Planetarion Senate - Meeting about R10

[Whis]

Originally posted by Gerbie
Whining about what's going wrong and suggesting things to improve the game are two ways to reach the same: get this game improved. For various reasons the game never was improved sufficiently.

Yes, that's what should be the goal of the senate imo. However i've yet to see much evidence that this current senate thing is anything other than a sham to protect the existence & interests of well-established alliances. Personally I think we've moved past that point, the future of pa and improving the game for the entire community is all that should matter at the moment. And this no matter what the consequences might be for current alliances. I'm only basing this on the statements (from the log) made by majority of alliances that were present at this senate meeting. I guess we will see if this trend continues in the next meeting if there is one.

[Heartless]

Originally posted by Razorback
Focht.

In opposition to you (in other places) I have not been insulting at all to anyone personally. It was critizing the system and considering my situation which you just pointed out just shows how paradox the current game system is.

I am complaining about top alliances behaviour yet I am in one. Just because it is necessary to achieve something in this game, hence I would have been one of the top 10000 not top 10 with constant from either vom or nar or weet. or from all 3 at the same time.

Now, forming a new alliance would be an option. But its a rather difficult task, you'd need:
- a decent amount of members to start with, say around 30-50
- a rather high activity of those members
- the whole intelligence toolkit (arbiter)
- *tatata* politics

First 3 points are the easiest to get. But the last point is again the major aspect of discussion: Mainly politics would result in either getting bashed because you try to not get a overwhelming blocksize or you join the overwhelming block.
Or you do no politics at all and hope the others won't target you a lot.

[Zahadum]

Originally posted by Faberius
Am I still on ignore. You had better check that...




You're of course welcome to come to the next meeting, but my inability to talk to you is a sort of hinderence to me


PS: I'm not running it, btw.

I took you off ignore awhile ago. After I figured out how to.

[HobbieRogue4]

Gee guys, let's think about the most obvious issue here:

Do you a) want to have some PA player (veteran at that) input into how the game develops and changes or b) continue to let Spinner and Sunshine Wank Bunch continue each round like every round?

It's your choice. Make it one you can play with.

[Aryn]

now now hobbie, don't be silly.. the whole point of the senate is that r10 ISN'T going to be 'just like every other round'

you guys claim that pateam doesn't care about the customers, yet we're pretty much (respect to the non pateam who agreed) the only ones who are defending the unrepresented.

it's like having one representative from each planet in our solar system except for pluto because they're small and they don't count. maybe their opinions don't matter to you, but they're still part of the solar system whether you admit it or not.

we're not yelling at you for being stupid (like you seem to be implying we are).. we're just suggesting that maybe hearing their voices could bring some good. they've been stepped on every round, and now with this great chance that a senate is going to work, perhaps it's time to let them be heard?

like i said before, i'm GLAD that the senate is working this time. you claim that i can't read but you always seem to miss this point in my posts.

ps. it's not flaming.. it's offering constructive criticism.. if you can't take that....

[Faberius]

Originally posted by wakey
lol, perhaps if it had been advertised before hand then you could have claimed that but it appears NO-ONE outside those 16 knew anything about this 'meeting'. You invited the 16 you wanted and ignored everyone else. All it would have taken to get all the smaller alliances that wanted to attend to do so would have been a post here before the event stating the goals of the meeting, the time and the steps to take to be invited (oh and I noticed something earlier about "if we ahve heard of you we will invite you",Now i know alot of you in top alliances have this idea that only you really understand the game but this is wrong and everyone no matter if youve heard of them or not deserves their say and deserves to be taken seriously and not just dismissed as rantings of a nobody who doesnt have a clue)

Lets do this objectively.

I missed:

CP, which I hadn't heard of before this but is now a Senate member
Vengence, which is now a Senate member
Vision, which is already a Senate member
Mad Cows, which is already a Senate member
TFD, which declined Senate membership
EnTitY, who did not answer my pm's due to me being on ignore (or if not, just didn't answer)
F-Crew, are you still an alliance, if so, get the info from any senate member.

Now I have some questions:

Why do I need to advertise again?

Why do people keep on harping on the rights of smaller alliances. A sad fact is, that compared to the free rounds and early pay 2 play, they aren't left. They're gone, don't exist. The alliances I listed up there only 2 I'd really consider small alliances, and certainly they aren't like the small alliances of round 4.

Are there any more that I missed?

[Razorback]

Originally posted by Aryn
now now hobbie, don't be silly.. the whole point of the senate is that r10 ISN'T going to be 'just like every other round'

you guys claim that pateam doesn't care about the customers, yet we're pretty much (respect to the non pateam who agreed) the only ones who are defending the unrepresented.

Why is there a need to defend anything if it isnt attacked ? The senate did not criticize anything as of yet, it just said that some changes could have a bad outcome and that we would like to know more about it and to get maybe heared about it. This doesnt mean you need to defend it as we didnt say "all crap back to the drawingboard"

it's like having one representative from each planet in our solar system except for pluto because they're small and they don't count. maybe their opinions don't matter to you, but they're still part of the solar system whether you admit it or not.

