How About This!!!

[Zoro]

I'm sure every PA player at some time or other has either used someone elses account sending ships to attack or defend OR delibrately had farms/multi planets

I played between seasons 3 to 8 and in each of these seasons I had multi planets - some I had given to me (when it was free) and some I bought
This challenge of trying to keep 5 or 6 planets in check/progressing was what made the game very interesting. Most importantly it was very difficult to do. It's hard to converse with each individual galaxy and keep on top of attack and defence

It was this balancing act that appealed to me personally.

What really annoyed me was to have Major blocks come and destroy my hard work and wipe out galaxies/planets

Anyway my plan is to allow people to multi - SHOCK HORROR!!
Cos it's damn hard to do - to keep control of 5 or 10 or even 100 planets would be a mighty challenge that even most dedicated PA players would struggle

It's quite simple - U want 10 planets? U prepared to pay? U can have them - And good luck to u

The lack of planets would be immediately addressed and the game would be interesting again

The only reason why I haven't played for the past seasons is cos there aren't enough planets out there - I believe there are many people like me


CLEAR UR MIND
THINK OF A TIME BEFORE PA

If a game came along and said - U can have one planet or u can have 5 planets or u can have 100 planets it's ur choice - U would accept those as the rules and u would make ur decisions on numbers of planets accordingly.
Think of it as U control a galaxy of planets each with fleets and then u ally with friends/PA buddies and u make alliances with ur planet/fleets and theirs

Example
XXX alliance has 10 members
Zoro has 10 planets
Zorky has 2 planets
Brainy has 25 planets
Looney has 150 planets - which he can't control very well
and so on

Example
I'm a bit busy for the next few months - exams etc.
I'll only have a couple of planets
But that's ok cos Zorky is going to get 10 planets this time so the xxx alliance will still be as strong

I can't believe PA has lasted so long with such a limited player base

I know what ur going to say

U CAN'T CHANGE
CHANGE NOOOOOOOOOOO
FARMS = EVILLLLLLL

And u may even think that some people would take advantage of the situation
BUT SAY - LET THEM
I didn't play PA to win - I didn't have a chance - I played cos it was enjoyable

What about this?
1 planet costs £5
5 planets cost £20
10 planets costs £35

What do u think?

[Kal]

m8 of mine actualyl sai dsomething similar to me - the theory being if u arn;t super active and into the communioty in a hard core way its a bit dull between ticks - but if u have 5 planets to manage its a lot to do. Games like eve-online for example allow multiple accounts etc.

the thing is in eve online u can only control one account at a time wheras in pa u can easily yuse your multies to help u attack or to defend. A multi whoose plantes do not intereact isn;t a serious problem - its the interactions that make things unfair, they mean that in the case of a game that costs money the person with the most money wins.

[Gerbie]

Multying without interaction is very hard to trace by a multihunter. Invite your family and pets to play. But make sure you don't interact with them.

[wakey]

I agree with Kal that its not the multies in themselves thats teh problem but the interaction. If you have a player with 25 accounts which he can attack and defend with it gives them a huge advantage so you would ahve to ban interaction. This would mean they couldnt be in the same alliances, couldnt attack or defend together, couldnt attack same galaxies ect. Now if this is the case you have to wonder what you really have to gain in a game like this, you would have to have multiple alliances to help you with each account, you would need multiple irc chanenls for all the galaxy, alliiance ect. Its alot of effort when you gain nothing by doing so.

Also it would make spying easier, spies atm can only be in one alliance unless they create free multi accounts. Now they can be in multipel alliances at once legitimatly. Also even if they dont mean to spy theres going to be interaction that cant be tracked, would you really not use the info your privy to to aid your favourite alliance?

[Zoro]

But i am saying u can interact - u can attack and defend - but so can everyone else

It just means if one planet gets bashed ur not dead

STEP OUTSIDE THE PA WORLD
Forget how it has been - just think maybe instead of us all being in galaxies maybe we team up with the same clusters - maybe the rule can be that all of ur planets can only be in the same cluster - AND u can't attack in cluster - BUT there are time benifits for defence

Maybe there could be a restriction on defending out of cluster - and maybe each player/alliance reside in the same cluster
So it would be kind of a cluster war

Example
U have 10 planets and they are all in cluster 4 - ur friends are also in cluster 4 so u all get a chance to defend

Now u cannot farm or use planets as spies cos u are on the same side - u cannot attack in cluster

There could be 15 20 or even 30 different clusters each with hundereds of planets in scores of galaxies - this would effectively be as many as 30 different alliances all with relively the same ammount of planets
The GC in each galaxy can check each of the other galaxies in the cluster for incommings and arrange defence accordingly

This system could incourage more new players as it is usually the new players in smaller galaxies that get bashed in cluster in the firt few weeks of a new season - thus putting them off the game

I admit my ideas are not well thought through BUT none the less I believe there is something in this -
what do u think?

Remember think outside of what u already know - open ur mind

[Kal]

the problem is the person with the most money then wins as i said before

[Zoro]

Not true

One person with 10 planets is not better than 10 players with one planet each

[wakey]

Originally Posted by Zoro

Not true

One person with 10 planets is not better than 10 players with one planet each

Yes they are, the player with 10 planets always has 10 planets they can use to defend one of the others with, the single players dont have that guarentee becuase for them to get defence the other 9 have to all be online at the same time and at the right time to send. If you can buy enough accounts just to act as defence for the primary account you give yourself a major advantage

[Zoro]

Sorry i was too simplistic

One player with ten planets is not as good as 10 players with 1 planet each (team up) with contacts and allies different time zones

I am also presuming that the ten players put as many hours into the game that the one does - and if u read earlier they would all be in the same cluster (alliance)

[wakey]

Now your just trying to use a 'unicorn' to justify a slawed idea. A player whom can call upon a friend to help them no matter what and no matter what time it is is very rare basically the situation you are describing is one that for all but about 0.01% of players is as much a fantasy as a a unicorn.

