback on your idea (so far) in the traditionally critical forum style. There is no reason why you can't develop the idea - should you want to - based on any of those criticisms which you've heard and accept.

You obviously care about the future of the game and it's kinda depressing to see you put the effort into developing new ideas then throwing the towel in at the first hurdle! Rome wasn't built in a day.
__________________
meow
sayonara is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 23 Jul 2008, 17:42   #27
Aedolaws
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 158
Aedolaws is on a distinguished road
Re: Alliance Flags, (New) Battlegroups, and in-game politics system

fair enough, I'll do
Aedolaws is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 23 Jul 2008, 17:45   #28
Aedolaws
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 158
Aedolaws is on a distinguished road
Re: Alliance Flags, (New) Battlegroups, and in-game politics system

Quote:
Originally Posted by mathematician View Post
this game is hostile to casual players and newcomers:
- a single mistake (crashing a fleet or running into a fleetcatch) can ruin your entire round
- if you don't spend xxx h per day in irc, you will be regarded as inactive and exiled around, until you end up in a dead galaxy
- newcomers who try out the game will soon find themselves on the receiving end of incomings, they get bashed and then quit.
- all new suggestions which favor the lower end of the playerbase will be rejected by the expert players who fear running out of targets and/or easy roid "farms"

if this does not change, PA will continue to get less players every round.
There you go, proven wrong, someone else seems to be in my corner! (and we are "not the only one[s]" Imagine)
Aedolaws is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 23 Jul 2008, 17:51   #29
Aedolaws
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 158
Aedolaws is on a distinguished road
Re: Alliance Flags, (New) Battlegroups, and in-game politics system

Now, fair enough about my analogies, perhaps too simplistic... (yet powerful, it got you on the defensive didn't they?) should I then point to slavery since biblical times all up to... today? or women's right to vote all up to.... today (in some islamic countries for example? or perhaps better to point to the right to abortion, to contraceptives, to sodomy, to... pretty much A LOT of what A LOT of people still believe is incorrect, even in our civilized 1st world countries?

are these analogies also invalid?

Anyways, I have no problems siding with a minority, with the n00bies, and with rookies & vets that don't even care to play in ass. This is actually whats keeping me around, not the account I haven't check in a week, nor the alliances, nor the vet players, but the game itself... I care about the game. And to repeat myself, while I honestly believe that alliances are fully responsible for keeping PA alive, they are, imo, what is also killing it... (think of the institution of slavery in south united states before the civil war).

Last edited by Aedolaws; 23 Jul 2008 at 18:28.
Aedolaws is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 23 Jul 2008, 18:03   #30
sayonara
Shai Halud
 
sayonara's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Sunny Leeds \o/
Posts: 2,127
sayonara is just really nicesayonara is just really nicesayonara is just really nicesayonara is just really nicesayonara is just really nice
Re: Alliance Flags, (New) Battlegroups, and in-game politics system

I don't personally think that you are in the minority at all, in the sense of how you feel about the game. I think that the minority you are in is the group of players who are sick of newb bashing, big alliances etc, but still care enough to discuss possible improvements in the PA Discussions forum.

That's an entirely different kettle of fish, and as far as I can see it is no bad thing.
__________________
meow
sayonara is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 23 Jul 2008, 18:32   #31
Aedolaws
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 158
Aedolaws is on a distinguished road
Perhaps my A, B, C scheme is too radical (as I duly noted in my 1st sentence of the post), perhaps undesirable to implement all at once, perhaps not a feasible idea atm... fine, I get it, believe it or not I am pretty good at understanding the other side... But my main point should not be lost in the midst of long posts and petty diatribes.

PA needs n00bies (Class C), PA needs old players not willing to have an unpaid part-time job (Class B), PA needs its current hardcore players to stay (Class A)... An I honestly believe this system, far from curtailing players' choices, would actually open whole new doors of opportunities to play and have fun.

PA needs to change in fundamental ways because the current/traditional PA eats its young - time has proven this beyond dispute. Laxity and complacency are not enough to keep the ball going, the old model has proven no longer viable, if we don't make some sacrifices we will see our population dwindle a little bit more each year, until PA becomes only an entry in Wikipedia.

We need a revolution, and we need it NOW.

Last edited by Aedolaws; 23 Jul 2008 at 18:59.
Aedolaws is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 23 Jul 2008, 19:50   #32
smith-
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 51
smith- is an unknown quantity at this point
Re: Alliance Flags, (New) Battlegroups, and in-game politics system

What we need is for people to come up with good ideas that we can implement, instead of incredibly bad ideas that are supported by clichés and obvious truths included specifically to rally support from people who are notorious for buying in to clichés and obvious truths.