You said yourself its unlikely to have everyone present as you dont know even yourself how to achieve that goal. in my opinion some (admittingly a good bunch of alliances) is better then just saying "i cant get all so i stop trying". Furthermore reread that we invite everyone who is missing and apologized if we missed someone as this wasnt our intention.

we're not yelling at you for being stupid (like you seem to be implying we are).. we're just suggesting that maybe hearing their voices could bring some good. they've been stepped on every round, and now with this great chance that a senate is going to work, perhaps it's time to let them be heard?

like i said before, i'm GLAD that the senate is working this time. you claim that i can't read but you always seem to miss this point in my posts.

ps. it's not flaming.. it's offering constructive criticism.. if you can't take that....

We are also happy that it started tho we dont know the outcome, you cant be glad that its workign and slandering it thats simply not logical. You said we have no majority we represent not enough etc. Infact that was never our call we only represent ourselfs. A group of concerned customers.

[Aryn]

Originally posted by Razorback
You said yourself its unlikely to have everyone present as you dont know even yourself how to achieve that goal. in my opinion some (admittingly a good bunch of alliances) is better then just saying "i cant get all so i stop trying". Furthermore reread that we invite everyone who is missing and apologized if we missed someone as this wasnt our intention.
i did suggest some ways though. i never said 'give up' and yes i see that the next meeting is open (if you're in an alliance and you get invited through elysia :P)

You said we have no majority we represent not enough etc. Infact that was never our call we only represent ourselfs. A group of concerned customers.
i never said you didn't have a majority. to say that would have been completely stupid :P what i meant was more that the majority represents something completely different from the minority left out. all i'm suggesting is that in an open think tank like the senate is.. it might be good to hear some of the views that haven't been heard.

btw i think we're sort of getting somewhere in this discussion. (meaning it feels like we're discussing more than yelling our points at each other :P)

[Aryn]

Originally posted by Faberius
Why do I need to advertise again?

Why do people keep on harping on the rights of smaller alliances. A sad fact is, that compared to the free rounds and early pay 2 play, they aren't left. They're gone, don't exist. The alliances I listed up there only 2 I'd really consider small alliances, and certainly they aren't like the small alliances of round 4.

Are there any more that I missed?

now see here's what i'm getting at. (first of all you didn't advertise in the first place )

what do you mean they don't exist? open your eyes. there are lots of small alliances you don't know about. here i am trying to defend them.. the members of your senate are telling me to shut up because now they're allowed to join the senate.. and here you are telling me that they don't matter and don't exist.

as i've stated before.. take a gander at AR and you'll see some of the alliances i'm talking about.

while i know it'd be impossible to have them all invited. the point is more that they get an invitation. an open think-tank is a great idea, but not so great when not everyone's invited.
(dunno if i explained it clear.. let me know if i haven't and i'll try to explain)

[wakey]

Originally posted by Faberius
Lets do this objectively.

I missed:

CP, which I hadn't heard of before this but is now a Senate member
Vengence, which is now a Senate member
Vision, which is already a Senate member
Mad Cows, which is already a Senate member
TFD, which declined Senate membership
EnTitY, who did not answer my pm's due to me being on ignore (or if not, just didn't answer)
F-Crew, are you still an alliance, if so, get the info from any senate member.

Now I have some questions:

Why do I need to advertise again?

Why do people keep on harping on the rights of smaller alliances. A sad fact is, that compared to the free rounds and early pay 2 play, they aren't left. They're gone, don't exist. The alliances I listed up there only 2 I'd really consider small alliances, and certainly they aren't like the small alliances of round 4.

Are there any more that I missed?

So if the small alliances dont exist then who do all those planets that the big guys feel the need to bash day in day out, belong to.

The small alliances do still exist they just arent as vocal as in the old days when a small alliance could succeed. They are however still there and due to the differnt circumstances they find themselves in they have a unique view on PA, a view that those doing the bashing cant ever hope to fully understand and can never fight their corner. These people need a chance to take part

oh and for the record yes fcrew is still an alliance

[Jackal2112]

Originally posted by Sonnenbomber
This night we had a so called meeting of the Planetarion Senate

Two things;

1. Vision wasn't there with a rep? Why not. They are better than several of the alliances listed.

2. Does anyone take the Senate serious at all after the 'senate' debacle in r6/r7 where there was a Senate who promised neither alliance would form power blocks. lmao

[Gerbie]

Originally posted by Heartless
Now, forming a new alliance would be an option. But its a rather difficult task, you'd need:
- a decent amount of members to start with, say around 30-50
- a rather high activity of those members
- the whole intelligence toolkit (arbiter)
- *tatata* politics

First 3 points are the easiest to get. But the last point is again the major aspect of discussion: Mainly politics would result in either getting bashed because you try to not get a overwhelming blocksize or you join the overwhelming block.
Or you do no politics at all and hope the others won't target you a lot.

- an alliance requires at least 2 members. 30-50 active members would allow you to operate well on your own.
- the arbiter is a standard part of AH. With a small enough group of close friends you could use tags. No other tools are required. Would be nice, but not essential.
- Politics are useless for small alliances. Unless you want to cooperate in a block which allows an alliance of less members (TFD had ± 20 active members last round and could operate well thanks to shared def/attacks).

