User Name
Password

Go Back   Planetarion Forums > Planetarion Related Forums > Planetarion Discussions

Reply
Thread Tools Display Modes
Unread 30 Dec 2006, 23:59   #1
Kenny
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
New Changes

I'm sorry, I may be the only one disappointed with one of the new changes, but here goes anyway:

"- Alliance rankings will be structured as in Round 19."

Wtf guys? The best change you make to R20, and you change it back again? I was looking forward to playing based on value, as I'm sure a lot of other people were too.

If I can get the PATeam's comments on why this was changed back, and the community's thoughts as to which'd be best (+why) that'd be great.
  Reply With Quote
Unread 31 Dec 2006, 00:07   #2
torstein.gran@g
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 18
torstein.gran@g is an unknown quantity at this point
Re: New Changes

maybe they will use value but only top60 in alliance count?
torstein.gran@g is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 31 Dec 2006, 00:31   #3
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: New Changes

Quote:
Originally Posted by torstein.gran@g
maybe they will use value but only top60 in alliance count?
If this were the case it would have been announced as such
Its quite simply, a U-turn in the face of a few vocal people crying out about the proposed changes since they cant Xp whore their way to the top anymore.
Its quite apparent who has pateam on their leash now anyway.
__________________
Phil^
Phil^ is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 31 Dec 2006, 00:49   #4
Kal
Inactive peon
 
Kal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 6,050
Kal has a brilliant futureKal has a brilliant futureKal has a brilliant futureKal has a brilliant futureKal has a brilliant futureKal has a brilliant futureKal has a brilliant futureKal has a brilliant futureKal has a brilliant futureKal has a brilliant futureKal has a brilliant future
Re: New Changes

This change was made becuase we admit that we didn't see the full effect of this particualar change when combined with the other announced changes. We feel that now the culmination of all of the changes will result in a more balenced and enjoyable game than if we had left things as they were announced.
__________________
Kal

Round 6-10 NoS member-->NoS junior HC
Round 10.5 FAnG member
Round 11-15 PATeam
Round 17-30 PATeam
Round 31 ???

Check out toastmonster.com for crazy illustrations and art
Kal is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 31 Dec 2006, 00:53   #5
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: New Changes

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kal
This change was made becuase we admit that we didn't see the full effect of this particualar change when combined with the other announced changes. We feel that now the culmination of all of the changes will result in a more balenced and enjoyable game than if we had left things as they were announced.
This change was made because you have always been in favour of XP, and refuse to let your little pet project die.
It was not made because of any particular merit of one system over another since ( i believe ) the xp system HAS no merit.
It is a plague upon this game which will only lead to a decline
__________________
Phil^
Phil^ is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 31 Dec 2006, 00:54   #6
Kenny
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Re: New Changes

Ok Kal, so that's the politician's answer.

What were the benefits of changing the system, and what specifically were the reasons for changing back. What did it 'unbalance'?

Because to be honest, this would have made the next round a whole lot more interesting.

I'm not trying to be awkward but if there are some people that are speaking out against the 'undone' change, then I'd like to point out that there is also a growing unrest that you've decided to reverse your decision. I want to find out which way carries most favour, hence the post.
  Reply With Quote
Unread 31 Dec 2006, 01:53   #7
Benneh
Non directed and witty
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: #ascendancy
Posts: 814
Benneh is a pillar of this Internet societyBenneh is a pillar of this Internet societyBenneh is a pillar of this Internet societyBenneh is a pillar of this Internet societyBenneh is a pillar of this Internet societyBenneh is a pillar of this Internet societyBenneh is a pillar of this Internet societyBenneh is a pillar of this Internet societyBenneh is a pillar of this Internet societyBenneh is a pillar of this Internet societyBenneh is a pillar of this Internet society
Re: New Changes

The new Value ranking change, just on its own with no other changes, eg how much value a roid is, was utter ****ing wank anyway.

XP Leads to decline?

How so, im sorry but getting rid of XP imo just takes a massive step back, XP whores arnt winning by anymeans, look at the last few rounds planet ranks. Even ally ranks the value/roid heavy ones seem to win anyway?
Killing off xp in rankings is in my opinion causing decline cause **** it am i going to play for value and god help any cathaar if it goes value. they dont stand a ****ing chance with all the fleet catches.

And if i get fleet caught what can i fall back on?
oh shit all. god dammit.
__________________
CATHAAAAAARGH
I've won 4 rounds.
I'm kinda a big deal.
Benneh is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 31 Dec 2006, 01:59   #8
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: New Changes

Quote:
Originally Posted by Benneh
The new Value ranking change, just on its own with no other changes, eg how much value a roid is, was utter ****ing wank anyway.
XP Leads to decline?

How so, im sorry but getting rid of XP imo just takes a massive step back, XP whores arnt winning by anymeans, look at the last few rounds planet ranks. Even ally ranks the value/roid heavy ones seem to win anyway?
Killing off xp in rankings is in my opinion causing decline cause **** it am i going to play for value and god help any cathaar if it goes value. they dont stand a ****ing chance with all the fleet catches.

And if i get fleet caught what can i fall back on?
oh shit all. god dammit.
Getting rid of xp in its current form gets rid of a perversion of a feature which was intended to make losing your fleet that bit easier on the planet.
A role which with hindsight should have been augmented better with salvage rather then the introduction of a fictional 'experiance' factor.
When you get fleetcaught, you fall back on defence from your alliance and galaxy :P

incidently you just missed a rather long debate on this very issue in #planetarion
__________________
Phil^
Phil^ is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 31 Dec 2006, 01:59   #9
Kal
Inactive peon
 
Kal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 6,050
Kal has a brilliant futureKal has a brilliant futureKal has a brilliant futureKal has a brilliant futureKal has a brilliant futureKal has a brilliant futureKal has a brilliant futureKal has a brilliant futureKal has a brilliant futureKal has a brilliant futureKal has a brilliant future
Re: New Changes

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kenny
Ok Kal, so that's the politician's answer.

What were the benefits of changing the system, and what specifically were the reasons for changing back. What did it 'unbalance'?

Because to be honest, this would have made the next round a whole lot more interesting.

I'm not trying to be awkward but if there are some people that are speaking out against the 'undone' change, then I'd like to point out that there is also a growing unrest that you've decided to reverse your decision. I want to find out which way carries most favour, hence the post.
Basically: adding cluster etas stretches individuals loaylities in multiple directions. Having different rankings done in different ways forces people to play in different ways for different groups. This leads to too much division and is likely to mean that most people end up playing the alliance route and as such remove the benefits of the other changes. If most people play the alliance route they would also be playing for value. If they are playing for value there is no point in XP. XP is by far a better way of encouraging a game play style than say the pre round 10 roid capping system. While the XP system is by no means perfect it is a tool for suggesting game play styles and having some rankings ignore it would send too many mixed messages.

I realise thats not as basic as I intended, but hopefully it shows somehting of what I mean.

I'd also point out that this was a team decision, not just individuals who may like or dislike individual parts of the game dictating how things should be.
__________________
Kal

Round 6-10 NoS member-->NoS junior HC
Round 10.5 FAnG member
Round 11-15 PATeam
Round 17-30 PATeam
Round 31 ???

Check out toastmonster.com for crazy illustrations and art
Kal is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 31 Dec 2006, 02:04   #10
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: New Changes

For a 'team decision' ive heard some dissenting views. Clearly it wasnt unanimous
edit : actually i cant remember there ever being a unanimous pateam decision regarding game design, so the point is somewhat moot
( the one time i do remember is that the early nda as proposed by jolt was eeeeeeeeeevil and we would all walk out unless it changed )
__________________
Phil^
Phil^ is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 31 Dec 2006, 02:18   #11
Kargool
Up The Hatters!
 
