Planetarion Forums

Zoro · 10 Jun 2006, 11:04

One of the biggest gripes of plyers who take the game pretty serious is that their gal is always innactive - and they spend more time booting players than playing the game. The last 2 rounds I´ve played this has been the case and it´s totally ruined both rounds for me

Had this idea

What if we made BP´s 4 and joined 2 together at the shuffle
Then a mix of the leftover free and random planets would be split evenly

it would probably mean a few less gals but it would give the majority of players a better chance

Zoro · 10 Jun 2006, 13:34

I posted this before but it doesn´t seem to have appeared - but if it has forgive me this computer is doing strange things

One of the most disappointing things about PA is the galaxy/BP system currently employed. It´s so disheartening to have quite a good BP and find that u land in a gal with loads of innactives. AND it doesn´t matter how quickly u boot them they are just replaced by others. And consquently ur gal struggles and members of ur pack lose interest.
This has happened the last 2 times I have played.

I´m not in favour of private gals as I do believe the best way foward for PA is to bring randoms and free planets in with the more experienced planets (to teach/guide/inspire them)

But i had this idea

Make BP´s have 4 people and join 2 BP´s together at the shuffle - with these place an equally distributed ammount of randoms (paid and unpaid)

what u think?

InvictusVitae · 10 Jun 2006, 14:20

Would be unfair to those who enjoy the fun of playing randomly.

Dotatrix · 10 Jun 2006, 14:27

Bigger BP's = less gals = less fun
Smaller BP's = more gals = more fun

Just IMO, though

Zoro · 10 Jun 2006, 17:46

Maybe the randoms would enjoy it more as they would be random in gals with 8 BP people which would surely make the quality of the gals better

Zoro · 10 Jun 2006, 17:53

We would all agree more planets = more fun

How many people like myself are wondering whether to bother playing next round or not cos no matter how much effort i put in how well I do is more determined on how lucky I am with randoms and free planets.

Ok there would be less gals - but after about 2 weeks usually half of the gals are dead or have members flying to other parts of the universe.

I would imagine less people would exile if from the start they new they had atleast 7 other people who were intending on playing properly

There is still an element of randomness with this suggested system but atleast everyone would feel they had a chance

Dotatrix · 10 Jun 2006, 17:56

Ok, so what about the people that doesn't get to a 8 BP galaxy? That wouldn't be so motivating either.

Murador · 10 Jun 2006, 18:02

I think that 2 BPs, each with 3 members is enough, 6 ppl intending to do great and more 4 radoms, there are always good and active planets that go random, I have already gone random twice, and I can garantee that I am very active and have some exp.

Dotatrix · 10 Jun 2006, 18:14

Yeah, I think that 2x4 BP's per gal are also a bit too much, since the player count isn't that high. I also went random for the first time and got lucky and ended to a very good gal

Zoro · 10 Jun 2006, 19:13

But i don´t understand - 6 is hardly a change atall and i would rather see BP´s spread between 100 or 80 potential good gals rather than tryng to make them fit into 120 or more

We could still have good active randoms joing the BP´s - infact this system could even encourage more people trying random as they would know they are going to land in a gal with 8 established players

Even free planets would benefit from being encouraged by a gal with a more stable base
At the start of round 18 there will probably be about 2.5k planets about 1.5k paid - i´m saying spread these around 100 gals instead of 130 gals

Dr_Zaius · 12 Jun 2006, 12:29

didn't we used todo it like this b4?

wakey · 12 Jun 2006, 12:54

As others have said less galaxies means less fun as it increases the chances of a galaxy being double or even triple booked

And even if you ignore that, 2 weeks after doing such a system people like yourself would be posting "Its unfair we should have large BP's as its all about luck about the quality of BP you get paired with". You potentially end up in a worse situation that with randoms.

As such I dont think your solution really is any better, it just swaps one set of issues and relaince on luck for another set

Thefoundation · 12 Jun 2006, 14:38

wakey,

How many randoms are "crappy"?
How many Bp's are 'crappy"

the chance you get a bad random is way higher then the chance you get a crappy BP

wakey · 12 Jun 2006, 14:55

Quote:

Originally Posted by Thefoundation

wakey,

How many randoms are "crappy"?
How many Bp's are 'crappy"

the chance you get a bad random is way higher then the chance you get a crappy BP

A crappy random however is only 1 player, a crappy BP is multiple people. And you need to remember that alot of the galaxies in the lower half of the rankings arent just in the lower half because of crappy randoms but because of a crappy BP who have control of the galaxy but have poor activity times, often simerlar to each other and little knowledge, skill or leadership qualities.

