Ending Powerblocks :(

[nathan]

Brilliant. Nice way to welcome a newcomer to the board Foxx.

 

[Garrett]

welcome is in the welcome threads.

this is discussions? while blunt and to the point, need to remind yourselves that an opinion posted is just that... opinion... however, over the rounds as ally size has fallen and risen... there is at least circumstancial evidence to support f0xx (and my position really as I share it)

he posted 2 peoples views and his assessment of it.

So way to stay on topic? How do you feel about ally size?

20 is good. Less is more maddening. we've had less. to me smaller ally sizes makes it easier for groups of solos to band together and wreak havoc where they shouldn't be able to.

 

[f0xx]

Brilliant. Nice way to welcome a newcomer to the board Foxx.

Thank you, I am famous for my hospitality.

 

[nathan]

I know, but sure theres a better way of saying it, especially to someone who was just stating his opinion, but hey, least he might not ever reply on a thread again now...

And i like it at 20, however it kinda makes going public pointless... who's going to go public when there's nothing to gain from it?

Theres say, 12 full alliances atm? and could be a lot more if people worked out it'd be better to disband there 10 members and go join another 10 somewhere else...

 

[Garrett]

***topic

imo, you are trying to chase what's left of the playerbase. attendance rises and falls. the number of truly active chasing a top 15 or top 10 ally finish is always relatively smaller than those who simply have an ID overall.

it's the summer. some people will wander outside. with your logic on your approach, we'd end up changing alliance size almost every round or every other round due to the # of people playing the game.

Consistency and finding balance is key. I feel that trying to react to chasing an ever moving target, rather than planning long term, is a recipie for disaster.


*** people
as long as it doesn't break forum rules, you can't really dictate personality. not to mention that not everyone is native english speaker (and the brits and americans battle back and forth on that one too )

so what f0xx may lack in refinement, he makes up in machismo

besides if you let f0xx push you around, then it's sad days for all

I'm all for encouraging more posters, but you gotta let people be who they are if it's within rules. Also, public admonisment rarely works just starts these off topic posts.

if someone posted their opinion with the expectation that no one would post contrary to it and now they won't post again, ummm it's quite possible forum life wasn't made out for them. that's for any forum.

(well any heavily moderated forum that enforces happy fluffy crap and removes all traces of individual thought away is not a forum place i want to be)

 

[Alcibiades]

I know, but sure theres a better way of saying it, especially to someone who was just stating his opinion, but hey, least he might not ever reply on a thread again now...

And i like it at 20, however it kinda makes going public pointless... who's going to go public when there's nothing to gain from it?

Theres say, 12 full alliances atm? and could be a lot more if people worked out it'd be better to disband there 10 members and go join another 10 somewhere else...

So you'd choose to artificially inflate the number of alliances simply by splitting the current ones in half? I don't think that's a good idea.

i don't know if you played a few rounds ago when we dropped the number of players in an alliance to 15private, and 18 public. It was not a lot of fun. Too much activity required (something we're trying to limit) and gave solos a bit more dominance over the allies that round.

Public gives you bragging rights for being public. Shows you got brass cojones the size of Texas

As for being polite: this is the internet, politeness does not rule and you should expect to have a reasonably hard skin if you're going to put forward ideas on forums. People are going to shoot them down, especially if this is the 13,098,740,198,437,509,871,093,874th time it's been said. Life is cruel.

 

[nathan]

I meant if the alliances currently with 10 members worked out they could do better by joining another alliance with 10 members, they'd have a better round, not do it forcefully

And yeah i was around, i've been around for many rounds, just haven't come onto forums till recently, im usually around on IRC, nick is Nay, as is ingame nick...

I agree its a bad idea having more members just for being public also. Just wondered why the current rank 1 hasn't gone public if the Cojones is the case!

 

[Garrett]

Too much activity required (something we're trying to limit) and gave solos a bit more dominance over the allies that round.

yeah other big point and probably said earlier in this thread too.

at size 10-12, too easy to overwhelm and topple. sounds fun right?

only on paper. the competitive ones that do reach for the top often are very active and very contactable. if they have to be on guard 24/7 for all 75 days, and still very easily could lose rank 1... where is the incentive?

with the current game structure, it's important that at some point rank 1 IS established and let those guys get big and inactive and for the most part allows the rest of the game to play on.

 

[Garrett]

Just wondered why the current rank 1 hasn't gone public if the Cojones is the case!

no cojones, just bullies

 

[Alcibiades]

I meant if the alliances currently with 10 members worked out they could do better by joining another alliance with 10 members, they'd have a better round, not do it forcefully

And yeah i was around, i've been around for many rounds, just haven't come onto forums till recently, im usually around on IRC, nick is Nay, as is ingame nick...

I agree its a bad idea having more members just for being public also. Just wondered why the current rank 1 hasn't gone public if the Cojones is the case!