[HobbieRogue4]

Originally posted by Aryn
now now hobbie, don't be silly.. the whole point of the senate is that r10 ISN'T going to be 'just like every other round'

I still invision the "Senate" as a representary body of players, from all types of alliances, representing those respective alliances' standpoint on the game. I recognize that the Senate serves nothing more than an "advisory body," if that, seeing as how well communication between PA Creators, PA Team, and Senate/players worked.

you guys claim that pateam doesn't care about the customers, yet we're pretty much (respect to the non pateam who agreed) the only ones who are defending the unrepresented.

It's the PA Creators who are inept. I have much respect for the "majority" of the PA volunteer team.

[Razorback]

@ Ayrn: (tired of quoting)

The senate or any other plenum (compare it to your government) will never represent ALL views and ALL minorites. Thats just something coming from the fact of having only limited "seats" and only limited time. I doubt anywhere on this world there is a government which is able to represent all opinions based in their voters.
Infact you ask for the small alliances for the "free ppl". I admittingly can only say this might be not the right place for it. As it is already with 20 ppl damn hard to discuss or select a few topics. if you would bring this number from 20 to 1000 figure yourself. Furthermore the question is why do we need to represent anyone ? We didnt speak for anyone apart from ourself and invited other alliances (as this is what we all are) to join. Surely this excludes somehow free players or 5 ppl alliances and will in no way be meant as a hint that their thoughts are less valid or mean less. But infact you need somewhere to set the borderlines of a structure. You dont invite to a dogowners meeting catowners. To make a ratehr silly comparison. The intention was to gather a group of ppl who can represent a small group each and hear their views.

The senate said with no word it should be unique or be the only source to be considered. Hust that we were willing to organise something on the basis of "alliances".
A good suggestion would be an open plenum on these boards towards r10 and a much opener informationflow so even casual or allianceless players can debate their ideas there. I and many others got the (maybe wrong) feeling that creators never visit Suggestion Forums or Strategy forums and that alot is done within a small circle of ppl who surely can not claim to be god given. (in a sense of superiority)

During reading all replies i got 2 different questions for you.
The first would be, why do ppl who read they could just join on the next occasion need to spectaculate why they werent asked the first time and try to slander or create a disharmony on things?

The second would be, why do we have 3 pa team members coming here and arguing something which with respect has not really much to do with them. Senate was a concept first brought up by the creators and it admittingly failed. This time the concept and the goals are much different so a comparions with earlier "tries" seems invalid.
Neither do i see a need to criticize or slander the idea, especially if you compare our words with goals you try to set for us.

About the yelling is to say that some ppl act like paulus if they were part of the saulus, so to say. And i guess after 10 rounds we all know nothing is going like it is promised. Especially not in terms of PA. So the "have faith" attitude might cause for the majority just bring a weak smile and a "sure sure like last time".

With all due respect, i think PA gambled alot in the past with its customers and with the faith of its customers. But thats nothing which cannot be repaired or regained and i think spinner is on a good way, if he would just keep his friggin deadlines and if actually like heatless promised the support section gets a hard revamping.

[MrL_JaKiri]

Originally posted by Razorback
The senate or any other plenum (compare it to your government) will never represent ALL views and ALL minorites. Thats just something coming from the fact of having only limited "seats" and only limited time. I doubt anywhere on this world there is a government which is able to represent all opinions based in their voters.

Bad similie. Lack of proportional representation.

[Leshy]

Originally posted by kaos
maybe read what leshy is posting and then talk in so high words of yourself (thats btw another problem of pacrew, they think they are goods sometimes ... )

For the record, as this thread is on Alliance Discussions about alliances, I was going into the part that alliances have played and play into what made PA go downhill. I was not solely laying the blame at them, but pointing out that they are not entirely blameless as some would so fervently try to argue.

I am fully aware that PA-Crew and the Creators certainly have played a very important role in the decline of the playerbase. However, that is 1) not what this thread about, and 2) exactly the thing that we are trying to improve.

[Aryn]

Originally posted by Razorback
@ Ayrn: (tired of quoting)

During reading all replies i got 2 different questions for you.
The first would be, why do ppl who read they could just join on the next occasion need to spectaculate why they werent asked the first time and try to slander or create a disharmony on things?

The second would be, why do we have 3 pa team members coming here and arguing something which with respect has not really much to do with them. Senate was a concept first brought up by the creators and it admittingly failed. This time the concept and the goals are much different so a comparions with earlier "tries" seems invalid.
Neither do i see a need to criticize or slander the idea, especially if you compare our words with goals you try to set for us.

1. well i can't really answer for anyone else on that one.. but i can speculate on it. if this senate was to be created without you, and the creators of it came onto the board proclaiming it's success and how 15 alliances were invited, yet you weren't.. wouldn't you be mildly insulted? now i can't say taht you'd come on the boards and slam it (and again i say i never meant to slam it) but you would probably make some comment about your alliance not being invited. the only insult to me was that it was for alliances only, yet there are many many allianceless people out there. i'm not personally insulted for not being invited.. i prolly wouldn't have invited myself either :P but it's merely the point that unallieds aren't concidered at all in this.

2. why are 3 of us arguing for something that has nothing to do with us? well again i can only speculate on the other's parts.. but i'm fairly confident that the answer is simply that 'we care'.

i really would go into more detail but i gotta walk my ass to school (pharmacy math.. ugh!)