Kargool's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Kenilworth Road
Posts: 3,012
Kargool is a pillar of this Internet societyKargool is a pillar of this Internet societyKargool is a pillar of this Internet societyKargool is a pillar of this Internet societyKargool is a pillar of this Internet societyKargool is a pillar of this Internet societyKargool is a pillar of this Internet societyKargool is a pillar of this Internet societyKargool is a pillar of this Internet societyKargool is a pillar of this Internet societyKargool is a pillar of this Internet society
Re: New Changes

I really had hoped that someone would explain in clear terms to the PA team how crap cluster attack -1 was but clearly that wasnt done. Ah well. Who cares
__________________
Planetarion veteran
Kargool is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 31 Dec 2006, 10:26   #12
furball
Registered Awesome Person
 
furball's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 5,676
furball has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.furball has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.furball has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.furball has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.furball has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.furball has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.furball has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.furball has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.furball has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.furball has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.furball has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.
Re: New Changes

Quote:
Originally Posted by Phil^
If this were the case it would have been announced as such
Its quite simply, a U-turn in the face of a few vocal people crying out about the proposed changes since they cant Xp whore their way to the top anymore.
Its quite apparent who has pateam on their leash now anyway.
No, it's because it was a bad change and thankfully PA Team have had the good sense to change it back. You might hate XP with a passion but it's the reason why PA is still alive.
__________________
Finally free!
furball is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 31 Dec 2006, 10:27   #13
furball
Registered Awesome Person
 
furball's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 5,676
furball has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.furball has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.furball has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.furball has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.furball has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.furball has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.furball has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.furball has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.furball has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.furball has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.furball has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.
Re: New Changes

Quote:
Originally Posted by Phil^
incidently you just missed a rather long debate on this very issue in #planetarion
Then go into your logs and put it into pastebin so we can all have a read.
__________________
Finally free!
furball is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 31 Dec 2006, 10:28   #14
isildurx
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Noruega
Posts: 2,999
isildurx has a reputation beyond reputeisildurx has a reputation beyond reputeisildurx has a reputation beyond reputeisildurx has a reputation beyond reputeisildurx has a reputation beyond reputeisildurx has a reputation beyond reputeisildurx has a reputation beyond reputeisildurx has a reputation beyond reputeisildurx has a reputation beyond reputeisildurx has a reputation beyond reputeisildurx has a reputation beyond repute
Re: New Changes

It has its good sides and bad sides. I do think it kinda sucks that cluster eta went down, while the cost of exiling goes up. Might mean that some people will be 'screwed' from the word GO.
__________________
"Cry havoc and let slip the dogs of War"
isildurx is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 31 Dec 2006, 12:52   #15
Willzzz
Legion Idle Master
 
Willzzz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 425
Willzzz has much to be proud ofWillzzz has much to be proud ofWillzzz has much to be proud ofWillzzz has much to be proud ofWillzzz has much to be proud ofWillzzz has much to be proud ofWillzzz has much to be proud ofWillzzz has much to be proud ofWillzzz has much to be proud ofWillzzz has much to be proud of
Re: New Changes

I think the problem at the moment with PA team is communication. For example. Did all PA Team agree to this? Did they all agree to the change in the first place?

Problem at the moment as i see, is the fact PA team anounce somthing, so then all alliances start to plan how they will play the round, then they change there minds again. I keep seeing this. PA Team need to be more consistant here. If you decide to do somthing stick to it. Change it at the end of the round.

As far as the XP go, im also an old fashioned guy. I hate XP. I agreed when it first came in becuase of course it was brought in for the lower ranked players and to keep them playing if they loose their fleet. Now its to abuseable and plays to much of a major part in the game. You dont require skill to abuse XP for example.

Im also a bit concnered about the eta for defence in cluster. Is this included into the support planet rule? Does this mean another rule change? Some other things perhaps the PA team need to think about. Which will again require ANOTHER change.
__________________

Played: Round 1-13. PA Team: Round 13-17. The Return: Round 18-19. PA Team: Round 20. Return.. Again: Round 21-37 Retired: Round 38 Returned: Round 39-45 Retired: Round 45 Returned: Round: 56

p3nguin Founder
Willzzz is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 31 Dec 2006, 13:01   #16
SOL
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: UK , Nottingham
Posts: 138
SOL is on a distinguished road
Re: New Changes

Things like this really annoy me,i was looking forward to the value ranking system surely the pa team discussed and agreed to the changers in the first place before they were announced,so why change things back saying you all agreed to change it back, makes no sense to me !
__________________
Just some n00b
SOL is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 31 Dec 2006, 13:20   #17
qebab
The Original Carebear
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Trondheim, Norway
Posts: 1,048
qebab is an inspiration to us all and we should try to be more like himqebab is an inspiration to us all and we should try to be more like himqebab is an inspiration to us all and we should try to be more like himqebab is an inspiration to us all and we should try to be more like himqebab is an inspiration to us all and we should try to be more like himqebab is an inspiration to us all and we should try to be more like himqebab is an inspiration to us all and we should try to be more like himqebab is an inspiration to us all and we should try to be more like himqebab is an inspiration to us all and we should try to be more like himqebab is an inspiration to us all and we should try to be more like himqebab is an inspiration to us all and we should try to be more like him
Re: New Changes

What I read into this is that the PA team has NO idea where they want the game to be heading.

There weren't any big changes at all, and now there are less. I'm totally okay with the "small step" thing - but I'm not okay with the team having absolutely no idea what they want the game to become. Clearly they don't, swerving back and forth like this. Get some balls, get some visions and stick to it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Pink Floyd
Steps taken forwards but sleepwalking back again
Forward or backwards, it makes no matter, the key is that you end up where you started, and I'm not sure if that is better than either of the alternatives.

Get some direction, for the love of god.
__________________
If at first you don't succeed, try, try again. Then quit. No use being a damn fool about it.

Oh crap, I might be back. I should take my own advice.
qebab is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 31 Dec 2006, 14:53   #18
pig
1up on you
 
pig's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Birmingham, UK
Posts: 4,007
pig has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.pig has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.pig has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.pig has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.pig has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.pig has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.pig has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.pig has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.pig has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.pig has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.pig has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.
Re: New Changes

It cracks me up.

You have a thread of 5 pages plus with people slating the pateam for daring to change the way alliance score is calculated.

They rectify the situation (Personally I can only applaud pateam for doing so, you have made the right decision imo and cater for all, as well as listening to the players, well done.) and then another thread pops up.

I think if there was a poll the round 19 scoring would be used, it allows all members of the pa community to play the game not only for themselves but for the alliance. The round 20 alliance scoring just alienates a far few people and alliances (thus potentially losing players, as oppose to gaining them).

Once more nice one pateam, for doing a U turn. It takes a lot of balls to do so, but I believe you have made the right decision.
__________________
pig
[1up]
pig is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 31 Dec 2006, 16:06   #19
Furyous
Registered User
 
Furyous's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: England
Posts: 258
Furyous is a splendid one to beholdFuryous is a splendid one to beholdFuryous is a splendid one to beholdFuryous is a splendid one to beholdFuryous is a splendid one to beholdFuryous is a splendid one to beholdFuryous is a splendid one to beholdFuryous is a splendid one to behold
Re: New Changes

Good work on the merge rules. It puts merges where they belong. Also, thank you for confirming alliance size limits.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kal
Basically: adding cluster etas stretches individuals loaylities in multiple directions. Having different rankings done in different ways forces people to play in different ways for different groups. This leads to too much division and is likely to mean that most people end up playing the alliance route and as such remove the benefits of the other changes. If most people play the alliance route they would also be playing for value. If they are playing for value there is no point in XP. XP is by far a better way of encouraging a game play style than say the pre round 10 roid capping system. While the XP system is by no means perfect it is a tool for suggesting game play styles and having some rankings ignore it would send too many mixed messages.
OR you could write it a different way:

Even though a majority of people are likely to play the alliance route, they still have the choice to personally benefit from XP play since it is there. Therefore it is still a key feature of the game. And it is a useful challenge for alliances (of all forms) to satisfy the conflicting nature of some of it's members' interests. This will encourage better alliance organisation.

It's all political speak. You could justify any change in decision in such a vague manner.

However,

I think the consensus agreed on the prior thread that displaying alliance value while ranking alliances on score would be a useful compromise. So would you please add alliance value to the Universe screen? We can find planet and galaxy value, so it would only be consistent (as you are apparently trying to be) to display value too.
__________________
You ain't seen me, right!
Furyous is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 31 Dec 2006, 17:03   #20
Cedlind
[SiN] HC
 
Cedlind's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 56
Cedlind is an unknown quantity at this point
Re: New Changes

Quote:
Originally Posted by pig
Once more nice one pateam, for doing a U turn. It takes a lot of balls to do so, but I believe you have made the right decision.
But it's the wrong U-turn I'm afraid. The turn should have been done somewhere around "cluster ETA", but I guess they missed it.
If alliance rankings are calculated from score or value doesn't really matter, but the ability to defend it's members does. This ability have been taken away in R20 with the new cluster ETAs.

