With only the hard-core players left...

[wakey]

Originally Posted by Qdeathstar

:-/ Yet Another Galaxy size quest..

How bout we fix this problem the easy way. No Galaxies, no planets, no clusters... just asteroids.. and how many you own. And, OFC, your coords fluctuate..

Pure Brilliance :-/.

I somehow dont think that would solve much, for starters this game isnt great on a gameplay front and never will be. Whats possible ina browser based game is just too simple to ever be completly involving, what makes it good is the interaction much of which comes from your galaxy.

And movinf away from galaxies is moving you further into the hard core players enviorment, when you have no back up from your galaxy you really do need to be around 24/7. Those who can commit this time will therive those who cant will fail which will no doubt result in fewer numbers and a dead game

[Qdeathstar]

it was sarcasm.. hence the :-/

[wakey]

When will people realise Sarcasm doesnt work on forums and you should use the tags to make it clear

[Leshy]

Originally Posted by wakey

When will people realise Sarcasm doesnt work on forums and you should use the tags to make it clear

But wakey, everyone on the internet is a smart person who has the intellectual capacity to notice when someone is being sarcastic!

I voted in favour of private galaxies. Private galaxies get people involved, as they'll be tracking down friends in order to compose galaxies. People will ask people who are still around, but not playing, to participate again, they'll be sorting out credits for each other, that kind of thing. Nowadays, alliances are the main connection throughout the universe anyway. The days that your galaxy was actually important are since long gone. Alliance players hide from their galaxy mates in order not to reveal who they are, in case of incoming, a lot of players have their fleets out defending their alliance, et cetera.

History has shown that random galaxies no longer function as ways to integrate any new players into the game - would you enjoy a game where your galaxy mates hardly ever talk, are even less on IRC, and generally don't say anything in order not to reveal who they are? Add that to the joys of ending up in inactive galaxies, and exiling your way through the universe in order to end up in a galaxy that is not considered to be crap.

Private galaxies are at this stage a much better option than random ones, IMO.

[Qdeathstar]

i thought the :-/ would make it clear...

[Mistwraith]

i thought the :-/ would make it clear...

well it was to me.. perhaps wakey wasnt so awake at the time.

[wakey]

I've just come across so many people on these boards in my time as mod that actually come up with such truely stupid ideas and are being serious about it that I normally automatically assume people now do mean what they post unless its totally obvious they are being sarcastic

Anyway on to Leshys point, if nothing else changes about the game then yes perhaps private galaxies would be best but with out random galaxies and vital changes being made we are just resigning ourselves to r11 pretty much being the last round. Private galaxies WILL NOT see an insurgance of players because those outside the top alliances already know they will be bashed to peices and most have already quit because of this and most of the rest will walk out if the big alliances are once again handed even greater control of the game. The smaller players are here to have fun and as long as the games as biased to the big players as it is the small players will quit and wont come back. And we all know that the more small platers who leave the less fun the game becomes for the big players causing a fair few of them to also leave.

This is the problem with PA's development, they are constantly thinking about what is best for those with the majority of power (which is always the big alliance players) when this group is shrinking and isnt a viable source of long term security. They need to be proactive and put the game first, yes they will have to make unpopular decisions and yes the current community will hate them for it initially but being part of PATeam shouldnt be a popularity contest and in the long run, when they have turned PA's fortunes around by making the tough decisions they will be held in a high regard.

If Pateam and ourselves want this game to just last a round or too more then lets go for a private or semi private of 10 private and 5 randoms while continuing with the policy to allow the game to spiral out of control BUT if we want the game thats going to have a long life then the only options are random or small private packs with better control mechanisms built into the game to keep it under control better

[Mistwraith]

:-) i'm a very sacastic person myself, i tend to notice it in others .. but yes wakey a good mod has to point out the obvious.. i was just reassuring deathstar that i understood it as sarcasm .

ohh and having a little fun with your nick at the same time

[Leshy]

Originally Posted by wakey

Private galaxies WILL NOT see an insurgance of players because those outside the top alliances already know they will be bashed to peices

As opposed to a random round when people outside the top alliances get... well, bashed to pieces anyway?

If anything, private galaxies would allow for people outside of the top alliances to organise themselves better, as they can effectively band together; if they share galaxies, their (possibly) lower activity doesn't mean they're automatically unable to defend each other (as they have more time), they can rely on their galaxy/alliance mates to check for incoming and report it, and even when getting bashed, they won't be alone in a galaxy together with the alliance mates of their bashers, but with their own friends.

The smaller players are here to have fun and as long as the games as biased to the big players

The game is never biased, as there is the same situation for everyone, with the same rules and whatnot. That some people are more capable of using the situation than others doesn't mean the game is somehow biased.

[mist]

in the random rounds i played i met new people, in the private rounds much less so

on that basis, totally private gals are dull. sure you can play with your mates, but odds are you'd play with them private gal or no anyway

-mist

[wakey]

Originally Posted by Leshy

As opposed to a random round when people outside the top alliances get... well, bashed to pieces anyway?

If anything, private galaxies would allow for people outside of the top alliances to organise themselves better, as they can effectively band together; if they share galaxies, their (possibly) lower activity doesn't mean they're automatically unable to defend each other (as they have more time), they can rely on their galaxy/alliance mates to check for incoming and report it, and even when getting bashed, they won't be alone in a galaxy together with the alliance mates of their bashers, but with their own friends.

Thats a totally false view and its these thoughts that got us in the trouble we are in no. Lets take a quick trip back to r3 shall we.

During the r2 alliance meetings to discuse how to take WaC down, Zeus who was helping co-ordinate it mentioned he had been on at spinner ever since r1 to introduce private galaxies, by round 3 spinner had obviously started to listen to him (probally helped by the discontent by alliances over Fury/Legion/RB cheating to enable private galaxies for themselves) and posted a thread on "Questions to the players" floating the idea.

As you can image the top alliances loved it, they were seeing how it had enabled Fury/Legion/RB to hold such power and ensure their members came out on top but the suprising thing was the reaction of the smaller players/alliances. Instead of the uproar that should have happened over the move to give the bigger alliances more power they were welcoming it with open arms. Somehow pretty much everyone had been fed the same line of "You will have a totally active galaxy who will always be able to defend you giving you the chance to compete with the big boys" and they swalled it hook, line and sinker. They totally forgot to realise that such advantages that they might get were significantly less than the big alliances with their larger memberbase and immense activity

Once r4 happened and private galaxies were introduce it became clear to everyone that it was flawed and bad for the game but when it became clear r5 would be p2p it became difficult to ever change.

Now not only does a private galaxy shift the advantage to the big alliances but it also kills vital aspects of this game. It used to be the case that you would land in a galaxy with strangers, these strangers would pass you info/tactics ect and introduce you to a whole new set of people thus increasing the quality of the player. These skills and new contacts can then be used later and passed on.

In a private galaxy you lose this exchange of info. Information and skills remain inside the alliances without spreading to the wider community and making new friends in the game generally requires a friend already in one of these alliances thus making it so you can join and receive the contacts, skills, tactics and protection they bring. Without the right contacts you will find it nigh on impossible to break into these communities and receive the skills and contacts that new players need to have fun and stick around. The information exchange is key

And while you say random galaxies doesnt stop you getting bashed, you are right but it does does increase the chances of it not happpening as everyone has an equal chance of getting a good galaxy. And as i'e already mentioned the random galaxies give PATeam a chance to implement real changes to improve this game for all, without them this game is never going to be able to attract and keep new blood which is something this shrinking community needs

Originally Posted by Leshy

The game is never biased, as there is the same situation for everyone, with the same rules and whatnot. That some people are more capable of using the situation than others doesn't mean the game is somehow biased.

What I really meant was big alliances rather than big players. Private galaxies are biased towards them as they have the most members and hence have np attracting new players. The small players in small alliances however are discriminated agaisnt in this system because they can never have a chance to get themselves into a situation where they have the same contacts allowing them to receive the same advantages that big alliance players have

[mist]

Originally Posted by wakey

What I really meant was big alliances rather than big players. Private galaxies are biased towards them as they have the most members and hence have np attracting new players. The small players in small alliances however are discriminated agaisnt in this system because they can never have a chance to get themselves into a situation where they have the same contacts allowing them to receive the same advantages that big alliance players have

and random galaxies helps with this how? last time i was in a random gal i ignored all but 2 gal mates, one of whom was in my alliance anyway.

and therein lies the problem with random galaxies. yes you get to meet new people. no you don't get them in to alliances - because the majority of the time they're crap!

if someone wants to get in to one of the big alliances (bearing in mind last alliance i was in that i thought of as big was fury, as they/legion arn't about anymore the bar is probably lower) they need to be active and competent. people who're on irc for a couple of minutes a day just arn't going to make it, ever, no matter what gal you put them in.

the problem, imo is that ********** lacks the wealth of middle of the road alliances it previously had. relative newbies could previously join these alliances, learn the game, and then graduate to the big alliances. of course, this is probably because of the lack of players, so the problem is rather cyclic.

so, back to public/private galaxies. there seem to be 2 motivations for them. the first being training, the second being social community type things. as most large players seem to tend ot ignore the smaller players (or milk them for defence) it seems that random gals don't really achieve much for either of these goals.

i would suggest that the solution lies elsewhere, perhaps "training" games? where accounts are limited/score+roids are leveled every so often so that people can get the hang of the game and alliances can watch out for potential recruits.

-mist
ps, please note, as i am no longer a member of the pateam, my view that the majority of pa players are infact crap at the game probably isn't their view. well, possibly not anyway.

