Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[BlackKnight]

ok so the topic cam up on the chat i dont want to take credit cus its not my idea but this is what was said:


23/11/10 05:12
General_Archer: We could have had 5 very active alliances going at each other and the indies might evern have a chance to get in the top 10 at the end.
23/11/10 05:14
BlackKnight: maybe not six but like 10 it would help make more alliances and up the compition
23/11/10 05:20
Katsumoto: I would say 8 is a good number.
23/11/10 05:27
BlackKnight: 8 it is we shold start a thread in the forum so other people will see this lol
23/11/10 05:29
Katsumoto: thats actually a good idea. start the topic
23/11/10 05:30
MacGregor: I agree with 8
23/11/10 05:31
Katsumoto: see. everyone likes 8

[paulmc13]

This would make the round a little more dependent on diplomacy and less on all out war.

[BlackKnight]

lol unless ur really good at war lol

[Katsumoto]

I am a man of few words, so I will make this brief.




8!!!

*walks out room*

[Rommy]

I like it.

[himdo]

I honestly think we need to go back to 12 like it used to be (big enough to allow for noobs to be trained) or drop it all the way to 6.   The reason I say 6 is because with that many alliances there will be too many naps and unofficial alliances and 6 will keep those unofficial allys from coagulating too much.  Plus with only 6 ally mates you just might have to attack other players you might not normally attack.  Also the level of communication must increase with smaller alliances to be successfull as there is less reliance on pure numbers to have players online when excremental fan splatter occurs. Of course, even with a limit of 6, we barely have enough actives to fill 3 alliances if people get greedy and team up all actives again.  If we all commit to taking in some noobs and teaching them to play then we can easily have 4 or 5 alliances that are healthy and fun. 

Seems like we dropped the 12 limit to allow for more noobs to join an alliance as well as the fact that many players will coagulate regardless of alliance limits.  The way it is now the round will be won by the alliance that is effected less by real life. 

[BlackKnight]

right now the 2 biggest alliances have about 42 members 113 in round and we all know like a good 35+ of the bottom guys dont really count/are never on so thats like half the players and the stronger half by far in most cases. even while fighting each other unless most of the other plays were to make like a big alliance nobody else has a chance of winning but if we have a smaller limit(idk what the number should be) but even if we go with the biggest 12 you could make at least 4 good alliances out of the top 2 now and others mite pop up if the most active players dont all join up together.

[Samus_Aran]

Im going to tell you exactly what happens when you limit alliance size:

The same alliances form, but split into different tags. this actually is less productive, as it promotes farming.

Im not saying it wont work, but from experience, alliances are always usually the same size... just split up into tags. I wouldnt mind trying it though.

[Elohim]

Why the hell would you want the game to be about diplomacy?

Drop the alliance cap entirely.

[Pannacotta]

Has everybody forgotten the examples of the IRS, where they had a separate 'training' tag?  I agree with the sentiment of having extra competition, however it is only going to happen if we get more new people on the site - idk how this is best achieved, failing this just scrap alliances altogether and have an all out slugfest, those that want diplomacy can negotiate for themselves 

[Slay3r420]

Check it guys i played since cw started ive seen caps of diffrent sizes. At the hight of ism cw had a alliance cap of 20, ISM had 40 some members we had 3 diffrent alliances. Soo we all know caps are pointless and will be gotten around with the simple fact more can and will be made.

[Tommy]

Im going to tell you exactly what happens when you limit alliance size:

The same alliances form, but split into different tags. this actually is less productive, as it promotes farming.

Im not saying it wont work, but from experience, alliances are always usually the same size... just split up into tags. I wouldnt mind trying it though.

Exactly. Our EE & E.E. combo comes to mind... (Not that it wasn't hellishly cool, 2+2 guys fighting IRS with 30+ guys in and out of tag.)

The problem to solve isn't the nominal alliance limit, it's how to make the game more playable to casual once-a-day players. And that's when CW had many major alliances, each with lots of members. Round 3 was probably the apex and heyday of CW. The solution could be as simple as eliminating fleet catching = making returning groups idle as they are/were supposed to be. So you can just launch and bugger off, instead of babysitting everything. If we can make the game simpler, there are inevitably more players, so the game gains complexity on a higher level. This is pretty much the opposite of what Eldrad was attempting, therefore a tall order. Okay...

If there needs to be a set size for alliances, Himdo pointed out the obvious benefit of larger alliances: you can get newbies going. But I'd also like to see some implicit benefit for small, tight crews. I'd say make the default limit 12, then an seriously expensive project to expand to 24 (for no other benefit), and another project to limit it to 6 with double the amount of weekly pop and cash bonuses and daily ship bonuses. This would also force alliance founders to think about what exactly they are doing. Actually I proposed this in the Senate but it didn't fly then.

[Code743]

The same alliances form, but split into different tags. this actually is less productive, as it promotes farming.

Farming is a legitimate strategy imo. It does require a certain level of coordination in the same way that attacking and defending does.

Soo we all know caps are pointless and will be gotten around with the simple fact more can and will be made.

Ahh, yes, but at this point I'll point out that all the the attempts at multi-tag alliances that I have seen have been abject failures.

UGF/Reno's: Not a direct result of the multi tag thing, but it still failed. So there.
IRS/IPL: These guys took until R9 to properly coordinate 1 tag, let alone a second.
ISM/OC: ISM were in decline when they tried this, so a second tag made no sense.
TBS/KRY: Could have absolutely dominated R3, but along with personality clashes, the methods and ideologies of the two groups became so different that a split was inevitable.
Edit: EE/Expanded Eclipse: Because they went out of their way to avoid conflict most of the time.


So if you wish to have multiple tags, go ahead. More cannon fodder for the rest of us!

[Tommy]

Ahh, yes, but at this point I'll point out that all the the attempts at multi-tag alliances that I have seen have been abject failures.

Edit: EE/Expanded Eclipse: Because they went out of their way to avoid conflict most of the time.

You talking about R9? Then put down the crack pipe and refresh your memory. We attacked everybody in bash. We got seriously attacked at least once a week, and I'm not sure how having the biggest rock pile (collectively) is "going out of way to avoid conflict". Educate dumb me. We would have been attacked more if we hadn't raped so many fleets at enemy planets. Also had fresh thiefs and sabs every day, infiltration 100% counter productive. Freak, Samus, Warhawk, me, easily the best roster of that round, don't diss that.

(Edit: shit, I just remembered we also attacked everybody out of bash. We did offensive farming even more than defensive. We had to coin a concept of "Enemy Management" to ensure targets don't quit because of us. Great times...)

[Code743]

No, I'm talking about the happy band of peacenicks and fence sitters that existed in R2.5 (until Apostasy's intervention). I didn't play R9 so I have no idea what the 'best roster' was. I only know that IRS won, regardless of their tactics.

*Takes another puff on crack pipe* Peace, brother.