Congratulations, you (PA Team) have succeeded in killing off alliances. (and thus also PA)
You might not like them, but they're what keeps the players going.
__________________
Think SiN!
Quote:
<@Cedlind> I get a bad wibe on the nick
<@Clogg|zZzZz> you get that with most nicks tbh
SiN->SiNND *shivers*->SiN->TGV->really long break->Asc
Cedlind is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 1 Jan 2007, 04:23   #21
Kenny
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Re: New Changes

It's fairly straightforward really. XP encourages people to be selfish b*st*rds and go for personal glory. If a player is playing for value he is MUCH more useful to an alliance (as he has more ships, duh) than somebody of equivelent skill playing for xp.

Value scores for an alliance show how hard people are playing for each other. Awarding alliances for teamwork as opposed to individual effort is what an ALLIANCE is all about.

This was THE perfect change in my opinion. If people want to play for them selves and focus on XP then that's cool. That's why individual rankings stayed as the XP score. This takes focus away from alliances and teamworks and I maintain that changing the system back is ultimately pushing the focus of the game away from alliances.

So I have to ask: Why are you discriminating against the one thing that's kept this game alive for so long? It's a BAD decision and I strongly feel that it should be rectified again.

Not that I suspect anyone on the PA Team has the guts to admit they were wrong.
  Reply With Quote
Unread 1 Jan 2007, 05:43   #22
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: New Changes

Quote:
Originally Posted by furball
Then go into your logs and put it into pastebin so we can all have a read.
http://pastebin.com/848818
__________________
Phil^
Phil^ is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 1 Jan 2007, 06:36   #23
Kenny
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Re: New Changes

Ok call me lazy (or still drunk) but I only made it half-way through that log. After that both of your points started to circle back on each other as in fairness neither was willing to listen or budge.

Here's my stance: I dont think we should get rid of XP. Like Misty was saying - it's good for the small players. And if people want to play SOLO and just concentrate on their own rank then using the XP system is a a valid enough method.

But to reiterate my point above so it doesn't get forgotten about - Alliances are about teamwork, group efforts and group accomplishments. Having an alliance win based on XP is, literally, saying "The best alliance is the alliance that has the most active players concentrating on themselves". That's not an alliance at all tbh.

I'm not suggesting getting rid of XP. All I'm saying is that making the Alliance Ranking revert to Value based scores is the ONLY thing that is going to keep alliances going. Because if u just reward people for solo efforts (which is what xp-whoring is) then alliances wont matter, people will start playing solo, lose interest and soon everyone will quit.

Changing the alliance rankings to value-based was the best move the PATeam has made since I came back to the game. Changing it back was cowardice, and it presented NO ACTUAL BENEFIT TO ANYONE OR ANYTHING.
  Reply With Quote
Unread 2 Jan 2007, 15:10   #24
Thex
Average Thex
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Posts: 121
Thex will become famous soon enoughThex will become famous soon enough
Re: New Changes

The XP system was not brought in to compensate people when losing their fleets.

It was brought in to discourage bashing and rewarding people for attacking larger planets than they would have originally considered. In this instance it has worked - yes bashing still occurs but a lot less than before.

A side effect of XP was that some people have exploited the "suicide fleet for large XP" attack plan, but that was not the original goal of XP.

Claiming that this change back to the original alliance score method is bad for the game is very short sighted. In itself it the change probably seems a good one, but when considered against other changes and play methods it's clear that this was not good for the game overall.
__________________
Thex

My alliance is [BIG]ger than yours

[ex LOST], [ex IF], [ex G-II]
Thex is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 2 Jan 2007, 15:21   #25
qebab
The Original Carebear
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Trondheim, Norway
Posts: 1,048
qebab is an inspiration to us all and we should try to be more like himqebab is an inspiration to us all and we should try to be more like himqebab is an inspiration to us all and we should try to be more like himqebab is an inspiration to us all and we should try to be more like himqebab is an inspiration to us all and we should try to be more like himqebab is an inspiration to us all and we should try to be more like himqebab is an inspiration to us all and we should try to be more like himqebab is an inspiration to us all and we should try to be more like himqebab is an inspiration to us all and we should try to be more like himqebab is an inspiration to us all and we should try to be more like himqebab is an inspiration to us all and we should try to be more like him
Re: New Changes

Quote:
Originally Posted by pig
It cracks me up.

You have a thread of 5 pages plus with people slating the pateam for daring to change the way alliance score is calculated.

They rectify the situation (Personally I can only applaud pateam for doing so, you have made the right decision imo and cater for all, as well as listening to the players, well done.) and then another thread pops up.

I think if there was a poll the round 19 scoring would be used, it allows all members of the pa community to play the game not only for themselves but for the alliance. The round 20 alliance scoring just alienates a far few people and alliances (thus potentially losing players, as oppose to gaining them).

Once more nice one pateam, for doing a U turn. It takes a lot of balls to do so, but I believe you have made the right decision.
You missed my point pig. PA team tells us about all these nice visions and changes and one get the impression that they know what they want to do with the game. Then, the community complains and you find out that actually they have no idea what they want to do with it.

You have to assume that they have a number of goals but do not know how to achieve them. Now, there aren't many significant changes in this game (I can still use the tickplan you and jer gave me when you dragged me into PAX two YEARS ago), and when these changes seemed a bit larger than others before them, I thought it meant that someone had a plan. Clearly not.

There are a number of reasons why they should be doing these things themselves instead of letting the community decide, for instance the fact that the community can not be represented well enough on these forums, there are next to no one in the community who have game-development experience (They do not know what is best for them), there is no single "voice of the community" only a whole lot of people yelling.

All these things lead to only compromises, and compromises are usually worse than what we would otherwise have.

This change doesn't affect me at all. Seeing that the PA team is actually a bunch of people running back and forth with cloth-pieces over their eyes does. Make plans and stick to them guys! Swerving back and forth like this will not help you at all, you will end up with a game that is not much different from what it already is, and it will appear like a patchwork instead of a well-designed game.
__________________
If at first you don't succeed, try, try again. Then quit. No use being a damn fool about it.

Oh crap, I might be back. I should take my own advice.
qebab is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 2 Jan 2007, 16:05   #26
Wandows
[Vision]
 
Wandows's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: The Netherlands
Posts: 897
Wandows has a reputation beyond reputeWandows has a reputation beyond reputeWandows has a reputation beyond reputeWandows has a reputation beyond reputeWandows has a reputation beyond reputeWandows has a reputation beyond reputeWandows has a reputation beyond reputeWandows has a reputation beyond reputeWandows has a reputation beyond reputeWandows has a reputation beyond reputeWandows has a reputation beyond repute
Re: New Changes

To me the problem is that PA in its current state isn't easy to fiddle with. The game is to straight forward to allow most of the changes they announced earlier to make a better game. I'd consider it alot better to just stick with the current game for perhaps 1 or 2 rounds, only doing stat changes and minor tweaks of unbalanced existing features (although admittedly, most of what has been done past years was and still is nothing but tweaking of existing features), while in the mean time working on a completely 'new' game where you can make sure the features that are being implemented don't conflict with already existing features.

I think its safe to say that most of the current players do not think pa is a great game (atleast the ones i've spoken to), and i don't see that changing by trying to push in half- worked out/thought through - features. The best thing would be to design the game from the base up, starting with how planets will be placed in the universe and can interact with eachother to win, then build that back up to a completely new game ready for the 'new' internet age. I don't see pa improving much the way it is now since we're stuck with the existing main /corem elements that are in itself not generally exciting.
__________________
[Vision] in a lost dream, contributing to The 5th Element at present
Wandows is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 3 Jan 2007, 16:28   #27
Kenny
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Re: New Changes

You guys are really missing the point. Are you chosing to ignore my posts as you cannot argue with them?

Please read what I have to say and respond. I'm not saying 'get rid of xp' I'm saying keep it where it's applicable and remove it where it shouldn't be.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kenny
Ok call me lazy (or still drunk) but I only made it half-way through that log. After that both of your points started to circle back on each other as in fairness neither was willing to listen or budge.

Here's my stance: I dont think we should get rid of XP. Like Misty was saying - it's good for the small players. And if people want to play SOLO and just concentrate on their own rank then using the XP system is a a valid enough method.

But to reiterate my point above so it doesn't get forgotten about - Alliances are about teamwork, group efforts and group accomplishments. Having an alliance win based on XP is, literally, saying "The best alliance is the alliance that has the most active players concentrating on themselves". That's not an alliance at all tbh.

