|
|
27 Feb 2012, 18:48
|
#1
|
Egoistic Warmonger
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 109
|
Alliance Size
R46:
"Maximum Alliance Size: 80
Alliance Members that count towards total score: 50"
*%$&!*... really? We've seen how well this works out the past few rounds. Stagnate as hell politics and 3-4 contending allies instead of having a viable top 10 of alliances if the size was just capped at 50 and all planets counted in score. I'm not even sure why anyone not in a full tag should bother making a planet anymore.
|
|
|
27 Feb 2012, 19:01
|
#2
|
ToF
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: England
Posts: 607
|
Re: Alliance Size
why is it people constantly post about reducing alliance size thinking it will make the game more competitive. less planets means that hardcore alliances will just have a bigger advantage. unlimited alliance size is soooooooooooo clearly the best option.
__________________
[19:10] <coffee-> dont worry about Reincarnate he is an angry man
R1 - 9 none | R10.5 - 13 [ToF] | R14 [Reunion] | R15-17 [Subh] | R18 - 36 PA vacation | R37 [Evo] | R38 [NFI] | R39 & 40 [ToF] | R41 [Omega] | R42 - 47 [ToF][HC]
|
|
|
27 Feb 2012, 19:26
|
#3
|
Egoistic Warmonger
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 109
|
Re: Alliance Size
So are you saying that big alliances rely soley on playerbase size rather than skill and that smaller alliances of hardcore players are a threat? In most games they would just be considered the better players... PA is like affirmative action for Facebook monkeys.
|
|
|
27 Feb 2012, 19:27
|
#4
|
Registered User
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Tallinn
Posts: 734
|
Re: Alliance Size
ill make a prediction.. there will be ppl like budious and there will be ppl like Reincarnate and the statements from both sides will be the same as in the previous 27 same threads..
and in the end.. nothing happens
__________________
VISION FTW
THIS IS ULTORES
|
|
|
27 Feb 2012, 20:47
|
#5
|
Registered User
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 46
|
Re: Alliance Size
and cause of that we should give it a try, wtf else is there? it might suck, but game sucks as it is, can't make it worse...
|
|
|
27 Feb 2012, 21:28
|
#6
|
Valle is my hero
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 2,581
|
Re: Alliance Size
i mean they did +2 pl change without asking anybody and that made attacking annoying and now they changed back to a more reasonable +6 so why the hell not try 50 limit tags with 50 counting - if nothing else it would show how many alliances have lazy members not contributing - if they werent hidden in that bottom anymore
|
|
|
28 Feb 2012, 00:49
|
#7
|
Registered User
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: United States
Posts: 143
|
Re: Alliance Size
To wit, i agree kai
|
|
|
28 Feb 2012, 04:03
|
#8
|
Always MadcowS
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 439
|
Re: Alliance Size
Anyone else there once again disappointed by the r46 announcement?
No word on any upcomming updates.
No word on any plan.
No word on any participation of any Jagex employee.
Instead we get same buddy pack size, same alliance size, same late signup slots and another set of ship stats which is the only change to r46.
Really.. Thumbs down Jagex. zPeti was better than you.
__________________
[Flash][Madcows][Howling Rain][Vision][Osiris][horde][xVx]
And...
Relation Change Ascendancy and the Horde are now at war with each other.
|
|
|
28 Feb 2012, 12:19
|
#9
|
Fightin-irish for life
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: guinness brewery
Posts: 2,177
|
Re: Alliance Size
honestly cant see how reducing the tag size is going to make any difference as Allys will just split their members between 2 tags so unless they stop napped tags defending each other it would be pointless ,at this stage the game dead and we are just too stubborn to admit it so slap a do not resuscitate sign on it and let it die
__________________
Ascendancy, now with added Irish
"In the absence of orders, find something and kill it."
-Rommel
|
|
|
28 Feb 2012, 15:01
|
#10
|
Registered User
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Tallinn
Posts: 734
|
Re: Alliance Size
Quote:
Originally Posted by gzambo
honestly cant see how reducing the tag size is going to make any difference as Allys will just split their members between 2 tags so unless they stop napped tags defending each other it would be pointless ,at this stage the game dead and we are just too stubborn to admit it so slap a do not resuscitate sign on it and let it die
|
this is really already more of a sport for me.. do they get it, or not..