You can try and distract people by pointing out critical game flaws while making a suggestion. While your observations of the game in it's current state may well be 100% spot on, this does NOT make your idea a good one.

What I object to is people making suggestions without the humility to accept they're wrong. What I object to is people (and, in this case, yourself Aedolaws) using vague generalisations and dramatic vocabulary to try and promote their ideas without having the substance to enforce them.

I only started posting on these forums because I want to see the game made user friendly. I agree that there is a lot wrong with the game and I concurr with some of your summations but what I don't think is that the points you're making are original in any way, shape or form. When taking these aspects out of your posts, all we are left with is a hollow shell of a suggestion that's main focus is on one person's personal preference and as such, I feel this idea should be ignored and discarded accordingly.

Maybe people would take you more seriously if you stopped trying to sound like you know what you're talking about, and concentrated on making your point in the most efficient and concise way possible.

"Viva la Resistance!"
__________________
tried of idioters.
smith- is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 23 Jul 2008, 22:00   #33
Aedolaws
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 158
Aedolaws is on a distinguished road
Re: Alliance Flags, (New) Battlegroups, and in-game politics system

Well, at least you conceded that my valuation of the game is correct "100%"

================

people who are notorious for buying in to clichés and obvious truths? <=== I have no clue what this poorly crafted riddle means

Humility to accept that I am wrong? <=== Is there a right and wrong in PA? where is that magic book, I want to read it!

Vague generalizations? <=== what? where? (aren't you doing this precisely? how ironic)

dramatic vocabulary <== ok, whats wrong with that? I have been in school too long, I can not help it if I write well.

without having the substance to enforce them? <=== what that hell does that mean?

hollow shell of suggestion? <=== are you f&*^% kidding me?

(some people take me seriously, some don't, that is life, and if you try to please everyone you'll end up a pathetic characterless being who cannot think for himself nor defend whatever it is you care for.)

========================================

honestly dude, research, most of my ideas are original. A bit crazy, unimplementable and some even stupid perhaps... I will concede that to you and anyone... But I am original even when I take a shit! (really, it never looks like the time before)

Go a look for the threads on Fleet commanders, for alliance wonders, for ABC classes... shit, I wish I could dig up my old threads on cov op (it took a long time for people to accept this feature, longer to implement, yet longer to be liked), or to take a more recent one, the reporting button on the galaxy screen... so I could show you that not everything that I have written the past years has been in vane.

Anyways, if you have a problem with my writing, again, all it takes is to ignore me...

I'll rather stir (constructive) discontent than sit idly only winking and pampering the few people who dominate the forums and the game. And again, while I recognize (I have never denied it) alliances and by proxy many of these people I am talking about are in large part responsible for PA's survival, I believe they, at the same time are hurting the game they love by not letting it evolve all it could be.

Finally, the many ideas in the ABC post - plus translating PA to many languages, plus the main account + keeping record + medals, etc, etc - were/are meant to bring players in, that is, $$$. I HAVE NOT seen anything revolutionary outthere proposing anything serious, feasible and that everybody agrees on. If you have, please show me. I will be the first to erase all of my threads and apologize to you all for wasting your time. Until then, I shall continue proposing (drunk sometimes) ideas with at least some merits. It is up to you to show the cons, to prove they are indeed cons and to show that these cons are worst than the ones we have now (which, as you conceded, are a lot and killing the game) - screaming "you are a moron" or "you won't concede you are wrong" won't cut it. I could reply the same phrases, I just know better.

Last edited by Aedolaws; 24 Jul 2008 at 00:15.
Aedolaws is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 23 Jul 2008, 22:14   #34
sayonara
Shai Halud
 
sayonara's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Sunny Leeds \o/
Posts: 2,127
sayonara is just really nicesayonara is just really nicesayonara is just really nicesayonara is just really nicesayonara is just really nice
Re: Alliance Flags, (New) Battlegroups, and in-game politics system

He said your ideas are supported by cliches, not that they are cliched themselves.
__________________
meow
sayonara is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 23 Jul 2008, 22:28   #35
Aedolaws
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 158
Aedolaws is on a distinguished road
Re: Alliance Flags, (New) Battlegroups, and in-game politics system

k, point taken...

Now, I will give myself a break, i'll edit the whole thing in a week or two.