[wakey]

Furthermore the question is why do we need to represent anyone ?

Theres a simple answer to this and that is that its in the games best intrests.

As youve already stated you hold alot of power as a group (over half the player base), even if you dont resort to the "Change or we leave" tactics as an organised group youd have to be really listed to and would perhaps be able to push ideas through. However as with most things something that might be good for one group wont be for another and with the current make up of the senete theres little doubt in my mind that most of the issues it would persue would be issues that are for the good of the bigger alliances but not for the small ones. You are thus able to change the way PA evolves but not neccesarly in the way it needs to go.

This is why you represet everyone and why you need a cross section of the PA community not just the upper 3rd

[Razorback]

Originally posted by wakey
Theres a simple answer to this and that is that its in the games best intrests.

As youve already stated you hold alot of power as a group (over half the player base), even if you dont resort to the "Change or we leave" tactics as an organised group youd have to be really listed to and would perhaps be able to push ideas through. However as with most things something that might be good for one group wont be for another and with the current make up of the senete theres little doubt in my mind that most of the issues it would persue would be issues that are for the good of the bigger alliances but not for the small ones. You are thus able to change the way PA evolves but not neccesarly in the way it needs to go.

This is why you represet everyone and why you need a cross section of the PA community not just the upper 3rd

You are wrong there. Quiet simply we represent only ourself. As we arent "elected" to speak for the community. To avoid beeing seen as a seperate group infact we invited and invite still alliances to participate. But we wont wear the stamp "for all users" because that isnt true and we couldnt fit in those shoes. Especially you cant make yourself something, so the only support we are yet aware of is the ones of the participating alliances. So infact we can only represent them with the feeling that we represent ourself if that makes any sense

On a short sidenote i doubt anyone not involved would like to be represented by us, especially not after you have also seen some of the hostilities appearing in this thread.

[Black Knight]

Originally posted by Gerbie
Did Madcows quit as an alliance?

edit: I suddenly get the feeling 2/3 of VoM and 4/5th of Vommv were bashed so badly that their remenants are no longer considered to be significant.

This is one of my rare posts on this blasted forum... but I was encouraged by a friend to respond.

Yes, Madcows still exists, better then ever. Random rounds does the PA community good and I hope there are more.

Cheers,
BK

[JC]

Originally posted by Faberius
Lets do this objectively.

I missed:

CP, which I hadn't heard of before this but is now a Senate member
Vengence, which is now a Senate member
Vision, which is already a Senate member
Mad Cows, which is already a Senate member
TFD, which declined Senate membership
EnTitY, who did not answer my pm's due to me being on ignore (or if not, just didn't answer)
F-Crew, are you still an alliance, if so, get the info from any senate member.

Now I have some questions:

Why do I need to advertise again?

Why do people keep on harping on the rights of smaller alliances. A sad fact is, that compared to the free rounds and early pay 2 play, they aren't left. They're gone, don't exist. The alliances I listed up there only 2 I'd really consider small alliances, and certainly they aren't like the small alliances of round 4.

Are there any more that I missed?

Still missing TiT (ex-BlackIce/Tokra) from your "exhaustive" list of alliances.

I probably know more small..well perhaps i should say minute alliances going by your definition of small, than most but even i dont pretend to think i know all of them. They may only have 15-20 people max and only have AH as their website and have some small irc channel that nobody knows of without even P in it, but they are still a part of the PA community and shouldnt be forgotten. Posting on here or AR advertising the meeting probably wouldnt have reached all these people but at least it would have been making an effort to include them.

Then you have those people who decide to be allianceless for whatever reason. I think someone said something along the lines of all allianceless players are n00bs who dont matter because they are just here for the free round . Until recently i had been allianceless since r7, it doesnt mean i dont care about PA, i still play pay and pay for every round (even though i am offered a free account for being a mod). Should we just ignore them because for whatever reason they dont have the desire to join an alliance?

I'm not saying it is in anyway possible to include everyone in these sort of things but an effort has to be made to try and get a broad selection of every type of player. Unfortunately you only seem to have the cream of the crop listed, yes that cream may be thicker these days because of the low numbers in PA but you are still missing the people at the lower end of the scale.

[wakey]

Originally posted by Razorback
You are wrong there. Quiet simply we represent only ourself. As we arent "elected" to speak for the community. To avoid beeing seen as a seperate group infact we invited and invite still alliances to participate. But we wont wear the stamp "for all users" because that isnt true and we couldnt fit in those shoes. Especially you cant make yourself something, so the only support we are yet aware of is the ones of the participating alliances. So infact we can only represent them with the feeling that we represent ourself if that makes any sense

On a short sidenote i doubt anyone not involved would like to be represented by us, especially not after you have also seen some of the hostilities appearing in this thread.

"With great power comes great responsability" - sorry to use this old cliched saying but its true. As much as you try and deny it the power you weild is enough to have serious effects on the rest of PA and hence you are representing everyone. YOU DONT GET A CHOICE ABOUT THIS.

And alliances wouldnt mind you representing them as long as they are included in the discussions. Its only the lack of inclusion of all ranges of alliances that people are hostile agaisnt because they fear (and rightly so imho) that your power will be enough to get changes made that damage the smaller alliances further while making the top alliances stronger

[Cochese]

Originally posted by wakey
your power will be enough to get changes made that damage the smaller alliances further while making the top alliances stronger

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

Simple logic.

