Game over again. QQ
- Thread starter nolimit
- Start date
LuckySports
Landscape Designer
yeah, but standards have been dropped a lot over the past age. When you don't have enough people to put together even 1 full FTW alliance, what do you expect? im hardly playing and suicide regularly and its still a challenge to stay out of the top 50.
There isn't a very large playerbase, and an even SMALLER base of people willing to fight.
NightNinja
Harvester
- Joined
- Jun 9, 2009
- Messages
- 172
well...
well...
yeah this round is pretty well over....top guys just way to active...and built up 2 quick...no one else stood a chance. As far the player base dropping and dying off yeah..its cuz the same ppl hit the top 50 every round and back during ftw games it was what 40 ppl 1-40 all together every round? of course and thats prolly a reason why ppl quit playing..if you make it seem as if there is no chance then nobody is gonna play. Me myself i dont care as much but i would rather win the than lose.
well...
yeah this round is pretty well over....top guys just way to active...and built up 2 quick...no one else stood a chance. As far the player base dropping and dying off yeah..its cuz the same ppl hit the top 50 every round and back during ftw games it was what 40 ppl 1-40 all together every round? of course and thats prolly a reason why ppl quit playing..if you make it seem as if there is no chance then nobody is gonna play. Me myself i dont care as much but i would rather win the than lose.
Dax
Hydroponics Developer
Well, I'll have to stop you there, as I'm not one of the most active people - I'm just active when it matters. We won because we had a strong start, and nobody was willing to work with one another. Once spies had come out, it was over. MLP are consistently one of the best defensive alliances I've seen in a little while, and if they had been better round-starters, this could have gone a totally different way.
I'm not sure it's quite fair to say it's the same people every round. Certainly the core group an alliance forms around tends to be old players, but there are usually half a dozen newer players thrown into the mix too. With a couple of exceptions, the majority of ftw players today were newbies or not even playing 10 rounds ago.
The idea that the top is a closed club is just wrong. It's a very demanding club to be sure, but if you can show you're up to scratch (reasonably active and committed, not a total f*ckwit) then the veterans are always happy to accept new people.
The idea that the top is a closed club is just wrong. It's a very demanding club to be sure, but if you can show you're up to scratch (reasonably active and committed, not a total f*ckwit) then the veterans are always happy to accept new people.
LuckySports
Landscape Designer
Well, a few were, but only a couple..
The winning alliance is always decided by who's more willing to take the fight to the other person. Being defensive is good, but being able and willing to put consistent pressure on the other alliance is a lot more effective than being able to block 9/10 attacks or something like that..
As for the same people winning every round? The same people consistently do well, but who is in the winning alliance every round changes plenty. Only 2-3 people I know of in the rank 1 ally this round were in Klepto last round.
The winning alliance is always decided by who's more willing to take the fight to the other person. Being defensive is good, but being able and willing to put consistent pressure on the other alliance is a lot more effective than being able to block 9/10 attacks or something like that..
As for the same people winning every round? The same people consistently do well, but who is in the winning alliance every round changes plenty. Only 2-3 people I know of in the rank 1 ally this round were in Klepto last round.
NightNinja
Harvester
- Joined
- Jun 9, 2009
- Messages
- 172
see yeah and you guys can have one less active person but as demonstrated early you guys are online more than anyone else. Not to mention prolly are mostly uk players... and half a dozen newbies..big deal....there are 20 ppl in an alliance so 6 isn't that big of deal home slice. see the most active players are the high school kids or college kids who have nothing but free time. As for the rest of us stiffs who work alot it makes it alot harder to be on all the time ive had my stint in the top 50 granted that account got deleted YEARs ago sadly...just cuz i got sick of the game for a while which was during the ftw phase actually...took the fun out of the game....all im saying is the top 2 alliances are usually formed of atleast 20-30 players who were top 10-30 the round before...and im willing to bet that IS the case.
Dimitar
Landscape Designer
- Joined
- Dec 17, 2008
- Messages
- 2,388
Unless MLP have 20 players who were top 20 last round you're wrong, because we only have two or three :\ About 10 of us weren't even top 100 last round as far as I know
Is actually any of that based on fact? or just what you assume? MLP got a few from last round who was in rank 1 alliance but then i never wanted us to win it is boring, You are assuming that the most active players are school kids/college kids im neither of those (Thank God) you seem to put everyone in a pigeon hole that suits you and wont budge from that view which is your right BUT it also doesnt make it true.
You know the saying about people who assume things.