If I log in and see I have incoming and I have 10 accounts at my primary account I then have 9 planets of lesser importance I can call ships from and I know they will come no matter what time it is and what sitiuation these ships are in.

If I log in and see incoming and I ahve one account it all depends upon other people, if my 10 friends arent online at that moment then I dont get defence.

Ofc on the otherhand if I have 10 planets and arent online then the 10 planets cant help defend but I'm guessing most people will have a number of friends like the single players have whom can help in those situations

The ideas is simply flawed for a game like PA, for it to work it would need a major overhaul of the game, an overhaul which would probally make the change to PAX look small

[Tactitus]

A multi--no matter how many accounts he has--has to sleep. None of his planets can send defense if the attack isn't discovered soon enough. Hitting a number of his planets simultaneously makes defense impossible even if there is time. The only thing he can do is retal, but a decent galaxy/alliance will beat a multi just about every time.

Finding and killing multis was a pleasurable and profitable pastime in the early rounds.

[Precursors]

a player with 10 planets can defend his 1 planet with 9 other, but what if he gets attacked in another planet? he will have to spend hell lotta time trying to organize def for his3-4 incomings
only advantage would be for attacking i guess

[Cayl]

Personally I think its time for Planetarion to look into different ideas. I'm glad that the topic isn't so taboo that PA Team and others can actually discuss it intelligently.

You already limit things to 1 account. What if you just raise that limit to 5 planets, controlled from 1 login, each paid invididually. Then delete people, as you do now, who control more than those 5 planets. These 5 planets will be treated as galaxy mates or alliance mates are now, unable to take hostile actions (like farming). Perhaps put a limit in place that each Player, not planet can join one alliance, to cut down on wholesale spying. Maybe make it obvious that planets are tied to one another, like you pick one planet name and the others just have a 1-5 after them, and they're all the same ruler name. Make it so they're not in-galaxy or in-cluster, limiting defensive usefulness a bit.

I'm just tossing out some ideas, but I think it would be a different experience and could help revitalize the game a bit. It seems to suffer somewhat from being a smaller universe.

In any case, I don't think it should be dismissed out of hand. It could be a needed boost to revenue without being as bad for the game as you think.

[Zoro]

Exactly my point

I'm not suggesting that the idea that I have come up with off the top of my head is THE WINNING FURMULA - what I am saying though is OPEN UR MIND to other posibilities
Straight away with the last idea we would have a universe 5 times the size and probably 5 times more interesting

The game will die if the same approach is persued

Think about it - what is better? To carry on a path even if it leads to certain destruction OR to consider new ways or ideas even if they seem to be against the basic principle of the game

I personally don't believe there should be a limit (like 5 or tem max) I believe the limit should be decided individually - HOW many planets do u think u can realistically run?
In the past I have tried about 6 (and that was with a friend)
It was a nightmare at times - really hard to do - BUT very enjoyable too

The idea of limitations being put on where u reside in the universe should be the only restriction

If someone wants to run 50 planets - good luck to them - maybe they have alot of time on their hands for that season - maybe they want a massive challenge
And if that player does well or even wins - Well done

Are u telling me that past winner have not multied or account shared?
The winners are usually the people that hide it best

[arbondigo]

Originally Posted by Zoro

Straight away with the last idea we would have a universe 5 times the size and probably 5 times more interesting

That's assuming that EVERYONE buys 5 planets, which i very much doubt they will. A lot of people who play PA are still at school and as such can't really afford to pay for more than 1 planet. If they go up to their parents and ask for £30-40 whatever just so they can have 5 planets instead of however much it is now for 1, i think most people know what the answer from the parents would be

Originally Posted by Zoro

I personally don't believe there should be a limit (like 5 or tem max) I believe the limit should be decided individually - HOW many planets do u think u can realistically run?
In the past I have tried about 6 (and that was with a friend)
It was a nightmare at times - really hard to do - BUT very enjoyable too

If there's no limit on the amount of accounts you can have then it will be, as has been pointed out earlier in the thread, whoever has the most money wins. Now you can argue this, but it's more than likely that if a very active player bought say 10 accounts, he's going to run them a lot better than an inactive guy that's bought 10 accounts. He's going to know which fleet is best for each race and can plan ahead to protect his main planet or 2.

Originally Posted by Zoro

Are u telling me that past winner have not multied or account shared?

I think just about everyone who's played PA seriously has at some stage or another logged into someone else's account to launch an attack or defence, or given out their password to a mate so he can do the same etc.

Yes the number of people playing PA needs to increase, but instead of allowing people to buy and play more than 1 account, how about having a certain amount of bot players instead, i assume these can be programmed so that they have around an average score or what not, can attack and defend each other etc? Like they would defend in gal only, and perhaps attack people of a similar score to themselves. They'd have to be controlled by a creator or someone who isn't really too involved in the game, playing wise that is.