[AlbinoSquirrel]

Why should every alliance from west bum**** with 10 members be allowed a voice on a Senate?

The main players are there. Set guidelines for inviting other alliances into the Senate, such as size or how long the alliance has existed. You can't represent EVERYONE, no matter how hard you try. Look at the United States. Not everyone wants to be represented by their local politicos, and not everyone is. I think all this whining about people "not having a voice" is just that. If you want a voice in the shaping of the game, or the game's politics, or whatever the Senate decides to try and accomplish - you must participate fully in the game first. PA is not a game to play by yourself. It's the groups, the alliances, that make the game as good or as bad as it is, and as it can be.

[Gayle29uk]

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

Simple logic.

Who are the many though, the current alliance structures or the potential new players for R10?

This round has three times the planets of last round, call it twice as many players. Nine players in my gal have alliances, that leaves 19 without and we're in the top 20% of the universe. I do not believe the alliances are or can claim to represent the majority.

[AlbinoSquirrel]

Originally posted by Gayle29uk
Who are the many though, the current alliance structures or the potential new players for R10?

This round has three times the planets of last round, call it twice as many players. Six players in my gal have alliances, that leaves 19 without and we're in the top 20% of the universe. I do not believe the alliances are or can claim to represent the majority.

Alliances represent the majority of the serious players. Casual players won't care about game design or game politics. All they will care about is playing the game, no matter what design it's in - someone will always be interested.

[Gayle29uk]

Originally posted by AlbinoSquirrel
Why should every alliance from west bum**** with 10 members be allowed a voice on a Senate?

The main players are there.

Because every single person in that alliance from west bum**** is as important as you are. Main players my backside, wake up and smell the coffee.

[Gayle29uk]

Originally posted by AlbinoSquirrel
Alliances represent the majority of the serious players.

So what?

Serious alliance player pays £7.

Casual player pays £7.

See a difference? Nope, me neither.

[Anihilat0r]

Originally posted by Faberius
Lets do this objectively.

EnTitY, who did not answer my pm's due to me being on ignore (or if not, just didn't answer)

My ignore list has never had anybody on it for more than 5 minutes, it's too funny reading what they're saying for me to keep them ignored...

Since my connection is 24/7 I would have recieved any and all PMs directed at me.
Even in the freak case of my connection going down my bouncer records all notices and PM's and emails them to me....

Nothing from you my....er....'friend'

[AlbinoSquirrel]

Show me a pure democracy that works. You can't represent every player, so represent the ones that participate more in the game on all levels. If you're saying that Billy Bob from Texas who logs in once a day is entitled to the same voice that an alliance HC is entitled to, you're nuts.

It doesn't matter how much a person pays. That matters to the beancounters, and we are not beancounters. Yes, I will tell you, the serious alliance players are worth more than their casual counterparts. Yes, I am more important than Joe Loginonceaday, and so are you. If you can't understand why, then you really need to examine how game communities work.

[Cochese]

Originally posted by Gayle29uk
Who are the many though, the current alliance structures or the potential new players for R10?

Your optimism is refreshing, but naive. I'd go so far to say that 50% or more of the "new" players we get for r10 leave during or after the Free-Trial round (not before registering a forum account here, just to bitch about being "owned" and how "unfair" the game is for newbies). The other 45(+/-)% will leave during r10, after complaining "the game isn't worth $10, I want a refund" etc.

5(+/-)% will succeed, find an alliance, and stay on as (potentially) loyal customers. It will probably be closer to 1-2%.

I hope they try it, but I doubt they'll like it.

It's simply not for everyone; in fact this game is suitable only to a considerable minority of gamers in general. That's fine, not everyone likes every food, I don't understand why people try so desperately to "force" this game upon new players, when it's simply "not their cup of tea". The market for a game like PA is tiny in the grand scheme of things, and that fact needs to be recognized and adapted to, not fought against in vain. Anything else is a waste of time and resources.

This round has three times the planets of last round, call it twice as many players. Six players in my gal have alliances, that leaves 19 without and we're in the top 20% of the universe. I do not believe the alliances are or can claim to represent the majority.

My galaxy is in the top 20%, and only 4-6 people have alliances. It's all relative, and those types of numbers mean nothing. One or two big planets can artificially raise the score of a galaxy full of inactive/casual players.

The reason for the tripled universe size is quite easily explained.

It's not because the game is any better than last round, or even the fact that there aren't any powerblocks, or the fact the round (so far) it hasn't been politically fueled for the first time since...It's only because: The game is free It doesn't cost them anything, and that's the ONLY reason why the universe size tripled. Do you honestly believe these people (who left after r4) will return for r10 (when they have to pay again?). I don't.

It's like going out to eat with a bunch of deadbeats...they scramble off when the check comes, leaving you to foot the bill.

Some others have already said it, but I'll reiterate: losing loyal customers for the possibility (there is NO guarantee the new ones will be loyal) to gain new ones, is the worst possible thing a business can do. That's Business Management 101, day 2 material for crying out loud.