[wakey]

Originally Posted by mist

and random galaxies helps with this how? last time i was in a random gal i ignored all but 2 gal mates, one of whom was in my alliance anyway.

and therein lies the problem with random galaxies. yes you get to meet new people. no you don't get them in to alliances - because the majority of the time they're crap!

if someone wants to get in to one of the big alliances (bearing in mind last alliance i was in that i thought of as big was fury, as they/legion arn't about anymore the bar is probably lower) they need to be active and competent. people who're on irc for a couple of minutes a day just arn't going to make it, ever, no matter what gal you put them in.

the problem, imo is that ********** lacks the wealth of middle of the road alliances it previously had. relative newbies could previously join these alliances, learn the game, and then graduate to the big alliances. of course, this is probably because of the lack of players, so the problem is rather cyclic.

so, back to public/private galaxies. there seem to be 2 motivations for them. the first being training, the second being social community type things. as most large players seem to tend ot ignore the smaller players (or milk them for defence) it seems that random gals don't really achieve much for either of these goals.

i would suggest that the solution lies elsewhere, perhaps "training" games? where accounts are limited/score+roids are leveled every so often so that people can get the hang of the game and alliances can watch out for potential recruits.

-mist
ps, please note, as i am no longer a member of the pateam, my view that the majority of pa players are infact crap at the game probably isn't their view. well, possibly not anyway.

As I keep stating Random Galaxies arent a complete solution, they are rather a small but integral part in 'fixing' PA. On their own random Galaxies (or even private packs) wont solve anything due to the effect alliances have on this community, but they have their part to play in reversing this trend and helping save the community and ultimatly the game.

You need to look at it not as a feature on its own but instead as part of a larger goal, a goal to help redistribute power in a way to make it more newbie friendly and overall more fun and competative game to play as this is what the game needs


Oh and I love the way you seemed to change your view so quickly, was one before you apperntly quit PATeam and one after or something. If so its nice to know that PATeam arent even willing to state their views, its one things to not attack fellow PATeam members or decisions made but when its a discussion on features withholding your personal views and putting down an "official" line makes all the posts you make totally pointless

[mist]

Originally Posted by wakey

As I keep stating Random Galaxies arent a complete solution, they are rather a small but integral part in 'fixing' PA. On their own random Galaxies (or even private packs) wont solve anything due to the effect alliances have on this community, but they have their part to play in reversing this trend and helping save the community and ultimatly the game.

what part do they have to play exactly? unless the competent players interact with the less competent they don't seem to have one, and personal experience would tend to indicate that they don't

Originally Posted by wakey

You need to look at it not as a feature on its own but instead as part of a larger goal, a goal to help redistribute power in a way to make it more newbie friendly and overall more fun and competative game to play as this is what the game needs

partly, i agree. i think what the game really needs is for an individual's actions to matter - which in a large portion of cases they don't, particularly with newbie planets. do random gals help with this? i'm still not particularly convinced that random gals are more newbie friendly tho.

Originally Posted by wakey

Oh and I love the way you seemed to change your view so quickly, was one before you apperntly quit PATeam and one after or something. If so its nice to know that PATeam arent even willing to state their views, its one things to not attack fellow PATeam members or decisions made but when its a discussion on features withholding your personal views and putting down an "official" line makes all the posts you make totally pointless

whooo, and i thought trolling was above you!
it may have escaped you, but there are two sides to every argument. how you expect someone to have an informed view of anything without understanding the various sides is beyond me. then again, your posts do seem rather dogmatic

-mist

[Leshy]

Originally Posted by wakey

A good amount of info.

One thing you are saying, and correctly so, is that big alliances will find ways to form private galaxies, whether the round is random or not. If anything, this strengthens the point to allow private galaxies. In a random round, big players and big alliances will manage to form fortress galaxies - smaller alliance players will not. Obviously random rounds are geared towards big alliances, as they will manage to organise better than the small alliances, and gain a much bigger advantage over their smaller counterparts than they would have in a round with private galaxies.

Also, you describe the activity of bigger alliances as "immense". If all the players are so active, it will not matter whether they are in a random round or in a private one. They'll be online to notice the incoming, and get defense anyway. In a round with random galaxies, you'll be getting much less defense from your galaxy than in a private round, so you'll have to rely mainly on alliance defense. Again, the activity of top alliances in random rounds offers them a huge advantage over the smaller alliances.

It used to be the case that you would land in a galaxy with strangers, these strangers would pass you info/tactics ect and introduce you to a whole new set of people thus increasing the quality of the player.

Stop living in Round 2, wakey. If you've played Planetarion during any of the more recent random rounds, you'll find that galaxies that do well often exile their weakest links early on, in order to get active players in return, dumping the newbies and players with low activities in other galaxies, which leads to players getting stuck in galaxies filled with those kinds of planets, and losing interest in the game. In a lot of galaxies, people hardly ever talk to each other out of fear for being 'found out'. In most of the random rounds, I hardly ever found out who were all in my galaxy even at the end of the round, as they played with their alliances, not with their galaxy.

In addition to players who are willing to teach, there is also a very low amount of players that are willing to learn, or active to begin with. Random galaxies have lost all they had going for them over the course of history. There is very little interaction, people in a large range of medium-sized galaxies don't defend their galaxy, but their alliance. They don't attack with their galaxy, they attack with their alliance.

If you want players to return to the game, you need word of mouth advertising. People need to invite their friends to play with them. A round in which you can play with your friends, or you can go to your favourite forum and suggest putting a galaxy together is going to be much more fun than a random round where you say "Hey sign up for this game. We likely won't ever see each other in the game, and you will likely end up in a galaxy which doesn't talk to you or is inactive, but it's really fun!". Especially now that the game is P2P, you'll want to find ways of sharing costs, and getting credits from people - private galaxies being a perfect way of doing that.

There's an old quote in Planetarion that says "United we stand, divided we fall."* I reckon this holds a lot truer for the small alliances with less experienced and active players than the bigger ones. Throw a group of trained marines divided in a big jungle, and they'll know what to do and handle the situation. Throw a group of school kids divided in a big jungle, and they'll be lost.

* I've personally always preferred "United we stand, united we fall, as Fury cnuts us all" though

[wakey]

Originally Posted by mist

what part do they have to play exactly? unless the competent players interact with the less competent they don't seem to have one, and personal experience would tend to indicate that they don't

As I've stated yes if you look at how the game is atm then it doesnt solve anything, however this is where the problems lie. Theres not enough forward thinking in an attempt to make this game a long term success, instead they look at how the game is now and how a feature on its own fits into the CURRENT game, all in an attempt to keep the current playerbase sweet. One day they will wake up and realise that keeping the current playerbase sweet ISNT going to acheive anything.

The reason the big players dont mix as much as they should do in todays random universe is down to the fact the alliances are so powerful and out of control. While a small player needs the support of the big player to have any kind of chance of success the big player needs nothing from the small player. All they need is their alliance and they are safe and they have no need whatsoever to socialise with their galaxy mates, this is where the problem is and its why I say Random galaxies/Private Packs are only a small part of an overall solution. The bigger part of the solution comes to regaining some control over alliances and I dont mean any of this pointless Limits that have no Limiting factor just so PATeam can go "Look we are doing something" while not upsetting the alliances. Real Limits need imposed, limits that are in proportion to the number of players in the game so that it prevents single alliances having figures like 5% or 10% of the playerbase under their control. The figures that PATeam used last round and which were posted for next round are figures which in the big rounds of past alliances have limited themselves at anyway, theres not a great deal of alliances in PA History that have exceeded the 200 member mark simply because once you break the 100 player mark the logistics of it start to become a nightmare. Only the super organised have ever been able to be effective when they have broken the 200 mark with most going the way of SL and being such a mess that they werent really much of a threat. All that the limit managed to acheive was to prevent blocks using one tag for defense purposes and didnt do anything to help the smaller players/alliances one bit. It also might not have been as bad if we had a game with something like 20k+ players where it doesnt matter if an alliance has 150 members as the percentage control is fairly small but we dont we have what just over 2k players which is no dount likly to be closer to 1k for next round. The game simply cant support such large alliances with so few players.

Now once you get the alliances under some kind of control, random galaxies/private pack start to come into their own again. When your alliance doesnt have such a stranglehold over the game you cant rely on them as much, instead you have to start relying on your galaxy again. Now your probally say "Well if we solve the alliance situation then surely we dont need to bother about random galaxies" to which I have to say Fully private galaxies would go along way to removing the benifit of alliance controls, you may have clipped their wings but by giving the alliances with most experiance ect the ability to setup 'fortress galaxies' you make them relativly untoucable and give them a base to bash the less experiance players to a pulp before they get any chance to get a foothold in the game

Originally Posted by mist

partly, i agree. i think what the game really needs is for an individual's actions to matter - which in a large portion of cases they don't, particularly with newbie planets. do random gals help with this? i'm still not particularly convinced that random gals are more newbie friendly tho.

How about the fact that I stated above that members of the bigger alliances placed in a gaalxy together pretty much produce a fortress galaxy thats untouchable which allows them to grow at a larger rate than everyone else and hence bash more to help increase size. The smaller players dont get the same chances to be in such a strong galaxy and dont get a chance to learn or experiance anything other than being bashed. The rounds I've quit within the first month have always been private rounds where myself, my friends and my allies have all been bashed to peices and have nothing to work with simply because we didnt get the same benifits from the private universe as the big alliance players. Quite simply small alliances and their members become even greater targets in a private universe.

Originally Posted by mist

whooo, and i thought trolling was above you!
it may have escaped you, but there are two sides to every argument. how you expect someone to have an informed view of anything without understanding the various sides is beyond me. then again, your posts do seem rather dogmatic

-mist

If stating an observation is trolling then i'm quilty but I certainly dont consider it that. And its one thing being able to see both sides but its another thing when you first go "in the random rounds i played i met new people" and then the next post you say "last time i was in a random gal i ignored all but 2 gal mates, one of whom was in my alliance anyway". It just stinks of the whole PATeam attitude of "lets not say anything that is differnt as it might jeopardies my position in the team", much like the comment I got from a certain PATeam member the other day when I raised an issue and was told "Alliances arent important to the gameplay and will be dealt with when the gameplay is sorted" which either this person is stupid or was simply not wanting to agree in case it upset Mit, as alliances are something that have huge gameplay issues and need designed into the game from the start to ensure we dont get the same kind of problems we have with them now. PATeam are in a privledged position where they can help develop the game and what do most of them do with it, use it as a status symbol and spend all their time worrying how the majority of the players view them and are hence scared to state any opinion that might be unpopular or any opinion that might go against the key members of the team. PATeam shouldnt be about being popular it should be about improving the game no matter how unpopular that makes you.