[Kal]

one of planetarions biggest attractions is that is only costs £3.33 to be able to compete just as well as anyone else - by making it allowed to buy more accounts however limited they are does start to make the game more about money, which is something at least half of the community do not want, having said that.... if things wern;t all about money then Cayl's idea isn;t bad at a first glance

[wakey]

Originally Posted by Precursors

a player with 10 planets can defend his 1 planet with 9 other, but what if he gets attacked in another planet? he will have to spend hell lotta time trying to organize def for his3-4 incomings
only advantage would be for attacking i guess

I disagree, if your playing multiple accounts the chances are you will what one account as your primary and the other as backups. In the event of multiple attacks I think the chances are that most people will say "sod this planet i'm defening the main account"

And yes Tactitus is right multies have to sleep but as ive said I think its safe to assume that in those situations they have the same way of getting defence as a solo player so its a win win situation for them, guarenteed defence when online, same chances as everyone else of defence when offline and a better chance to regrow after an attack

[wakey]

Thats the thing as well, while your here saying "lets make it harder for those who cant pay" theres another thread over on PD where people are demanding that the restictions on free players are removed to allow them to compete. You simply cant have both you either have a game where it costs more to be able to compete and ultimatly you ahve less players or you make it easier for people who dont pay to comepere and get more players.

Also Zoro you keep saying "be open minded", we are being its just we know that your implementation here simply isnt compatable with the game structure. There would need to be some fundemental game changes to make what you want a viable option if you dont want to make it about who has the most money, even Cayl's suggested limit to it doesnt stop that completly it just limits it to 5 tiers rather than the 2 we have now. I just fear that a change like this would unbalance the game and see an exodus like the one we saw when the two tier system was put in place because the game is so much about numbers that the more planets you can afford the better chance you have. The whole game theory would need changed to make the game less about sheer numbers, where having 5 accounts didnt give you a sudden advantage but instead just opened up differnt playing avenues.

[Zoro]

Wakey
U are focusing very heavily on one point
Whether u are right one this point or wrong it doesn't matter

The general points being made are how to bring in more players/planets and make the game more enjoyable

There is also a question about cost - More planets costs more money - well maybe it shouldn't maybe instead of getting 1 planet u get 5 - and like suggested before these could be Xander1 Xander2 Xander3 etc - 1 being the primary account and the others being support

I still like the idea of them all being the same cluster/sector and all allies being placed there too
so it would be kind of a cluster war
U cannot attack in cluster etc and maybe u couldn't receive help from outside the cluster
Another idea I have is to give each cluster a certain ammount of new players - who are clearly identified (in cluster) It would be the job to all the players in the cluster to encourage and help each of these players (maybe resource bonus's etc)

Another I idead i've had is to have some kind of dark force (bot planets) controlled by whoever but there to add to the number of planets and targets - but also to attack alliances that are becoming toooooo strong - kinda keeping the staus quo (and thus the interest)

keep the ideas coming

[wakey]

tbh I dont think I am focusing on one point, my last post for example raised atleast two key points and before that many others.

And before we go any further lets just make something clear

More Planets != More fun

Everyone having 5 planets really doesnt make that much difference, theres more planets but the gaming community isnt any larger or more vibrant which is what makes this game enjoyable. Its simply more Players that are needed rather than more planets. I mean what do you think generally is going to happen if you give all players 5 planets, those in the big alliances whom are well protected already and whom have the numbers to carry out many successful attacks will have even more protection, the smaller players will still see all their planets being bashed and will be left with teh choice of a) spilitting defence they get resulting in 5 weaker planets or b) ignoring 4 of them and focusing one just one this giving yourself less support to call upon. basically what your doing is taking the already massive gap between top and bottom and making it wider.

Theres simply no point adding planets to the game if theres not more people attahced to those accounts as it adds nothing to the game. PA is a poor game, always has been always will be due to the limititations of the medium, its the players that make it good (and also what kills it in many ways with certain actions) and its these you need more of.

Its this reason why bots imho dont add anything to the game either. I mean what are your options with bot planets either they are 'dumb' planets with basically no fleet whom are just there to feed the lower end planets roids or the are inteligent planets whom activly help shape the universe.

Now dumb planets just help make the game a little stagnated at the lower end, attacking what are basically free roid farms isnt very fun and these players doing it would be better off buying an off the self game thats supposed to be you vs computer rather than a MMOG which is supposed to be human vs human

Intelligent planets just throw up so many question marks on how far you let them go in situations and how inteligent you allow them/can make them. Bots are generally going to act on rules and these rules are strict and while in a black and white world this would be fine the world is many shadeds of grey . The amount of intervention a bot needs to make is differnt in all cases and your looking at needing huge amounts of investment to ensure they are the bots are viable optiosn whom dont stand out, dont just become easy farms or dont turn into some unstoppable force. I mean how many games have you played where the computers AI hasnt been right and its screwed your enjoyment of teh game cos its either too easy or too hard, I have a list of these as long as my arm.

An neither of the ways addresses or trys to correct the problem all players have with this game the lack o real people playing with whom they can compete an socilaise with. If you change the game significantly so it has differnt goals then you possibly have a game which would suit multiple planets and possible even enhance it. Try bolting multiple accounts onto the current game and its just not suited and your ignoring the true problem by focusing on some 'pseudo' problem

[Tactitus]

Originally Posted by wakey

Theres simply no point adding planets to the game if theres not more people attahced to those accounts as it adds nothing to the game.

But allowing players to buy and play multiple accounts adds revenue. And more revenue means more (or better) developers, more advertising, etc. I agree that it doesn't add much to the game per se, but more revenue's surely not a bad thing is it?

[Zoro]

Is planetarion about the winning or the taking part?