Ah pardon me i misunderstood what you meant. Yes joining allies together to create bigger ones would probably work out well on paper, but less likely to succeed in reality due to personality clashes, lack of wanting to give up leadership etc. And we experimented with 'automatic' allies recently in a PW if you played, and it was just appalling, being forced into allies was a big big big nono. I know it's not what you suggested but just to pre-empt that talk again...

Welcome to forums (lol)

Current rank 1 hasn't gone public because a: we already have such large cojones that if we went public we'd just overwhelm the world with balls, and quite frankly that is not something we want and b: Our leader is too lazy to do it

 

[nathan]

Wondered what i had said to suggest automatic forcing of allies

Yeah i think was in that PW also, and everyone just complained about not being put in with people they wanted too.. if they were in a bad ally they just quit altogether made playing pretty impossible

And don't you get the same personality clashes up in rank 1, only bigger ?
I was in affliction last round and even us at rank 6/7 we were all pretty big-headed at times

 

[Alcibiades]

Wondered what i had said to suggest automatic forcing of allies

Yeah i think was in that PW also, and everyone just complained about not being put in with people they wanted too.. if they were in a bad ally they just quit altogether made playing pretty impossible

And don't you get the same personality clashes up in rank 1, only bigger ?
I was in affliction last round and even us at rank 6/7 we were all pretty big-headed at times

You didn't say anything but i wanted to preempt any mention of that from you or anyone else

That PW was miserable. Period. lol

You get the same personality clashes in rank 1, if not worse. lots of ego = lots of fighting

 

[Rowan]

I can't believe I read all that.

Glad I didn't sign up an ID last round.

 

[callum828]

Wrong.

Why?

 

[BlackWolf]

and make powerblocks even more devastating and allying with other alliances even more tempting to get upper hand against other alliances.

More people there are in alliances harder it is to organize. If alliances would be 100 members big having 2 vs 1 would have much less impact than having 20 vs 10.

Not that I would be for 100 member alliances but to put smaller alliances to right context.

Thats why... and add to that this:

20 is good. Less is more maddening. we've had less. to me smaller ally sizes makes it easier for groups of solos to band together and wreak havoc where they shouldn't be able to.

and this:

i don't know if you played a few rounds ago when we dropped the number of players in an alliance to 15private, and 18 public. It was not a lot of fun. Too much activity required (something we're trying to limit) and gave solos a bit more dominance over the allies that round.

 

[atsanjose]

As for being polite: this is the internet, politeness does not rule

wrong.

 

[Garrett]

As for being polite: this is the internet, politeness does not rule

wrong.

that wasn't very polite.

 

[atsanjose]

As for being polite: this is the internet, politeness does not rule

wrong.

that wasn't very polite.

alci isnt a newbie

 

[Garrett]

so like in actual theme with the thread... maybe not so much powerblocks, but....



Should we look to make a mechanism for the top? I don't mean bots for the top... but should there be some way after a resistance dies off, obvious math advantage of land troops income, blah blah blah, that the top should be made the TOP. like 1x per week a force plant of seeds?

I dunno, I don't have a good idea. They shouldn't become untouchable per se because still chances to bounty em, mess with em....

but the top surely aren't buying up game cash at an alarming rate, their punits were bought between week 2 and 3 so no one is really waiting to develop....

so why not have some sort of mechanism to make them grow? give 2nd 3rd etc more of a ceiling. as we'd be the ones most likely to chew up credits in wars etc.

Right now, the most i've seen are LET rushes and Stealth Rushes amongst allies 2-5... and maybe i'm speaking too broadly, but I don't envy to start open warfare as we'd want to grow to attack... then a winning side would start to gain acres, then the top gets to run wild with gay abandon over people who have no chance.

In before the 'oh noes, as it is we only have a few people in which we send 6 on a tick on' 'we're bored' 'sandy vagina'

the top is always bored. they are already bored. the attacks they send aren't for combat. they aren't for the thrill of the kill, or they wouldn't send overwhelming attacks 3x+ their targets entire ally score. they want more land, they don't want to be fussed about it, and they don't want a dent in their score because it IS all about rank and where they finish once they are the top. They need the few acres here and there so they can try to pass one another.


so the top is always bored, round after round. they don't grow so they can attack.

I'm not mad at the top for this. I don't blame them for this behavior. It is the sad eventuality of the game. If you win, you are going to get bored. You are also going to stay as low as possible to get as fat as possible. (That or you were just a warm body/noob that took direction in the start but now pwn yourself on SAS and dumb attacks)

I'm just saying since the top is bored, lets find a way to make them largely irrelevant to the other allies.

Maybe tie it to a similar mechanic as the current rules for attacking an enemy HQ?

 

[harriergirl]

(That or you were just a warm body/noob that took direction in the start but now pwn yourself on SAS and dumb attacks)

I resemble that remark =P