Originally Posted by Leshy

One thing you are saying, and correctly so, is that big alliances will find ways to form private galaxies, whether the round is random or not. If anything, this strengthens the point to allow private galaxies. In a random round, big players and big alliances will manage to form fortress galaxies - smaller alliance players will not. Obviously random rounds are geared towards big alliances, as they will manage to organise better than the small alliances, and gain a much bigger advantage over their smaller counterparts than they would have in a round with private galaxies.

Yes the bigger alliances will always try and 'cheat' there way to Private galaxies but its alot harder to form these Fortress galaxies via the cheating method than the normal method. A small alliance player has a much greater chance of having a good round in a random universe than in a private galaxy they ahve put together. Theres a chance of getting some good players in a random galaxy but the small players dont have that in private galaxies, instead they have a galaxy who may as well hang out a sign saying "EASY TARGETS". Its UPTO PATeam to try and discourage the cheating by making it harder to take advnatage off (ie none of this sequential galaxy placements after the initial blocks are full, dont give people days and days of knowing who is in their galaxy before the game starts ticking giving them ample opertunity to 'swap' accounts - in reality do we really need to know our galaxies before we are out of protection, if we have to wait 72 ticks in before we know what galaxy we are in theres less incentive to swap, after all by the time the swaps are organised due to having to find out whos where everyone will already be someway down the tech tree and many will have choosen races, tech paths ect that arent ideal and hence people may feel less inclined to swap - ect ect)

Originally Posted by Leshy

Also, you describe the activity of bigger alliances as "immense". If all the players are so active, it will not matter whether they are in a random round or in a private one. They'll be online to notice the incoming, and get defense anyway. In a round with random galaxies, you'll be getting much less defense from your galaxy than in a private round, so you'll have to rely mainly on alliance defense. Again, the activity of top alliances in random rounds offers them a huge advantage over the smaller alliances.

Yes the activity of the big alliances players always gives them some advantage BUT in a random universe some of this benifit can be passed onto to those less fortunate. As for the "private galaxies gives more galaxy defence" view it depends what angle you look at it.

Side one may very well be like these two situations -

SITUATION 1A: Member of a big alliance in one of their fortress galaxies. This situation makes attacks on the whole galaxy hard as your big and strong and would take alot of ships to pull it off so more often than not attacks are more 'hit and run' style on a planet or two. These attacks are easierly defended by your galaxy mates who are in your alliance so galaxy defence seems to have increased. In the event of a galaxy attack you have the other 80 odd members of your alliance to fall back on

SITUATION 1B: Member of a big alliance in a random galaxy. Varying skill levels ensure your arent guarenteed and almost untouchable galaxy and many of your galaxy mates dont have the ships or allies to defend big attacks. You have to rely alot more on your alliance mates for defence so galaxy defence might seem less

but the other side of the coin tells a differnt story

SITUATION 2A: Member of a small 30 member alliance, members split over two galaxies. You arent a great power, cant be indimidating and dont have the same skills and experiance so your galaxy is always more of a target, in fact for many galaxies your the perfect galaxy to roid. Their 15 planets (plus probally a few friends tagging along) attack your galaxy, as your all under attack no-one can really send proper defence to each other in galaxy (later on in the round you might be able to swap some useless ships that you have with someone who can use them and you will get some useful ships that they dont need in return). This means you need alliance help from your other galaxy, if your lucky they havent been attacked and dont have incoming so have ships they can spare but more often than not they will also have incoming. If if they are free you will probally have all 15 planets covered so realisticly you require all 15 of your other galaxy to be active to ahve a chance of defending everyone which is very unlikly. So the galaxy doesnt get the defence needed to repell the attack and some planets take losses, thus weakening them significantly resulting in the other galaxy having less people to call upon when they get attacked thus making their losses greater than the first galaxy. And your off down the neverending loop of becoming weaker and weaker ever single day and being bashed more and more.

SITUATION 2B: Members of small alliance, random galaxy. You are in a galaxy with a mix of people. While theres no guarentee you nwill proballyu have some players in bigger alliances than yourself who can call upon defence when they get attacked thus freeing up ships to help elsewhere if the galaxy is attacked. If the galaxy gets destroyed you dont end up losing half of any defence your alliance can supply for the rest of the round and your alliance potentially losses just 1 source of defence for members rather than 15.

And trust me Leshy this is what happens when your a small alliance, small alliances do ofc have the option of teaming up with other alliances to make a galaxy which can reduce this effect although my experiance of trying this leads me to believe this is a situation thats very very hard to get right (the rivallys get in the way, you end up with battles over which of the two alliances runs the galaxy ect ect,) and requires you to have had your communities mixing socially for rounds in advance and for clear rules to have been drawn up by the alliances on the wat power in the galaxies will be carved up and the policies on defence.

Originally Posted by Leshy

Stop living in Round 2, wakey. If you've played Planetarion during any of the more recent random rounds, you'll find that galaxies that do well often exile their weakest links early on, in order to get active players in return, dumping the newbies and players with low activities in other galaxies, which leads to players getting stuck in galaxies filled with those kinds of planets, and losing interest in the game. In a lot of galaxies, people hardly ever talk to each other out of fear for being 'found out'. In most of the random rounds, I hardly ever found out who were all in my galaxy even at the end of the round, as they played with their alliances, not with their galaxy.

Yes its true as the game is this is the case due to the power the alliances have, but if PA is to survive this is something that needs to change. The game cant survive on 'hard core' players alone and need snew blood, new blood wont come unless the games fun which will never happen while we have situations that just line them up to be bashed by groups who have gained a disproportional amount of power.

Originally Posted by Leshy

In addition to players who are willing to teach, there is also a very low amount of players that are willing to learn, or active to begin with. Random galaxies have lost all they had going for them over the course of history. There is very little interaction, people in a large range of medium-sized galaxies don't defend their galaxy, but their alliance. They don't attack with their galaxy, they attack with their alliance.

And again your right but that because the structure of the game has moved to be like that as the alliances have gained too much power and PATeam is too scared to reduce this power for fear of becoming unpopular. While you dont need your galaxy you arent going to use them as they were always intended to.

Originally Posted by Leshy

If you want players to return to the game, you need word of mouth advertising. People need to invite their friends to play with them. A round in which you can play with your friends, or you can go to your favourite forum and suggest putting a galaxy together is going to be much more fun than a random round where you say "Hey sign up for this game. We likely won't ever see each other in the game, and you will likely end up in a galaxy which doesn't talk to you or is inactive, but it's really fun!". Especially now that the game is P2P, you'll want to find ways of sharing costs, and getting credits from people - private galaxies being a perfect way of doing that.

tbh I dont totally agree, while yes the ability to have some friends around might initially be a bit of a hook, its something which very soon isnt enough to keep you playing future rounds. As I have stated i'm fine with a private pack situation being used to give some ability to play with friends but theres a certain point where you make these groups too big and galaxies too small to make them feasable on a enjoyment front as you make it too easy for one group to have overriding power in the galaxy. The game needs the big powers to be spread as evenly as possible to allow for a fun and vibrant game with lots of fighting and if you make it too easy for hig concentartions of these players to appear in certain galaxies you prevent this.

Originally Posted by Leshy

There's an old quote in Planetarion that says "United we stand, divided we fall."* I reckon this holds a lot truer for the small alliances with less experienced and active players than the bigger ones. Throw a group of trained marines divided in a big jungle, and they'll know what to do and handle the situation. Throw a group of school kids divided in a big jungle, and they'll be lost

As I mentioned above its certainly not what ive experianced, when your united in a galaxy as an alliance you get taken out swiftly as a whole destroying the alliance for that round pretty quickly, if your divided you may get picked off one by one but your alliance can be somewhat useful for much longer

[mist]

Originally Posted by Wakey

limits that are in proportion to the number of players in the game so that it prevents single alliances having figures like 5% or 10% of the playerbase under their control.

you rubbish a limit of 100 players, yet suggest a limit of 10% - which in a round of 1000 players would be 100 anyway. if there are less, then fair enough, but if there are less the round will be lame anyway so it's hardly an issue. on the flip side, if an alliance has 70 members and you place a limit at 50 players per alliance what do you think will happen? either 20 will leave, or, more likely 70 will leave. your theory is all well and good in isolation, but when you look it in the context that people can and will go and play free alternatives instead if you make the game too anti alliances it suddenly looks feasable. does pa need new players? yes. can pa afford to loose all the ones its got trying to get them? i suspect not.

Originally Posted by Wakey

Now once you get the alliances under some kind of control

still waiting for a suggestion as to how to do this that doesn't involve most of them leaving. i would have thought that private galaxies would be pivotal in keeping players interested in the game if you're going to newter alliances - pa, imo, needs some form of community to keep it going, and you propose destroying all of them.

Originally Posted by Wakey

instead you have to start relying on your galaxy again.

if you can guarentee me a galaxy of fury standard people, i'll work with them. otherwise i'll go play a game that can. maybe i'm selfish, but i don't find trying to get inactives to be good is fun. active newbies, fair enough, but the majority of random plants don't seem to fall in to that catagory.

Originally Posted by Wakey

'fortress galaxies'

again, you seem to want to remove anything of interest to the dedicated player. fine, newbies arn't really interested in fortress gals - but alliances are, and you need to cater to all of your audiance. if random inactive idiot boy can attack top players, then the game's crap anyway. if he can't what does it matter to him whether they're sat in fortress gals or not? i also refer you to leshy's point about how alliances will form them anyway.