Last edited by Aedolaws; 23 Jul 2008 at 22:36.
Aedolaws is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 23 Jul 2008, 23:47   #36
smith-
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 51
smith- is an unknown quantity at this point
Re: Alliance Flags, (New) Battlegroups, and in-game politics system

I'm going to take this discussion to pm, as I see no need to make a forum spectacle over this.
__________________
tried of idioters.
smith- is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 23 Jul 2008, 23:55   #37
sayonara
Shai Halud
 
sayonara's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Sunny Leeds \o/
Posts: 2,127
sayonara is just really nicesayonara is just really nicesayonara is just really nicesayonara is just really nicesayonara is just really nice
Re: Alliance Flags, (New) Battlegroups, and in-game politics system

What damned good is a private bitch-fight?
__________________
meow
sayonara is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 24 Jul 2008, 07:55   #38
Wishmaster
LDK
 
Wishmaster's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Norway
Posts: 2,220
Wishmaster is an inspiration to us all and we should try to be more like himWishmaster is an inspiration to us all and we should try to be more like himWishmaster is an inspiration to us all and we should try to be more like himWishmaster is an inspiration to us all and we should try to be more like himWishmaster is an inspiration to us all and we should try to be more like himWishmaster is an inspiration to us all and we should try to be more like himWishmaster is an inspiration to us all and we should try to be more like himWishmaster is an inspiration to us all and we should try to be more like himWishmaster is an inspiration to us all and we should try to be more like himWishmaster is an inspiration to us all and we should try to be more like himWishmaster is an inspiration to us all and we should try to be more like him
Re: Alliance Flags, (New) Battlegroups, and in-game politics system

meh, I dont even get why this thread got more than a reply or 2.

the idea(s) are not enforceable, and if they were, they would still be, yes, shit.

We already got a bashlimidt to prevent me from taking out whomever I want whenever I want. You just want this implemented as part of that terrible pirate and berserker alliance thingy u talked about, dont you? Ofc u would do fairly well then, without anyone being able to attack you. sigh
__________________
[Omen]

Quote:
Originally posted by Newt
I would give me right testicle to be in a gal with you wishmaster!!! wonder if thatd be enough to bribe spinner with hmmmm
<JC`> i sent him a msg saying Wishmaster 0wns, so he recalled
Wishmaster is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 24 Jul 2008, 16:57   #39
Aedolaws
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 158
Aedolaws is on a distinguished road
huh?

nah, I would play B class, take it easy, doing some work for hire for ND and vGN and maybe TgV, if Kargool gets off the sofa.

Last edited by Aedolaws; 26 Jul 2008 at 00:42.
Aedolaws is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 26 Jul 2008, 00:44   #40
Aedolaws
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 158
Aedolaws is on a distinguished road
Re: Alliance Flags, (New) Battlegroups, and in-game politics system

I am still not convinced. The best response so far came from smith in pm.

I do understand that making radical changes brings about many problems. still, I believe this scheme, or something similar, would be good.

Maybe we could have it that the last 1/4 of the round the restrictions are lifted, just to give a chance to people (alliances) to enjoy revenge and fight for the top 100.

I still believe that this would cater to a substantial number of players who would rather (being immune from As and Cs) play just attacking every night with a handful of friends, people who will have little chance of defense beyond gal support and are cool with it, rookie+ players playing for XP/drunk+ shit. People who just want to pay and play their own mini competition, not caring much about alliance crap (but some will), yet having some meaningful opposition. This would just institutionalize the old BGs (B class) and spare the n00bies/solos (C class) the overwhelming heat of the alliances until they choose (to $pay$) to be exposed to it.

say what you will, I think the idea has merits... notice please: all Bs and As $pay$!!!! (Cs may or may not, and I am sure my cool idea about 2 ingame allaince will give rise to good leaders (not me), some of them will, yes, u guessed it, will discover irc, and allainces, and etc, etc...)

Last edited by Aedolaws; 26 Jul 2008 at 03:42.
Aedolaws is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 26 Jul 2008, 01:52   #41
Hutchi
BlueTuba 4Eva
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Pickering, England
Posts: 53
Hutchi is an unknown quantity at this point
Re: Alliance Flags, (New) Battlegroups, and in-game politics system

i say start with the old style BONUS roids for certain areas just with x points bonus instead of 1 tick of summat first
__________________
rnd 2->10 BlueTuba, Deus EX, ND
rnd 19 - flew solo
rnd 20 - Orbit
rnd 21->26 - Orbit HC
rnd 27 - LAZY git
rnd 28 -> Current Orbit HC

The quiet people change the world!
The loud people claim they did!
Hutchi is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 26 Jul 2008, 19:41   #42
Vladel
Retired
 
Vladel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 253
Vladel is just really niceVladel is just really niceVladel is just really niceVladel is just really niceVladel is just really nice
Re: Alliance Flags, (New) Battlegroups, and in-game politics system

Aedolaws i disagree with all of it except open tags. However i'm not going to make a huge post that people are going to fall asleep half way through reading
__________________
Rnd 1-7 Lost Honourguard (HC) WoH Bluetuba(BC) VtS(BC)

Rnd 26-32 Jenova Denial (BC) Newdawn (HC)

Rnd 33 Retired
Vladel is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 19:35.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.1
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2002 - 2018