User Name
Password

Go Back   Planetarion Forums > Planetarion Related Forums > Planetarion Suggestions

Reply
Thread Tools Display Modes
Unread 4 Apr 2008, 13:36   #1
Gate
;D!
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 1,810
Gate is an inspiration to us all and we should try to be more like himGate is an inspiration to us all and we should try to be more like himGate is an inspiration to us all and we should try to be more like himGate is an inspiration to us all and we should try to be more like himGate is an inspiration to us all and we should try to be more like himGate is an inspiration to us all and we should try to be more like himGate is an inspiration to us all and we should try to be more like himGate is an inspiration to us all and we should try to be more like himGate is an inspiration to us all and we should try to be more like himGate is an inspiration to us all and we should try to be more like himGate is an inspiration to us all and we should try to be more like him
Removing ally memberlimits whilst allowing allies to compete

A spin off of an old thread by jester.

Summary of jester's argument; ally limits encourage the biggest/best alliances to be risk-averse in member selection, a bad thing.


I think PAteam have stumbled onto a viable solution: have a number (30-50) of players contribute to the tag score, but remove the tag limit.

I suggest alliances should be coded into two sections which for 'counted score' purposes would be separate. Eg If a member goes into non-scoring and then into scoring, they carry no score over.

Advantages
- 'elite' smaller allies have a (slim) shot at #1
- 'elite' players should still distribute themselves amongst alliances, as they want to be in the 'scoring' part of the tag
- incentive to war as fleetloss amongst non-scoring members is less important than providing fat targets to the scoring planets and destroying your enemy's scoring planets.
- retains the advantage from a crushing victory; atm if you destroy a planet in a 75 member tag, a new one leaps into their score slot and reduces the score damage you've done.

Disadvantages
- A mass migration to larger alliances could demolish the smaller ones.
- Established alliances may have an unfair advantage. However, this isn't supported by evidence; in r25 ND had 14 support planets which suggests that the largest membergain will be from mass recruitment, which allies have an equal shot at.
__________________
[ND]
Kicked from Ascendancy
Proud to have been a Dark Lord Rising.

Last edited by Gate; 4 Apr 2008 at 13:56.
Gate is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 4 Apr 2008, 18:31   #2
Mzyxptlk
mz.
Alien Invasion Champion, Submarine Champion, Tiger Punch Champion, Barts Watersports Adventure Champion
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 8,587
Mzyxptlk has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.Mzyxptlk has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.Mzyxptlk has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.Mzyxptlk has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.Mzyxptlk has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.Mzyxptlk has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.Mzyxptlk has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.Mzyxptlk has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.Mzyxptlk has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.Mzyxptlk has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.Mzyxptlk has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.
Re: Removing ally memberlimits whilst allowing allies to compete

Ok.
__________________
The outraged poets threw sticks and rocks over the side of the bridge. They were all missing Mary and he felt a contented smug feeling wash over him. He would have given them a coy little wave if the roof hadn't collapsed just then. Mary then found himself in the middle of an understandably shocked family's kitchen table. So he gave them the coy little wave and realized it probably would have been more effective if he hadn't been lying on their turkey.
Mzyxptlk is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 4 Apr 2008, 21:51   #3
paolo
Kwaak
 
paolo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Netherlands
Posts: 296
paolo is a name known to allpaolo is a name known to allpaolo is a name known to allpaolo is a name known to allpaolo is a name known to allpaolo is a name known to all
Re: Removing ally memberlimits whilst allowing allies to compete

Deal
paolo is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 4 Apr 2008, 22:13   #4
Banned
Banned
 
Banned's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: ******
Posts: 2,326
Banned contributes so much and asks for so littleBanned contributes so much and asks for so littleBanned contributes so much and asks for so littleBanned contributes so much and asks for so littleBanned contributes so much and asks for so littleBanned contributes so much and asks for so littleBanned contributes so much and asks for so littleBanned contributes so much and asks for so littleBanned contributes so much and asks for so littleBanned contributes so much and asks for so littleBanned contributes so much and asks for so little
Re: Removing ally memberlimits whilst allowing allies to compete

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gate
I think PAteam have stumbled onto a viable solution: have a number (30-50) of players contribute to the tag score, but remove the tag limit.
I think that's a pile of shit.

