Discussion to a suggestion... how to make the rounds more competitive?

[Dimitar]

What if someone isn't as active as promised? What if someone goes on vacation? What if someone cheats and is deleted? What if there is a spy?

Locking the alliances isn't fair.

Maybe Azzer can make it so players can be kicked, but cannot leave on their own It would prevent shipjumping I think

 

[Ahead]

P.S. Jeez Silence stop being so arrogant and claiming you're so good. I knew you'd use this whole thread as an ego boost you arrogant, self-centred homo! You're not the best leader and you're not even the second best leader, and you definitely don't try as hard as the best leader so in this case, you don't even get the DA award so suck on that you rubbish leader-noob!

WELL YEAH WHATEVER. Ill arrogant your mother, she claims that IM SO GUUURRRDDDD.

You are just sooooooooo jealous you weren't part of my super amazing alliance this round. Look how well it is doing. RANK TWO! Im so good I lead without being IN THE ALLIANCE :O

So yeah, you fail so hard at flaming that IoF is better than you lols. Secondly you fail so hard that you weren't ever part of my super cool alliance. And FINALLY you fail to get the darkangel award because, YOU SIR, are just not as good as IoF at flaming and therefore I award YOU the darkangel award for trying as hard as IoF (INFACT EVEN HARDER) but just not as good.

So yeah, Ill self-centre you, you homo.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Stupid war with Ahead aside; I agree with Signer.

The top groups are *too* contactable and as a result of which too difficult to topple. I would much prefer to see a round where it is chaos for the full round.

I strongly feel that an alliance of 10 would resolve this because the dedication would be too much for an alliance of 10 to retain a significantly dominant position for the entire round.

She only said that cos I told her to cos you were paying her so much.. and apparently its so warty it feels like using some form of ribbed protection so maybe it was quite good but gl doing it without one when it drops off!

RANK TWO! That says it all, you're so rubbish you had to get someone else to lead it for you and you weren't even the best person at PICKING somebody else to lead, you still came second! You're just so jealous that you don't even deserve the DA award nowadays that you feel you have to take it out on me.. trust me the FARVIES would not be impressed! You are making them turn in their graves.

We'll se about that, I challenge IoF to flame you better than I have done.. he won't be able to, he's just a one-hit wonder, like you! But at least his one-hits are good, yours suck. I mean come on.. you used the "your mum" flame last war, find a new one - you're soo boring.. too predictable nowadays.

Yeh I bet you'd love to self-centre me you disgusting perv.

--------
Stupid war with Silence(noob) half aside; I knew you'd agree with me, it's just cos I'm too good for you. Just admit it.

Fully aside: I agree.

Unapproved by DA - Spam.

 

[Silence]

P.S. Jeez Silence stop being so arrogant and claiming you're so good. I knew you'd use this whole thread as an ego boost you arrogant, self-centred homo! You're not the best leader and you're not even the second best leader, and you definitely don't try as hard as the best leader so in this case, you don't even get the DA award so suck on that you rubbish leader-noob!

WELL YEAH WHATEVER. Ill arrogant your mother, she claims that IM SO GUUURRRDDDD.

You are just sooooooooo jealous you weren't part of my super amazing alliance this round. Look how well it is doing. RANK TWO! Im so good I lead without being IN THE ALLIANCE :O

So yeah, you fail so hard at flaming that IoF is better than you lols. Secondly you fail so hard that you weren't ever part of my super cool alliance. And FINALLY you fail to get the darkangel award because, YOU SIR, are just not as good as IoF at flaming and therefore I award YOU the darkangel award for trying as hard as IoF (INFACT EVEN HARDER) but just not as good.

So yeah, Ill self-centre you, you homo.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Stupid war with Ahead aside; I agree with Signer.

The top groups are *too* contactable and as a result of which too difficult to topple. I would much prefer to see a round where it is chaos for the full round.

I strongly feel that an alliance of 10 would resolve this because the dedication would be too much for an alliance of 10 to retain a significantly dominant position for the entire round.

She only said that cos I told her to cos you were paying her so much.. and apparently its so warty it feels like using some form of ribbed protection so maybe it was quite good but gl doing it without one when it drops off!

RANK TWO! That says it all, you're so rubbish you had to get someone else to lead it for you and you weren't even the best person at PICKING somebody else to lead, you still came second! You're just so jealous that you don't even deserve the DA award nowadays that you feel you have to take it out on me.. trust me the FARVIES would not be impressed! You are making them turn in their graves.

We'll se about that, I challenge IoF to flame you better than I have done.. he won't be able to, he's just a one-hit wonder, like you! But at least his one-hits are good, yours suck. I mean come on.. you used the "your mum" flame last war, find a new one - you're soo boring.. too predictable nowadays.

Yeh I bet you'd love to self-centre me you disgusting perv.

--------
Stupid war with Silence(noob) half aside; I knew you'd agree with me, it's just cos I'm too good for you. Just admit it.

Fully aside: I agree.

Well atleast I can afford her! She pays for you to get your rubbish education at your rubbish university. What was it called again? Thames Valley University? Well atleast she can afford to pay for your David Beckham studies degree. Yeah you find him dreeeeeeammmmmmmmyyyyyyyy.

Yeah only rank two BUT WE TRIED JUST AS HARD AS RANK ONE TO BE RANK ONE. So where is my darkangel award? What your mum spent all the money? :O

ONE HIT WONDER?! IoF is on FIRE. Your flames are rubbish. You just wish you were as good as him. I use the "your mum" jokes because they are timeless and WHAT WE HAVE IS SPECIAL!!!!

How do you know so much about me and your mum anyway o.0 Disgusting perv.

I win that battle with ahead (homo)


@ the thread I agree with Ahead's agreeing.