If it was only about winning it would have been dead long ago
I played for about 6 seasons and I didn't stand a cat in hell's chance of winning but i played because I enjoyed it - the system we are talking about is giving people the oppotunity to run more planets if they want or not if they want

Multying was a real big problem when the game was free as farming enabled some people to grow to an unbeatable size and bash everyone else
The past few seasons the main problem I have seen (and it's been a problem since the early rounds) is blocking - which I believe is a far bigger problem than multying and farming

When i said bot planets I really meant human controlled planets (with certain growth advantages) set up mutiples to help control the status quo

[wakey]

Originally Posted by Tactitus

But allowing players to buy and play multiple accounts adds revenue. And more revenue means more (or better) developers, more advertising, etc. I agree that it doesn't add much to the game per se, but more revenue's surely not a bad thing is it?

The question is would it mean more revenue. If they cant afford 5 accounts will they bother paying at all? No matter what people say its clearly an advantage to ahve more than one account, after all if there wasnt people wouldnt multi. Now if you know you have little chance of comepeting or even surviving cos others can afford to buy more than one account. Just look at the discussions going on about free accounts, the general consensus is that fthe thing holding the number of free accounts back atm is the limitations impossed on them and all the discussion seems to center on how to make free accounts closer to that of the paid accounts so they are mildly competative and can survive and hence have more reason to signup in the first place and hopefully upgrade. All this is doing is making the free aco****s weaker and at the same time making the single accounts weak also

[wakey]

Originally Posted by Zoro

Is planetarion about the winning or the taking part?

If it was only about winning it would have been dead long ago
I played for about 6 seasons and I didn't stand a cat in hell's chance of winning but i played because I enjoyed it - the system we are talking about is giving people the oppotunity to run more planets if they want or not if they want

Multying was a real big problem when the game was free as farming enabled some people to grow to an unbeatable size and bash everyone else
The past few seasons the main problem I have seen (and it's been a problem since the early rounds) is blocking - which I believe is a far bigger problem than multying and farming

When i said bot planets I really meant human controlled planets (with certain growth advantages) set up mutiples to help control the status quo

If your in a top alliance its about winning, for the rest its about having fun and surving. two things which this system of yours makes difficult UNLESS you have cash to spend. And the system doesnt give you much choice, you take the max number of planets that your allowed or you put yourself at the back of the field before the game starts.

The game should be about skill, not about who can buy the most accounts

[Zoro]

OK OK OK

Wakey I keep trowing ideas into the pot - U keep knocking the ideas back - Which is fair U seem to have a great deal of knowledge about the game so I appreciate ur answers

I did say though that my ideas are off the top of my head - I am literally typing the ideas as I think of them - so it's no wonder most of them are stupid - BUT i do believe there is something in what I have said - maybe I will think them through and represent them.

But
what I would like is for u (wakey) to give me some ideas maybe ur ideas could spark other people

[wakey]

This is one of the few subjects I really dont have anything to say on when it comes to my own ideas (I know regulars are probally shocked at this as I'm well known for writing about 10 pages on how i think things should be implemented )

Without wandering into the extreams where I rewrite the whole basis of the game you always end up back at the "buying success" problem. There needs a solution that at the very least wont give those running multiple accounts an advantage but adds something to the gaming experiance for them thus giving people a reason to multi. It doesnt seem like a solution which would be complicated but so far it seems to be a bit of myth as no-one has yet to find a way to acheive both.

[mist]

if you want someone to own multiple accounts, but not gain an advantage from doing so you need to stop them interacting. the only way to do this in a single universe is to introduce geography such that the planets can't feasably help each other. however, in doing so you limit the amount of other planets that people can interact with - effectivly making the game smaller. whether this would be countered by having more 'personas' to meet people with, i don't know

-mist

[Gerbie]

You could add restrictions to such accounts. Like not let them prelaunch on the same target and not defend each other. This can be hardcoded.

[wakey]

The problem though with restricting their interaction is do you then remove any reason for having multiple planets and if so how are you then going to make it worthwhile upgrading. This is the probelm i keep hitting when I try and think of ways to make it work, you make it worthwhile to multi and it continually seems to give them a major advantage but when you counter the advantages you lose any tangiable to attract people to multi

[Blacknova]

Alright

Here's a leftfield idea that just sprung into mind, I am heavily borrowing from another game in the basic concept but hear me out.

Introduce a new research chain - "planetary control" - First tier researched gives you the basic single planet, can be researched up to 5 planets.

With each research completed you can then pay resources to "colonize" another planet, which you are given the option of spawning randomly, or if you have a galpin, you can spawn into a target galaxy, the only place it can't be spawned is in the same gal as yourself. Each planet once "colonized" would need to be built up in the same way, with constructions (research is communal), roids, own fleet etc.

Interaction between these planets would be actively encouraged, if someone wishes to farm the hell out of their own planets, let them, they are basically using then for that tactic and making one planet a very large target and leaving their "farm" planets vulnerable. If someone wishes to use fleets to defend or "escort", again, let them, how they use their own planets , multiple accounts still fall under the realm of multi. This however would introduce new tactical depth into the game I believe.

EDIT : Was on phone so had to cut this post short.

The idea would be this could encourage multi layered tactics by allowing players to mix and match race types, alliances would still have the numerical advantage, however, this would means wars would be much deeper and more drawn out, with many more options offered to each player, decisions would have to be throught through a little more carefully. Some players could design their fleets to counter weakensses, others to enhance strengths, farm players may go for the single big fleet theory, but leave themselves vulnerable to a combined arms attack by a more balanced player, etc.