This system encourages recruiting people who sacrifice their own score to defend the bigger planets. In other words, this alliance system encourages shitty defense only planets. Alliances like this are going to be shitty and boring. They'll get loads of def from planets you can't touch.

Worse is this, though. Alliance tags define alliances as one thing: A collection of players whose total score is an alliance score. Thus, an alliance is the players whose score contributes. The remaining people aren't in the alliance, they're lackeys, supporters and inactives.

Let shit, inactive players be contributors to an alliance on a level playing field with good players.
Banned is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 6 Apr 2008, 16:55   #5
Gerbie2
Alive and kicking
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Kingdom of the Netherlands
Posts: 220
Gerbie2 is a name known to allGerbie2 is a name known to allGerbie2 is a name known to allGerbie2 is a name known to allGerbie2 is a name known to allGerbie2 is a name known to all
Re: Removing ally memberlimits whilst allowing allies to compete

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gate
- 'elite' players should still distribute themselves amongst alliances, as they want to be in the 'scoring' part of the tag
I think most of those 'elite' players don't care about whether their score contributes or not. They want to be in the winning tag and get a good rank for themselves. You are basically advocating the removal of alliance limits.
Gerbie2 is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 6 Apr 2008, 22:35   #6
zebra
h3ll's angels
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Chapel Hill, NC
Posts: 273
zebra is a splendid one to beholdzebra is a splendid one to beholdzebra is a splendid one to beholdzebra is a splendid one to beholdzebra is a splendid one to beholdzebra is a splendid one to beholdzebra is a splendid one to beholdzebra is a splendid one to behold
Re: Removing ally memberlimits whilst allowing allies to compete

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gerbie2
I think most of those 'elite' players don't care about whether their score contributes or not. They want to be in the winning tag and get a good rank for themselves. You are basically advocating the removal of alliance limits.
That is basically the title of this thread.
__________________
[18:04] * h3ll has quit IRC (Ping timeout)
zebra is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 6 Apr 2008, 23:04   #7
Gate
;D!
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 1,810
Gate is an inspiration to us all and we should try to be more like himGate is an inspiration to us all and we should try to be more like himGate is an inspiration to us all and we should try to be more like himGate is an inspiration to us all and we should try to be more like himGate is an inspiration to us all and we should try to be more like himGate is an inspiration to us all and we should try to be more like himGate is an inspiration to us all and we should try to be more like himGate is an inspiration to us all and we should try to be more like himGate is an inspiration to us all and we should try to be more like himGate is an inspiration to us all and we should try to be more like himGate is an inspiration to us all and we should try to be more like him
Re: Removing ally memberlimits whilst allowing allies to compete

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gerbie2
I think most of those 'elite' players don't care about whether their score contributes or not. They want to be in the winning tag and get a good rank for themselves. You are basically advocating the removal of alliance limits.
Being outside the 'score' part of the tag may lead to a lower priority being placed on your planet by the alliance. Being in the 'score' part of a tag for a smaller, elite ally may be preferable to being in the 'none score' part of a tag for a larger alliance.

I had a quick discussion with jester, who obviously doesn't like this idea. If I understood him, he supports the abolition of tags completely, but maintaining a scoring system to decide the alliance winner.

I fear that this will reduce the number of contenders for top spot compared to the solution proposed here. It would, for example, massively favour some alliances who have large communities to tap.

The OP's solution would give, for example, NoX and CT a better shot at victory this round, a concept I'm quite fond of. On the other hand, we only have about 3 alliances considered serious contenders anyway... removing alliance tags completely would probably cut this to two at worst; the market would effectively sort itself out.