[Faberius]

1. No Senate has ever promised no power blocks. Want the log of both Senate meetings? I have em.

2. If unaligned people want to be in the Senate, they can make their own.

3. If we were to start including anything with a name (even if they don't have a public channel, reasonable way of contacting them) we might as well include battlegroups, which have larger amounts of members, a dedicated structure but no public means of contacting them. However we do not wish to include powerblocks and for the effort to include representatives of alliances of 20 members or less (by the way, which haven't posted on this thread, why would advertising help) its not really worth my time which is otherwise spent as leader of an alliance.
They can come to us.

4. It is worth mentioning that an original prerequisite for membership in the Senate was that all member alliances must register at least 50 members on AH. That was imposed by Zeus.

[Zh|l]

Originally posted by Gayle29uk
Because every single person in that alliance from west bum**** is as important as you are. Main players my backside, wake up and smell the coffee.

Utter rubbish.

I think its you that needs to wake up from la-la land and "smell the coffee."

[BLACK_OPPS]

LOL the senate
another botched idear from the creators

[Zh|l]

Originally posted by BLACK_OPPS
LOL the senate
another botched idear from the creators

lol LENIN didnt read the thread and made big assumptions that this had anything to do with the creators.

lol

[JonnyBGood]

Originally posted by Gayle29uk
So what?

Serious alliance player pays £7.

Casual player pays £7.

See a difference? Nope, me neither.

Just because two people pay the same amount of money does not mean they give the same to the game and to the community. If you are so shallow you measure purely based on monetary contribution I feel sorry for the game you hope to be part of. Individuals create a community and individuals play the game. They all do different things, it's the nature of the beast.

[Zahadum]

Originally posted by Faberius
Lets do this objectively.

I missed:

CP, which I hadn't heard of before this but is now a Senate member
Vengence, which is now a Senate member
Vision, which is already a Senate member
Mad Cows, which is already a Senate member
TFD, which declined Senate membership
EnTitY, who did not answer my pm's due to me being on ignore (or if not, just didn't answer)
F-Crew, are you still an alliance, if so, get the info from any senate member.

Now I have some questions:

Why do I need to advertise again?

Why do people keep on harping on the rights of smaller alliances. A sad fact is, that compared to the free rounds and early pay 2 play, they aren't left. They're gone, don't exist. The alliances I listed up there only 2 I'd really consider small alliances, and certainly they aren't like the small alliances of round 4.

Are there any more that I missed?

Err EnTitY was always larger than ND until last round. Who are you calling "small" ?

[Faberius]

Originally posted by Zahadum
Err EnTitY was always larger than ND until last round. Who are you calling "small" ?

Clearly not you

[Obfuscator]

Originally posted by Faberius
Pontificate is a cool word, although I don't know if it really applies in this sense. Unless you see us as more of a religious body, which would be weird and neat.

However if that was so, you have to know that you're first in line to be our St. Paul

I meant pontificate in the sense of "to speak or behave in a pompous or dogmatic manner." I may have supported the idea of a senate in the past....to be honest, I really don't remember. If I did, I'm sorry I did. Senate ideas are interesting on paper, but ultimately, the only thing I think the Senate will end up agreeing on is that anything which endangers their position in the game is bad. The one thing Planetarion needs is radical change, and I simply have no confidence that an alliance-senate will support anything other than policies that tend toward the status quo. I'd rather let Spinner test all his wacky ideas in actual rounds, and let the chips fall as they may.

[Aryn]

i see debating about this is pointless.
but i will stop with this one point.

while you all claim that pa will die if the major alliances leave.. don't you think pa would also be majorly impacted if all the smaller/unallied players leave?

in theory i'd love to see that.. because then all the alliances would be forced to war with each other instead of picking on the neutrals.

if the 'insignificant' as you put it players all left, the universe would shrink. so.. these players may not be important in your eyes.. but i bet if they all left you'd be whining about the shrunken universe.


i'm not trying to force you guys into anything. all i want is for you to understand. i've been in a small alliance. i know exactly what it's like. most of you never have and never will because you're more comfortable with more friends and allies to defend you, etc.

[Cochese]

Having started my PA career by creating a small, "newbie" alliance...and being strongly anti-big alliances up until about r6, I can understand both viewpoints--which gives me a fairly unique perspective.

However, if you look at last round, for example, who got bashed into dust? Alliances, specifically VVOMM etc. I don't doubt that the smaller alliances had their share of troubles, likewise with un-allied and casual players.

The universe is effectively shrunken to being a large portion of alliance players. I'd be fine with having it that way, provided the game was designed to cater to such a universe. Make the rounds shorter, to suit the smaller universe, and get the "game" going faster (more roids/resources/etc to begin with) so the action begins immediately.

You can't just throw ideas together, call it a game, and let it run for 3 months. You'll end up with Planetarion. Games like this need proactive administration and adjustment.

[Aryn]

games also need 'trial and error'
you can have theories about something but you'll never know for sure unless you try it.
betas don't really show if ideas will work or not. they're done in extreme conditions, and on a much smaller scale.


the problem is people just cannot deal with the concept of change.
they whine and whine about how planetarion is boring cause it's always the same. and hten when spinner comes up with ideas that will change everything.. they go 'oh wait.. we like it the way it is!!'

just as spinner doesn't know if it'll work til he tries it, we don't know if we'll like it until we've played it.
if it all goes wrong then pa will prolly go back to the way it was.. if it works out great.. then hurray!