EDIT 2: Some more thoughts

To counter excessive farming the roid efficiency limit could be restructured, so that the amount of roids you can have is split between ALL your planets (this would mean it would start at 2k most likely, and max out at 25k), since the cost of "coloizing" each new planet would be exponential, it means players would be forced to make decisions every step of the way. Concentrating roids in one place means faster fleet production, but also means a fatter target, spreading the roids reduces risk, but means that the output of each planet is more heavily limited.

Nova

[Zoro]

I like that

The word farming is a dirty word in Pa but in other games farming can be used to gain strength or help development - econmy is key in most games - instead of farming maybe it could be called trading

I don't know about u but I played round 4 and I farmed like mad and defended like mad - that was alls I did and it was great - i was happy to survive and grow - I don't even think I was top 20,000 player But i was happy to grow fending off attacks from people slightly bigger than myself

And most importantly working closely with my galaxy and moving foward together and it was fun

Sometimes it is very easy to view the game from the perspective of the top players - i've never been a top player even though I was probably putting in similar hours - I just wasn't very well conected

[Gerbie]

Originally Posted by wakey

The problem though with restricting their interaction is do you then remove any reason for having multiple planets and if so how are you then going to make it worthwhile upgrading. This is the probelm i keep hitting when I try and think of ways to make it work, you make it worthwhile to multi and it continually seems to give them a major advantage but when you counter the advantages you lose any tangiable to attract people to multi

In the current round I'd love to have another account that would allow me to start anew with another race. After a round with shipstats like this it just gets too boring. I'd love to try something else now. All what keeps me from starting anew is that I would have to abandon my galaxy and my alliance would have to miss my offensive and defensive fleet.

Having the ability to play multiple accounts without interaction allows me to explore more races. That would be a valuable advantage to me.

[wakey]

@Nova: I was kind of having a simerlar thought but theres nagging element in it all and thats how would this effect the gap between the top and bottom.

You see while the cost of such things is never the same for two people even if the conditions that effect the cost are the same for both. Take this current round for example, i got exiled from my top 10 galaxy earlier in the round when I was around the 700k mark and landed in a galaxy on the wrong side of c40. To exile myself out of it was going to cost me over 4 mill of each. Now if the same thing happened to a player in a top 5 or even a top 10 alliance who had the same score as me the cost would have been less than mine. Not litterally ofc but relativly, with the backup of a top alliance losing 4mill+ isnt as big an issue, they know they can almost certainly get defence if needed so need the ships less while I am in the situation where i know I will probally get defence but i'm certain of it and cant rely on others actions. This means ive had to put off exiling myself.

Now you have the same problem here, no matter what benifts it might bring its alot more 'expensive' for a small player to take the colony option, without the colony they are at a disadvanatge and will grow slower and the gap gets wider especially if as you hinted you can have more than one race(which lets be honest is a major advanage) .

Ive always been of the opinion that the closer the two extreams are the better the game is as its more competaive, its when it gets really strung out that the real problems start and I think as such your idea may need more limitations and some changes to prevent it making advantage too powerful and thus putting the smaller at even more disadvantage

[Blacknova]

Lots of words, but not much info :/

Alright, here's the rough proposal as I managed to hone it down to thus far, and bear in mind, that unlike a lot of the stuff that's been mutilated with PAX (prelaunches / nerfing of covop) the idea is to some extent already "pre-balanced" and therefore doesn't need a lot of hacking around.

Research chain with 4 steps, each one taking progressively longer than the first, each one allows you to "colonise" a new planet, with the details that I outlined in my earlier post, which in part will generate private gals, but can be used to encourage existing players to mix in with new ones (this system could be set up so the max a priv gal can have is 8 with 2 slots open for random colonies to spawn in). Say - 24/48/72/96 ticks for each subsequent research (the time factor alone on the last 2 will force hard choices since that ties research up for a while).

Colonisation cost is based on 2 factors, number of planets you already have in play (applies a strict n+1 multiplier to the cost involved) and your current value (therefore it is going to be in players best interest to colonise early, the ones who decide to grow may have the advantage of stronger planets, but risk making things comparitively expensive later on).

The more than 1 race idea wasn't a hint, it was an outright suggestion, the idea is that you can pick and choose what your 5 planets comprise of (1 of each race + 1 on top, or 3 from 1 race and 2 from another), giving you numerous tactical and strategic choices at each step, do you wish to reinforce your output and production of a particular race's capabilities, or do you wish to implement a different race into your set up to give you versatility. Additionally race benefits are averaged, therefore if you wish to keep the cathaar's research bonus in some level of usefulness putting a Xan on your side will negate it, such information can be presented to the player with a confirmation option so they know exactly the effects of their decision, the race benefits / research / construction benefits (e.g. reslabs / sec centers) are generally communal and are also averaged, which forces larger players to be careful and accept a measure of vulnerability as they "colonise" the next planet.

The idea is not "n00b" friendly, and tbh PA should not be trying to market itself as such, stupidity should bring it's own punishment (this is partly why I have problems with prelaunch in it's current form, it encourages tactical stupidity where you only have 1 planet, in a multi planet system it may actually be a useful tool for staging organised strikes between your planets if limited properly), however, smaller players would not find themselves at a massive penalty since if they are low in their overall value then their "colonisation" costs will also be subsequently lower.

This *does* however encourage creative thinking in how you wish to utilise each planet (I'll let you consider the possibilities).

Originally Posted by Wakey

Ive always been of the opinion that the closer the two extreams are the better the game is as its more competaive, its when it gets really strung out that the real problems start and I think as such your idea may need more limitations and some changes to prevent it making advantage too powerful and thus putting the smaller at even more disadvantage

This is not a game based on equality, the best players can and should be rising to the top and the people beneath them should be learning the game and fighting people of their own level. Trying to flatten the playing field too much will take us in the direction of "sandbox" games which aren't what the idea is about, not everyone is a winner, live with it.