-

Unapproved by DA - Spam.

 

[Max]

I really like the concept. It's in the middle ground, between "one alliance is made up of whoever they like" and "every alliance is completely randomised".

I'd love to see it trialed

In fact, it might even be better if players could be classed somehow in terms of their activity. That way you'd end up with alliances playing FTW, but not necessarily with the insane activity / contactibility requirements that most have now.

 

[Coruba]

Hi All

From a new players perspective.......leave well alone. Two other games I have played tried to do similar things like changing things to try and get some competition happening.........it doesn't work.....period.

Any game eventually gets worked out by the top players on the best way to play it. Those players then usually team up......making it very difficult for any new players to even be competitive.

If you want a bigger player base you have to teach more players to be like the pros and hence then you will get more competition. That will only happen by those pros on setting up their own alliances and doing exactly that.......teach the newbies to become like yourself.

Cheers

Coruba

 

[Lupus]

seems like the first steps to admin randomly assigned alliances and the end of solos imo

 

[Dax]

The first idea proposed is a nice thought, but realistically I couldn't see it working.

However I do fully agree with 10 man alliances - for many reasons.

- Alliances of 20 super-active players are TOO difficult to breakdown nowadays, which has been shown these last 2 rounds. Reducing this to 10 may mean we still get these super-active alliances, but 10 player alliances are, in my opinion, easier to breakdown.

- Continuing from the first point, nowadays we struggle to get even 2 alliances capable of going for the win. 10 man alliances would increase competition, help with alliances working together to take down an alliance. I think we would get a guaranteed 3-4 allies going for the win. 20 man alliances worked in the past because we had more, more active players. We don't nowadays.

People have been saying that 10 man alliances would mean people would have to be more active to compensate for lack of coverage during the day. The change may make people play more actively, but I believe the majority of players wouldn't change.

And anyway, is the lack of coverage a bad thing? I don't believe it is. I hate the degree of invulnerability around the top alliances nowadays, and maybe this change would teach people to once again think 'Hey, it is actually alright to die'. And who knows, maybe we can bring some fun back in to this game, something that has been severely lacking in recent times.

\o/

 

[Ram]

Hi All
If you want a bigger player base you have to teach more players to be like the pros and hence then you will get more competition. That will only happen by those pros on setting up their own alliances and doing exactly that.......teach the newbies to become like yourself.

It's not so much about skill its more about the contactability and activity factor. It's plain and simple, 95% of the player base doesn't want to be woken through the night.

 

[Silence]

Hi All
If you want a bigger player base you have to teach more players to be like the pros and hence then you will get more competition. That will only happen by those pros on setting up their own alliances and doing exactly that.......teach the newbies to become like yourself.

It's not so much about skill its more about the contactability and activity factor. It's plain and simple, 95% of the player base doesn't want to be woken through the night.

Your attention to detail to be able to come up with such an accurate figure is outstanding! Woaaaaah how did you do that?!

Bla bla bla another skill versus activity debate

Lets skip a few pages of flames and trolling and conclude that both is needed.


@ Coruba: If you want help you have to ask for it, its that simple! If you are polite, reasonable and willing to listen I am sure that anyone would be happy to help if they are not busy.

I dont go to the IRC channel #bushtarion, but if you did I am sure that you will find someone friendly enough to help.

 

[cb1202]

I would be all for this.

 

[Coruba]

Hi Silence

Thanks for your response.

My post was not about asking for help, or needing any, I like to try figure games out on my own and probably getting beaten up many times......that is half the enjoyment.

My first round which was a couple of rounds ago I checked the top alliance.....the interesting thing is the top 20 players were all in the same alliance.......amazing......I would of expected at least one other player from another alliance to be up there......speaks volume imo.

My post was a little insight from my experience on how a game tends to evolve.....take it or leave it.

Cheers

Coruba

 

[tobapopalos]

My first round which was a couple of rounds ago I checked the top alliance.....the interesting thing is the top 20 players were all in the same alliance.......amazing......I would of expected at least one other player from another alliance to be up there......speaks volume imo.

That does not mean that the rank 1 alliance has the 20 best players. It's just the way the game works. When an alliance gets a comfortable position as rank 1 they can just work together to make sure they control the top 20 ranks by beating on all those from lower alliances and making sure nobody grows big enough to compete for any of the top 20 ranks.

 

[Ahead]

It's not so much about skill its more about the contactability and activity factor. It's plain and simple, 95% of the player base doesn't want to be woken through the night.

Speak for yourself.. just cos you have no skill to play with and rely on contactability and activity doesn't mean everyone else (playing ftw) in the game does too!

 

[Iamsmart]

You just aren't good enough if you aren't active or contactable.

Haven't we had this discussion before?

 

[Cheese]

You just aren't good enough if you aren't active or contactable.

Haven't we had this discussion before?

Um...
Ask anyone in GC I was impossible to get a hold of when not online... but still finished rank 1, so I am slightly inclined to disagree with you smartypoo

 

[Iamsmart]

You were online a ridiculous amount - I know you were at least somewhat contactable in Asphyxia - So please, don't try to lie. It makes you look stupid.

 

[Twigley]

He isn't lying.

 

[Changer]

He isn't lying.

 

[Dax]

You just aren't good enough if you aren't active or contactable.

Haven't we had this discussion before?

Um...
Ask anyone in GC I was impossible to get a hold of when not online... but still finished rank 1, so I am slightly inclined to disagree with you smartypoo

I think casting the illusion you are impossible to hit is one of the most important factors in maintaining a position like that. As well as the fact your alliance must have your back like a buttcrack.

 

[Alvestein]

really like this idea. just because it's good to mix it up and play with people you don't always play with. brings the community together i think ^^