neways.. I dont know how others that approve this think, but my idea is the following:
1) making 40 man tags = smaller and more important def/att pool in the tag.. atm u have up to 80 planets, which kinda makes it impossible for a 40 man tag to compete for top spots.. it is theoreticly possible i suppose, but there aint that many hardcore players left nemore that wanna do this.. hence point 1 - make different tags more competitive, at least in theory (this also means that yes, napped tags can not def each other; there could be other multiple ways to encourage alliances between tags).. its about making the tag size appropriate for the state of this game
2) let them do 2 tags, let them run 2 tags, let them do whatever they want concerning the number of tags one group of players could have.. they wont be able to def each other tho, unless they combine the gals with their 5 man bps.. i want to remind u that this is something to make it possible for small, but serious tags to go for a win.. make things more diverse..
atm u got 1-2, sometimes briefly even 3 alliances, who got whats needed to go for top ranks.. top 1 alliance naps one of the shittier ones and the rest try to do whts possible to take that big #1 down with a gangbang.. usually those 2 "blocks" consist of same allies as well, which makes it even more dull..
now try to think with me.. if there was apprime, dlr, ultores, ct, nd, fang, xvx, tgv, tof, kenny all able to go for #1, without poaching each other`s members preround to fill a tag.. dont u think the overall politics wouldnt be more diverse? dont u think that the sides wouldnt be so clear anymore? dont u think u might get more fun from this?
i didnt even include the new possible alliances that might form from the reduction of the tags and ppl that will not be able to just idle around nemore in some tag..
3) the officer problem.. new alliances need officers, hc`s and so on to be able to work.. yes, all the alliances need some ppl to turn the wheels and that cant prolly be avoided.. however, im pretty sure that there are ppl that are willing to do this.. there are lots of ppl atm that have been HCing and alliance or 2 in the past and just idling around in some other place right now..
this can be due to a) they cba with this shit in a dieing game nemore OR b) its mighty hard to do something to compete for even top 5 places in planetarion these days, unless u get a full tag.. where do u get a full tag tho if the playerbase is so little?
this leads me to a thought, that there will be ppl running new things.. they might occasionally not be as good as the ppl are in the top alliances today, but its something that changes with time, they learn, whatever..
------------
the thing that bothers me the most atm, is that everything is standing in 1 place atm.. and if we talk about tag sizes, then it hurts that other ppl dont get it that pa cant support that big tags nemore..
this leads to another question as well.. do we need the tags ingame at all? maybe its more reasonable to go for no alliance gameplay instead.. in the end tho i think that alliances ingame should stay, but gettin the galranks and importance bigger than it is atm, should also be encouraged.. which in the end, again gives more diversity to the gameplay overall..
__________________
VISION FTW
THIS IS ULTORES
|
|
|
1 Mar 2012, 12:48
|
#11
|
Mind-boggling
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Devon, England
Posts: 1,468
|
Re: Alliance Size
30 man tags, 10-15 allys competing for #1
dynamic politics
__________________
You have enemies? Good. That means you've stood up for something, sometime in your life. (Winston Churchill)
R21-Randy Dandys Winners R21
1:9:5 -SoClose- -YetSoFar-
You have pending friend requests from Newt.
|
|
|
1 Mar 2012, 13:11
|
#12
|
p1mp
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Bristol
Posts: 178
|
Re: Alliance Size
I like the idea of 50 or so tag size with all planets counting to score however I'm inclined to agree with gzambo those alliances with a member base of 80~ now can just split in two and support each other.
__________________
ReBorn-Fury- Wolfpack-1up- Newdawn-DLR- NFI-Apprime-
*CEO of the Forest fan club
|
|
|
1 Mar 2012, 14:46
|
#13
|
Registered User
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Tallinn
Posts: 734
|
Re: Alliance Size
but wheres the problem?
This idea would prolly mean that there couldnt be joint defence missions allowed between allied tags, however there can be multiple other ways to still encourage the napping ingame (open markets for ships/ressies/technology)..
that would mean that different alliances can not def each other OOT, tho still could benefit from naps ingame from different things..
another point is if they wanna attack together.. so let em.. wheres the problem? its nothing new that multiple tags join forces nowdays as well..
dont be afraid of things that might be scary cos they are new..
CBA trolling post was a bit too much tho.. id predict there could be around 10 competitive tags from this change, not 30 or whatever he suggested..
everyone always look over this fact as well - if 1 alliance creats multiple tags, like ult1 and ult2.. then those ult1 and ult2 can attack together if they want, but they are still difference tags ingame.. and due to being different tags, i would bet that theres a good chance that those 2 tags also start to compete vs each other from one point.. this might not happen in 1 or 2 rounds.. but im pretty sure that things change plenty enough to make such a possibility to come true after 4 rounds..
dont be afraid!!