The best solution depends on what system people would prefer to play in.
__________________
[ND]
Kicked from Ascendancy
Proud to have been a Dark Lord Rising.
Gate is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 14 Apr 2008, 09:49   #8
Ave
Registered User
 
Ave's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 936
Ave is a glorious beacon of lightAve is a glorious beacon of lightAve is a glorious beacon of lightAve is a glorious beacon of lightAve is a glorious beacon of lightAve is a glorious beacon of light
Re: Removing ally memberlimits whilst allowing allies to compete

Advantages:

Communitys stay tighter together and can grow and stay longer, old servants dont need to be kicked away, cause they dont have time this curent round... they are allowed to be shit and help when they are online. Perhaps next round give their all contribution again. The players that compete for the tag score shouldnt be able to be switched during round or atleast later part of the round.

If the players get extra aid who compete for the ranks, I assume they would be the main targets for alliance attacks also to destroy the alliance tag/score.

Players not in the ranks can play less worried. If that is a good thing, is discussable :P

Alliances who cant get the 70 players together can still win a tag competition by having best average.

Having no limits to recruiting will give players a reason to recruit all possible friends they can get... which will increase the amount of total players.

If the decent players want to compete for the ranks, it might divide people to more alliances and give a greater political playing field.

Disadvantages:

It kind of allows support planets and puts players on non equal positions. There are enough scorequeens allready without adding a code to support such...

It supports suiciding and bad play from support planets, end of the round expesially, when u can by all means destroy enough score to get the rank 1 for your team.

It helps the alliances who has lots of contacts to gather as many people as they want. Alltho there comes some limits at some stage when it is a gain still and when it comes to the point of giving easy targets to other alliances and getting yourself unorganized.

Newly formed alliances dont get any vet guidance anymore, when they are allowed to serve in their alliance on their more inactive rounds aswell.

Summary:

I think we could give it a shot and try it for a round atleast... see how lame the game gets...
__________________
If the opponent resists, CaRnage there will be!
Ave is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 14 Apr 2008, 15:20   #9
GReaper
The BOFH
 
GReaper's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Posts: 463
GReaper has a brilliant futureGReaper has a brilliant futureGReaper has a brilliant futureGReaper has a brilliant futureGReaper has a brilliant futureGReaper has a brilliant futureGReaper has a brilliant futureGReaper has a brilliant futureGReaper has a brilliant futureGReaper has a brilliant futureGReaper has a brilliant future
Re: Removing ally memberlimits whilst allowing allies to compete

Here's one suggestion - remove alliance member limits and remove all alliance rankings completely, no display of score or size at all with no prizes for the alliance with the most score.

Why?

Alliance rankings are boring, they don't change that much even when two alliances are at war. It's damn hard to try and attack another alliance enough to reduce their score so you can overtake them. The current scoring system rewards you for running away, saving your fleet and going for another attack. Even if you can take a few targets down significantly enough, there are 60 or so other people still growing.
GReaper is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 14 Apr 2008, 15:24   #10
Veedeejem!
Hibernating
 
Veedeejem!'s Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Team Kesha
Posts: 1,621
Veedeejem! has a reputation beyond reputeVeedeejem! has a reputation beyond reputeVeedeejem! has a reputation beyond reputeVeedeejem! has a reputation beyond reputeVeedeejem! has a reputation beyond reputeVeedeejem! has a reputation beyond reputeVeedeejem! has a reputation beyond reputeVeedeejem! has a reputation beyond reputeVeedeejem! has a reputation beyond reputeVeedeejem! has a reputation beyond reputeVeedeejem! has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Removing ally memberlimits whilst allowing allies to compete

Quote:
Originally Posted by GReaper
Alliance rankings are boring, they don't change that much even when two alliances are at war. It's damn hard to try and attack another alliance enough to reduce their score so you can overtake them. The current scoring system rewards you for running away, saving your fleet and going for another attack. Even if you can take a few targets down significantly enough, there are 60 or so other people still growing.
You can take down another alliance, your alliance just has to be good enough...
The current scoring system is not good for taking down alliances, it can be used however to slow your opponents growth while you still grow.
__________________
[InSomnia]
Official designated driver