Originally Posted by Wakey

How about the fact that I stated above that members of the bigger alliances placed in a gaalxy together pretty much produce a fortress galaxy thats untouchable which allows them to grow at a larger rate than everyone else and hence bash more to help increase size.

erm... "duh" whatever you do, the members of bigger alliances are there because they're good players. they're going to grow faster than the average anyway. fortress gals has little to do with this, infact often the reverse - in 9.5 the inactive in our gal got trashed regularly because the people attacking the 3 actives had people attack them as well. i still fail to see what's so bad about fortress gals.

the problem, lies within the bashing to increase size. if you solve that, then fortress gals are actually great fun as they have to attack each other after the first couple of weeks to grow - then they add to the game rather than subtract from it.

Originally Posted by Wakey

The smaller players dont get the same chances to be in such a strong galaxy and dont get a chance to learn or experiance anything other than being bashed.

this is why i suggested some form of training games - because small players arn't going to be able to learn in the main game. people are too interested in winning to bother.

Originally Posted by Wakey

because we didnt get the same benifits from the private universe as the big alliance players.

and how does this relate to gals exactly? if your planets are crap you're going to get attacked private gals or no. private gals just means the ships come from a smaller selection of gals.

Originally Posted by Wakey

If stating an observation is trolling then i'm quilty but I certainly dont consider it that.

Originally Posted by Wakey

its nice to know that PATeam arent even willing to state their views

and this is an observation how? next time you take your head out of your arse take a look at some other posts i've made, note how quite a lot of them have a disclaimer at the bottom saying how the views within are my own.

Originally Posted by Wakey

A small alliance player has a much greater chance of having a good round in a random universe than in a private galaxy they ahve put together.

so... r3, fury and legion wipe the floor with everyone
r9.5, don't remember a lot about, but i suspect that alliances had their way despite random gals
r10, can we say block wars?

your statement seems to have little to do with reality

i do agree with some of the rest of that paragraph tho - shuffling the universe after 60 ticks would probably do a lot for random gals

Originally Posted by Wakey

SITUATION 2B: ... While theres no guarentee you nwill proballyu have some players in bigger alliances than yourself who can call upon defence when they get attacked thus freeing up ships to help elsewhere if the galaxy is attacked.

i'm guessing you've never been in a big alliance. guidelines are generally "as your cluser and gal, then ask us for the rest". why would i want to use up alliance defence when i can get it from newbs instead? again, your scenario seems a little flawed

Originally Posted by Wakey

Yes its true as the game is this is the case due to the power the alliances have, but if PA is to survive this is something that needs to change. The game cant survive on 'hard core' players alone and need snew blood, new blood wont come unless the games fun which will never happen while we have situations that just line them up to be bashed by groups who have gained a disproportional amount of power.

agreed on the hard core players. agreed on the needing to avoid bashing. completely confused by what this has to do with private galaxies. the issue here seems to be shifting the game so that attacks on larger targets are more profitable, so that alliances attack each other rather than newbs. i'm not sure how this relates to random gals

Originally Posted by Wakey

And again your right but that because the structure of the game has moved to be like that as the alliances have gained too much power and PATeam is too scared to reduce this power for fear of becoming unpopular.

and... head out of arse for a few more minutes, you know you can do it. do you really think that the pateam don't want to reduce alliances power for fear that they won't be popular? do you realise how much hate mail, you're shite mail etc the pateam gets anyway? have you even stopped for a minute to consider that perhaps they don't want to hamper alliances too much because they'd leave, and then pa would be left with no players?

Originally Posted by Wakey

The game needs the big powers to be spread as evenly as possible to allow for a fun and vibrant game with lots of fighting

again, your statement seems to bear little resembelance to reality. if you spread people out then all the naps, galaxies that can't be attacked etc make combat more complicated, and less likely. if you have private galaxies filled with only one alliance this leaves the possibility to attack many more galaxies, giving you that vibrant and dynamic game you wanted. afaik ********** (lo censor) don't have personal alliances, but base alliances on galaxies - and it works.

Originally Posted by Wakey

As I mentioned above its certainly not what ive experianced, when your united in a galaxy as an alliance you get taken out swiftly as a whole destroying the alliance for that round pretty quickly

Originally Posted by Wakey

'fortress galaxies' you make them relativly untoucable

so, private galaxies mean that good alliances are untouchable, because they can get gals full of their members, yet less good alliances die quicker because of the same thing? actually, while it seems silly i think you're probably right. but why? i suspect because the good alliance players are active, and competent whereas the others arn't. therefore, i suspect this has little to do with private gals.

throughout your post, you seem to be living in a world where good players want to help small players - largely this is not the case, they only care about winning. you seem to be living in a world where random galaxies will help small players - again, not convinced it's the case. were you ever in legion/fury etc?

-mist

[Tactitus]

Originally Posted by mist

if you can guarentee me a galaxy of fury standard people, i'll work with them. otherwise i'll go play a game that can. maybe i'm selfish, but i don't find trying to get inactives to be good is fun. active newbies, fair enough, but the majority of random plants don't seem to fall in to that catagory.

Whatever else happens, I really really hope PA will start to aggressively deal with the problem of inactive planets.

Inactive planets are a cancer on the game: they kill random galaxies and if you go with private galaxies then that means the few newbies who do join the game will be all but guaranteed to land in a ghetto wasteland of inactivity.

PA is a hundred times more fun in an active galaxy--random or private--than in an inactive galaxy.

[mist]

problem is that inactive people have paid to play the game as well

way forward is to shuffle at tick 60, and put actives together and inactives together, and then allow free exciling of the least active player in the gal. that way people who want to log in once a day get to play with others who do, whereas people who are active can play with others who're active. added benefit is that active newbies end up in decent gals, so have a prayer of learning the game

-mist

[Tactitus]

Originally Posted by mist

problem is that inactive people have paid to play the game as well

I didn't say they couldn't play; I'd just rather they weren't permitted to ruin the game for others.

way forward is to shuffle at tick 60, and put actives together and inactives together, and then allow free exciling of the least active player in the gal. that way people who want to log in once a day get to play with others who do, whereas people who are active can play with others who're active. added benefit is that active newbies end up in decent gals, so have a prayer of learning the game

A single pruning at tick 60 isn't enough.

I'd like players to have to demonstrate some activity before even being assigned to a galaxy (init a few roids, post on politics, some basic stuff like that).

Beyond that, inactive planets should be swept up and quaranteed frequently and automatically (e.g., a cron job that runs once a day and gathers up all the planets that haven't been active in, say, the past 36 hours--longer on weekends). Give GCs the ability to exempt specific planets in their galaxies if they know a player is going to be gone for longer than that.

[Mit]

Originally Posted by Tactitus

Whatever else happens, I really really hope PA will start to aggressively deal with the problem of inactive planets.

Inactive planets are a cancer on the game: they kill random galaxies and if you go with private galaxies then that means the few newbies who do join the game will be all but guaranteed to land in a ghetto wasteland of inactivity.

PA is a hundred times more fun in an active galaxy--random or private--than in an inactive galaxy.

Code is already in place to delete inactive planets after 72hrs
can easily be changed to move them instead. (this is in rnd 11 dev)

[mist]

Originally Posted by Tactitus

A single pruning at tick 60 isn't enough.

possibly not, but i think it'd go a long way towards. gotta start somewhere :P

Originally Posted by Tactitus

I'd like players to have to demonstrate some activity before even being assigned to a galaxy (init a few roids, post on politics, some basic stuff like that).

interesting plan. could be incorporated with protection/some form of training so that planets joining the universe have a clue what's going on

Originally Posted by Tactitus

Beyond that, inactive planets should be swept up and quaranteed frequently and automatically (e.g., a cron job that runs once a day and gathers up all the planets that haven't been active in, say, the past 36 hours--longer on weekends). Give GCs the ability to exempt specific planets in their galaxies if they know a player is going to be gone for longer than that.

again, interesting. problem is that i don't think someone who logs in for 5 minutes a day is active. they can build some ships, initiate a few roids but they're never actually going to be any use. for this to be any use to me it'd have to move anyone who wasn't on irc for at least an hour a day, and that's significantly harder. plus i suspect you'd have half the universe in the sin bin

plus i think it would be better left as a GC option, rather than a cron job. that way it'd be possible to avoid problems in instances like someone's internet going down. plus it'd allow gcs to decide how active/good their gal has to be

realistically though, private gals (wow, i'm heading towards the thread topic, go me!) seem to be the only way to do this. if you have random gals where actives excile inactives then a significant amount of the player base will spend their time going around the houses. furthermore, if you're going to put all the players who're active enoguh not to annoy each other together, you're going to end up with something suspiciously like private galaxies anyway

-mist

[Tactitus]

Originally Posted by mist

again, interesting. problem is that i don't think someone who logs in for 5 minutes a day is active.

Well, feel free to raise the bar still further.

The historical PA policy of 'do nothing except delete them after 7 days of inactivity' is completely inadequate though.

they can build some ships, initiate a few roids but they're never actually going to be any use. for this to be any use to me it'd have to move anyone who wasn't on irc for at least an hour a day, and that's significantly harder. plus i suspect you'd have half the universe in the sin bin

That's quite possible; but at least the other half of the universe could have some fun.

plus i think it would be better left as a GC option, rather than a cron job. that way it'd be possible to avoid problems in instances like someone's internet going down. plus it'd allow gcs to decide how active/good their gal has to be

Well you still have to find a way around the 'we can't elect a GC because of too many inactives and we can't exile the inactives because we don't have a GC' deadlock. That's why I favor some sort of automatic system with a GC override.

realistically though, private gals (wow, i'm heading towards the thread topic, go me!) seem to be the only way to do this. if you have random gals where actives excile inactives then a significant amount of the player base will spend their time going around the houses.

No, I think inactives should be treated differently from "normal" exiles. They should be quaranteed--not tossed into the same pool with newbies and active exiles. Nobody wants inactives in their galaxy--nobody. Actives (newbie or otherwise) are another matter.

furthermore, if you're going to put all the players who're active enoguh not to annoy each other together, you're going to end up with something suspiciously like private galaxies anyway

Whether you have private galaxies or not, you still need to deal with inactive accounts (if anything, private galaxies have an even lower tolerance for inactivity than random galaxies). Just letting galaxies deal with the problem through exiling isn't the answer, because they just get passed around until they end up in one of the high-numbered ghetto clusters--thereby ensuring that the handful of new players who do try PA each round will get a thoroughly unenjoyable experience.