__________________
VISION FTW
THIS IS ULTORES
|
|
|
1 Mar 2012, 14:47
|
#14
|
Registered User
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Tallinn
Posts: 734
|
Re: Alliance Size
and for the reference.. i personally think that 50 man tags are even too big.. maybe 40 man tags make more sense even..
__________________
VISION FTW
THIS IS ULTORES
|
|
|
1 Mar 2012, 15:48
|
#15
|
Egoistic Warmonger
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 109
|
Re: Alliance Size
Quote:
Originally Posted by snoops^
I like the idea of 50 or so tag size with all planets counting to score however I'm inclined to agree with gzambo those alliances with a member base of 80~ now can just split in two and support each other.
|
But it's not that much of a problem. It's no different then it is now with blocks forming each round. The benefit is now each side is lumped into consistent player sized scoring blocks and compete more directly with each other on the leader boards. Even ally's A/B block might engage in friendly who can roid the most contests and swap rankings regularly. And who can predict how long these former alliances once split will be able to maintain a persistent state of allegiance to each other? 1 round, maybe 2... politics will be more dynamic and scoring blocks leveled.
|
|
|
1 Mar 2012, 16:31
|
#16
|
Registered User
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Tallinn
Posts: 734
|
Re: Alliance Size
I HAVE FOUND SOMEONE THAT SHARES MY VIEWS..
/me high-fives budious
__________________
VISION FTW
THIS IS ULTORES
|
|
|
2 Mar 2012, 01:21
|
#17
|
Propaganda Chief
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Under the Rainbow
Posts: 4,740
|
Re: Alliance Size
Remove the cap, let alliances recruit to over 500 members, that would be interesting.
__________________
RainbowS
RB Ely MISTU Angel Fusi0n 1up ToF VisioN CT FAnG ROCK
|
|
|
2 Mar 2012, 12:03
|
#18
|
p1mp
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Bristol
Posts: 178
|
Re: Alliance Size
As i said i am very much in favor of reducing tag size to 50. more battle groups, more dynamic politics. The math to me is simple, the player base is much (much) smaller therefore alliance sizes should be cut in order to encourage the spread of "talent" and maybe a slight change in the way the game is played by us.
also would it kill someone to come up with a new skin or two???
__________________
ReBorn-Fury- Wolfpack-1up- Newdawn-DLR- NFI-Apprime-
*CEO of the Forest fan club
|
|
|
2 Mar 2012, 15:35
|
#19
|
Propaganda Chief
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Under the Rainbow
Posts: 4,740
|
Re: Alliance Size
Quote:
Originally Posted by snoops^
As i said i am very much in favor of reducing tag size to 50. more battle groups, more dynamic politics. The math to me is simple, the player base is much (much) smaller therefore alliance sizes should be cut in order to encourage the spread of "talent" and maybe a slight change in the way the game is played by us.
also would it kill someone to come up with a new skin or two???
|
Smaller tags would mean the opposite to "spread the talent".
I say remove the cap, let alliance recruit well passed 150 members, that would give smaller/less 1337 alliances a fighting chance.
Limit it to 200 members per allie
__________________
RainbowS
RB Ely MISTU Angel Fusi0n 1up ToF VisioN CT FAnG ROCK
|
|
|
2 Mar 2012, 16:09
|
#20
|
Registered User
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Ireland
Posts: 1,143
|
Re: Alliance Size
DLR failed horribly the one round they went with a proper big tag, no wonder they want the limit reduced
|
|
|
2 Mar 2012, 16:12
|
#21
|
Registered User
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Tallinn
Posts: 734
|
Re: Alliance Size
u dont get it butcher, do u?
__________________
VISION FTW
THIS IS ULTORES
|
|
|
2 Mar 2012, 17:00
|
#22
|
Propaganda Chief
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Under the Rainbow
Posts: 4,740
|
Re: Alliance Size
Quote:
Originally Posted by neroon
u dont get it butcher, do u?
|
I get it, but i dont get it!
Limiting tags will just limit the good players to few alliances, leaving all the "dead weight" to find themself new alliances/quiting.
No limits! FTW
__________________
RainbowS
RB Ely MISTU Angel Fusi0n 1up ToF VisioN CT FAnG ROCK
|
|
|
2 Mar 2012, 17:07
|
#23
|
Mind-boggling
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Devon, England
Posts: 1,468
|
Re: Alliance Size
Quote:
Originally Posted by neroon
but wheres the problem?