Im fairly sure i have the 2 best players ever of this game in my alliance, if not two of and we're rank 3.
Im also fairly sure that my alliance has more wins under its belt than the current rank 1 alliance.
Rank 1 just means you put more effort in at the start. If you put more effort in you get the rank and keep it if you have more effort than the rest. Simples
P.s im not saying rank 1 is rubbish, just making a point ;p
Im also fairly sure that my alliance has more wins under its belt than the current rank 1 alliance.
Rank 1 just means you put more effort in at the start. If you put more effort in you get the rank and keep it if you have more effort than the rest. Simples
P.s im not saying rank 1 is rubbish, just making a point ;p
qaerwe5r4556
Planter
- Joined
- Mar 12, 2011
- Messages
- 30
Im sure most of the ppl in the rank 1 alliance have been in the rank 1 alliance more than once.
I think its g a y :F that same old people win every round. Ofc you dont win every round but maybe every second or third :F. Hence the competive scence of this game is L A M E.
There is no :angel: competion. ITS SO SAD. Every new player sees this.
MAKE ALLIANCES SMALLER FOR MORE COMPETION.
I hate too see these :angel: making an alliance, strong to win every now and then, simply cuz there is no competion.
Im sure there would be a lot more newer players in the top if there were smaller alliance.
Right now, the old veterans, makes the rules for this game and how it should be played. ITS SO **** IN LAME.
I know you dont want smaller alliances cuz that means you wouldnt be able to be in a top alliance anymore.
I think its g a y :F that same old people win every round. Ofc you dont win every round but maybe every second or third :F. Hence the competive scence of this game is L A M E.
There is no :angel: competion. ITS SO SAD. Every new player sees this.
MAKE ALLIANCES SMALLER FOR MORE COMPETION.
I hate too see these :angel: making an alliance, strong to win every now and then, simply cuz there is no competion.
Im sure there would be a lot more newer players in the top if there were smaller alliance.
Right now, the old veterans, makes the rules for this game and how it should be played. ITS SO **** IN LAME.
I know you dont want smaller alliances cuz that means you wouldnt be able to be in a top alliance anymore.
Last edited by a moderator:
xvi
Harvester
Disagree. Smaller alliances would mean more communication amongst members in each as they would get to know one another better. Thus, more new players would stay as they would have more one on one help from experienced players. 10-12 people should be max
All of the arguments for smaller alliances may seem logically sound, especially with a declining playerbase.
In fact, this idea has been TRIED! It was tested by Azzer in a PW, which actually replaced W1 while he was working on Age 5 coding. (I think he also tried to implement automatic alliances).
The PW revealed some flaws in the theory, such as increased activity requirements for alliance members to cover all timezones, and decreased socialising due to fewer members online at any single one time (with fewer members).
This left smaller alliances with often 1 or 2 members online at most to deal with a large amount of incoming.
Good idea - tried and tested - failed to pass test. Sorry
In fact, this idea has been TRIED! It was tested by Azzer in a PW, which actually replaced W1 while he was working on Age 5 coding. (I think he also tried to implement automatic alliances).
The PW revealed some flaws in the theory, such as increased activity requirements for alliance members to cover all timezones, and decreased socialising due to fewer members online at any single one time (with fewer members).
This left smaller alliances with often 1 or 2 members online at most to deal with a large amount of incoming.
Good idea - tried and tested - failed to pass test. Sorry
Aye, smaller allies have been tried, round 28 the max members was cut down to 15 for private allies, and whilst yeah there was more competition, and it was a fairly interesting and exciting round, it was strenuous having only 15 man allies, put alot of strain on contactability and even more so on activity, there were many times in YouSuck it was just me/Masa keeping watch, with another 5 members those situations disappear.
On the flipside it does make attacking allies theoretically easier if they have less potential defenders, which can lead to more successful resistances (if resistances ever get off the ground again), but could lead to a swing in balance between solo and allied play back towards solo which was seen during the end of the pure solo era.
It is a tricky situation, I'm personally in favour of 20 man allies, eliminates most strains on the few by having more members to keep watch/defend at all times.
As for the same people always winning, this is a lie, yes the same 40-50 players are consistently over a sample of 10+ rounds in the top 50 etc, but rarely do the same ones win consecutive rounds, let alone several on the trot, (admittedly Ryu got 3 on the trot in 36-38, but 36 was an odd case of Prest merging with half of the original History to retake R1 from the other half of History who'd stabbed them in the back). The same players do well, because they are the ones who put the time in, and have the knowhow to do well (again in most cases, there are some clueless noobs who get carried occasionally).