[wakey]

Originally Posted by mist

you rubbish a limit of 100 players, yet suggest a limit of 10% - which in a round of 1000 players would be 100 anyway. if there are less, then fair enough, but if there are less the round will be lame anyway so it's hardly an issue. on the flip side, if an alliance has 70 members and you place a limit at 50 players per alliance what do you think will happen? either 20 will leave, or, more likely 70 will leave. your theory is all well and good in isolation, but when you look it in the context that people can and will go and play free alternatives instead if you make the game too anti alliances it suddenly looks feasable. does pa need new players? yes. can pa afford to loose all the ones its got trying to get them? i suspect not.

First of all I DID NOT suggest a limit of 10%, I stated that currently the static limits we have leaves single alliances with between 5% and 10% which is too high.It stiffles the game and makes it unplayable and unenjoyable for anyone outside these alliances.

And your view of "we cant afford to lose the existing players" is the attitude thats caused so many problems in the past, PATeam has constantly let the big alliances pretty much bully you into decisions with the threats of "we will quit". The thing they constantly miss is its THEM not the ALLIANCES who hold the power, if the alliances quit then good ridence as we have removed a huge bunch of people who's only care is about personal gain rather than having a fun and enjoyable game for all, with less of these people the community can only be better. And while the alliances may sit there and issue threats to quit, threats are differnt to taking action, they make the threats because they know PATeam will ultimatly be spineless and give in to their demands so they wont have to take action.

And tbh PATeam do seem to indirectly think they can afford to lose the players, the players are leaving in there droves so they are quitting anyway so really what have you got to lose, you can take action now and maybe lose some players but turn things around or you can carry on down the same merry path and end up with only a handful wanting to play r12.

Originally Posted by mist

still waiting for a suggestion as to how to do this that doesn't involve most of them leaving. i would have thought that private galaxies would be pivotal in keeping players interested in the game if you're going to newter alliances - pa, imo, needs some form of community to keep it going, and you propose destroying all of them.

I'm not suggesting destroying the community, I'm suggesting controling each 'communities' members for the good of the overall community. Its like when your in charge of some kind of nature reserve be it a woodland in scotland or a game reserve in africa. Your main job isnt to protect the animals but to control their numbers so that one species doesnt upset the carefully balanced eco system. And while in these cases it means culling animals who are out of control, thankfully PA doesnt have to resort to sending hitmen around to players houses to do them in as its possible to impose some control with realistic limits that take account the numbers playing at the time rather than being based on what appears to be over inflated predicted player numbers.

Once the game has some kind of control on the alliances we end up with a shift in power, instead of your alliance being the be all and end all that allowed you to ignore your galaxy, your galaxy will once again take back its place of importance and with it we have the possability to regain the stronger community setup we had before rather than the splittered and weaker community that the alliance cominaces has caused

Originally Posted by mist

if you can guarentee me a galaxy of fury standard people, i'll work with them. otherwise i'll go play a game that can. maybe i'm selfish, but i don't find trying to get inactives to be good is fun. active newbies, fair enough, but the majority of random plants don't seem to fall in to that catagory.

Yes but smaller players dont find pretty much being placed in farms fun either which is what private galaxies does. You get people who end up being fairly inactive because they end up with very little reason to play, they know they are going to be bashed, or have already been bashed, they get treated by galaxy mates as second class citizens and really only sign up out of loyalty to their alliance because they dont want to let them down even though they know the round will boring as hell for them.

Originally Posted by mist

again, you seem to want to remove anything of interest to the dedicated player. fine, newbies arn't really interested in fortress gals - but alliances are, and you need to cater to all of your audiance. if random inactive idiot boy can attack top players, then the game's crap anyway. if he can't what does it matter to him whether they're sat in fortress gals or not? i also refer you to leshy's point about how alliances will form them anyway.

So dedicated players like being handed things on a plate then? Are these people really that dedicated then? What happened to the time when being dedicated meant you spent time learning your skills and applying them. Where you won the round by being the best. Now dedicated in this community seems to mean your someone who can spend longer than anyone else online and have the best contacts to get you in the biggest alliances and best galaxies. Success should be something you should acheieve and thus be proud of and which will earn you the respect of the other competitors not something you get by default.

And I'm not saying anyone should be able to attack a top player, but there should be the chance for them to do so. If I cant outsmart a top player and send an attack on them that will be successful then I should be able to, I shouldnt however have to also outsmart his 14 alliance buddies who are just as good and whom are in his galaxy with super low eta.

As for alliances cheating to get private galaxies sadly thats always going to be a problem but is giving in the correct way to deal with this, I certainly dont think so. What next allowing everyplayer multis or hand out free planet checking bots so we dont have to be around to be ok. Its upto PATeam to always be one step ahead of the cheats and be proactive in trying to stem them, if you keep the cheats on their toes by doing more and more to stop them, rather than let them cheat and then spend roudns working out how to stop them you have won half the battle

Originally Posted by mist

erm... "duh" whatever you do, the members of bigger alliances are there because they're good players. they're going to grow faster than the average anyway. fortress gals has little to do with this, infact often the reverse - in 9.5 the inactive in our gal got trashed regularly because the people attacking the 3 actives had people attack them as well. i still fail to see what's so bad about fortress gals.

the problem, lies within the bashing to increase size. if you solve that, then fortress gals are actually great fun as they have to attack each other after the first couple of weeks to grow - then they add to the game rather than subtract from it.

Thats not really true either, just because they are a member of a bigger alliance DOESNT make them a good player and certainly doesnt make them better than the smaller players. All it really does mean is they have friends in these places and should that really be the sole reason for relative success. Is it fair that a poor player does well because hes in a big alliance while a good player does bad because hes in a weaker alliance, if alliances were something we were randomly assigned to then great its luck of the draw and everyone has an equal chance of a good alliance just like a random galaxy gives everyone an equal chance of a good galaxy BUT as it is not everyone has an equal chance of a good alliance and we also dont have an equal chance of a good galaxy in a private universe. Take me for example, been here since r1 and hence have alot of experiance but I really dont know anyone who could get me into a big alliance if i wished to, this resigns me weaker alliances and weaker galaxies. I simply dont have the same chance as others who might know members in RL.

Originally Posted by mist

this is why i suggested some form of training games - because small players arn't going to be able to learn in the main game. people are too interested in winning to bother.

But as PAX seemed to show it doesnt really work, its one thing being in a 'training' universe its another being in the real universe. The real universe just isnt a place that will keep anyone who doesnt have connections to get in a big alliance immeditaly

Originally Posted by mist

and how does this relate to gals exactly? if your planets are crap you're going to get attacked private gals or no. private gals just means the ships come from a smaller selection of gals.

I've noticed the comment "how does this relate to gals exactly?" a couple of times when scanning this post, some of my post doesnt relate directly to the Private Galaxies issue. I tried to stay off the other aspects that are needed to make random galaxies (and the game) work but due to comments in the other replies the I felt I had to expand a bit in the last post in areas so there are things which arent directly applicable to this discussion. Its however quite hard to elaborate without going totally off topic while trying to give enough info to make my point obvious

Originally Posted by mist

so... r3, fury and legion wipe the floor with everyone
r9.5, don't remember a lot about, but i suspect that alliances had their way despite random gals
r10, can we say block wars?

I think your find I've already covered r3 and again i'll point out that I'm not saying random galaxies solve much on their own under the current alliance situation BUT it does give smaller alliance players a greater chance of success.

Originally Posted by mist

i'm guessing you've never been in a big alliance. guidelines are generally "as your cluser and gal, then ask us for the rest". why would i want to use up alliance defence when i can get it from newbs instead? again, your scenario seems a little flawed

Yes because players really sit there and run the risk of their cluster or galaxy not sending. The guidlines might be there but alot can happen in between the last tick your alliance can send and last tick your cluster or galaxy can send and I've yet to see anyone run the risk through choice just to abide by the guidelines. People go alliance first, cluster second, galaxy third as thats the order of travel time

Originally Posted by mist

and... head out of arse for a few more minutes, you know you can do it. do you really think that the pateam don't want to reduce alliances power for fear that they won't be popular? do you realise how much hate mail, you're shite mail etc the pateam gets anyway? have you even stopped for a minute to consider that perhaps they don't want to hamper alliances too much because they'd leave, and then pa would be left with no players?

Well first of all remember who your talking to here, i'm not a clueless newbie whos only just joined the community, I'm someone whos been here ince r1, been mod since r2 and spent a number of rounds as a member PATeam so i know the abuse you do get and know how PATeam works. However no matter how much abuse PATeam get they have continually bottled out of tough decisions simply for popularity reasons, they dont want to become any more hated by the community than they are and dont want to get the alliances on the wrong side of them. The fact that the alliances threat to up sticks and walk just highlights the fact that its for fear of becoming unpopular by taking a move that the alliances dont want.

Originally Posted by mist

again, your statement seems to bear little resembelance to reality. if you spread people out then all the naps, galaxies that can't be attacked etc make combat more complicated, and less likely. if you have private galaxies filled with only one alliance this leaves the possibility to attack many more galaxies, giving you that vibrant and dynamic game you wanted. afaik ********** (lo censor) don't have personal alliances, but base alliances on galaxies - and it works.