Nova

[arbondigo]

How about you just have the 1 account, play it actively and join a decent alliance? That way you can attack and defend and grow big. Can't get in a decent alliance? Ask for a trial and show that you're active by being on irc for most of the day like the rest of the people in the alliance. This way people won't need multiple planets!

Or better still persuade Jolt to make PA free again so the member base will come back

[Blacknova]

Originally Posted by arbondigo

How about you just have the 1 account, play it actively and join a decent alliance? That way you can attack and defend and grow big. Can't get in a decent alliance? Ask for a trial and show that you're active by being on irc for most of the day like the rest of the people in the alliance. This way people won't need multiple planets!

Or better still persuade Jolt to make PA free again so the member base will come back

That sounds like what most ppl do, we're suggesting things, hence it's in the suggestions forum

Nova

[Zoro]

Arbondigo

Although ur question is answered in the last post I want to make the point stronger (and i'm drunk too).
PA the way it is right now WILL die - there simply aren't enough players - season by season more active players leave and the active players left (although they love PA) destroy it by feeding off any new players that are introduced in their quest for supremecy.
When I first join there were like 200k planets - it was very easy for a new player to hide and fight on their level or slightly above. The game at that time was played on many levels and I enjoyed nothing more than having a galaxy war with another similar size galaxy just for the fun of it. it was fantastic.

The ideas being suggested are all with the interest of the game at heart - most of the ideas are either unworkable or unwise BUT notheless are ideas to benefit the game

By simply saying play better or get in a strong alliance or dedicate more time leads me to think that u haven't really read the threads presented.

Open ur mind - more suggestions plz

[Gerbie]

I don't like having to allow multies, but if coded well it might even improve the game.

If I look at what Blacknova suggested, then there is one simple basic idea: let people multi in their own galaxy. It has pro's and con's to play those multiple accounts by yourself instead of giving them to friends/new players. We could simply use the buddy system as a starting point: people can have multiple accounts if those accounts are in the same buddygroup.

Such a multi cannot farm himself (attacking ingal is impossible). If the accounts escort the 'main planet' then that might weaken the galaxy and therefore the players opportunities to do well. A player can crossdefend himself ingal. It would lead to an increased use of fleet combinations and planets attacking together. Ofc I would prefer to use the buddypack for real players so you can sleep in turns.

[wakey]

Originally Posted by Blacknova

This is not a game based on equality, the best players can and should be rising to the top and the people beneath them should be learning the game and fighting people of their own level. Trying to flatten the playing field too much will take us in the direction of "sandbox" games which aren't what the idea is about, not everyone is a winner, live with it.

Nova

I hate the way that the big alliance members have this habit of twisting what I say so that it becomes "I want rubbish players to be able to win". No matter how often I explain otherwise someone else decideds "lets try and discredit him by making it look like he wants to take skill meaning success in this game"

I have never and will never ask for a game where you dont need to have any skill or put in any effort to win but that doesnt mean the game has to be a walk over for the top players. There are some stages between a whitewash and a game where everyones level. The game needs to be competative and close all the way down the rankings to be at its best. Its simply no good if Alliance A and B become so dominate that it suffocates the universe. Its a balancing act and as you have suggested already in your comment that "its not newbie friendly" and to me it seems like your going too far.

And you seem to be missing the point you say "however, smaller players would not find themselves at a massive penalty since if they are low in their overall value then their "colonisation" costs will also be subsequently lower." BUT its not that clear cut. They may on paper be cheaper but in reality its often more expensive. As I've already said a big planet in a big alliance can take the lost resources to do this alot easier than a small planet can, the big planet may need more resources but the costs for them are much lower. They simply dont need the ships they lose by taking this option the way the smaller player does, the big player knows their alliance will bail them out but the further down the alliance rankings you go the less certain it gets and the more important the ships you can build with the resources become. When you looking at cost theres simply alot more factors than the actual cost and this is where theres problems. The actual costs are more for small players, they hence cant afford to get the colonies and in turn end up lat such a major disadvantage because they have one race, one planet ect. This is then going to make their round very very hard and while none of them are expecting to win a difficult round where your constantly bashed by people who procede to destroy everything youve built up isnt fun

the best players can and should be rising to the top and the people beneath them should be learning the game and fighting people of their own level

That had me laughing for a while, the idea that players should fight at their own level coming from a member of 1up. If I was to go and get a list of every attack that 1up members have done this round how many do you think would be fighting at their own level 5%, 2% maybe lower?
Certainly the 1up planets who have attacked me this round havent been attacking at their own level, unless ofc your going to try and tell me hitting planets just around the cutoff point of tthe allowed targets is counted as hitting planets your own size. It seems what you want is a game that allows the big alliances to do whatever they like, bash whoever they like ect but for everyone else to not have a cat in hells chance of doing anything about it. I'll tell you what i'm gonna go talk to spinner and tell him you and 1up are fully in support of making it so you cant hit anyone smaller than 5% than yourself so as to force people to fight at their own level. Your not so keen of the whole fighting at your own level thing now are you.

All small players want is a chance to survive and have fun, as long as bigger players from big alliiances are given such an advanatge and are allowed to bash the smaller players into extinction this is extreamly hard to do.