This idea would prolly mean that there couldnt be joint defence missions allowed between allied tags, however there can be multiple other ways to still encourage the napping ingame (open markets for ships/ressies/technology)..
that would mean that different alliances can not def each other OOT, tho still could benefit from naps ingame from different things..
another point is if they wanna attack together.. so let em.. wheres the problem? its nothing new that multiple tags join forces nowdays as well..
dont be afraid of things that might be scary cos they are new..
CBA trolling post was a bit too much tho.. id predict there could be around 10 competitive tags from this change, not 30 or whatever he suggested..
everyone always look over this fact as well - if 1 alliance creats multiple tags, like ult1 and ult2.. then those ult1 and ult2 can attack together if they want, but they are still difference tags ingame.. and due to being different tags, i would bet that theres a good chance that those 2 tags also start to compete vs each other from one point.. this might not happen in 1 or 2 rounds.. but im pretty sure that things change plenty enough to make such a possibility to come true after 4 rounds..
dont be afraid!!
|
Moron, read my post.
__________________
You have enemies? Good. That means you've stood up for something, sometime in your life. (Winston Churchill)
R21-Randy Dandys Winners R21
1:9:5 -SoClose- -YetSoFar-
You have pending friend requests from Newt.
|
|
|
2 Mar 2012, 18:05
|
#24
|
Egoistic Warmonger
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 109
|
Re: Alliance Size
Quote:
Originally Posted by eksero
DLR failed horribly the one round they went with a proper big tag, no wonder they want the limit reduced
|
I wouldn't call a mid-round merge a "proper big tag." It had nothing to do with size and everything to do with two player bases of opposing gameplay philosophies and fleet class makeups not meshing well.
What does it hurt to drop your dead weight if everyone else does as well and keep only your 50 most talented and active players? Surely you will still be the dominant tag regardless of the change if player skill really does factor into the equation, but if I'm wrong then it only means extra idlers that can be sms'd to send defense are the only factor in the equation.
|
|
|
2 Mar 2012, 18:06
|
#25
|
Fightin-irish for life
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: guinness brewery
Posts: 2,177
|
Re: Alliance Size
I read it , do you honestly think there can really be dynamic politics in the game with the current players mindset ?
__________________
Ascendancy, now with added Irish
"In the absence of orders, find something and kill it."
-Rommel
|
|
|
2 Mar 2012, 18:44
|
#26
|
Registered User
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Ireland
Posts: 1,143
|
Re: Alliance Size
Quote:
Originally Posted by budious;
I wouldn't call a mid-round merge a "proper big tag." It had nothing to do with size and everything to do with two player bases of opposing gameplay philosophies and fleet class makeups not meshing well.
What does it hurt to drop your dead weight if everyone else does as well and keep only your 50 most talented and active players? Surely you will still be the dominant tag regardless of the change if player skill really does factor into the equation, but if I'm wrong then it only means extra idlers that can be sms'd to send defense are the only factor in the equation.
|
50 of mine would beat 50 of yours, but what's the point?
People who like to play together will find a way to do so even if they can't be in the same tag
|
|
|
2 Mar 2012, 18:50
|
#27
|
Egoistic Warmonger
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 109
|
Re: Alliance Size
... and if you would read the thread me and neroon have already addressed "they will play together no matter what" scenario numerous times.
|
|
|
2 Mar 2012, 19:22
|
#28
|
General (Adjective Army)
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Yorkshire, England.
Posts: 825
|
Re: Alliance Size
If you refuse to consider my (oft repeated) argument that there aren't enough people capable and willing to run a larger number of (smaller) alliances then let us approach this from the other direction. Please tell me what you believe to be the absolute minimum number of members necessary to maintain an alliance capable of attacking effectively and of defending its members 24/7.
(Let's see where this goes).
__________________
Amnion (aka The Arcane Chas of Arcania) - Playing PA under those and other pseudonyms every genuine round since Round 2. Most recently (and insignificantly):
Onset of Apathy R94 | Stacks of Resources R95 | The Necromancer of Dol Guldur R96
70 Years of Queen Elizabeth R97 | Worst of The Worst R98
Knights of the Green Shield R99 | Look Out of The Window R100 | Most of All R102
Hard of Hearing (2:7:1) R103 | The Lateness of Your Application (1:6:6) R104 | Kinnison of Tellus (5:1:2) R105
Last edited by ArcChas; 2 Mar 2012 at 19:29.
|
|
|
2 Mar 2012, 19:29
|
#29
|
Registered User
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 846
|
Re: Alliance Size
So what you all are saying is that you'd rather have 1 alliance playing in a round where no one could attack each other. There would be no compition for anything with limitless. Unless that one ally had no brain at all they would win every round purely on # of fleets.