As for lack of recent competition, this round saw more jostling for rank 1 than last round did, (admittedly Omni last round imploded after 2 days of inc and RiF didn't want rank 1 so kamikazi'd to get out of range and let Klepto win) and the round before that wasn't settled for a good month atleast, with all 3 of Aphallatosis, Res and dRQ holding rank 1 at various times in the first month of the round.
Some basis in fact in your arguments would be good qaerwe5r4556, instead of just spouting random assumptions.
On the flipside it does make attacking allies theoretically easier if they have less potential defenders, which can lead to more successful resistances (if resistances ever get off the ground again), but could lead to a swing in balance between solo and allied play back towards solo which was seen during the end of the pure solo era.
It is a tricky situation, I'm personally in favour of 20 man allies, eliminates most strains on the few by having more members to keep watch/defend at all times.
As for the same people always winning, this is a lie, yes the same 40-50 players are consistently over a sample of 10+ rounds in the top 50 etc, but rarely do the same ones win consecutive rounds, let alone several on the trot, (admittedly Ryu got 3 on the trot in 36-38, but 36 was an odd case of Prest merging with half of the original History to retake R1 from the other half of History who'd stabbed them in the back). The same players do well, because they are the ones who put the time in, and have the knowhow to do well (again in most cases, there are some clueless noobs who get carried occasionally).
As for lack of recent competition, this round saw more jostling for rank 1 than last round did, (admittedly Omni last round imploded after 2 days of inc and RiF didn't want rank 1 so kamikazi'd to get out of range and let Klepto win) and the round before that wasn't settled for a good month atleast, with all 3 of Aphallatosis, Res and dRQ holding rank 1 at various times in the first month of the round.
Some basis in fact in your arguments would be good qaerwe5r4556, instead of just spouting random assumptions.
xvi
Harvester
All of the arguments for smaller alliances may seem logically sound, especially with a declining playerbase.
In fact, this idea has been TRIED! It was tested by Azzer in a PW, which actually replaced W1 while he was working on Age 5 coding. (I think he also tried to implement automatic alliances).
The PW revealed some flaws in the theory, such as increased activity requirements for alliance members to cover all timezones, and decreased socialising due to fewer members online at any single one time (with fewer members).
This left smaller alliances with often 1 or 2 members online at most to deal with a large amount of incoming.
Good idea - tried and tested - failed to pass test. Sorry
This is an interesting argument. I understand where your coming from. I really dont want to start a debate for smaller alliances, I know its not going to happen. If I had wanted to go down that road again, I'd be in the Suggestions Thread.
With that said, you have to remember who would give this feedback to Azzer: the most active members in the community. Obviously, not newcomers or casual players.
Flaw #1: increased activity requirements for alliance members to cover all timezones. Hmmmm, flaw? Okay, so to win you have to be more active...or the most active....that doesn't sound much different. Will you die more? Yes. Is that a bad thing? Ask Jukebox. Some of those guys haven't been hit hard all round. More active to cover all timezones...also, what's the fun in covering all timezones all the time. Where's the human element.
Flaw #2: decreased socialising due to fewer members online at any single one time. Means of communication #1: Have you seen IRC lately? Its a joke. A joke it is! Increase your playerbase, increase IRC. 20 people on who are all idle. Really? How is it possible to get worse? Especially if you have increased demand on activity like you said. Means of communication #2: Forums: yeah, gripes is the most popular thread these days. Smaller alliances would mean more wars and more forum politics, rather than gripes all the stinking time (Not like this one, its totally legit). It would mean more wars because if you piss off a couple members, you dont have to convince so many people to declare war. I mean have you seen that epic war this round that everyone is buzzing about on forums! (Oh yeah, there hasn't been any) Means of communication #3: The Alliance Politics: Is as of now the main source most alliances are using for communication. Sorry guys, not you at the top with your fancy secret IRCs. This would decrease because there is less people right? Wrong, reason being is there would be twice as many alliances. Half as much posting twice as many alliances. 20/2*2= (Anyone care to answer that understands what the hell Im talking about Ive gone over the edge).
Flaw #3: This left smaller alliances with often 1 or 2 members online at most to deal with a large amount of incoming. Same as it is now. No difference whatsoever. Thats why those alliances are smaller. And tbh, Im damn ready to see a large amount of incoming in Bushtarion, because right now theres not a lot of anything going around.
We are like a democratic govt. Everyone is talking, nothings changing, and the same people are at the top.
Go USA
Im out!