[ToF] - [eXilition] - [Rock] - [Denial] - [DLR] - [eVolution] - [ODDR] - [HR] - [Ultores] - [Apprime] - [Ironborn]
Veedeejem! is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 14 Apr 2008, 15:26   #11
Mzyxptlk
mz.
Alien Invasion Champion, Submarine Champion, Tiger Punch Champion, Barts Watersports Adventure Champion
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 8,587
Mzyxptlk has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.Mzyxptlk has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.Mzyxptlk has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.Mzyxptlk has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.Mzyxptlk has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.Mzyxptlk has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.Mzyxptlk has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.Mzyxptlk has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.Mzyxptlk has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.Mzyxptlk has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.Mzyxptlk has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.
Re: Removing ally memberlimits whilst allowing allies to compete

The system Planetarion uses for determining score discourages open warfare between two or more alliances, because the rounds are too short for the spoils to pay off, the roids gained can too easily be lost again. I think Heartless suggested a change in the way score is calculated a while back (it was ignored*, like most of what's posted here), search is your friend.



* Ignored. As in, no one from PA Team even bothered to respond to it. This is much worse than a rejection, because then at least there's some indication that it's been read and considered.
__________________
The outraged poets threw sticks and rocks over the side of the bridge. They were all missing Mary and he felt a contented smug feeling wash over him. He would have given them a coy little wave if the roof hadn't collapsed just then. Mary then found himself in the middle of an understandably shocked family's kitchen table. So he gave them the coy little wave and realized it probably would have been more effective if he hadn't been lying on their turkey.
Mzyxptlk is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 14 Apr 2008, 15:56   #12
Gate
;D!
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 1,810
Gate is an inspiration to us all and we should try to be more like himGate is an inspiration to us all and we should try to be more like himGate is an inspiration to us all and we should try to be more like himGate is an inspiration to us all and we should try to be more like himGate is an inspiration to us all and we should try to be more like himGate is an inspiration to us all and we should try to be more like himGate is an inspiration to us all and we should try to be more like himGate is an inspiration to us all and we should try to be more like himGate is an inspiration to us all and we should try to be more like himGate is an inspiration to us all and we should try to be more like himGate is an inspiration to us all and we should try to be more like him
Re: Removing ally memberlimits whilst allowing allies to compete

Quote:
Originally Posted by Veedeejem!
You can take down another alliance, your alliance just has to be good enough...
The current scoring system is not good for taking down alliances, it can be used however to slow your opponents growth while you still grow.
Last round there was Urwins, CT & ND as the main contenders for the top spot. Urwins were capable of outroiding & outscoring ND in galaxy raiding, but ND/CT attacks allowed ND & CT to outgrow them. Without nearly 2 weeks of planet targetting, Urwins would have won... so (like you say), the current scoring system means alliance conflict is a requisite of victory. (Excepting victory gained by fencing, but that is rare)

However, two alliances going to war and leaving the third one untouched would be suicide; meaning that war can't happen without some kind of agreement between two of them. I'm not certain how a changed score system could 'fix' this, or even if it's desirable. It's a result of recent tripolar politics (CT/ND/Urwins and now ND/Den/Jen). A bipolar universe may be preferable in this regard.




After the comments from Jester & Ave, I think the current system may be better; allow the top 50 planets to count towards score but remove member-caps. This would favour the biggest alliances more than the idea from the original post, but not as much as a blanket removal of membercaps.

It would also allow newer players to compete on a similar level because alliances will want to grow all of their planets if possible, to ensure that when a t50 person gets knocked down, there's another big planet to take its shoes. As well as the benefits in 'hard power' that having larger planets delivers.
__________________
[ND]
Kicked from Ascendancy
Proud to have been a Dark Lord Rising.
Gate is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 14 Apr 2008, 19:25   #13
Kenny
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Re: Removing ally memberlimits whilst allowing allies to compete

Set the alliance limit to 50, make everyone's score count.

I don't care with how many nice colours you paint this with, your suggestion will become a vehicle through which larger planets can rely on untold amounts of defense from people who aren't really playing.

The whole point of an alliance is to gather a group of like-minded players who're all trying to acheive a common goal. Not 'see how many support planets we can fit in the tag to defend the people who are actually playing'.

