Future Alliance System

[Wishmaster]

Originally Posted by Phil^

Theres better ways to do this then imposing a flawed system which is open to abuse.
such as - the alliance who the player is leaving is prevented from attacking him for 72 tick

Oh, I never said the idea was a good one, and idd there might be other better ways to handle it. But not giving the alliance which he jumps from the chance to repay for 72 hrs is worse then putting him directly into tag isnt it?

Originally Posted by Phil^

just because people dont agree with you doesnt mean they arent right you know

pff. thats not the case. tell me its not!

[Phil^]

Originally Posted by Wishmaster

Oh, I never said the idea was a good one, and idd there might be other better ways to handle it. But not giving the alliance which he jumps from the chance to repay for 72 hrs is worse then putting him directly into tag isnt it?

well... on one hand it is, but on the other it does penaliase the player leaving as to discourage shipjumping ( which was the orig intention of the 72h wait period )
so i guess the jury is out on that one

Originally Posted by Wishmaster

pff. thats not the case. tell me its not!

Im sorry to break your bubble , any time you want me to explain things like santa, or where babies really come from give me a call

[SkyHead]

Originally Posted by Phil^

the res would come from an alliance tax, hardly any skill involved in increasing the tax rate.

And people would leave because their allys tax rates to fkn high,
sounds like more politics

personally don't think its a bad idea, what about buying an entire BG? :O

[Kal]

a small note here - the stuff I psoted is not how PAN will be, just what the current thoughts are, so no one is trying to force anything through. That said, I don't think the critiscsm has been directed enough - arguments such as "this will mean pa is no longer pa" are not really useful. We'd ideally lie detailed critiscism and ways to fix the problem (even if that way is to remove something and replace it with something else).

[MrPedantic]

Originally Posted by Kal

a small note here - the stuff I psoted is not how PAN will be, just what the current thoughts are, so no one is trying to force anything through. That said, I don't think the critiscsm has been directed enough - arguments such as "this will mean pa is no longer pa" are not really useful. We'd ideally lie detailed critiscism and ways to fix the problem (even if that way is to remove something and replace it with something else).

thoughts become realities unless opposed. Its perfectly valid for someone to say that this would make pa no longer pa if that is their opinions and you have no right to tell them to think otherwise.

If you had read the thread more closely you would have seen suggestions which are better then what has been come up with by yourself / pateam and warnings about things on how they could ( and would ) be readily abused.

and as for skyhead/wishmaster. why am i not surprised that exil people are agreeing with something which is so abusable.
Neither of you have much of a sense of right and wrong and so im sure you're dribbling at the mouth at the prospect of abusing this should it come into being

[Kal]

How about this - people can;t actually leave their alliance unless they are kicked (in which case 72 tick alliance period applies) or theypay their alliance to let them leave, or another alliance pays on their behalf -
http://pirate.planetarion.com/showpo...11&postcount=9

[Phil^]

still abusable. consider the case where one alliance cant reach #1 without getting some big players, so they go to their flak alliances which serve them up on a plate.

Imo the best way is to force all people who leave an alliance to go through 72 ticks before they can join another one. during this time the alliance they left cannot attack them - but they are still open to randoms who attack.
after which time they can join another alliance - no need for all this nonsense of paying to leave etc.
after 80% of the round has been played - noone can leave their alliances

cuts down on any potential abuse of the system for the benefit of shipjumpers

[Kal]

the point wakey was mkaing though is that 72ticks is still to easy - and hence peopel will just travel to bigger alliances - a stronger incentive is needed. Maybe it shouldn;t enitrley let u skip 72 ticks, maybe it shoudl shorten it to 24. but wkaey;s piint was thta peoiple shouldn;t be able to volunatrilly leave without paying.

[Phil^]

if 72 ticks is too easy then why would shortening it help?
increase it if anything, or have a 'payment' which has much more of an effect then resources.
say 15-25% of the planets XP is removed when they leave an alliance or are kicked by it

[Cannon_Fodder]

kal what country do you come from?