Once again I'll state thats the case now BECAUSE of the power alliances have been allowed to grab, it wasnt always the case and theres no need for it to continue to be the case. As for the main comment do you really think private galaxies make things more entertaining on the whole, i certainly dont because it allows alliances to easierly make NAPS with alliances they dont wish to fight at that moment which is something which in turn makes power blocks more deadly for the average player. I mean try making a NAP in a random universe, its not quite as simple to do in a private universe. Theres just not anything to really gain from being part of too many NAPS as you restrict your targets too significantly, and even when the number of NAPS are restricted you will always have some 'cross over' where theres a galaxy you want/need to attack but which the nap prevents which then leads to diplomacy becoming more of an issue as you try and come to an agreement where your enemy can be attacked but doesnt start off a war. Private galaxies simply allow alliances to get stupid with NAPs and give themselves even greater control over the game, and the big battles these cause may eventualy turn out to be fun for those involved but not before they have resulted in ruining everyone else game.

Originally Posted by mist

so, private galaxies mean that good alliances are untouchable, because they can get gals full of their members, yet less good alliances die quicker because of the same thing? actually, while it seems silly i think you're probably right. but why? i suspect because the good alliance players are active, and competent whereas the others arn't. therefore, i suspect this has little to do with private gals.

throughout your post, you seem to be living in a world where good players want to help small players - largely this is not the case, they only care about winning. you seem to be living in a world where random galaxies will help small players - again, not convinced it's the case. were you ever in legion/fury etc?

No big alliances are untouchable because of their numbers, as i've already pointed out when your a small alliance in a private universe you end up with only two or three galaxies for your members. One of your galaxies gets hit by a big alliance and your alliance losses a significant number of its useful members. A bigger alliance however due to its size generally can handle losing a gaalxy in an attack and also has more people who can send defence. not to mention the naps that private galaxies allow to be agreed so easierly can often mean you arent quite the target that you are without. I've personally seen some alliances in a private universe effectivly have their rounds ended within 24 hours of being out of protection while not doing anything wrong because once you get knocked down once its nigh on impossible to recover (active players, with low roid counts, ships available to defend). You can have 40 good and active players who will get to PC within a few mins of being informed of incoming yet have the alliance wiped out in just a couple of alliances bashing runs.

And again I have stated that the way the game has gone people are less inclined to help in general, a fair number still are but now the game is too alliance focused, galaxies dont matter so most think why try. When galaxies are important however people are willing to, it may be due to selfish reasons (ie they need the galaxy to be good to allow them to win) but the reason they are willing to help doesnt really matter

Originally Posted by Tactitus

I'd like players to have to demonstrate some activity before even being assigned to a galaxy (init a few roids, post on politics, some basic stuff like that).

Beyond that, inactive planets should be swept up and quaranteed frequently and automatically (e.g., a cron job that runs once a day and gathers up all the planets that haven't been active in, say, the past 36 hours--longer on weekends). Give GCs the ability to exempt specific planets in their galaxies if they know a player is going to be gone for longer than that.

The only problem I potentially have with this came from my experiance in DoM around a year ago. I was persuaded to give it a go so I did and found it good enough to continue, however I was then ill for a week and was unable to get to get to my PC. This resulted in my account being deleted and it really pissed me off, I had built up my account was getting the hang of the game and was deleted while I was ill. I just cba to start again from scratch and also felt I had let my 'galaxy' down as I had got deleted when I had a fairly good score. With you suggesting only 36 hours this type of things could be an issue, your away unexpectedly from your PC for a smallish amount of time and find yourself moved into some inactive galaxy. While it may not be ideal for these situations I would personally perfer that when 'quaranteened' your moved to the inactives galaxies and placed in vacation mod. Upon logging in again you are assigned an active universe to join, ofc youd also need some kind of automated message to inform the person whats happened to prevent all the "Why have I moved galaxy" questions also.

Originally Posted by mit

Code is already in place to delete inactive planets after 72hrs
can easily be changed to move them instead. (this is in rnd 11 dev)

Really has to be move, at times there can be reasons for not logging in and deleting them can be a little unfair. Throw them in a special galaxy (0.0 or something like that) and have them in some kind of vaction mode so they can be roided but cant get resources. Upon logging in assign them an active galaxy. You could also maybe assign a counter and use something like a 3 strikes and out, after 3rd time of going inactive over the period decided you delete them as its obvious that its not really a rare occurance at that point

[Tactitus]

Originally Posted by wakey

The only problem I potentially have with this came from my experiance in DoM around a year ago. I was persuaded to give it a go so I did and found it good enough to continue, however I was then ill for a week and was unable to get to get to my PC. This resulted in my account being deleted and it really pissed me off, I had built up my account was getting the hang of the game and was deleted while I was ill. I just cba to start again from scratch and also felt I had let my 'galaxy' down as I had got deleted when I had a fairly good score. With you suggesting only 36 hours this type of things could be an issue, your away unexpectedly from your PC for a smallish amount of time and find yourself moved into some inactive galaxy. While it may not be ideal for these situations I would personally perfer that when 'quaranteened' your moved to the inactives galaxies and placed in vacation mod. Upon logging in again you are assigned an active universe to join, ofc youd also need some kind of automated message to inform the person whats happened to prevent all the "Why have I moved galaxy" questions also.

I have no problem with quaranteed planets being able to rejoin the active universe if/when they demonstrate some activity. I think it should require more activity than just logging in once, though; but that's an implementation detail.

[mist]

wakey
i cba to argue most of your points, as you continually blame alliances for a problem that's not their fault. currently bashing is the way to win planetarion. hence the large people band together and bash the smaller people. hence people start and are farms. if this is removed, and you need to fight people your own size in order to progress then a large amount of the problems are less important. your suggestions treat the symptoms of the problem, when what's needed is a cure for the cause.

Originally Posted by Wakey

Is it fair that a poor player does well because hes in a big alliance while a good player does bad because hes in a weaker alliance

this, however, caught my attention as it seems to be newish. is the basis of your arguments that lame players should be protected, or that good players should be given a chance? if it's the latter then what's a good player? planetarion is about combat, but it's also about politics and who you know. therefore, can you really compare a technically poor player in a good alliance be classed as poor? they've used their contacts and blagging abilities to get there, whereas the technically good player is in a crap alliance. does that make them the crapper player?

tacticus
i was under the impression that the current system means that whoever has most votes is gc, meaning you can vote yourself in?

-mist

[G.K Zhukov]

The main problem is that there isnt many players left.

[Chika]

It really can't be argued that alliances are the problem. The thing is, every player has the ability to be in a strong alliance, it is just that some exercise this ability and others don't. Sure most big alliances bash to stay big, and trust me, i used to complain about it, but now I do the same thing. In fact, 95% of the players were bashed at one point. I played random a few rounds and it sucked, but hey, its something that you go through to make you a better player. The best bet is to do the 10 private 5 random thing. And let the random accounts be free and with less resources starting and stuff, and the 3 mil limit like before, with the option to upgrade later in the round. The only thing that alliances can do to help this is to stop being so strict on the new guys who are trying to get in alliances. That is what is keeping people away. They get into crap alliances who open them up to a crappy game experience, and who wants to pay money for a crappy experience???? Market the game as free, random, limited resources, and Pay, private, max resource start. Jeez, market something, just get more people in and all of our problems will be solved.

[wakey]

Originally Posted by mist

wakey
i cba to argue most of your points, as you continually blame alliances for a problem that's not their fault. currently bashing is the way to win planetarion. hence the large people band together and bash the smaller people. hence people start and are farms. if this is removed, and you need to fight people your own size in order to progress then a large amount of the problems are less important. your suggestions treat the symptoms of the problem, when what's needed is a cure for the cause.

-mist

Ok here goes replying to this again, hopefully this time my connection wont start playing up causing the post to be lost.

You say I'm blaming alliances, I wouldnt really say that myself, yes they go out and abuse the problem and use there power to ensure the problem isnt totally dealt with BUT the people at blame are PATeam both past and present (which as I either said elsewhere or in my lost posts by default includeds myself, I did always kick up a fuss over the control alliances were allowed to have over the game but probally not enough, certainly not enough to have my pov seriously listened to). PATeam (and PA Crew before them and Creators before that) have constantly dealt alliances as a secondary issue that only needs dealt with once everything else is sorted, they have simply ignored the huge impact they have on gameplay which should have made them one of the primary concerns when it came to gameplay issues EVERY SINGLE ROUND. Pretty much every PA clone in history has been able to identify this problem in the game and ensure that alliances could never get into situations like they have in PA yet PA has failed to reconise this over and over again with any attempt to plug the gap only being attempted in the last couple of rounds and then only as half hearted efforts. Alliances at times are to blame for certain things directly, such as Fury/Legion Cheating in r3 that killed that round as a contest before it had even started BUT this they cant directly be blamed for as they stuck within the rules of the game but that doesnt stop them being the problem.


As for saying I'm treating the symptons, far from it imho. No amount of changing the formulas to force planets to attack larger is going to sort the problem without first imposing limits to alliances. The reason for this is that the bashing isnt something that only starts after a score gap opens up, it starts from day 1 when the bigger alliances use the fact they hold should a large percentage of players to bully the smaller players into submission. The small players start a round with as much hope of a good round as anyone but all it can take is an alliance to bash them once and their belief and enthusiams can be so dented that they hardly play for teh rest of the round simply because they know that with little hope of defence (due to the fact that any alliance mates they have will 9/10 be being bashed so so wont have any ships to spare) they will spend the round being bashed down again, bigger alliance players however know being hit hard early on doesnt mean they will enter the endless loop of being hit because they have the alliance backup they need to pull out of the problem. Things just need evened out slightly so that the big players arent quite as secure in their position as they are now which will just make things that little bit easier for small players to survive day to day. This will then also give the small and meduim alliances a little more chance to be competative thus making the game more diverse.

Changing formulas to make people fight their own level ofc is something that does need sorted for the more advanced stages of the round but its not a solution on its own

Originally Posted by mist

wakey
this, however, caught my attention as it seems to be newish. is the basis of your arguments that lame players should be protected, or that good players should be given a chance? if it's the latter then what's a good player? planetarion is about combat, but it's also about politics and who you know. therefore, can you really compare a technically poor player in a good alliance be classed as poor? they've used their contacts and blagging abilities to get there, whereas the technically good player is in a crap alliance. does that make them the crapper player?