I'm not suggesting getting rid of XP. All I'm saying is that making the Alliance Ranking revert to Value based scores is the ONLY thing that is going to keep alliances going. Because if u just reward people for solo efforts (which is what xp-whoring is) then alliances wont matter, people will start playing solo, lose interest and soon everyone will quit.

Changing the alliance rankings to value-based was the best move the PATeam has made since I came back to the game. Changing it back was cowardice, and it presented NO ACTUAL BENEFIT TO ANYONE OR ANYTHING.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kenny
It's fairly straightforward really. XP encourages people to be selfish b*st*rds and go for personal glory. If a player is playing for value he is MUCH more useful to an alliance (as he has more ships, duh) than somebody of equivelent skill playing for xp.

Value scores for an alliance show how hard people are playing for each other. Awarding alliances for teamwork as opposed to individual effort is what an ALLIANCE is all about.

This was THE perfect change in my opinion. If people want to play for them selves and focus on XP then that's cool. That's why individual rankings stayed as the XP score. This takes focus away from alliances and teamworks and I maintain that changing the system back is ultimately pushing the focus of the game away from alliances.

So I have to ask: Why are you discriminating against the one thing that's kept this game alive for so long? It's a BAD decision and I strongly feel that it should be rectified again.

Not that I suspect anyone on the PA Team has the guts to admit they were wrong.
  Reply With Quote
Unread 4 Jan 2007, 10:29   #28
Alki
Drink is Good
 
Alki's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 2,122
Alki single handedly makes these forums a better placeAlki single handedly makes these forums a better placeAlki single handedly makes these forums a better placeAlki single handedly makes these forums a better placeAlki single handedly makes these forums a better placeAlki single handedly makes these forums a better placeAlki single handedly makes these forums a better placeAlki single handedly makes these forums a better placeAlki single handedly makes these forums a better placeAlki single handedly makes these forums a better placeAlki single handedly makes these forums a better place
Re: New Changes

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kenny
You guys are really missing the point. Are you chosing to ignore my posts as you cannot argue with them?

Please read what I have to say and respond. I'm not saying 'get rid of xp' I'm saying keep it where it's applicable and remove it where it shouldn't be.
kinda reminds me of pia forums, except it was only the ignore part over there
__________________
Can we please have a moment of silence...........
Alki is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 4 Jan 2007, 15:53   #29
Heartless
CRASHING BEATS 'N FANTASY
 
Heartless's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Cold Country.
Posts: 1,912
Heartless is an inspiration to us all and we should try to be more like himHeartless is an inspiration to us all and we should try to be more like himHeartless is an inspiration to us all and we should try to be more like himHeartless is an inspiration to us all and we should try to be more like himHeartless is an inspiration to us all and we should try to be more like himHeartless is an inspiration to us all and we should try to be more like himHeartless is an inspiration to us all and we should try to be more like himHeartless is an inspiration to us all and we should try to be more like himHeartless is an inspiration to us all and we should try to be more like himHeartless is an inspiration to us all and we should try to be more like himHeartless is an inspiration to us all and we should try to be more like him
Re: New Changes

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kenny
You guys are really missing the point. Are you chosing to ignore my posts as you cannot argue with them?

Please read what I have to say and respond. I'm not saying 'get rid of xp' I'm saying keep it where it's applicable and remove it where it shouldn't be.
So why is XP not applicable for alliances? Because alliances should consist of newbie-bashing twats whch only have the balls to hit at their bashlimit and not hit the bigger people? If you think that constantly crashing your fleet to gain more xp is what gets you the top spot you will notice that it is not true. In fact, XP does good in the alliance rankings as XP was the reason why we had quite a few rounds lately where more alliances were able to keep for the #1 spot for a longer time than when we had value based rankings. Rankings purely based upon value - no matter if for planets, galaxies, clusters, alliances or e-penis size - make the game less competitive* because once you crashed your fleet your out of the race, unless you are very very lucky.

*That only counts for the game in its current form. From my point of view there still could be better ways to compensate players for losing their fleet.
__________________
Ią! Ią! Munin F'tagn! - [*scendancy]
Heartless is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 4 Jan 2007, 16:56   #30
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: New Changes

Quote:
Originally Posted by Heartless
So why is XP not applicable for alliances? Because alliances should consist of newbie-bashing twats whch only have the balls to hit at their bashlimit and not hit the bigger people? If you think that constantly crashing your fleet to gain more xp is what gets you the top spot you will notice that it is not true. In fact, XP does good in the alliance rankings as XP was the reason why we had quite a few rounds lately where more alliances were able to keep for the #1 spot for a longer time than when we had value based rankings. Rankings purely based upon value - no matter if for planets, galaxies, clusters, alliances or e-penis size - make the game less competitive* because once you crashed your fleet your out of the race, unless you are very very lucky.

*That only counts for the game in its current form. From my point of view there still could be better ways to compensate players for losing their fleet.
Are you saying that alliances based mostly in XP are good for the game?
If so, are you defining an alliance simply as a group of people who attack together, since you sure aint gonna be doing much defending of each other playing for XP.

Rankings based purely on value reflect the effective strength of that alliance and their ability to change things in the game for other alliances.
Rankings based on XP do not.

yes you may end up as #1 but that does not mean you are the strongest or worthiest alliance in the game. It is merely a sham
__________________
Phil^
Phil^ is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 4 Jan 2007, 17:00   #31
wakey
Hamster
 
wakey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Crewe, England
Posts: 3,606
wakey is an inspiration to us all and we should try to be more like himwakey is an inspiration to us all and we should try to be more like himwakey is an inspiration to us all and we should try to be more like himwakey is an inspiration to us all and we should try to be more like himwakey is an inspiration to us all and we should try to be more like himwakey is an inspiration to us all and we should try to be more like himwakey is an inspiration to us all and we should try to be more like himwakey is an inspiration to us all and we should try to be more like himwakey is an inspiration to us all and we should try to be more like himwakey is an inspiration to us all and we should try to be more like himwakey is an inspiration to us all and we should try to be more like him
Re: New Changes

Quote:
Originally Posted by Phil^
This change was made because you have always been in favour of XP, and refuse to let your little pet project die.
It was not made because of any particular merit of one system over another since ( i believe ) the xp system HAS no merit.
It is a plague upon this game which will only lead to a decline
The same can be said for a value system though unless ofc you seriously believe that a game that only 100 players can have any kind of chance to 'survive' in is the way to go.

Also while ive only just read the changes id say the reason it had to be changed was that it causes a conflict in scoring systems which is never good, you cant have some of the scoring systems based on score and others soley on value as that causes conflict in agendas. If you want to maximise your own score after all you have to go for decent targets but your alliance is obviously going to push you to bash as much as you can so as to make gains for little or no value loss.
__________________
Wakey
PD and Suggestions Moderator
Co-founder of [F-Crew]
The Farnborough Crew
Cos anything else is just an alliance
Join our public channel at #f-crew
wakey is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 4 Jan 2007, 17:12   #32
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: New Changes

Quote:
Originally Posted by wakey
The same can be said for a value system though unless ofc you seriously believe that a game that only 100 players can have any kind of chance to 'survive' in is the way to go.

Also while ive only just read the changes id say the reason it had to be changed was that it causes a conflict in scoring systems which is never good, you cant have some of the scoring systems based on score and others soley on value as that causes conflict in agendas. If you want to maximise your own score after all you have to go for decent targets but your alliance is obviously going to push you to bash as much as you can so as to make gains for little or no value loss.
Every planet survives, there isnt a deathstar in the game ( and to hell with them if they ever consider introducing one )
The size of them differs yes because some people arent as good as others, or arent as dedicated as others, or simply do not have the same amount of time to spent as others do.
Then there are factors such as luck - even a great player can get unlucky and lose their fleet.
Guess what, its a war game and wars arent always fair.
the top100 may be the largest but they are certainly not the only survivors in the game.

As for bashing, thats something which is not easily fixable in a value system. Tweaking the bash limit either makes it easier to bash, or reduces the targets available so those that remain get more incs as a result.
In an xp system its ofc nonexistant - low value planets are valued, but so is any measure of actual strength or the possibility of actual teamwork in defence.
It all becomes about attacking , and attack groups. You log on, launch a fleet and bugger off until its time to check if it lands. You dont need to care about those you are playing with since they arent going to help you much nor are you going to help them. You become selfish, and a net decrease in activity results since you dont need to be around as much to help your alliance from other attacks - ultimately becoming destructive for the game and the community.