[Stifler]

Kal the idea is just open for to much abuse, and it will be hurting the smaller alliances a lot more then the bigger alliances since it would be harder for them to get together the resources.

Any idea of buying players should be scrapped since unless there are very tight restrictions on it, its easily abusable, and if there are tight restrictions on it there wouldnt be much benefit for it which means the development time could be used on worthier tasks.

As for the point of planets paying to lose there 72 tick allianceless penalty, again this will hurt the smaller players more then the bigger players since the people likely to leave an alliance mid round are top20-30 shipjumpers (who generally have the roids to get this resources eaily) or a low/mid ranked player who has a disagreement with their previous alliance command and so doesnt want to stay (this is generally a proper reason for leaving an alliance mid round, and isnt something to punish them badly over)

Also if someone is a ship jumper, they will generally have much more time to save to pay the price to lose the allianceless penalty, since they know they will leave. A player who has a disagreement with the alliance command does not know they will leave so wont have been saving to pay the price to leave.

Think thats all the reasons I have at the moment for disagreeing with any buying of planets or payng to lose the allianceless penalty (at least while sitting here suffering from a huge hangover )

[cypher]

Originally Posted by Phil^

if 72 ticks is too easy then why would shortening it help?
increase it if anything, or have a 'payment' which has much more of an effect then resources.
say 15-25% of the planets XP is removed when they leave an alliance or are kicked by it

Kal read this.
Think about it.
Read it again.
Once you've let it sink in, read it again.
Then you'll understand.

It's time pa team stops listening to stupid idea's like these to start with and they shouldn't even be on the boards after being posted by PA team. All this would cause is abuse. and indeed flak alliances would give a few top players to their ally so their ally or block wins instead of the other one. It's FAR too easy to be abused and we all know it will be abused...heck look at the current stats. God knows how much they've been abused?

Why would something far easier to abuse not be abused?

I thought pa team and the development team were discussing things that added things to the game or made it better for everyone. This is only usefull for people who abuse the system.

Does this open the possiblity aswell to trade players for the cost of 5 metal whenever another alliance in a certain block needs defence?

If you wanna use this option, you should make damn sure it'll be VERY expensive. and not just in resources. also in roids/xp/value/ships and even then i doubt it'll be good.

[Kal]

Originally Posted by Phil^

if 72 ticks is too easy then why would shortening it help?
increase it if anything, or have a 'payment' which has much more of an effect then resources.
say 15-25% of the planets XP is removed when they leave an alliance or are kicked by it

so now people should be punnished if they are kicked from their alliance??? isn't being kicked and being allianceless for 72 ticks enough?

[Kal]

ps did anyone read the post of wakey's i linked to? i'm not talking abotu buying anymore - i'm talking about having to pay to leave the alliance in the first place - regardless of how long the time between alliances is. THis would benefit the smaller alliances as ti would increase the chance fo them keeping players and if they did loose them they would be compensated.

[Wishmaster]

Originally Posted by MrPedantic

and as for skyhead/wishmaster. why am i not surprised that exil people are agreeing with something which is so abusable.
Neither of you have much of a sense of right and wrong and so im sure you're dribbling at the mouth at the prospect of abusing this should it come into being

Those who know me know that I play to win. And that I am willing to do whats within the rules to do so. I disagree that something which is LEGAL can be abused. It can ONLY be used. USED, not ABUSED. ok?

And u think the alliance I will play for will buy loads of players? no. Most likely it is more beneficial for the alliance to let him be roided and join after 72 ticks. because in pax it doesnt matter too much if u get roided tbh.

ALSO!!! I have NEVER said I liked the idea, nor that I support it in any way. I discussed the fact that there would still be skilled involved, and that it would still be PA. In my opinion. Which ofc is correct as stated above.