-mist

I'm certainly not against diplomacy being a factor in how you do, but as it is it is so unfairly slanted in favour of "who you know" over "what you know" that its just not right, A player who hasnt ever played the game or any game like it and has no natural skill for this type of game can out rank a experianced player of 4 rounds simply because they knew someone in the top alliance in rl. You shouldnt be able to do well without both playing skills and diplomacy skills but as it is you can survive without having an once of gameplaying skill

[wakey]

Originally Posted by Chika

It really can't be argued that alliances are the problem. The thing is, every player has the ability to be in a strong alliance, it is just that some exercise this ability and others don't. Sure most big alliances bash to stay big, and trust me, i used to complain about it, but now I do the same thing. In fact, 95% of the players were bashed at one point. I played random a few rounds and it sucked, but hey, its something that you go through to make you a better player. The best bet is to do the 10 private 5 random thing. And let the random accounts be free and with less resources starting and stuff, and the 3 mil limit like before, with the option to upgrade later in the round. The only thing that alliances can do to help this is to stop being so strict on the new guys who are trying to get in alliances. That is what is keeping people away. They get into crap alliances who open them up to a crappy game experience, and who wants to pay money for a crappy experience???? Market the game as free, random, limited resources, and Pay, private, max resource start. Jeez, market something, just get more people in and all of our problems will be solved.

Free accounts alone wont save the game, it may boost the numbers slightly but there needs to be a change in the games makeup if its ever to realy recover. We need a game which is vibrant and fun to play and which encourages users to put time into playing which requires giving them a chance to survive. Without this too many people will either say "I cba to even sign up" or will signup and quit once the first bashing results in incoming that you cant defend against. As I said above most of PA's clones managed to identify the gameplay issues alliances bring and took positive steps to prevent it becoming a real issue WHILE still allowing them to bring the many benifits that they bring on a community front. When this is acheived you have a game where small players have a chance of surviving in will gives you a game that can be sold to new players. And once the small players are in place we have the 'prey' to support the bigger players thus bringing about an enviorment where the old major players who have quit might consider returning to.

As for saying the 10/5 situatation is the best bet, I have to disagree. It is infact the worst of all the choices as it brings about pretty much no mixing and an unfair power advantage to the big alliances while giving every galaxy a major inactivity issue that seems to come with random accounts being placed in (especially free randoms). If a comprise is to be used the only one I can really see with any potential is private packs (perferably in 15 member galaxies with packs being 3 people per pack) which will see mixing (with packs of 3 you would have 5 differnt pack in each galaxy), some protection over the 'fortress galaxies' situation (for an alliance to have overall control they would require 3 packs in the same galaxy, even with the huge percentage of playerbase each alliance has now would make that a fairly difficult to acheive), doesnt give too much of a inactive random problem (randoms could either be assigned to galaxies that didnt have their full quota due to a pack only having two people rather than 3 or randoms could be shuffled into packs and then randomly assigend across universe in the shuffle that joins the packs into galaxies of 15 either way chances are youd ahve no more than 3 randoms which doesnt leave much chance of inactives and this can be made less with Tactitus's idea) AND MOST IMPORTANTLY everyone would be able to have 2 friends with them if they wished (which most people can find two other people to join them in a pack, finding 9 or 14 on otherhand can be difficult for smaller players, especially those whos alliances dont wish their members to clump together as it makes them too easy to destroy)

And final thing i'm not sure if getting big alliances to take on more smaller players is what is really needed, not unless bigger players are going to go the other way. After all whats more exciting to be part of a game where theres a great deal of alliances that are in some way competative or one where theres only really a handful of alliances, I certainly think the former is preferable so I dont think giving the big more and more of the playerbase is a good thing. What is needed is the game to nerture the small players and alliances while keeping the big under some kind of check so they dont continue to grow out of control. That then gives us a highly competative game which is fun to take part in for all

[mist]

Originally Posted by Wakey

The reason for this is that the bashing isnt something that only starts after a score gap opens up, it starts from day 1 when the bigger alliances use the fact they hold should a large percentage of players to bully the smaller players into submission.

i seem to remember a universe with 180000 planets, and less than 1000 players in a block. what happened? exactly the same thing. you're suggesting that alliances should be capped at less than 1% of the total players? or does it have less to do with alliance size than you'd like to think?

[wakey]

mist if you think that bashing was the same problem back when we had 180k players and alliances of under 200 members and blocks were under 1000 members was as bad as it is now you are very much mistaken. Being bashed once back then didnt mean the end of the round for you because the game wasnt controled by a handful of alliances. Yes we had our dominate alliances still and yes they were bigger and stronger than anyone else but they didnt have between 5 and 10% of the playerbase to themselves. The top 10 alliances didnt account for the majority of the playerbase as it is now (in PAX they accounted for close to 50% of the players, and when you count the cheaters, the inactives and those who quit into it it was probally well over 50%).

In reality back then the overall power distribution was vastly in favour of the small players as a whole and the big alliances couldnt just roll in and decimate the small alliances . This is how it should be , the small should be weaker one on one but as a whole they should have the numbers and overall power to make it so the big alliances cant just have everything their own way. As it is now thats not the case, they hold all the power now, they are individually stronger as they have always been but now also hold teh collective power allowing the big few to decimate everyone else with very little effort.

And I dont know how many times I have to state this but here goes again, in no way do I think alliances are the only issue here, theres many other areas that need dealt with to make this game fair again BUT alliances are the sticking point, without some positive moves to lower their power no other step is going to bear fruit, as alliances are one of the bigest infulences on the way this game plays (both good and bad) and without some controls this game will never be popular with new players. The game needs to start fair er and continue to be fairer throughout .

Oh and I dont believe ive ever actually mentioned numbers, the exact amount alliances should be limited at isnt something i've personally tried to calculate as I dont believe i'm in a position to actually make such an estimation. All I know is that 100 member limit isnt realistic if the playerbase remaisn the same size or decreases as this is not only a figure that most of the big alliances didnt exceed this round but also is too static to realisticly be viable as it requires you to guess what the player numbers will be to set the limit and such estimation is always going to be off. However I can safly say that figures below 1% never even entered my head as realistic as this is less than 20 members with teh current playerbase which while undoubtedly making for a good game on the competative front (most alliances could get 20 members especially with bigger alliances having to drop a fair few members which would leave plenty of people for the current small alliances and any new alliances to pick up) it would probally be getting a bit low.

[Leshy]

Originally Posted by wakey

Pretty much every PA clone in history has been able to identify this problem in the game and ensure that alliances could never get into situations like they have in PA

Exactly what kind of measures have they taken?

[mist]

Originally Posted by wakey

Oh and I dont believe ive ever actually mentioned numbers, the exact amount alliances should be limited at isnt something i've personally tried to calculate as I dont believe i'm in a position to actually make such an estimation. All I know is that 100 member limit isnt realistic

so, you're in a perfect position to criticize others, yet not in one to suggest an improvement.

must be nice

-mist

[wakey]

Originally Posted by mist

so, you're in a perfect position to criticize others, yet not in one to suggest an improvement.

must be nice

-mist

I love the way you can pick out small little comments to have a dig while ignoring everything else thats been said. I dont have all the information open to me, that I would need to come up with an exact figure because as I keep saying in most of my posts (but which people seem to have a habit of ignoring) alliance control is just a single aspect of problem and imore information on forumulas and plans for the round are needed to make an informed choice. However to say that I'm simply criticising and not making any effort to suggest improvements is so far off the mark its unbeliveable. I have continually suggested on these forums that a realistic limit needs imposed that does limit alliance size and does give some control over alliances which the current 150 limit and the proposed 100 member limit doesnt even make an attempt at doing, I have also continually suggested that any limit should be DYNAMIC so it adjusts in accordance with the total number of players because attempst to estiimate player numbers have always been wayt off hence estimating what the limit should be will never be right even if a realistic limit is tried

Just because I havent gone as far as suggesting actual figures doesnt mean I havent offered any suggestions for improvements, its just that all I have to go upon is the playing experiance which while enough to give you a pretty good indication of what works and what doesnt (hence allowing me to statte that the limits are too high) isnt enough to be more presise on. I mean if you really want me to I'll throw in some numbers but in reality these would be fairly hopeless as they would only take into account the playing experiance and none of the other changes that are being made

Originally Posted by Leshy

Exactly what kind of measures have they taken?

Well most importantly most have actually realised that alliances have an impact on the gameplay and have built there game with the alliances in mind and ensured they are an integral part in the games core. With PA alliances are still a secondary consideration who are only dealt with if and when the games at a level they are happy with. This just isnt right because you can have the game perfect on paper but as soon as alliances are thrown into the mix this balance goes out of the window. Alliances are an item of gameplay that are as important as any formulas, galaxy structure, travel times ect ect and should be treated as that. As long as ithey are left totally to their own devices with a few fthings thrown in at the last minute this game can never be balanced and hence can never be fun for the majority of players

[SYMM]

Originally Posted by mist

so, you're in a perfect position to criticize others, yet not in one to suggest an improvement.

must be nice

-mist

And someone actually made you the Player-Liason?
Way to go with the attitude.

Based on this reply, you're either really arrogant, or really ignorant...or maybe both.

To anyone who even skims this (or the multitude of other) thread(s) that Wakey posts in, it is blindingly obvious that he's suggesting plenty of (in his opinion...) improvements, yet you pick on one fragment of a sentence where he (quite rightly imo) doesn't want to tie himself to a number and you pick up on it? Grow up ffs.

Its quite clear that last round's player-limit did almost nothing to affect the game, but without knowing how many players will be in r11, what other things will affect alliances/planets its really not worth even suggesting a number.