A value system requires teamwork for your alliance to do well, an xp system requires coordination in attacks to maximise your chances of getting through but little of anything else.

I guess it boils down to what you want alliances to be.
Do you want them to be simply attack groups. If so XP is the system and scoring mechanism for you.
Do you want them to be community hubs where people interact and help each other in defence and attack? If so Value is the system and scoring mechanism for you.
__________________
Phil^
Phil^ is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 4 Jan 2007, 17:14   #33
Heartless
CRASHING BEATS 'N FANTASY
 
Heartless's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Cold Country.
Posts: 1,912
Heartless is an inspiration to us all and we should try to be more like himHeartless is an inspiration to us all and we should try to be more like himHeartless is an inspiration to us all and we should try to be more like himHeartless is an inspiration to us all and we should try to be more like himHeartless is an inspiration to us all and we should try to be more like himHeartless is an inspiration to us all and we should try to be more like himHeartless is an inspiration to us all and we should try to be more like himHeartless is an inspiration to us all and we should try to be more like himHeartless is an inspiration to us all and we should try to be more like himHeartless is an inspiration to us all and we should try to be more like himHeartless is an inspiration to us all and we should try to be more like him
Re: New Changes

Quote:
Originally Posted by Phil^
Are you saying that alliances based mostly in XP are good for the game?
To a certain degree, xp based alliances certainly are good for the game. They are unlikely to win it anyway, unless rounds get heavily shortened.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Phil^
If so, are you defining an alliance simply as a group of people who attack together, since you sure aint gonna be doing much defending of each other playing for XP.
I am defining an alliance the same way the game currently does - and that means a bunch of planets "wearing" the same tag and thus being granted special features like an intergalactic fund and reduced defense traveltime. Currently that is all an alliance is in this game, everything else is part of the community around the game, not the game itself.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Phil^
Rankings based purely on value reflect the effective strength of that alliance and their ability to change things in the game for other alliances.
Rankings based on XP do not.
yes you may end up as #1 but that does not mean you are the strongest or worthiest alliance in the game. It is merely a sham
This is a wrong assumption because it does not show the strength of an alliance but rather the fleet resources available - but an alliances strength is more than just the ships it has available. It also includes efficiency in terms of covering incomings and fleetslot usage as well as the ability to successfully attack planets / alliances bigger than you.
XP shows strength just as much as value - it shows your ability to attack planets/alliances bigger than you, but leaves out your available fleet resources. Ultimately the combination of both, xp and value, is a far better indicator of an alliances strength - and you will notice that with the exception of Ascendancy no alliance has ever won because of xp alone (and Ascendancy only did it because we abused several glitches in the game like bash limits on counting towards value and the zik weakness against terran de/bs pods).

I would like to add that a pure value based ranking for alliances gives you a lot less reason to directly go to war with some other alliance you are competing with. It favours fencesitting and outblocking the enemy instead, which tends to lead to earlier stagnation.
__________________
Ią! Ią! Munin F'tagn! - [*scendancy]
Heartless is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 4 Jan 2007, 17:20   #34
wakey
Hamster
 
wakey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Crewe, England
Posts: 3,606
wakey is an inspiration to us all and we should try to be more like himwakey is an inspiration to us all and we should try to be more like himwakey is an inspiration to us all and we should try to be more like himwakey is an inspiration to us all and we should try to be more like himwakey is an inspiration to us all and we should try to be more like himwakey is an inspiration to us all and we should try to be more like himwakey is an inspiration to us all and we should try to be more like himwakey is an inspiration to us all and we should try to be more like himwakey is an inspiration to us all and we should try to be more like himwakey is an inspiration to us all and we should try to be more like himwakey is an inspiration to us all and we should try to be more like him
Re: New Changes

Quote:
Originally Posted by Phil^
Are you saying that alliances based mostly in XP are good for the game?
If so, are you defining an alliance simply as a group of people who attack together, since you sure aint gonna be doing much defending of each other playing for XP.

Rankings based purely on value reflect the effective strength of that alliance and their ability to change things in the game for other alliances.
Rankings based on XP do not.

yes you may end up as #1 but that does not mean you are the strongest or worthiest alliance in the game. It is merely a sham
Ofc its good for the game, anything which moves the level of planets being hit up a few rungs of the ladder is good for the game as it produces fairer fights and makes the game more competitive.

And you seem to have this strange idea that the most value makes both an alliance and a player better than others. While it can do and can mean that they are the ones that can change the game most it can also mean that they are just the most spineless people in the game who haven't taken chances and have just bashed and farmed their way to success and certainly doesnt mean they are the ones most capable of changing the game.

And ffs Phil^ your supposed to have some intelligence, the rankings haven't been done on XP, they are done on score which is how it should be as that's showing who has balanced the various game priorities the best which hence shows the alliance and person who's played with the best mix of honour (xp) and skill (value).
__________________
Wakey
PD and Suggestions Moderator
Co-founder of [F-Crew]
The Farnborough Crew
Cos anything else is just an alliance
Join our public channel at #f-crew
wakey is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 4 Jan 2007, 17:21   #35
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: New Changes

Quote:
Originally Posted by Heartless
This is a wrong assumption because it does not show the strength of an alliance but rather the fleet resources available - but an alliances strength is more than just the ships it has available. It also includes efficiency in terms of covering incomings and fleetslot usage as well as the ability to successfully attack planets / alliances bigger than you.
An inefficient alliance loses fleet resources, an efficient one does not.
if an alliance cannot cover all its attacks then it is obviously going to lose something, be it roids or fleet.
the less roids - the slower the growth of their fleet.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Heartless
XP shows strength just as much as value - it shows your ability to attack planets/alliances bigger than you, but leaves out your available fleet resources.
I disagree, XP shows luck and cunning perhaps but certainly not strength.
what strength does a planet with a couple of hundred fighters have versus a planet which has a couple of thousand?
Logic suggests that the first planet is weaker, but because of XP they can still be ahead in the rankings and untouchable by the second planet through the bash limit.
This is counterintuitive.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Heartless
Ultimately the combination of both, xp and value, is a far better indicator of an alliances strength - and you will notice that with the exception of Ascendancy no alliance has ever won because of xp alone (and Ascendancy only did it because we abused several glitches in the game like bash limits on counting towards value and the zik weakness against terran de/bs pods).

I would like to add that a pure value based ranking for alliances gives you a lot less reason to directly go to war with some other alliance you are competing with. It favours fencesitting and outblocking the enemy instead, which tends to lead to earlier stagnation.
Personally, i would like to see the XP system completely removed ( as if this hasnt been made obvious by now ) - XP is not strength, it is a simple accumulation of a number that cannot be taken away again.

A pure value system makes it less compelling for an alliance in #1 to go to war with the #2 yes, But if #2 actually wants to win then they have no choice but to go to war with #1.
__________________
Phil^
Phil^ is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 4 Jan 2007, 17:26   #36
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: New Changes

Quote:
Originally Posted by wakey
Ofc its good for the game, anything which moves the level of planets being hit up a few rungs of the ladder is good for the game as it produces fairer fights and makes the game more competitive.

And you seem to have this strange idea that the most value makes both an alliance and a player better than others.
You have misunderstood what i am saying.
value makes an alliance and a player stronger then others, not better.
rankings should be based on actual strength - Hence value.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wakey
While it can do and can mean that they are the ones that can change the game most it can also mean that they are just the most spineless people in the game who haven't taken chances and have just bashed and farmed their way to success and certainly doesnt mean they are the ones most capable of changing the game.
You've contradicted yourself here. You start off saying that value can mean they are the ones which can change the game, then you say that it certainly doesnt mean that they are the ones most capable of changing the game.
Which is it?