I hope that clearifies things for u MrsPedantic

[Phil^]

Originally Posted by Kal

so now people should be punnished if they are kicked from their alliance??? isn't being kicked and being allianceless for 72 ticks enough?

according to wakey,no.

Originally Posted by Kal

the point wakey was mkaing though is that 72ticks is still to easy - and hence peopel will just travel to bigger alliances - a stronger incentive is needed.

you wanted a stronger insentive, there you have one.

[Stifler]

Originally Posted by Kal

ps did anyone read the post of wakey's i linked to? i'm not talking abotu buying anymore - i'm talking about having to pay to leave the alliance in the first place - regardless of how long the time between alliances is. THis would benefit the smaller alliances as ti would increase the chance fo them keeping players and if they did loose them they would be compensated.

read the end of my previous post then....

[Kal]

Originally Posted by Stifler

read the end of my previous post then....

u mean the middle bit abotu people having a genuine reason to watn to leave?

well if the payment didn;t reduce the allianceless time, then it doesn;t need to be huge as its an extra cost on top of the current system - it would really serve to make people think a bit before making a rash decision, etc.

[xontas]

small question, why is this change needed
the system works, so why create a new one that is already showing a lot of abuse potentional

i would like you to see what your PLAYERS want in the game not what would be nice for the admins
because i never saw you ask most of the playerbase if they WANT this change
or any of the other changes you are making

these changes are made by spending the profits made from your playerbase
i for one want the game to grow NOT to have a game with 10 new features and 2 k players!!
but thats just me
i would say, lets have a nice (pink) kloopy poll and see what people want
but again, thats just me :-)

[Stifler]

Originally Posted by Kal

u mean the middle bit abotu people having a genuine reason to watn to leave?

well if the payment didn;t reduce the allianceless time, then it doesn;t need to be huge as its an extra cost on top of the current system - it would really serve to make people think a bit before making a rash decision, etc.

why do you need any payment? the current system works

although I assume the main reason is to effect ship jumpers, which yes, it will hurt them a bit but it will hurt the smaller players with a genuine reason to leave more

so just to ask again, why is a payment needed? when there is nothing wrong with the currant system, you dont have to add lots of new additions to everything just because PA is changing again and the currant system works

[Kal]

Originally Posted by xontas

small question, why is this change needed
the system works, so why create a new one that is already showing a lot of abuse potentional

i would like you to see what your PLAYERS want in the game not what would be nice for the admins
because i never saw you ask most of the playerbase if they WANT this change
or any of the other changes you are making

these changes are made by spending the profits made from your playerbase
i for one want the game to grow NOT to have a game with 10 new features and 2 k players!!
but thats just me
i would say, lets have a nice (pink) kloopy poll and see what people want
but again, thats just me :-)

i'll say this again, this isn't what we are doing, its a discussion on the pros and cons of some ideas. I think its become clear that being able to pay to reduce allianceless time is probably not a godo idea, but wakey's proposal about having to pay to leave the alliance in the first place deservers further discussion.

I propose:
- if a planet is kicked it is allianceless for 72 ticks.
- if a planet wishes to leave his alliance he/she must pay his alliance (res going to the fund) to do so - alterntivly another alliance can pay on his/her behalf. The planet would still remain allianceless for 72 ticks, but in the case of an alliance paying the planet would auto join that alliance.

The purpose of this is to discourage people from ship jumping, however the costs should not be so high as to prevent people from leaving the alliance if they have a genuine grievance with their HC etc.

[Kal]

Originally Posted by Stifler

why do you need any payment? the current system works

although I assume the main reason is to effect ship jumpers, which yes, it will hurt them a bit but it will hurt the smaller players with a genuine reason to leave more

so just to ask again, why is a payment needed? when there is nothing wrong with the currant system, you dont have to add lots of new additions to everything just because PA is changing again and the currant system works

http://pirate.planetarion.com/showpo...11&postcount=9 or an alternative of http://pirate.planetarion.com/showpo...51&postcount=4

for smaller planets i think its fair enough to say that the costs should be more than proprtionally lower than for big planets. an alliance probably does not mind the loss of a small player, but they would mind their biggest planet leaving.