[mist]

yes, someone did. but as i quit a week or two ago, i'm not quite sure what relevance that has to anything.

to anyone who even skims this thread it's fairly evident that i've argued "properly" with him in several other posts. however his broad brush "fixes" which he admits arn't the whole solution so are therefore rather pointless have annoyed me. i was hoping he'd commit himself to a firm suggestion, so that we could discuss solutions, rather than continuing to complain how bad the current situation is. i would have suggested some myself, but tbh i don't have any. for alliances to be controled pa has to change a hell of a lot, more than people will like i suspect

-mist

[wakey]

Originally Posted by mist

yes, someone did. but as i quit a week or two ago, i'm not quite sure what relevance that has to anything.

to anyone who even skims this thread it's fairly evident that i've argued "properly" with him in several other posts. however his broad brush "fixes" which he admits arn't the whole solution so are therefore rather pointless have annoyed me. i was hoping he'd commit himself to a firm suggestion, so that we could discuss solutions, rather than continuing to complain how bad the current situation is. i would have suggested some myself, but tbh i don't have any. for alliances to be controled pa has to change a hell of a lot, more than people will like i suspect

-mist

I have dealt with the other issues on other threads over and over again, however its inaproiate intentionally hijacking and issue with another 'connected' issue which is off topic from the original thread. I have hence tried to ensure I deal with just the issue at hand on each of the threads (ok this went a little wrong as this thread has progressed but alliances and galaxy structure seem to be so connected its hard to deal with one and not the other). But to even suggest that just because they arent a complete solution in themselves makes anything I said rather pointless is just ignorant. If theres an issue then its an issue no matter how complete or incomplete it is

Now yes for alliances to be controlled PA has to change, yes it may not be liked as people dont like change no matter how big or small it is BUT its needed for PA to survive and ultimatly people will grow to like the changes if it results in a game which isnt as domainated by a select few groups making it a)too easy for these groups and b) impossible for the small players to get any kind of foothold and hence have any kind of fun BECAUSE the game is ultimatly more newbie friendly, more enjoyable and more competative

[Ultimate Newbie]

Originally Posted by Qdeathstar

:-/ Yet Another Galaxy size quest..

How bout we fix this problem the easy way. No Galaxies, no planets, no clusters... just asteroids.. and how many you own. And, OFC, your coords fluctuate..

Pure Brilliance :-/.

"All is in flux..."

Rember: that hybrid type of random/private is very old. At least since mid R5 when i first suggested it

[Ultimate Newbie]

Originally Posted by wakey

All I know is that 100 member limit isnt realistic if the playerbase remaisn the same size or decreases as this is not only a figure that most of the big alliances didnt exceed this round but also is too static to realisticly be viable as it requires you to guess what the player numbers will be to set the limit and such estimation is always going to be off. However I can safly say that figures below 1% never even entered my head as realistic as this is less than 20 members with teh current playerbase which while undoubtedly making for a good game on the competative front (most alliances could get 20 members especially with bigger alliances having to drop a fair few members which would leave plenty of people for the current small alliances and any new alliances to pick up) it would probally be getting a bit low.

If the limit was so low, it would make the larger alliances split into wings and whatnot. Defensively, with the assumtion that the -1 TT will still be around for all members in an alliance, it would be easier for an attacker to assail a major alliance. however, these alliances can team up to attack, retal and bash all opposition as per their current status. such modification may prove only a small hinderence to these powerful alliances - but that doesnt mean that i dont agree with you in principle.

[wakey]

Originally Posted by Ultimate Newbie

If the limit was so low, it would make the larger alliances split into wings and whatnot. Defensively, with the assumtion that the -1 TT will still be around for all members in an alliance, it would be easier for an attacker to assail a major alliance. however, these alliances can team up to attack, retal and bash all opposition as per their current status. such modification may prove only a small hinderence to these powerful alliances - but that doesnt mean that i dont agree with you in principle.

It is something I did consider but personal drew the conclusion that alliances spliting into wings may not be a bad thing. As long as the travel time system isnt changed too much from PAX so that outside galaxy and alliance defence isnt something you can easierly use you remove the defensive aspects that the alliances offer. An alliance player who doesnt have this guarentee of defence has to be a much smarter and better player to survive else they will leave themselves open. And yes these wings can group up on attacks like they can now and yes they will be able to bash but they will be doing so knowing they arent as safe as they once were. And also as I've stated already I dont think this change is a magic one, its one that needs to be combined with the other changes to cut down bashing, things like not giving alliances an easy ride with private galaxies (I will say it again Private Packs seem perfect and deserve a try, Spinner ignored me everytime i brought this up in the past but theres no denying it has many of the good aspects of each galaxy structure but less of the problems), changing forumulas or perhaps even going as far as implemnting things like "shoot at anyone not on your side or in your galaxy" to cut down interalliance activity (not sure how workable this would actually be, its just something thats been suggested in the past and is an intresting idea)

Also the final thing which makes me thing breaking into wings wouldnt be that bad is PA history. Most major alliances at somepoint have had wings but how many Alliances with Wings havent either had the wing turn round and try to stab them in the back (Some like legion were successful countless others failed) or the wings caused the main alliance so much trouble they cut them loose. There really isnt a great deal as the leaders of these wings almost always get a sense of power and end up hating being dicated to which makes them 'resent' the main alliance and look for ways to break free or show their independance. So if some did take the spliting in wings option it could lead to some intresting politics and battles while taking just some of the pressure that small alliances currently ahve to put up with potentially giving them just a bit more room to grow

[mist]

wakey

what're your thoughts on a "real" map, with eta increasing with distance?

that way you have to work with the people about you if you want defence, galaxies become a *lot* more important

-mist

[Tactitus]

Geography was initially part of PAX; but the granularity was so large (relative to the size of the universe) that it was just an annoyance and had to be disabled.

[mist]

interesting. not quite the solution i had in mind though.

-mist

[wakey]

Originally Posted by mist

wakey

what're your thoughts on a "real" map, with eta increasing with distance?

that way you have to work with the people about you if you want defence, galaxies become a *lot* more important

-mist

In theory its a great idea as it also makes bashing harder however I've yet to see a suggested method of doing this which seems viable (and I've also played a few games in my time which used simerlar systems and they just dont work very well)

The problems are
1) It can make attacking just too hard, if implemented right but have little effect if implemented wrong. If you have eta's which end up being as in the regions of 15+ hours they just arent apealing targets, instead your more likly just to roid those immediatly around you which will eventually lead to a few big galaxies scattered throughout the universe who are too far away for them to attack each other. Its the same reason I generally dont like clusters as it pretty much brings about a situation where you have to pick on the same few galaxies over and over again to grow. This type of bashing just isnt good and doesnt give much chance of growth.
On the other hand implemented like the proposed one of this round is just too small to have much effect, with so few 'clusters' eta increases of +1 per 10 clusters wouldnt make much of a diffference at all. The whole idea has the same problem in many ways of static alliance limits and thats you have to guess how many people will play before hand to get a good figure which is very difficult

2) Wrap around, if the universe doesnt wrap around those in c1 ultimatly have less targets than those further up the universe. if its +1 per c a Cluster 1 galaxy would have viable targets only in c1 and c2 where as a c2 galaxy would have them in c1 c2 and c3.
HOWEVER if it does wrap around you have the problem of C1 always having ripe new planets to farm as they will always be next to the last galaxy which is almost always a galaxy of new people AND if things are changed to cut down bashing they again lose a potential target as they will be unable to attack this galaxy

3) Its harder for small alliances, the fewer members you ahve the less likly you have a close by ally and even with eta bonus for alliance mates you could easierly only have your galaxy and maybe some friendly cluster galaxies to help you. A big alliance however is more likly to have allies close by which ultimatly makes this idea less appealing for the small players that need kept and attracted to the game to support the number of more hard core players.

For me I've personally always perfered the Civ style Fog of War method i've floated a few times because its not only forces co-operating in galaxy more but also offers newbies more protection from the bigger players. It also offers the chance of a much politics between galaxies you locate, do you immediatly declare war on the first galaxy you find who could be your only defence when attacked or do you work together. It has its flaws that need ironed out still and most importantly it requires not only a major change in gameplay but in the games code but ultimatly it seems to throw up some intresting 'events' and interaction.

Anyway could ahve sworn I wrote a thread about it on suggestions but cant find it so I guess not.
However the basic idea can be found here and a more detailed one here

[LordBrem]

There is no point in being active if the rest of your gal is n00bs...private gals are a very good thing.

[Qdeathstar]

There is no point in being active if the rest of your gal is n00bs...private gals are a very good thing.



Yes there is, if youi want to do something good for the game, why not teach them how to play, convince them that you should be GC and have some fun :-/

[mist]

wakey: did you try hyperiums? their map worked quite well while i was playing

lordbrem: for 1337 players, yes. for the game, not so convinced

-mist

[Copie]

I very much like the idea that inactive planets are exiled to a quarentened area. This area should not allow resources to be collected and conversly should not allow attacks, so called Q clusters would be out of bounds both to and from the main universe until the player can prove their activity someway (not just by logging in once every 72 hours).

I also think that the 72 hours should be reduced, to at least 48 hours, and possibly even 24 hours before the planet is exiled to a Q cluster. This is infact a HELP to people, as it also acts as a sort of autovacation mode. There are some issues ofc about people wanting to return to the same galaxy, but i think that they should be returned to a random slot in another gal. This is the price for inactivity, for whatever reason. (and i know we would get lots of emails about how my dog died and my car broke down and i was forced to walk 100 miles to bury him so couldn't log in etc etc)

I also think that the GC should NOT be allowed to exile players. (Yes i know this will stick in peoples throats but it forces them to resolve issues with n00bs). If a player is abusive then they can follow the normal guidelines for reporting a player, an exile is a GAME feature not a personality feature if you get my meaning.

This would leave the random/private debate much more open, as we could return to 50/50 random/priv gals so that n00bs without an alliance have a chance of being in the game in a half decent gal and not be farms. I disagree that only hard core players are left, people DO still try the game ( i also like the free account 200 roid limit idea, but thats a different thread), and we should do EVERYTHING we can to encourage them to stay. Not just roid the F**K out of them and destroy there fleets.

Copie

[Qdeathstar]

that all sounds pretteh good... especial forceing leet players to play with noobies.