Drop the ally tag to 50 and have only the 40 count for ally score. I'm sorry but 80 man tags are ruining the game. I have yet to see an alliance effectively use 80 people to win a round. Ultores only uses ~~ 45-55 people. The other 25-35 are just being dragged along.
If you were to split Ultores up into 2 allys you honestly think that the people not part of ult core would want to work with ult? I know I wouldn't. I'd want to do everything i could to make sure that ult failed. So someone would create a new ally or join one of the new 4-6 alliances that would be created and atleast for 1 round there would be a slight jumble of politics as there would be 5-7 alliances competing for top 1(atleast for 600 ticks, then ult would just win anyway). But after that the round would get boring because someone would make a stupid choice to ally with ult and call gg's.
So Drop ally tags to 50, make 1/2 a round fun.
__________________
R50-55 Faceless
|
|
|
2 Mar 2012, 19:51
|
#30
|
Registered User
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 46
|
Re: Alliance Size
give it a chance atleast, that is one thing that can be changed easy, and we're bored with same stuff every round...
|
|
|
2 Mar 2012, 19:56
|
#31
|
mz.
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 8,587
|
Re: Alliance Size
The argument that alliances will always recruit to the maximum allowed number is incorrect. Here is the proof: every single one of the rounds of Planetarion prior to PAX.
__________________
The outraged poets threw sticks and rocks over the side of the bridge. They were all missing Mary and he felt a contented smug feeling wash over him. He would have given them a coy little wave if the roof hadn't collapsed just then. Mary then found himself in the middle of an understandably shocked family's kitchen table. So he gave them the coy little wave and realized it probably would have been more effective if he hadn't been lying on their turkey.
|
|
|
2 Mar 2012, 19:57
|
#32
|
Registered User
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Ireland
Posts: 1,143
|
Re: Alliance Size
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tiamat101;
So what you all are saying is that you'd rather have 1 alliance playing in a round where no one could attack each other. There would be no compition for anything with limitless. Unless that one ally had no brain at all they would win every round purely on # of fleets.
Drop the ally tag to 50 and have only the 40 count for ally score. I'm sorry but 80 man tags are ruining the game. I have yet to see an alliance effectively use 80 people to win a round. Ultores only uses ~~ 45-55 people. The other 25-35 are just being dragged along.
If you were to split Ultores up into 2 allys you honestly think that the people not part of ult core would want to work with ult? I know I wouldn't. I'd want to do everything i could to make sure that ult failed. So someone would create a new ally or join one of the new 4-6 alliances that would be created and atleast for 1 round there would be a slight jumble of politics as there would be 5-7 alliances competing for top 1(atleast for 600 ticks, then ult would just win anyway). But after that the round would get boring because someone would make a stupid choice to ally with ult and call gg's.
So Drop ally tags to 50, make 1/2 a round fun.
|
But then again, you played what? 1 round in ult?
Most people there have played together for multiple rounds, in multiple alliances. People who know themselves they wouldn't be amongst the top 50 active planets would never have a problem not being in the top tag.
|
|
|
2 Mar 2012, 22:29
|
#33
|
Ark-miner wannabe
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Aug 2007
Posts: 1,005
|
Re: Alliance Size
tbh with 30-40 people in a tag you wouldnt need a "full staff" to run it..
|
|
|
2 Mar 2012, 23:45
|
#34
|
General (Adjective Army)
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Yorkshire, England.
Posts: 825
|
Re: Alliance Size
So, out of 30 people, how many would be online at 04:00 GMT? Remember that these 30 will be the "rejects" from the existing tags.
(We'll come onto how existing alliances would fare with only 30 members later).
Let's also take a look at how many new alliances would be needed. The top 10 alliances at the end of this round had 584 members between them. So at 30 per tag that would mean we'd need an additional 10 alliances (assuming that most of the "rejects" didn't just quit).
So, even working on the basis of a "minimal staff", could the 30 to 50 people who would be prepared to form and run these alliances please form an orderly queue.
BTW - I'm not suggesting that 3 to 5 people could actually run an alliance (especially a new one). Most of us just don't have that level of commitment these days.
__________________
Amnion (aka The Arcane Chas of Arcania) - Playing PA under those and other pseudonyms every genuine round since Round 2. Most recently (and insignificantly):
Onset of Apathy R94 | Stacks of Resources R95 | The Necromancer of Dol Guldur R96
70 Years of Queen Elizabeth R97 | Worst of The Worst R98
Knights of the Green Shield R99 | Look Out of The Window R100 | Most of All R102
Hard of Hearing (2:7:1) R103 | The Lateness of Your Application (1:6:6) R104 | Kinnison of Tellus (5:1:2) R105
Last edited by ArcChas; 2 Mar 2012 at 23:53.
|
|
|
3 Mar 2012, 00:27
|
#35
|
Egoistic Warmonger
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 109
|
Re: Alliance Size
As I see it:
Group A: Satisfied with the current alliance size, politics, game structure. Are going to play next round whether an alliance change is implemented or not.