Quote:
Originally Posted by wakey
And ffs Phil^ your supposed to have some intelligence
ad hominem. Purile insults are childish wakey, you're better then this
Quote:
Originally Posted by wakey
the rankings haven't been done on XP, they are done on score which is how it should be as that's showing who has balanced the various game priorities the best which hence shows the alliance and person who's played with the best mix of honour (xp) and skill (value).
I know that, Incase you havent noticed i happen to want XP completely removed from the game and this is what i have been arguing for.
Changing the alliance rankings to value makes sense as the strongest alliance wins in such a system. It is also the first step along the road to completely removing xp from the game.
incidently i would disagree that an xp system is more honourable then a value system. What honour is there in attacking an opponent who cannot attack you back because of a physical restriction ingame ( bash limit ) ?
__________________
Phil^
Phil^ is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 4 Jan 2007, 17:28   #37
Jester
Pedantic hypocrite
 
Jester's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Back and to the left
Posts: 1,488
Jester has a reputation beyond reputeJester has a reputation beyond reputeJester has a reputation beyond reputeJester has a reputation beyond reputeJester has a reputation beyond reputeJester has a reputation beyond reputeJester has a reputation beyond reputeJester has a reputation beyond reputeJester has a reputation beyond reputeJester has a reputation beyond reputeJester has a reputation beyond repute
Re: New Changes

Quote:
Originally Posted by Phil^
An inefficient alliance loses fleet resources, an efficient one does not.
if an alliance cannot cover all its attacks then it is obviously going to lose something, be it roids or fleet.
the less roids - the slower the growth of their fleet.
You're wrong. An alliance at war loses fleet resources, an alliance NAPed to the hilt doesn't.

Quote:
I disagree, XP shows luck and cunning perhaps but certainly not strength.
what strength does a planet with a couple of hundred fighters have versus a planet which has a couple of thousand?
Logic suggests that the first planet is weaker, but because of XP they can still be ahead in the rankings and untouchable by the second planet through the bash limit.
This is counterintuitive.
Counterintuitive and also incorrect. The bash limit has been fixed so that you can always hit a planet above you in the rankings.

Quote:
A pure value system makes it less compelling for an alliance in #1 to go to war with the #2 yes, But if #2 actually wants to win then they have no choice but to go to war with #1.
You are again incorrect. Pure value means that if #2 actually wants to win, they have to get as many alliances as possible to hit #1, because they have almost no chance of catching #1 on their own. With XP a well fought war will put them ahead, without XP they can only rely on outroiding. Not to mention that with XP it's possible to catch a #1 alliance much faster, whereas outgrowing purely on roids takes much, much longer.

From where I'm sitting (and correct me if I'm wrong), you seem to be equating 'having XP' with 'playing purely for XP', which is incorrect.
__________________
I always wanted to be a dancer, but I could never get the shit off my shoes
.......
Jester is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 4 Jan 2007, 17:33   #38
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: New Changes

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jester
Counterintuitive and also incorrect. The bash limit has been fixed so that you can always hit a planet above you in the rankings.
Lets just say i have pretty much zero faith in pateam to maintain this given the love affair some of them seem to have with XP.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jester
From where I'm sitting (and correct me if I'm wrong), you seem to be equating 'having XP' with 'playing purely for XP'
Yes, just as you are equating #1 in a value system as being untouchable by #2.
Both of us have taken worst case scenarios.
__________________
Phil^
Phil^ is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 4 Jan 2007, 17:51   #39
Heartless
CRASHING BEATS 'N FANTASY
 
Heartless's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Cold Country.
Posts: 1,912
Heartless is an inspiration to us all and we should try to be more like himHeartless is an inspiration to us all and we should try to be more like himHeartless is an inspiration to us all and we should try to be more like himHeartless is an inspiration to us all and we should try to be more like himHeartless is an inspiration to us all and we should try to be more like himHeartless is an inspiration to us all and we should try to be more like himHeartless is an inspiration to us all and we should try to be more like himHeartless is an inspiration to us all and we should try to be more like himHeartless is an inspiration to us all and we should try to be more like himHeartless is an inspiration to us all and we should try to be more like himHeartless is an inspiration to us all and we should try to be more like him
Re: New Changes

Quote:
Originally Posted by Phil^
An inefficient alliance loses fleet resources, an efficient one does not.
if an alliance cannot cover all its attacks then it is obviously going to lose something, be it roids or fleet.
the less roids - the slower the growth of their fleet.
That's efficiency misunderstood. Efficiency means that with a certain investment I you manage to get a return R and the better R is compared to I the more efficient you are.
An inefficient alliance might lose more fleetresources, but it might not. It might as well "just" lose more roids - and as captain obvious in you stated correctly, less roids mean less fleet resources - but "just" losing roids doesn't mean you are inefficient either. In PA there are borders to efficiency. For instance, assuming maximum efficiency with fleet usage allows an alliance A with 60 members to cross-defend 180 incoming attacking fleets (leaving no slots available for attacks). However, there is no border to attacking fleets, thus 2 alliances B and C could send 360 fleets at alliance A.
This theoretical figure applied in a purely value based environment means A is absolutely unlikely to compete with B and C.

This now calls the captain obvious in me to tell you that without xp you are heavier punished for losing roids than you are now. With XP you can try to make up lost fleet resources by cunning and witty attacks, while without XP you can only prey that the enemy is going to lose his fleet resources so that you have a chance to catch up.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Phil^
I disagree, XP shows luck and cunning perhaps but certainly not strength.
what strength does a planet with a couple of hundred fighters have versus a planet which has a couple of thousand?
That is purely decided by skill and cunning of those planets. It is perfectly possible for the planet with the bigger fleet to lose against the smaller fleet. Maybe take a look into your history books for examples of battles where the smaller army won.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Phil^
Logic suggests that the first planet is weaker, but because of XP they can still be ahead in the rankings and untouchable by the second planet through the bash limit.
This is counterintuitive.
It is not. Go read the manual about bash limits. A purely value-based bash limit was counterintuitive, the one we currently have is not. If you are in front of someone in the rankings, then you can be hit by that someone.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Phil^
Personally, i would like to see the XP system completely removed ( as if this hasnt been made obvious by now ) - XP is not strength, it is a simple accumulation of a number that cannot be taken away again.

A pure value system makes it less compelling for an alliance in #1 to go to war with the #2 yes, But if #2 actually wants to win then they have no choice but to go to war with #1.
Where does the XP system encourage alliance #1 to go to war with alliance #2? #2 gains far more per capped roid from #1 than vice-versa, unless #1 has a smaller average score.

On the other hand, in a pure-value based system, alliance #1 is rewarded for hitting down the foodchain because you can widen the gap between you and your competitors a lot easier than with XP (f.e. fleetcatches).


It's a matter of gamedesign philosophy, really. If you want the die-hard war game, then XP should be removed. If you want a wargame which is more attractive to less active players, then XP should stay.
__________________
Ią! Ią! Munin F'tagn! - [*scendancy]
Heartless is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 4 Jan 2007, 17:55   #40
Heartless
CRASHING BEATS 'N FANTASY
 
Heartless's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Cold Country.
Posts: 1,912
Heartless is an inspiration to us all and we should try to be more like himHeartless is an inspiration to us all and we should try to be more like himHeartless is an inspiration to us all and we should try to be more like himHeartless is an inspiration to us all and we should try to be more like himHeartless is an inspiration to us all and we should try to be more like himHeartless is an inspiration to us all and we should try to be more like himHeartless is an inspiration to us all and we should try to be more like himHeartless is an inspiration to us all and we should try to be more like himHeartless is an inspiration to us all and we should try to be more like himHeartless is an inspiration to us all and we should try to be more like himHeartless is an inspiration to us all and we should try to be more like him
Re: New Changes

Quote:
Originally Posted by Phil^
Lets just say i have pretty much zero faith in pateam to maintain this given the love affair some of them seem to have with XP.
So you are basically anti-XP because you dislike PA Team. I cannot see what else that sentence has to do with XP at all. XP cannot be bad because someone in PA Team likes it - as much as share your lack of faith into PA Team, disliking XP for such a thing is just silly.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Phil^
Yes, just as you are equating #1 in a value system as being untouchable by #2.
Both of us have taken worst case scenarios.
That's not true. Jester - like me - is equating a value system as being a lot more unforgiving.
__________________
Ią! Ią! Munin F'tagn! - [*scendancy]
Heartless is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 4 Jan 2007, 18:01   #41
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: New Changes

Quote:
Originally Posted by Heartless
That is purely decided by skill and cunning of those planets. It is perfectly possible for the planet with the bigger fleet to lose against the smaller fleet. Maybe take a look into your history books for examples of battles where the smaller army won.
Luck != skill.
Furthermore, smaller armys in history are not the stronger army.
They may win in the end but it is not due to their strength

Quote:
Originally Posted by Heartless
It is not. Go read the manual about bash limits. A purely value-based bash limit was counterintuitive, the one we currently have is not. If you are in front of someone in the rankings, then you can be hit by that someone.
See point about having no faith in pateam above

Quote:
Originally Posted by Heartless
Where does the XP system encourage alliance #1 to go to war with alliance #2? #2 gains far more per capped roid from #1 than vice-versa, unless #1 has a smaller average score.
i didnt say this, the part you quoted of me was referring to the situation in a value based game
In a value based game, anyone not in the #1 spot has no choice but to go to war ( either directly or by proxy ) with whoever currently occupies it if they want to win

Quote:
Originally Posted by Heartless
It's a matter of gamedesign philosophy, really. If you want the die-hard war game, then XP should be removed. If you want a wargame which is more attractive to less active players, then XP should stay.
Indeed, this is the core of the matter - philosophy / ideology.
What direction do people want the game to take, To keep in line with what planetarion has been about all these years (strongest wins) or to twist it into something else
Furthermore, What do you want alliances to be about since this is sort of related to what system is used.
Value based systems force cooperation and interaction to defend each other
XP based systems result in selfishness and inactivity - alliances become mere battlegroups.