And for goodness sake - if you manage to kill a planet, why shouldn't this have an adverse affect on the alliance's score? Why should he just be auto-replaced by somebody with just a marginally smaller score than the first guy had? What is the point? You kill 3m worth of value/score off of one guy, and how much does the alliance lose? 3k on average and 78k off the overall score. What's the point?

Solid alliance tags, 50-man member limit (to encourage a wide spread of good players across multiple alliances).


Every time somebody lists advantages and disadvantages here, I want to tear my hair out. It's like they're intentionally trying to look for every single anal tiny little thing to make it sound like a good idea, and then list a few "token" disadvantages which, tbh, are better points EACH by themselves, than any cumulation of 'advantages' seen prior to them.

And Gate - who you trying to kid with this 'tripolar' politics nonsense, it's obvious it's you+jen vs denial, dude. 2 sides = bipolar :P

Still, it is a fun round so far
  Reply With Quote
Unread 14 Apr 2008, 19:28   #14
exblade
that one dude
 
exblade's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 200
exblade has a spectacular aura aboutexblade has a spectacular aura aboutexblade has a spectacular aura about
Re: Removing ally memberlimits whilst allowing allies to compete

set it back to 100 like the old days. i think the smaller member limit has been a turn off to some players
__________________
Gypsie - HC [GPY]
Coven - HC [CoV]
NoS - [NoS]
ROCK - DC [ROCK]
The Galactic Vikings - DC [TGV]
Vengeance - DC [VGN]
CareBears - DC [CB]

Rounds 9.5,10,11,12,13,14,15,16,19,26,27,28,38
exblade is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 14 Apr 2008, 19:31   #15
Kenny
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Re: Removing ally memberlimits whilst allowing allies to compete

Quote:
Originally Posted by exblade
set it back to 100 like the old days. i think the smaller member limit has been a turn off to some players
What nonsense. We don't have enough active players to fill 100 man alliances, and still offer a variety of options for players.
  Reply With Quote
Unread 14 Apr 2008, 20:23   #16
Mzyxptlk
mz.
Alien Invasion Champion, Submarine Champion, Tiger Punch Champion, Barts Watersports Adventure Champion
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 8,587
Mzyxptlk has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.Mzyxptlk has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.Mzyxptlk has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.Mzyxptlk has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.Mzyxptlk has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.Mzyxptlk has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.Mzyxptlk has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.Mzyxptlk has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.Mzyxptlk has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.Mzyxptlk has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.Mzyxptlk has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.
Re: Removing ally memberlimits whilst allowing allies to compete

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kenny
I don't care with how many nice colours you paint this with, your suggestion will become a vehicle through which larger planets can rely on untold amounts of defense from people who aren't really playing.

The whole point of an alliance is to gather a group of like-minded players who're all trying to acheive a common goal. Not 'see how many support planets we can fit in the tag to defend the people who are actually playing'.
Flagshipping a planet or a galaxy to the top is a common goal. Now I expect you won't like that goal, but then you're trying to get involved into which goals are allowed and which are not, which I think is really not for PA Team to decide, nor for you. I prefer leaving it to alliances themselves what they do with the resources allotted to them. Freedom is happiness.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Kenny
Solid alliance tags, 50-man member limit (to encourage a wide spread of good players across multiple alliances).


Every time somebody lists advantages and disadvantages here, I want to tear my hair out. It's like they're intentionally trying to look for every single anal tiny little thing to make it sound like a good idea, and then list a few "token" disadvantages which, tbh, are better points EACH by themselves, than any cumulation of 'advantages' seen prior to them.
Who is going to HC all these new alliances? Who is going to BC and DC them? Why do you want to artificially limit the natural development of alliances and communities? I don't know about you, but I wouldn't call these "token" objections.
__________________
The outraged poets threw sticks and rocks over the side of the bridge. They were all missing Mary and he felt a contented smug feeling wash over him. He would have given them a coy little wave if the roof hadn't collapsed just then. Mary then found himself in the middle of an understandably shocked family's kitchen table. So he gave them the coy little wave and realized it probably would have been more effective if he hadn't been lying on their turkey.
Mzyxptlk is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 15 Apr 2008, 00:15   #17
Gate
;D!
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 1,810
Gate is an inspiration to us all and we should try to be more like himGate is an inspiration to us all and we should try to be more like himGate is an inspiration to us all and we should try to be more like himGate is an inspiration to us all and we should try to be more like himGate is an inspiration to us all and we should try to be more like himGate is an inspiration to us all and we should try to be more like himGate is an inspiration to us all and we should try to be more like himGate is an inspiration to us all and we should try to be more like himGate is an inspiration to us all and we should try to be more like himGate is an inspiration to us all and we should try to be more like himGate is an inspiration to us all and we should try to be more like him
Re: Removing ally memberlimits whilst allowing allies to compete