And yes people may have geneuine reasons to want to leave - but i think wakey's thoughts about a planet should be signing up for a whole round do have merit ( perhaps people should be able to select a shorter fixed signup period as well?)

[xontas]

my point is
why do you need to change it @ all
it was working fine when i left PAteam
no major problems with it @ all
so why recode it and create more bugs or game inbalances in the future

you need to be fixing a problem to justify a change like that
i dont see one

[Kargool]

Originally Posted by Kal

propose:
- if a planet is kicked it is allianceless for 72 ticks.
- if a planet wishes to leave his alliance he/she must pay his alliance (res going to the fund) to do so - alterntivly another alliance can pay on his/her behalf. The planet would still remain allianceless for 72 ticks, but in the case of an alliance paying the planet would auto join that alliance.

The purpose of this is to discourage people from ship jumping, however the costs should not be so high as to prevent people from leaving the alliance if they have a genuine grievance with their HC etc.

I love you. Great suggestion.

[Kal]

Originally Posted by xontas

my point is
why do you need to change it @ all
it was working fine when i left PAteam
no major problems with it @ all
so why recode it and create more bugs or game inbalances in the future

you need to be fixing a problem to justify a change like that
i dont see one

just becuase people arn't complaining doesn't mean things work fine. I think wakey's post does a reaosnable job of justifying things.

[Nadar]

Originally Posted by Kal

just becuase people arn't complaining doesn't mean things work fine. I think wakey's post does a reaosnable job of justifying things.

PA Team couldn't justify it themselves and need others to do it for them?

Stop making solutions for non-existant problems. The 72hour waiting-period is penalty enough for planets leaving an alliance.

[xontas]

Originally Posted by Kal

just becuase people arn't complaining doesn't mean things work fine. I think wakey's post does a reaosnable job of justifying things.

the point is that is not about what you think, its about what your clients think, that the point we keep fighting about!
i dont think all the changes you are proposing are needed to make this game better
i think that if you give the community a choise between using the money available for coding a new better game with more features or coding a new portal and newbie help to get the numers up again in this game!
most would chose the last one because that also makes the game more fun!

but just like you i dont know that
so i suggest you make a poll and ask the people that are paying for it

[Death666]

Couldnt the 72 hour period be dropped a little...to like 48 hours...

[Banned]

Originally Posted by Kal

just becuase people arn't complaining doesn't mean things work fine. I think wakey's post does a reaosnable job of justifying things.

<Wakey> Kal, I think you should try to fly.
<Kal> Ok guys, I'm ready to give this a shot.
<jester> Dude, you're a ****ing idiot. You won't be able to fly.
<someone> I think jester has a point, people might just be trying to abuse your life insurance paying off to the 'PA community'.
<someone else> that's open to abuse, I think you should reconsider Kal.
<yetanother someone> lol PAteam are shit
<xontas> Kal: everyone likes you perfectly fine on the ground.
<Kal> it's ok, Wakey's suggestion that I should try flying had some reasonable justifications. Like that being PAteam gives me superpowers. Just because no one complained about me being grounded doesn't mean that I should stay that way for the rest of my life.
<jester> at least try from somewhere low... oh shit, too late.
* Kal goes splat

[xontas]

/me prints :-)

[robban1]

why does pa focus more and more on allies? its just a way to make narrowmainded inbreeds happy that you (kal) keep involving them more and more in the game mecanics.

wasnt there a plan to get new players into the game?

the new stuff is getting to complex for the new guys to get before they loose interest in pa.

sidenote half the xp for roiding so the xp whores starts to play as it was intended

[wakey]