Group B: Disgruntled with the current alliance size, politics, game structure. Are NOT going to play next round IF an alliance change is not implemented.
So if you want less planets next round just stick with things as usual and I will urge as many people as I can to walk away with me and let this game die its inevitable death.
|
|
|
3 Mar 2012, 01:17
|
#36
|
mz.
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 8,587
|
Re: Alliance Size
And what makes you think group A would play a round with smaller tags, but group B wouldn't play with bigger tags?
Seems to me like you're just making things up in order to support your factually flimsy case.
__________________
The outraged poets threw sticks and rocks over the side of the bridge. They were all missing Mary and he felt a contented smug feeling wash over him. He would have given them a coy little wave if the roof hadn't collapsed just then. Mary then found himself in the middle of an understandably shocked family's kitchen table. So he gave them the coy little wave and realized it probably would have been more effective if he hadn't been lying on their turkey.
|
|
|
3 Mar 2012, 01:26
|
#37
|
Propaganda Chief
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Under the Rainbow
Posts: 4,740
|
Re: Alliance Size
Quote:
Originally Posted by budious
As I see it:
Group A: Satisfied with the current alliance size, politics, game structure. Are going to play next round whether an alliance change is implemented or not.
Group B: Disgruntled with the current alliance size, politics, game structure. Are NOT going to play next round IF an alliance change is not implemented.
So if you want less planets next round just stick with things as usual and I will urge as many people as I can to walk away with me and let this game die its inevitable death.
|
Who would not play if the tags were unlimited? :s
__________________
RainbowS
RB Ely MISTU Angel Fusi0n 1up ToF VisioN CT FAnG ROCK
|
|
|
3 Mar 2012, 04:18
|
#38
|
Registered User
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 846
|
Re: Alliance Size
Then make the tags unlimits just change then one way or ther other right now there is too much stagnation. Or better yet make it so every member counts for score. give alliances reasons to max out.
__________________
R50-55 Faceless
|
|
|
3 Mar 2012, 09:15
|
#39
|
Valle is my hero
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 2,581
|
Re: Alliance Size
Both sides in this argument have valid points i think.
But for the most part it has to be about preserving the memberbase and not dividing it and making radical changes that make a lot of people quit.
+2 PL although it was enjoyed by a reasonable sized group of players was equally despised by another group of probably a slightly bigger size. If it has stayed then the next round would have seen a sharp dorp off in sign ups. Thankfully it hasnt and now both groups can actually play the game, rather than just 1
Alliance sizes are of the same breed - some want unlimited tags, some want smaller tags... eventually one will happen and it will divide the memberbase again and then a round later a middle ground will be found and both sets will carry on playing. A middle ground i guess for alliance sizes would be 80 members with 80 counting. That way your still having these larger alliances but everyone is contributing so there is a push to still have more active planets and no shitty small ones drifting along for the sake of it. Plus you couldnt hide war/out of war crashes aswell - things like that would make a difference to a round more
|
|
|
3 Mar 2012, 10:06
|
#40
|
Registered User
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Tallinn
Posts: 734
|
Re: Alliance Size
pointless to argue.. ppl stick to their opinions no matter what and alot of em refuse to try to see the bigger picture..
go ahead, do the same routine shit like it has been every round and see where it takes u..
i can already say, that the answer will be nowhere. Next round will be won by either Ult or Fang and theres nothing new or interesting.
good luck
__________________
VISION FTW
THIS IS ULTORES
|
|
|
3 Mar 2012, 18:39
|
#41
|
I've been around
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Canada
Posts: 385
|
Re: Alliance Size
unlimited would kill pa within the first round. An alliance like ultores will take off and start winning. Instead of a huge block with ct/nd/fang/xvx etc etc 2 of them will just "merge" for a round. Which in the end would probably kill both alliances. Ruining everything you worked for.
Having man 50 tags with 50 counting. (Cause really if they are in your tag they should count to score) This would force the rest of top 10 alliances more players. Yes they would still block. It's hc's that block and ruin the round with politics not the tag limit.