[Cochese]

The thing is, it shouldn't have taken 6.5 rounds for change to come around. Let's face it, we knew what to expect after round 3, and what the problems/issues were--for the most part. What did we do? We danced around them, with excuses like "lack of time/resources/etc" while adding half-assed cosmetic changes that were meant to hold people over, but failed (aside from races, which has been the only perk in the last 6 rounds).

Precious time has been wasted, and a great deal of players have left, because of terribly thought out and executed trial-and-error.
We've waited, complained, and waited...and I think what's being done goes beyond "too little, too late" into something more like "not at all right, not at all enough, and WAY too late".

The hole has been thoroughly dug, and we're all fed up with digging. Basically, the two choices are: damage control/rebuilding, or take a big-ass chance. Planetarion is going to take a big-ass chance, and with it's track record, the outcome is blatantly obvious. One last time though, because I'm such a ****ing dunce, I'll give it the benefit of the doubt. This will be the last time though, and I have to wonder how many other people feel the same way.

Of course, we could all be dazzled and amazed, and turned into PA addicts for another 2 years if r10 is "the shiznit". I'm not holding my breath though

Personally, I hope the Senate can focus development (if it's not too late for that now) and beta testing efforts into making a playable game, and that r10 isn't a disaster which nukes what's left of the true community.

If it does die, then we can look back on a unique and interesting experience, and move forward into new endevours which hopefully fill the void PA would leave.

[K-W]

Aryn im not sure where you are coming from. You are making an argument that all change is equal. If spinner announced tommarow that PA was turning into an internationa lab rat company, your argument would still hold that we just have to give change a try.

No one is advocating no change. So your argument is basically moot there.

Also you ask if it wouldnt also hurt pa to lose unallied/small ally players, as if we have to make a choice. You know what, I think if PA loses either its fckd, so the only way it has a chance is keeping all of them. Which would include keeping the big allaince players.

You are making several undefendable assumptions in your line of argument, and im not sure i can even detect what your basic objective is here.

[K-W]

It would have been nice if spinner had used trial and error on smaller changes as the rounds have gone on, we might have a game that works now, isntead of just putting all our chips on the roulette wheel and hoping a great game just pops out.

[Razorback]

Originally posted by Aryn
i see debating about this is pointless.
but i will stop with this one point.

while you all claim that pa will die if the major alliances leave.. don't you think pa would also be majorly impacted if all the smaller/unallied players leave?

Call me silly but apart from you noone talks about major alliances leaving. So far everyone but you said "customers leave"

in theory i'd love to see that.. because then all the alliances would be forced to war with each other instead of picking on the neutrals.

How many rounds havent you played the game. maybe you should leave the boards and get into an alliance again. r9 was pretty much waring each other and not roiding neutrals.
P.S. if your refer to 9.5 please read my statement in the "wahey" thread why alliancewars this round are pretty much impossible.

if the 'insignificant' as you put it players all left, the universe would shrink. so.. these players may not be important in your eyes.. but i bet if they all left you'd be whining about the shrunken universe.

You are still laying words in any senate poster which noone said. Noone would dare to say "unimportant" or "insignificant". Still an agreeable solution would be maybe "minority" which has no negative connotation.

i'm not trying to force you guys into anything. all i want is for you to understand. i've been in a small alliance. i know exactly what it's like. most of you never have and never will because you're more comfortable with more friends and allies to defend you, etc.

You dont know **** all of pa do you ? I mean honestly what is classed a small alliance and how did everyone get recruited into the big guns ?
just my personal story:
R2 i started in an alliance with weird letters cant even remember what they meant.
R2 mid i joined TLN or atleast was "napped" to them as my galm8 was a member of it (hi klabuu/Aziz)
R2 end i joined OAL (size 13 members)
R2-R3 i got my gf to play in OT which reformed into who knows got my friends in SA and some other german alliances
R3 Start i got into Elysium, with equinox and racer (we were 20-30 ppl)
Mid R3 i got into Fury.

So infact during my time in Fury i joined a couple of other alliances or got Friends to play in smaller alliances to get them rdy and helped.
Honestly Aryn i doubt YOU know how pa works more then anyone else, so please dont claim so just because you think you know "small alliances". Btw, i had a roomm8 2 so i know first hand also "small alliances in blockwar" scenarios, but i dont wanna bore you more with personal history and make you look even more wrong on your general assumptions that everyone is born into the topalliances and is to stupid to see the wisdom you are able to see.

[wakey]

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

Simple logic.

Theres two problems with that though Cochese, those alliances invited do not account for much more than half the PA population. They do not cover the majority of the PA players hence the 'few' in your case are actually more than a few.

Also even if that was the case you have to remember its not that simple. The survival of the top alliances depends on their being someone lower on the food chain. For this reason the smaller players have to be aided otherwise your facing a tough existance.


As for AlbinoSquirrel question of why should all alliances get a voice. Simply for the reasosn stated above, we need a game where new players can join, get into a small alliance and have fun without being bashed so badly that it gets boring for them. ofc this will never be the case but bashing can be reduced and small players given a better chance but they require changes which the bigger alliances wont like. The smaller alliances need a way to get their point across and a way to stop the bigger alliances absuing the power they hold to move the game further in favour of the top players.