Originally Posted by Banned

<Wakey> Kal, I think you should try to fly.
<Kal> Ok guys, I'm ready to give this a shot.
<jester> Dude, you're a ****ing idiot. You won't be able to fly.
<someone> I think jester has a point, people might just be trying to abuse your life insurance paying off to the 'PA community'.
<someone else> that's open to abuse, I think you should reconsider Kal.
<yetanother someone> lol PAteam are shit
<xontas> Kal: everyone likes you perfectly fine on the ground.
<Kal> it's ok, Wakey's suggestion that I should try flying had some reasonable justifications. Like that being PAteam gives me superpowers. Just because no one complained about me being grounded doesn't mean that I should stay that way for the rest of my life.
<jester> at least try from somewhere low... oh shit, too late.
• Kal goes splat

I’ll ignore your snide comments towards me even though I’m getting sick of jumped up attitude. It not relevant and if you want to continue go ahead your just making yourself look like a complete prat

Anyway I think I need to explain my actual idea and the reasons behind it. The idea in the first post is based on an idea by me but has been some what butchered and taken to extreme.

Now basically anyone who’s been seriously involved with smaller alliance will know one of the most frustrating things in the game is the ‘eliteness’ of the top alliances. They simple won’t take a major risk on players without a background or whom don’t exceed their average score. They are however more than eager to circle around the alliances that do like vultures waiting to pick up anyone who shows promise. Its something we know is going to happen and we accept people will be ‘seduced’ by the offers they get but the problem is your not just losing a player. Your losing an investment that you hoped would pay you back and would use their skills they have leant to help you bring more people through or maybe go on to a command position to help reduce the workload that goes with running an alliance made up of inexperienced players. There’s just so much more you lose than the score and its not healthy for an alliance and another alliance gets the benefit for the work put into that member while you are left with nothing to show for it. The buyout option however would allow some compensation to be found for the alliance that lost the member, compensation that could go towards helping the players in the alliance whom feel the effect of the lost member. I doubt there’s any alliance who recruits someone with the view of them only staying a portion of the round, its assumed that by signing up to an alliance that persons committing for the round, hence why shipjumping is considered a dirty word and just like in a the real world if you were to not fulfill this commitment you would have to pay compensation to get out of the contract it would be basically be the same with this, if you want out then you have to compensate the alliance your leaving, what exactly is wrong with that.

Now there seems to be this misconception that I wanted the wait time on buyout removed, I never stated that and in none of my incarnations of this idea did it involve removing it. There is a version where there is talk of a reduction of the wait but never a full removal.

This version had the following wait times mentioned
Kicked – 72 hours
Normal Buy Out – 72 hours
Premium Buy Out – 48 hours (but costs more)
Alliance Buyout – 24 hours (cost is a lot more extreme)

Although I also have an unfinished post on my hard drive that change the times to
Kicked – 96 hours
Normal Buy Out – 96 hours
Premium Buy Out – As Low as 72 hours (but costs more)
Alliance Buyout – As Low as 48 hours (cost is a lot more extreme)

How low the premium buyout went would be upto the parties involved down to the max stated, the more ticks you shave off the more you pay. If you wish to take revenge though the window is still there. Also alliance buyout would require all 3 parties to agree, just like normal poaching the player would have to be approached or approach the alliance and then the offer put in to buy them out. If the alliance accepts it would then be up to the player to choose yes or no next time they login and after the ticks have expired they would be moved automatically into the reserved place

Also yes there are legimate reasons for a player to leave and some big players may want to leave and this may hinder them, but then so does the exile system and this really is no different. If they want out the contribute to get out or have to hope that the HC is happy to let them move for free and will kick them or get another alliance to buy them out. I would also have certain circumstances where leaving would be free (or at least cheaper). For example if an alliance an alliance could declare themselves disbanded and they would be free to leave with the normal wait just like they can now or if you left within 72 hours of joining it would be free, or if an alliance had under 10 members it would be reduced/free so you don’t get stuck in an alliance that fails to take off