Smaller tag only means more players in other alliances. ultores/fang/xvx had 70 members (give or take) last round. The 6th place alliance had 40. Explain how that's a good thing.
ultores + 20
fang + 20
xvx + 25
ct + 30
nd + 20
that's already 2 tag and 15 members towards another. with the alliances now that give top 10 new meaning
__________________
-=Faceless=-
-=Forever VisioN=-
|
|
|
3 Mar 2012, 20:24
|
#42
|
Propaganda Chief
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Under the Rainbow
Posts: 4,740
|
Re: Alliance Size
Quote:
Originally Posted by SantaCruz
unlimited would kill pa within the first round. An alliance like ultores will take off and start winning. Instead of a huge block with ct/nd/fang/xvx etc etc 2 of them will just "merge" for a round. Which in the end would probably kill both alliances. Ruining everything you worked for.
Having man 50 tags with 50 counting. (Cause really if they are in your tag they should count to score) This would force the rest of top 10 alliances more players. Yes they would still block. It's hc's that block and ruin the round with politics not the tag limit.
Smaller tag only means more players in other alliances. ultores/fang/xvx had 70 members (give or take) last round. The 6th place alliance had 40. Explain how that's a good thing.
ultores + 20
fang + 20
xvx + 25
ct + 30
nd + 20
that's already 2 tag and 15 members towards another. with the alliances now that give top 10 new meaning
|
Then remove to merge option, and reshape the way alliance score is counted.
Fairly easy way to move around the chicken tactic of merging.
Im sure most allies wouldnt merge into a bigger one to gain some symbolic ranking
__________________
RainbowS
RB Ely MISTU Angel Fusi0n 1up ToF VisioN CT FAnG ROCK
|
|
|
4 Mar 2012, 07:15
|
#43
|
Registered User
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 846
|
Re: Alliance Size
Why do you want an 80-100+ man alliance BloodyButcher? What is the purpose to a Huge tag. So that the command staff can make dictator like decisions for all of them. All it does is make the game stagnate, this past round was a perfect example. Ult is clearly the best alliance out there because of a superior player-base that is active and works well together and under pressure. So either find a way to make that less of a factor or just admit they win every round and don't play.
If you drop the tag size first off ult and the other top 5 alliances have to drop 20-30 people. They will either quit, or join one of the new alliances that gets formed, and lets be real there are plenty of people that have tried pre-round but never were able to get the players to back it up. Once that happens there will be 5-8 alliances all with the same player base meaning that the round will start of more "fair" i use that word lightly because Ult already has the advantage of being better than everyone else, but they are not the problem. The problem that was now solved is that #'s are even and everyone can start level. Now I know and as does everyone else, that wont stay that way for more than 100-200 ticks. The alliances with good strats or good BC's will start to edge ahead on the roid count/value.
But as many people have said let the game die. Make tags 200. Wait till EVERYONE is in the same alliance and there is no one left to attack. 80 people is just too much of the remaining active player base. That is roughly 1/10 of the planets in this past round. In one alliance which doesnt allow any room for other alliances. So we have 4 Full tags and 6-15 shitty tags that dont have anything to actually play for anymore except they don't want to accept leaving PA.
__________________
R50-55 Faceless
|
|
|
4 Mar 2012, 11:40
|
#44
|
Propaganda Chief
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Under the Rainbow
Posts: 4,740
|
Re: Alliance Size
Why would u want smaller and more dedicated groups?
What good is that for new players?
Even though a alliance has 200 planets, that dosnt mean it will be able to hold it together, defend all 200 planets, etc etc.
It will work.
No way FAnG/Ultores/CT/xVx will recruit anyone they dont want into their alliance, so i doubt any alliance would go above 100+ members anyway.
__________________
RainbowS
RB Ely MISTU Angel Fusi0n 1up ToF VisioN CT FAnG ROCK
|
|
|
4 Mar 2012, 13:17
|
#45
|
Registered User
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Tallinn
Posts: 734
|
Re: Alliance Size
go away from forums butcher
__________________
VISION FTW
THIS IS ULTORES
|
|
|
4 Mar 2012, 14:02
|
#46
|
Valle is my hero
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 2,581
|
Re: Alliance Size
Quote:
Originally Posted by BloodyButcher
Why would u want smaller and more dedicated groups?
What good is that for new players?
Even though a alliance has 200 planets, that dosnt mean it will be able to hold it together, defend all 200 planets, etc etc.
It will work.
No way FAnG/Ultores/CT/xVx will recruit anyone they dont want into their alliance, so i doubt any alliance would go above 100+ members anyway.
|
So your presuming that these alliances will stop at 100?? If Ultores is so much better why wouldnt the rest try and recruit to twice Ultores size (100 by your estimate) and get 200 members... surely an alliance twice the size of Ultores would swamp them and beat them easily.... but then would Ultores recruit up to try and counter this?