Which system is best for the community and the game - active cooperation or selfish inactivity.
__________________
Phil^
Phil^ is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 4 Jan 2007, 18:01   #42
wakey
Hamster
 
wakey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Crewe, England
Posts: 3,606
wakey is an inspiration to us all and we should try to be more like himwakey is an inspiration to us all and we should try to be more like himwakey is an inspiration to us all and we should try to be more like himwakey is an inspiration to us all and we should try to be more like himwakey is an inspiration to us all and we should try to be more like himwakey is an inspiration to us all and we should try to be more like himwakey is an inspiration to us all and we should try to be more like himwakey is an inspiration to us all and we should try to be more like himwakey is an inspiration to us all and we should try to be more like himwakey is an inspiration to us all and we should try to be more like himwakey is an inspiration to us all and we should try to be more like him
Re: New Changes

Quote:
Originally Posted by Phil^
Every planet survives, there isnt a deathstar in the game ( and to hell with them if they ever consider introducing one )
You will notice I put ' ' around survives as I didn't mean it literally and you know that. So please stop acting dense just so you can ignore issues.

If you had ever taken time to look outside the main two powerblocks pre PAX you would know that after the first month while playing numbers may have seemingly risen from the start the active players had dropped off significantly. When your at the bottom of the foodchain and keep getting someone who your only just in their bash limit roiding you day in day out as they are too scared of doing any real attacks as they might lose a few ships and who massively overkill the target just to make sure they don't lose a single piece of value it quickly gets boring as there's no fun in just having your fleet wiped and your roids lost constantly. Even the most stubborn of people in this situation eventually quit the round and while their planet may still be in the game they aren't being logged into and are pretty much dead planets and hence the planet and the player haven't survived.

So take your head out of the sand and realise this isnt about what's best for those with no life who sit at their PC's all day and are in the top alliances as these are in the minority and the contrary to some peoples belief there isn't that many of these people who are lining up to play and pay for PA even if it was aimed solely at the hardcore players. The GAME doesn't have to be fair, no-ones asking for new players and inactive players to be able to win the round but it has to be fun and offer a chance for people to play at a reasonable time commitment and achieve a good level. Its is after all a GAME and should be fun

Quote:
A value system requires teamwork for your alliance to do well, an xp system requires coordination in attacks to maximise your chances of getting through but little of anything else.

I guess it boils down to what you want alliances to be.
Do you want them to be simply attack groups. If so XP is the system and scoring mechanism for you.
Do you want them to be community hubs where people interact and help each other in defence and attack? If so Value is the system and scoring mechanism for you.
Again though your acting like the score system is just XP based where it isn't. Yes with XP as part of score/rank you can sacrifice some defence as the score loss can possible be covered attacking but value does play a part in your score/rank still. This means that you can just say sod defence completely as you need both fleets and roids to be able to grow even with xp and the stronger your fleets the more options you have for gaining on attacks. As such it has to be balanced
__________________
Wakey
PD and Suggestions Moderator
Co-founder of [F-Crew]
The Farnborough Crew
Cos anything else is just an alliance
Join our public channel at #f-crew
wakey is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 4 Jan 2007, 18:04   #43
Jester
Pedantic hypocrite
 
Jester's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Back and to the left
Posts: 1,488
Jester has a reputation beyond reputeJester has a reputation beyond reputeJester has a reputation beyond reputeJester has a reputation beyond reputeJester has a reputation beyond reputeJester has a reputation beyond reputeJester has a reputation beyond reputeJester has a reputation beyond reputeJester has a reputation beyond reputeJester has a reputation beyond reputeJester has a reputation beyond repute
Re: New Changes

Quote:
Originally Posted by Phil^
Yes, just as you are equating #1 in a value system as being untouchable by #2.
Both of us have taken worst case scenarios.
I never said they were untouchable, I just said that they would never win by going one-on-one. This is in no way an exceptional situation, it's how PA was before PAX.
__________________
I always wanted to be a dancer, but I could never get the shit off my shoes
.......
Jester is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 4 Jan 2007, 18:04   #44
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: New Changes

Quote:
Originally Posted by Heartless
So you are basically anti-XP because you dislike PA Team. I cannot see what else that sentence has to do with XP at all. XP cannot be bad because someone in PA Team likes it - as much as share your lack of faith into PA Team, disliking XP for such a thing is just silly.
Nope, im anti xp since i think it is bad for the game, I just dont have any confidence in pateam to maintain the bash limit formula so that it doesnt unduly suit an xp system
There are those in pateam i still like, and there are those i do not like as much. Its a bit of a stretch to suggest i suddenly hate them for something.

When someone does a silly thing - you tell them that it is a silly thing. They can continue to do it but at least your opinion is where it needs to be.
__________________
Phil^
Phil^ is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 4 Jan 2007, 18:12   #45
Jester
Pedantic hypocrite
 
Jester's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Back and to the left
Posts: 1,488
Jester has a reputation beyond reputeJester has a reputation beyond reputeJester has a reputation beyond reputeJester has a reputation beyond reputeJester has a reputation beyond reputeJester has a reputation beyond reputeJester has a reputation beyond reputeJester has a reputation beyond reputeJester has a reputation beyond reputeJester has a reputation beyond reputeJester has a reputation beyond repute
Re: New Changes

Quote:
Originally Posted by Phil^
Furthermore, smaller armys in history are not the stronger army.
They may win in the end but it is not due to their strength
You just gave a great justification for XP \o/
__________________
I always wanted to be a dancer, but I could never get the shit off my shoes
.......
Jester is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 4 Jan 2007, 18:16   #46
wakey
Hamster
 
wakey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Crewe, England
Posts: 3,606
wakey is an inspiration to us all and we should try to be more like himwakey is an inspiration to us all and we should try to be more like himwakey is an inspiration to us all and we should try to be more like himwakey is an inspiration to us all and we should try to be more like himwakey is an inspiration to us all and we should try to be more like himwakey is an inspiration to us all and we should try to be more like himwakey is an inspiration to us all and we should try to be more like himwakey is an inspiration to us all and we should try to be more like himwakey is an inspiration to us all and we should try to be more like himwakey is an inspiration to us all and we should try to be more like himwakey is an inspiration to us all and we should try to be more like him
Re: New Changes

Quote:
Originally Posted by Phil^
You have misunderstood what i am saying.
value makes an alliance and a player stronger then others, not better.
rankings should be based on actual strength - Hence value.
So the winner of the round should be the most cowardly alliance thats avoided conflict, hit easy targets ect ect

Quote:
You've contradicted yourself here. You start off saying that value can mean they are the ones which can change the game, then you say that it certainly doesnt mean that they are the ones most capable of changing the game.
Which is it?
No I haven't contradicted myself. The word CAN does not mean DOES. While the alliance with the most value can be the ones that are most able to change the round value alone doesnt give them this ability. Having a good value is just one of many factors in which alliance is most capable of changing the round

Quote:
ad hominem. Purile insults are childish wakey, you're better then this
I know that, Incase you havent noticed i happen to want XP completely removed from the game and this is what i have been arguing for.
Changing the alliance rankings to value makes sense as the strongest alliance wins in such a system. It is also the first step along the road to completely removing xp from the game.
incidently i would disagree that an xp system is more honourable then a value system. What honour is there in attacking an opponent who cannot attack you back because of a physical restriction ingame ( bash limit ) ?
Your making up 'fantasy' situations that aren't in place now just to further your anti xp campaign, as such I think im justified questioning your intelligence when you cant look in front of you at the system we have and talk about that system. If you have a problem with XP as part of score then discuss it but dont start ranting based on your fantsay situation where its just XP.