Anyway hopefully I’ve covered everything but if anything else I should have said comes to mind I will post again

[robban1]

btw this buy out idea is crap for a start .why 72 ticks if kicked? that should be 0 as you have no idea why he was kicked........ if you leave by own choise well max 48 ticks is enough really

[wakey]

Originally Posted by robban1

why does pa focus more and more on allies? its just a way to make narrowmainded inbreeds happy that you (kal) keep involving them more and more in the game mecanics.

wasnt there a plan to get new players into the game?

the new stuff is getting to complex for the new guys to get before they loose interest in pa.

sidenote half the xp for roiding so the xp whores starts to play as it was intended

The community forced the focus on alliances imho, they put alliances first and closed off the entry points for most people. This attitude is unlikely to change quickly so a focus on alliances and especially the ones whom take these players on and make their lives easier is a must. We have lost too many good 'training' alliances over the rounds due to the job being so time consuming and stressful and if you make their jobs a little easier you make more entry points into the game

As for xp, lowering it would actually be a negative change for new/casual players. The XP allows those people to make mistakes or be caught out due to lower activity without wiping them out, and also makes getting roids stolen less serious as they can easily go out and recover the lost score. Also a game where value is given a greater importance is one where bashing is more common and extreme as you focus more and more on being 100% sure your ships are going to be safe as they play a greater part in your score and ranking than now

[robban1]

have no idea who this community really is :/ as its always just some ppl (and allies) who keep getting its dull ideas theou hello phil and the gang, well about xp and roiding there is tons with xans with 10-20k fr only, flying around.
they are useless to their gal and allie and thats can be reduced with lower xp for roiding (and yes they bash just as good as the guy with the real fleet)

[Nadar]

Lowering or removing XP would be crap for the game. VERY crap.

[Banned]

Originally Posted by Nadar

Lowering or removing XP would be crap for the game. VERY crap.

Would also break zik/stealing.

Edit: Oh wait, you had that covered.

[wakey]

Originally Posted by robban1

have no idea who this community really is :/ as its always just some ppl (and allies) who keep getting its dull ideas theou hello phil and the gang, well about xp and roiding there is tons with xans with 10-20k fr only, flying around.
they are useless to their gal and allie and thats can be reduced with lower xp for roiding (and yes they bash just as good as the guy with the real fleet)

The community is everyone who plays the game, and it was them not the game's mechanics that generally decided to say "Screw galaxies, Screw helping new people ect ect" and whom generally decided to always put their alliance first and ignore the larger community outside of this alliance unless it suits them. While there's some galaxies that will take a new player and give them the chance the norm is to exile them out so they land in some inactive place with others in that situation where they stand no chance to get to really learn the game. If they are to get into the game they need an alliance which has the comradeship that galaxies used to have but don't any longer

As for XP the xan issue is more a failure of the stats than of XP and even if it wasn't these people are largely in the minority as alliance require you to have an attacking and a defensive fleet not just an attacking. In fact most Xans I've encountered have had fairly big Vsh fleets to go along with their Tzen fleets and those that haven't have generally just lost them.

As for bashing I think you missed my point. Lets see if I can make it clearer. If you go and attack a planet and lose 100 ships you wouldn't really see a change value wise but you would score wise. A high XP level encourages you to attack larger planets than yourselves as any lost ships are covered easier from stealing roids as the value from ships is less important. A lower XP however makes gains on attack harder to get and makes value more and more important to your score. This means with a low XP as the gains arent potentially as big, the risk is higher and the more important it is to keep your ships intact which encourages you to attack lower as the potential score gains are lower and reliance on value is higher

[Death666]

Originally Posted by robban1

btw this buy out idea is crap for a start .why 72 ticks if kicked? that should be 0 as you have no idea why he was kicked........ if you leave by own choise well max 48 ticks is enough really

I think this is true...if you are kicked you shouldnt really need to wait as it would be the HCs of the alliance decision...