And AlbinoSquirrel shut up with this elitist crap that only the top players care about game design ect. A top player doesnt mean they are good at the game or that they understand the game or that they make a person to come up with design ideas, and a lower ranked player doesnt mean that they cant play the game, they dont understand it and they cant make useful design suggestions. A top player is generally a top player not because they are better at the game and understand it better but because of their contacts. Yes some of these top players are also good players who understand the game but theres many in the lower reaches of the game who that also applies to

[wakey]

Originally posted by Cochese
Your optimism is refreshing, but naive. I'd go so far to say that 50% or more of the "new" players we get for r10 leave during or after the Free-Trial round (not before registering a forum account here, just to bitch about being "owned" and how "unfair" the game is for newbies). The other 45(+/-)% will leave during r10, after complaining "the game isn't worth $10, I want a refund" etc.

5(+/-)% will succeed, find an alliance, and stay on as (potentially) loyal customers. It will probably be closer to 1-2%.

I hope they try it, but I doubt they'll like it.

It's simply not for everyone; in fact this game is suitable only to a considerable minority of gamers in general. That's fine, not everyone likes every food, I don't understand why people try so desperately to "force" this game upon new players, when it's simply "not their cup of tea". The market for a game like PA is tiny in the grand scheme of things, and that fact needs to be recognized and adapted to, not fought against in vain. Anything else is a waste of time and resources.



My galaxy is in the top 20%, and only 4-6 people have alliances. It's all relative, and those types of numbers mean nothing. One or two big planets can artificially raise the score of a galaxy full of inactive/casual players.

The reason for the tripled universe size is quite easily explained.

It's not because the game is any better than last round, or even the fact that there aren't any powerblocks, or the fact the round (so far) it hasn't been politically fueled for the first time since...It's only because: The game is free It doesn't cost them anything, and that's the ONLY reason why the universe size tripled. Do you honestly believe these people (who left after r4) will return for r10 (when they have to pay again?). I don't.

It's like going out to eat with a bunch of deadbeats...they scramble off when the check comes, leaving you to foot the bill.

Some others have already said it, but I'll reiterate: losing loyal customers for the possibility (there is NO guarantee the new ones will be loyal) to gain new ones, is the worst possible thing a business can do. That's Business Management 101, day 2 material for crying out loud.

Yes your probally right with those figures BUT surely thats something that needs addressing. After all more players is somethings thats good for EVERYONE and the sooner the bigger alliances start to realise this and start to take steps to help make PA more accessable to new and small players the better the game will be. Which again is a reason the smaller alliances have to be included. If the two sides can get together discusse the changes and come up with a situation that they are both happy with, it can then be presented to spinner as something that would help the whole of PA to thrieve and not just to aid a certain group

Originally posted by Faberius
1. No Senate has ever promised no power blocks. Want the log of both Senate meetings? I have em.

2. If unaligned people want to be in the Senate, they can make their own.

3. If we were to start including anything with a name (even if they don't have a public channel, reasonable way of contacting them) we might as well include battlegroups, which have larger amounts of members, a dedicated structure but no public means of contacting them. However we do not wish to include powerblocks and for the effort to include representatives of alliances of 20 members or less (by the way, which haven't posted on this thread, why would advertising help) its not really worth my time which is otherwise spent as leader of an alliance.
They can come to us.

4. It is worth mentioning that an original prerequisite for membership in the Senate was that all member alliances must register at least 50 members on AH. That was imposed by Zeus.

I totally agree with you cant really include every unaligned player, however that doesnt mean unaligned players cant have some people on the senete to stand up for their viewpoint, someone like Aryn would be ideal for example

As for battlegroups perhaps they should also be included, although this would make balancing things tricky, as some alliances could then get double the amount of reps of everyone else by having an alliance member as an BG rep which could throw the balance even further off.

As for Zeus's orginal prerequisite for membership in the Senate, anyone who was PATeam at the time will know I had mnay a heated argument over this requirement, with the same issues being raised that are being raised here.

Anyway one of the problems being raised can easierly be sorted, We DO NOT need to have a channel with 100's of differernt people talking all we need for this is a better organistaion structure. Simple splitting the senate up into smaller groups (for example large alliances, small alliances, un aligned players, battlegroups ect) and then having each of these smaller groups send an equal number of reps to senete to argue their point. Then all we need is for an agenda to be publsihed beforehand allowing each group to discuss what they want out of each aspect so the reps can then go and represent their group

Originally posted by Cochese

However, if you look at last round, for example, who got bashed into dust? Alliances, specifically VVOMM etc. I don't doubt that the smaller alliances had their share of troubles, likewise with un-allied and casual players. .

VVOMM got bashed yes but not until the smaller alliances had been raped early on for 'easy roids' before taking the risk of harder targets

[ParraCida]

Had I been HC of any alliance I'd not have attended any senate meeting.

You see, I make it a policy not to debate any issues of relevance with idiots.

[DarkAngel]

Originally posted by Gerbie
Did Madcows quit as an alliance?

Last i checked, we are still very much an alliance.



dunno if we were invited ... we probably were banned 4 spamming m00's all over or something :P

m00 :P