And yes XP has some flaws like the ability to attack people who cant attack back and ive spoken out agaisnt that myself in the past but encouraging attacks on planets 'better' than you holds alot more honour than than encouraging attacks on the smallest people possible

AND why should the alliance with most value be the winners, so they have managed to avoid conflicts, napped themselves up well and hit targets that gave them no losses does that mean they played a good game. I think not
__________________
Wakey
PD and Suggestions Moderator
Co-founder of [F-Crew]
The Farnborough Crew
Cos anything else is just an alliance
Join our public channel at #f-crew
wakey is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 4 Jan 2007, 18:16   #47
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: New Changes

Quote:
Originally Posted by wakey
You will notice I put ' ' around survives as I didn't mean it literally and you know that. So please stop acting dense just so you can ignore issues.
Again, ad hominem.
Why the insults wakey? I've been relatively courteous to you thusfar, i would appreciate it if you were the same in return.

Quote:
Originally Posted by wakey
If you had ever taken time to look outside the main two powerblocks pre PAX you would know that after the first month while playing numbers may have seemingly risen from the start the active players had dropped off significantly.
Active players have dropped off round on round, This is a systemic problem which has been going on right the way through
People find rl more interesting, or lose interest in a browser based game, move to a different but similar game etc etc etc. There are many many reasons for it

Quote:
Originally Posted by wakey
So take your head out of the sand and realise this isnt about what's best for those with no life who sit at their PC's all day and are in the top alliances as these are in the minority and the contrary to some peoples belief there isn't that many of these people who are lining up to play and pay for PA even if it was aimed solely at the hardcore players.
This may actually surprise you but i have never been a top , nor even a hardcore player. At best i have been average.
Yes i may have been in a top alliance for a round or two but to suddenly assume i have the blinkers on and are ignoring everyone who isnt hardcore is a bit silly.
I joined 1up because of the ethos there, not because i wanted to win. I could have joined fcrew but i didnt, partly because i didnt know that many people in there but also because i had done my time helping people and was quite drained from it, Continuing on didnt seem like something i was particularly keen on doing

Quote:
Originally Posted by wakey
Again though your acting like the score system is just XP based where it isn't.
See posts above, this has been answered already
__________________
Phil^
Phil^ is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 4 Jan 2007, 18:28   #48
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: New Changes

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jester
You just gave a great justification for XP \o/
On the contrary i simply noted that this is how things currently are. They win, but it is not because they are the strongest.

Quote:
Originally Posted by wakey
So the winner of the round should be the most cowardly alliance thats avoided conflict, hit easy targets ect ect
Nope, the winner should be the alliance that is strongest.
Personally, i consider going for xp cowardly and selfish.
Its very cowardly to go for something that cant be taken away from you again imo
the part about selfishness has been said earlier rg: alliances and defence - I really dont feel like typing it all out again
__________________
Phil^
Phil^ is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 4 Jan 2007, 19:17   #49
Heartless
CRASHING BEATS 'N FANTASY
 
Heartless's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Cold Country.
Posts: 1,912
Heartless is an inspiration to us all and we should try to be more like himHeartless is an inspiration to us all and we should try to be more like himHeartless is an inspiration to us all and we should try to be more like himHeartless is an inspiration to us all and we should try to be more like himHeartless is an inspiration to us all and we should try to be more like himHeartless is an inspiration to us all and we should try to be more like himHeartless is an inspiration to us all and we should try to be more like himHeartless is an inspiration to us all and we should try to be more like himHeartless is an inspiration to us all and we should try to be more like himHeartless is an inspiration to us all and we should try to be more like himHeartless is an inspiration to us all and we should try to be more like him
Re: New Changes

Quote:
Originally Posted by Phil^
Luck != skill.
Furthermore, smaller armys in history are not the stronger army.
They may win in the end but it is not due to their strength
Read again what I wrote. I have not said that smaller armies are stronger by default, I just said they have good chances against bigger armies when being smart in their war efforts. Which, as jester pointed out, is a perfect reason for having XP. Just because without XP you deny a smaller army the chance to win against a bigger one. And no, I don't believe that the sword should always be more powerful than a feather.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Phil^
i didnt say this, the part you quoted of me was referring to the situation in a value based game
In a value based game, anyone not in the #1 spot has no choice but to go to war ( either directly or by proxy ) with whoever currently occupies it if they want to win
Admittedly, I caught you wrong there, "compelling" was somewhat misinterpreted by me (excuse this, I am after all not a native speaker). However, in a xp based system, where does everyone not in the #1 spot have a chance at getting there without actually hitting the #1 alliance?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Phil^
Value based systems force cooperation and interaction to defend each other
XP based systems result in selfishness and inactivity - alliances become mere battlegroups.

Which system is best for the community and the game - active cooperation or selfish inactivity.
Value based systems force cooperation in form of chickenshitting the fence and just creating the "who has the bigger gang" block "wars".
XP based systems allow individuals to survive and give alliances a chance to stand up against multiple alliances as well as catching up. Additionally the XP based system does not force you into having to be part of an uber-active if you want to do reasonably well. Also, I would like to add, that an inactive Ascendancy wouldn't have won round 16 - unless you define inactive as being online on planetarion for less than 12 hours a day.

The best for the community and the game is the system that allows people to compete without having to devastate their lifes in order to play this game somewhat successfull (somewhat, not ultimately!). XP was and still is a step into the right direction.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Phil^
On the contrary i simply noted that this is how things currently are. They win, but it is not because they are the strongest.
So why are alliances winning then? Do you want to say that exilition round 13/15/17/18 and 1up r11/12/14 weren't the strongest alliances?
__________________
Ią! Ią! Munin F'tagn! - [*scendancy]
Heartless is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 4 Jan 2007, 19:19   #50
wakey
Hamster
 
wakey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Crewe, England
Posts: 3,606
wakey is an inspiration to us all and we should try to be more like himwakey is an inspiration to us all and we should try to be more like himwakey is an inspiration to us all and we should try to be more like himwakey is an inspiration to us all and we should try to be more like himwakey is an inspiration to us all and we should try to be more like himwakey is an inspiration to us all and we should try to be more like himwakey is an inspiration to us all and we should try to be more like himwakey is an inspiration to us all and we should try to be more like himwakey is an inspiration to us all and we should try to be more like himwakey is an inspiration to us all and we should try to be more like himwakey is an inspiration to us all and we should try to be more like him
Re: New Changes

Quote:
Originally Posted by Phil^
Again, ad hominem.
Why the insults wakey? I've been relatively courteous to you thusfar, i would appreciate it if you were the same in return.
Its not an insult when its true, you knew full well that I didn't mean the planets were destroyed but rather the players were driven from the game. You are sitting there putting on this act of being dense just because it suits your cause to ignore actual issues that existed in the value system and which caused significant problems in keeping and attracting players as well as stagnating the game every round.

Quote:
Active players have dropped off round on round, This is a systemic problem which has been going on right the way through
People find rl more interesting, or lose interest in a browser based game, move to a different but similar game etc etc etc. There are many many reasons for it
I wasn't talking about people quitting round on round though was I. I'm talking about the people who started playing with a real intention of playing the round who were then driven out of the game for the round by the bashing culture that a value system breeds. These players would often come back round after round to try again but the same would keep happening because they weren't top players in top alliances.

And yes your right active people do quit due to RL, the problem is with a value system is that the potential replacements for these people find it nigh on impossible to get over the first hurdle so when it comes to replacing these people there's not many people to replace them with.

Quote:
This may actually surprise you but i have never been a top , nor even a hardcore player. At best i have been average.
Yes i may have been in a top alliance for a round or two but to suddenly assume i have the blinkers on and are ignoring everyone who isnt hardcore is a bit silly.
I joined 1up because of the ethos there, not because i wanted to win. I could have joined fcrew but i didnt, partly because i didnt know that many people in there but also because i had done my time helping people and was quite drained from it, Continuing on didnt seem like something i was particularly keen on doing
So because helping the lower half of the game was hard and drained you you have now decided to say sod them and try and screw them over. Isn't that nice of you. This actually highlights one of the problems PA has. Pretty much every player has at some point had some involvement lower down in the game yet as soon as they get higher up they either forget about this time or decide that they have had their struggles and its time for them to inflict those struggles on others to give themselves an easier time.
__________________
Wakey
PD and Suggestions Moderator
Co-founder of [F-Crew]
The Farnborough Crew
Cos anything else is just an alliance
Join our public channel at #f-crew
wakey is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 13:48.


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