Waiting time should be decided by how many times you have left your alliance...
first time-48hours
second time-72hours
third time-96hours...

something like that...

[BlueDemon]

Shipjumpers?

For what it's worth, here's my opinion

They came with nothing, let em leave with nothing.

[Pilatus]

Couldn't it be possible to just have restrictions on how many shipjumpers that can join each ally?

Even though something like that could be bad for some players when an ally disbandon, it could atleast let all alliances get a better chance to get some great players when a good ally disbandon.

[Kargool]

Originally Posted by robban1

btw this buy out idea is crap for a start .why 72 ticks if kicked? that should be 0 as you have no idea why he was kicked........ if you leave by own choise well max 48 ticks is enough really

No.. That tends to get messy.. If people know that they can get kicked if they do enough nasty things they will do nasty things, and seriously, that isnt the way to treat an alliance you, yourself decided to join.

On a sidenote. Having stricter rules about when u can leave an alliance might get people to actually start trying to work out how and why their current alliance isnt good enough and may encourage people to do more work in the smaller alliances. I think that is a good thing.

[robban1]

Originally Posted by Nadar

Lowering or removing XP would be crap for the game. VERY crap.

how come? i want it lower so ppl starts to play as the game was designed for

[Nadar]

Originally Posted by robban1

how come? i want it lower so ppl starts to play as the game was designed for

Because it'll chase all newblards and newblettes away from the game when their planet is crushed by some big mofo. Without XP there is NO future for semi-active planets. They'll get mockered straight away and quit.

How can you say "so ppl starts to play as the game was designed for"? The game IS designed for XP atm.

Anyway, you remove the XP and you also remove the semi-active "noobs".

[robban1]

erm i dont really want you to leave the game m8

im talking more in general about the game mecanics that allow this shit to happen

[Nadar]

Originally Posted by robban1

erm i dont really want you to leave the game m8

im talking more in general about the game mecanics that allow this shit to happen

I quit game 2 rounds ago, so that's np.

What you mean with "game mechanics that allow this shit to happen"?

[wakey]

Originally Posted by robban1

erm i dont really want you to leave the game m8

im talking more in general about the game mecanics that allow this shit to happen

A game that puts more empasis on VALUE over score is as I keep saying bad for the average player. It produces a game where bashing is encouraged and where only hardcore players can really have fun. The XP level as it is allows people whom would normally be losing score left right and centre to grow even when making losses which is alot better for their moral and alot more likly to keep them playing than having the old system that would kick them when they were down

[robban1]

well do the attacklimit on score then

[wakey]

Originally Posted by robban1

well do the attacklimit on score then

That DOESNT solve the problem you cause by lowering xp. The VALUE of your ships is still more vital to your score with a lower xp level and as such you make ship numbers more vital and ecourage attackers to go for the easiest targets possible rather than the most profitable one. You also make it harder for people whom get hit alot to grow as they will find it even harder to cover their daily losses which is one of the things that drive players away from the game as its not fund slogging yoiur guts out to stay at the same score or even fall in score every day

[mist]

the desire with this whole paying to leave thing seems to be to stop people leaving smaller alliances to join larger ones mid round.

why is it, then, that you're suggesting that an alliance be able to buy out a player and they then have a reduced time in no mans land? surely, if an alliance is paying the price for a player to leave then the time should be increased to discourage it, rather than making it a positive thing?

ofc, this means it wouldn't get used...

that asside, i'm not convinced by wakey's argument. if someone wants to join a large alliance i'm not sure that having them in the ranks of your smaller alliance being unhappy they're there is an excelent plan - i'd be worried about them deciding to prove their loyalty to their alliance to be in any manner of creative and unhelpful ways - particularly as that'd probably lead the HC to kick them so they get to leave for free anyway.