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kenny
And Gate - who you trying to kid with this 'tripolar' politics nonsense, it's obvious it's you+jen vs denial, dude. 2 sides = bipolar :P
The setup was initially tripolar; 3 separate entities with a chance at victory. Had ND & Jen been as strong as Den, with the same score/roids etc, would you have taken the initiative and hit one of them alone? True tripolarity is a disincentive to war.

However, this does show that the current scoring system doesn't necessarily inhibit war.



As for a 50 member limit, we have a few possible interesting political outcomes.

However, in terms of outcomes for the game; we've been reducing member-limit through all of PaX and not sprouted competent HCs/BCs/DCs & new alliances.

Observed evidence, supported by theory (provided by jester) shows that cutting the member limit makes it harder for newer players to find a home & try out PA 'properly'. Alliances will not encourage any of their older members to return and try out a planet etc.

Cutting the member limit in a situation where we won't see many new alliances will mean one thing; less places for people to try out PA 'properly', cementing the decline of PA's memberbase.
__________________
[ND]
Kicked from Ascendancy
Proud to have been a Dark Lord Rising.
Gate is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 15 Apr 2008, 12:15   #18
Ave
Registered User
 
Ave's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 936
Ave is a glorious beacon of lightAve is a glorious beacon of lightAve is a glorious beacon of lightAve is a glorious beacon of lightAve is a glorious beacon of lightAve is a glorious beacon of light
Re: Removing ally memberlimits whilst allowing allies to compete

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kenny
Set the alliance limit to 50, make everyone's score count.

I don't care with how many nice colours you paint this with, your suggestion will become a vehicle through which larger planets can rely on untold amounts of defense from people who aren't really playing.

The whole point of an alliance is to gather a group of like-minded players who're all trying to acheive a common goal. Not 'see how many support planets we can fit in the tag to defend the people who are actually playing'.

And for goodness sake - if you manage to kill a planet, why shouldn't this have an adverse affect on the alliance's score? Why should he just be auto-replaced by somebody with just a marginally smaller score than the first guy had? What is the point? You kill 3m worth of value/score off of one guy, and how much does the alliance lose? 3k on average and 78k off the overall score. What's the point?

Solid alliance tags, 50-man member limit (to encourage a wide spread of good players across multiple alliances).


Every time somebody lists advantages and disadvantages here, I want to tear my hair out. It's like they're intentionally trying to look for every single anal tiny little thing to make it sound like a good idea, and then list a few "token" disadvantages which, tbh, are better points EACH by themselves, than any cumulation of 'advantages' seen prior to them.

And Gate - who you trying to kid with this 'tripolar' politics nonsense, it's obvious it's you+jen vs denial, dude. 2 sides = bipolar :P

Still, it is a fun round so far

Then the 50 players group will be selected closely from the most active and experienced... The rest will try find the next best group of 50... and finally the ones not finding a fitting group for them will just drop the round or be never contacted at all to enter signups. Limiting alliance size and recruiting does limit the total amount of signups and really does not balance the fighting at all, unless the number 50 is rounded to a number which every alliance/group can certainly colect to get a core of like 15-20 players. Then you can imagine there is no room for the less active players...

Players should be able to balance the rounds themselfs, it cannot be hardcoded really. Every community should be let grow to the size they like it. Rest try to compete with it and so increase recruiting, if that comes the case.
__________________
If the opponent resists, CaRnage there will be!
Ave is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 08:31.


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