All you end up with block wars without the blocks - 200 vs 200 with only 2 winners rather than the 3 or 4 we currently have...
The current set up isnt good but its better than removing the limits in pa's current guise. Infinite tag sizes is for a larger playerbase where it doesnt give 1 alliance the monopoly not for 800 players with 2 alliances holding over half the players - thats just stupid.
I think as i said before that the up or downing of the limits cannot be settled on these forums as there is 2 very opposed sides. A compromise would be make everyone count to tag score atleast - this would atleast prompt activity from the lazy ppl in tags because you couldnt hide them.
|
|
|
4 Mar 2012, 14:27
|
#47
|
Registered User
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Tallinn
Posts: 734
|
Re: Alliance Size
yet it wouldnt solve anything without making tags smaller.. since nothing really changes, PA will still not be able to support so big tags
and tbh, why do u need to make a compromise? even the blind can see that this is not working:P it dosent need a compromise, it just needs pa-team to make a bold decision and nerf the tag sizes..
whats even more funny, it just needs someone to change 1 number in code or something.. and its done yet this is not done
ps: this ofc dosent mean that there arent any other ways to make PA more appealing to current and new ppl.. theres lots of things to do ofc, but this is just one of the easiest thing with a big influence
__________________
VISION FTW
THIS IS ULTORES
|
|
|
4 Mar 2012, 14:58
|
#48
|
General (Adjective Army)
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Yorkshire, England.
Posts: 825
|
Re: Alliance Size
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tiamat101
If you drop the tag size first off ult and the other top 5 alliances have to drop 20-30 people. They will either quit, or join one of the new alliances that gets formed, and lets be real there are plenty of people that have tried pre-round but never were able to get the players to back it up.
|
Perhaps some of the Ult "rejects" would go back to their former alliances (if they'd take them) thus displacing still more players - but you're right that some of the displaced players would quit. Is that what we're trying to achieve?
As for these "new alliances that get formed" I repeat my invitation for people to let us know if they'd be prepared to stand up and be counted. I think you'll find that anyone capable of helping to run an alliance is already doing so - and they won't be included in the list of players looking for new homes.
__________________
Amnion (aka The Arcane Chas of Arcania) - Playing PA under those and other pseudonyms every genuine round since Round 2. Most recently (and insignificantly):
Onset of Apathy R94 | Stacks of Resources R95 | The Necromancer of Dol Guldur R96
70 Years of Queen Elizabeth R97 | Worst of The Worst R98
Knights of the Green Shield R99 | Look Out of The Window R100 | Most of All R102
Hard of Hearing (2:7:1) R103 | The Lateness of Your Application (1:6:6) R104 | Kinnison of Tellus (5:1:2) R105
|
|
|
4 Mar 2012, 15:01
|
#49
|
I've been around
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Canada
Posts: 385
|
Re: Alliance Size
Quote:
Originally Posted by BloodyButcher
Why would u want smaller and more dedicated groups?
What good is that for new players?
Even though a alliance has 200 planets, that dosnt mean it will be able to hold it together, defend all 200 planets, etc etc.
|
Your under thinking it...
New players are better off player with smaller tags because... No top alliance no matter it's size is going to take them anyways.
When top 15 is full 50 man tags. Politics actually COME BACK. Not w/e you guys call this shit now. It's not pa. It's just 1 alliance vs the rest. who can steal the support of the other 3 top 5 alliances.*Stupid.*
And your idea will make it end up 1 vs 1. With two, 200 man alliances left in pa.
We could call them left and right. Or ultores (5 rounds from now with all the good pa players) vs Inactives,n00bs and everyone they didn't allow to join...
Every round good players join ultores. They are tried of not winning a round. Fighting vs a grounded alliance and not winning.
This isn't going to change unless tags are lowered. It's just that simple. you can't control water flow in a lake. but, you can in a stream
__________________
-=Faceless=-
-=Forever VisioN=-
Last edited by SantaCruz; 4 Mar 2012 at 15:08.
|
|
|
4 Mar 2012, 15:08
|
#50
|
I've been around
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Canada
Posts: 385
|
Re: Alliance Size
btw i'm not saying ultores is the problem. Why should they turn down good actives, they got the tag room... fill it!
it's tag size being to big ;-D
__________________
-=Faceless=-
-=Forever VisioN=-
|
|
|
|
All times are GMT +1. The time now is 13:27.
| |