Finally your view that PA shouldnt be aiming to make itself newbie accessable is just short sighted and ignorant. Can PA survive as a 'hardcore players only' game, as we ahve seen no it cant. Theres natural wastage each round meaning this hardcore group is a reducing force, if you dont allow new players to come into the game and to survive and have fun then the game shrinks. The big alliances may think they are PA's future and they should have every single need of theirs attended to but your not, the future of this game is in the hands of people whom arent playing this game, they are the players that PA needs to attract and intergrate into the community if its to survive. This means making the game more welcoming to newbies and giving them a chance (And once again I'm not saying they should be able to win but a chance to survive and have fun)

[Blacknova]

Wakey - Please look up the word "concise" ... it would help with a lot of your arguments if you were a bit less wordy

The post I skim read and decided that you really shouldn't be trying to turn "Suggestions" into AD.

Either make proper criticisms of the suggestion I am making or don't bother answering

Back on topic :-

Originally Posted by Gerbie

I don't like having to allow multies, but if coded well it might even improve the game.

If I look at what Blacknova suggested, then there is one simple basic idea: let people multi in their own galaxy. It has pro's and con's to play those multiple accounts by yourself instead of giving them to friends/new players. We could simply use the buddy system as a starting point: people can have multiple accounts if those accounts are in the same buddygroup.

Such a multi cannot farm himself (attacking ingal is impossible). If the accounts escort the 'main planet' then that might weaken the galaxy and therefore the players opportunities to do well. A player can crossdefend himself ingal. It would lead to an increased use of fleet combinations and planets attacking together. Ofc I would prefer to use the buddypack for real players so you can sleep in turns.

Actually I said the reverse of what you are implying. You spawn your planet anywhere BUT your own galaxy, this creates the opportunity to seed new players in with existing ones and limits the possibility of preselected blocks (7 priv + 3 pure random "colonies" in each new gal would be a good compromise), if you wish to farm your own planets, that's your decision, they are going to be very weak and defenceless if a semi-organised attack comes in and strips you of all your cheap roids, esp since 3 fleetslots per planet and individual planet resource generation limits that possibility in a kinda major way.

The point is they are *your* planets, how you wish to run them is largely up to you, it would mean scoring would have to be revised, since if farming yourself is a valid tactic which I would be suggesting as part of the proposal, roidscore would need to be reduced dramatically. If you generate 5 strong planets, you will naturally be a strong player, although it's going to force most players to pick 2 planets to make strong and have the other 3 as defence / scan planets.

It is a radically different style of play, but it's one I've seen used to great effect in other games, if coded and handled correctly. Large alliances will always be large, this will encourage more tactical depth and much more lengthy "wars". With the abundance of targets even smaller alliances will be able to nibble at the extremeties of the larger ones with some sucess, if only because no alliance will be able to adequately cover *that* many planets easily.

Nova

[Ferretus]

I suggested allowing multi's several rounds ago and that was the last time I bothered making suggestions on here (until this round) as I was simply slagged off.

The early rounds where multi's were common allowed players to go multi hunting and take out NME farms etc. You could news scan players and see where their farms were and then take advantage yourself. It was all good.

The idea presented above allowing for tech chain "colonisation" options is a good one, I enjoyed that game where the idea is borrowed from when PA started charging and things turned shite. A suggestion I would make though is to allow only a colonisation of your own race and up to say 3 planets. As suggested before these planets must be individually researched and built etc. I would also like to suggest that these planets can be captured by players who are under their "planet quota" and therefore allow you to have multiple races. This will cut down on uber fleet combinations initially and also encourage players to defend their planets rather than farm them (unless they are of same race for example).

It would be very difficult to take over a planet. You would have to level it or something, suggestions please?

Multis are as much a part of the game as alliances, with the exception that they are frowned upon. If players had their own farms then maybe they wouldn't pick on the new players so much and then maybe some of them may stay for more than 5 minutes.

[Gerbie]

I don't like Simgames. This game is not about who builds the best farming piramids. It's a wargame.

[Zoro]

Gerbie
Most good war games are based on economy first

PA has very few planets now - once ur bashed there's no way back - at least the option to farm would give players some hope and make them probably continue to play (and maybe later on get a shot back at his enemy)

[Gerbie]

Originally Posted by Zoro

Gerbie
Most good war games are based on economy first

PA has very few planets now - once ur bashed there's no way back - at least the option to farm would give players some hope and make them probably continue to play (and maybe later on get a shot back at his enemy)

Economy is a part of it. But it should not be the major factor to decide on who does well and does not.

People that get bashed can get back pretty far already. It's alot better then in earlier rounds:
- good salvage;
- XP that isn't lost;
- a high attack cap of 40% protecting you from the best players, while you are now able to attack alot easier targets.

[wakey]

Originally Posted by Blacknova

Wakey - Please look up the word "concise" ... it would help with a lot of your arguments if you were a bit less wordy

The post I skim read and decided that you really shouldn't be trying to turn "Suggestions" into AD.

Either make proper criticisms of the suggestion I am making or don't bother answering

I personally doubt making posts more concise would help because all that would do would do would be to restrict me making my point and make it less clear . And seeing as people still have trouble understanding my points as they seem unable to see things in anything but black and white (either you want the active players to run away with the round with no trouble and small to be bashed to peices or you want inactive players to be able to win) I think they may really need to be longer with my key points repeated about 100 times in bold text

And I'd like to know where you claim theres a lack of a proper critism and how Its an AD post. Your post simply does alot of injustice to the smaller players, it seems to very much take the view that "big alliance are more important than small alliance". The idea you have posted while maybe fine on paper isnt balanced in reality because as Ive said its more expensive for the small players to take a colony even if the actual resource cost is less and its these kind of issues that threaten to make the game less accesable and enjoyable for new players, new players whom are the key to PA's survival.

You need to realise that while you and your 'cronies' may be at the top end of the game that your not actually more important than the game as a whole. The game needs to grow which means not allowing one side to get too much control so that it stifles the rest of the game. Unless your willing to suggest something to counter balance the effect of this idea then the ideas flawed as it starts taking the game back down the 'hardcore player only" path

[Brimstone]

Erm gerbie, if your hit hard you CANNOT come back from it. I know, i was bashed back almost to protection point, loosing almost all roids, all ships, and half my structures.
Its taken me 3 weeks of active attacking to reach 300k value again, cos as soon as i get roids back, i loose em. Once your down, your down and out for good.

Anyway, moving on...

I see a lot of merits in the colonisation ideas, i have played games based on planet capture back when PA started, and if they'd had a decent community at the time, i'd of stayed with them instead of PA.

Multiple planets under one account would bring a whole new dimension to the game. The idea of capturing planets simply doesnt work though, as what happens if X alliance decides they dont like someone, and hit and capture every planet that a player owns? This would require making one planet the "primary" which cannot be captured, which will likely result simply in farming.

Paying for extra planets is not an option yes it brings more revenue, but as already pointed out turns the game into "whoever has the most money wins." Anyone who argues otherwise needs to lay off the wackybacky.

If limited and/or constructed properly there could be merit in a multiple planet system, but atm i have not seen, and cannot see a system that would allow it to run properly.

[Zoro]

This is an idea I put foward in a different thread - it's based on all players getting 5 planets instead of the current one

For the first month planets from each cluster put themselves foward for election (in the same way GC's put themselves foward at the beginning of the game) Each cluster would have a in cluster war (if they want) and at the end of it a president would be elected. The President would receive bonuses in a similar way to a GC getting extra resources (much more resources though).
The job of the President would be to arrange trade deals and military pacts with other clusters

After the first month (or two weeks) is over planets can attack anywhere in the universe - If ur president has done his job properly ur cluster would have a good standing in the universe and hopefully some good allies and trade agreements.

TRADE
Each player would have 5 planets instead of the one they normally get and each of these would be situated in the same cluster - one for each race and another of their choice
The 5th planet would be a trading planet and it would be the duty of the planet holder to keep it well stocked for the trade in cluster for the 1st month (or two weeks) then after that for trade with other clusters.

The trade planets would reside in the far reaches of the cluster - so in each cluster it would be obvious were the trade planets where (maybe they could be coloured differently or something)

The would be a trade minister picked by the President and it would be his job to distribute the collected taxes from all of the planets in the cluster to the trade planets - so they can keep well stocked up with roids - organised clusters could draw up rotas to keep the flow of roids to the allies sensible (there would be no point everyone attacking at the same time)


There would be also nothing to stop a planet attacking any other planet in the universe (after the first month or two weeks) whether there is an agreement or not (much the same way it works now)

I believe the ideas outlined would firstly - address the lack of numbers problem in one fell swoop (5 times as many planets) - secondly push people more towards cluster alliances rather than the 4 or 5 who currently dominate atm in turn there could be as many as 20 - 30 strong alliances at the start of the game
Thirdly - newly introduced players could benefit from cluster protection - cluster may even get bonuses for begginers that progress etc.

Oh by the way alliances could all reside in the same cluster if they want or take the risk of being more spread out in a few clusters risking not being in full control in all the clusters

The main benefit would be that the game could last alot longer - be more political - and stay interesting to the end - oh and not be totally dominated from week one

Also it would give players a chance to try all the civs - thus providing my interest and variation of tactics

MOST IMPORTANTLY would attempt to address the alliance/blocking which has damaged PA far more than farming or multying ever did

[Blacknova]

Originally Posted by wakey

More AD worthy material...

You can either keep posting complete drivel or you can actually discuss the suggestion I made... You have virtually zero understanding of me, which I find highly amusing, all you see is the 1up tag and think "TEH BIG EVUL"...

Maybe open your mind a little, else ppl will think like I do when you speak

Nova

[wakey]

Originally Posted by Blacknova

You can either keep posting complete drivel or you can actually discuss the suggestion I made... You have virtually zero understanding of me, which I find highly amusing, all you see is the 1up tag and think "TEH BIG EVUL"...

Maybe open your mind a little, else ppl will think like I do when you speak

Nova

Are you retarded or something, you seem to think that alliances have no relation to how valid an idea is. Well guess what they are relevent, just because an idea sound great for you in your big alliance with all the protection that gives you doesnt mean its actually any good.

You need to realise that its not as clear cut as you make out. While on paper an idea that works on the basis of cost of the idea being tied to the size of your planet seems fair in reality it isnt. Even if it costs you more as a bigger player on the resource front it actually costs you less, you can go without the ships as you have the backup from your alliance that alomost guarenteed, a smaller player simply cant do this as easierly even if the amount they have to spedn is significantly less resources. They cant rely on others to bail them out in the same way as you can and thus need the ships more so cant justify spending the resources to get a second planet even if a second planet means its easier in the long run.

As such this means while the big players will quickly end up growing at 5 times the normal rate, the small player dont and teh gap gets significantly wider, which results in the lower end of the game stagnating because the bigger players can now bash the smaller players even more

This isnt an AD issue, its a MAJOR issue with your idea which threatens to take the game back towards the r8ish situations which killed the game at the lower end and preventing new players getting hooked on the game

[Jester]

This is a good idea because (theoretically) it increases the amount of possible 'top' alliances. By a lot.

This is a bad idea because we risk Killmark and BBW being the only ones left playing.