If the BP is rubbish your probally getting yourself stuck with 3 'crappy' players whom will no doubt be harder to exile (if only because if they choose to play together we can hardly have a situation where the other BP can just pick them off 1 by 1 until they are left with only the players in the BP they want)

Veedeejem! · 12 Jun 2006, 15:47

tbh i'd rather have 75-100 good gals than 10 top gals & 120 semi-good gals

wakey · 12 Jun 2006, 16:34

Quote:

Originally Posted by Veedeejem!

tbh i'd rather have 75-100 good gals than 10 top gals & 120 semi-good gals

Seriously HOW does this produce more good galaxies. We have the SAME players and we have the SAME luck factor. Some galaxies will get 2 good BP's, some will get 1 Good BP (and that BP will no doubt jump ship as soon as they can) and some galaxies with no good BP's.

People need to realise that a BP doesnt mean they are good players and something like this isnt going to suddenly see quality spread fairer and make getting rid of the inactives easier

Zoro · 13 Jun 2006, 16:09

Sorry wakey

I'm gonna have to totally disagree - my gripe is quite specific as I have quite literally had two rounds ruined by the fact that I've been in quite good packs and my packs have had little or no help from the randoms/free planets. AND we've spent most of the game exiling people HOPING that we'd catch a few good exiling planets.

Planetarion - I know that game - 'You join a galaxy with some online friends and you efficiently exile other planets in the galaxy hoping to get more active planets to help u exile even more efficiently' Oh and you send some ships out and get some roids as well.

What i'm suggesting is that we just stop living in the past dreaming of the ammount of galaxies we used to have - we stop aquating FUN to high numbers - 'it needs to be 150 galaxies to be fun'
I played in rounds 4 and 5 when there were thousands of gals AND it's more fun now cos it's a better balanced quality game.

I suggest we tighten it up a bit 4*2 packs - obviously there is still a risk element - BUT at least 4 planets have join a pack and maybe are hoping to play the game a bit.
Sometimes players need to be inspired to try harder and as soon as their pack is in a poor galaxy and the suffer from multiple incommings they give up on the round. People try harder when they think they are doing a bit better.
To see 10 people in ur gal channel - little things like that.

Ultimately the future of the game depends on the players and if the players get annoyed all the time cos of the weakness of their gals then the game suffers - it becomes less enjoyable and less people play - and the we have even fewer gals

Paddy · 13 Jun 2006, 17:38

I can't see how having 2 buddy packs of 4 people reduces the luck factor at all. If we had 8 BP players in a gal as opposed to the five of now then currently we would have 100 gals as opposed to 160. These gals would have an average of around 25 people in rather than 17/18. This actually means you have more randoms in your gal if you have 8 BP members in a gal than if you only have 5 as of now.

Having fewer gals also means that, as wakey said, more gals will be double or triple booked for raids every night (this is already extremely regular and would probably about double with this many fewer gals). Having a weak buddy pack with you would also be far worse than getting some bad randoms in the current setup and it is also likely that there would be a bigger gap between the biggest and the smaller gals because of the extra number of randoms per gal.

wakey · 13 Jun 2006, 22:56

Paddy sums things up pretty well so I wont comment on the problems further. However there is something I do want to comment on and thats where you say

Quote:

What i'm suggesting is that we just stop living in the past dreaming of the ammount of galaxies we used to have - we stop aquating FUN to high numbers - 'it needs to be 150 galaxies to be fun'
I played in rounds 4 and 5 when there were thousands of gals AND it's more fun now cos it's a better balanced quality game.

Now you are partially right. The games more balanced and on the whole more fun however the lack of players are largely whats holding the game back. As balanced as the game is now compared to before the lack of playing numbers has resulted in some deep rooted problems and thats preventing the improved game from really fulfilling its potential. PA is a multi player game and multi player games require many players, the more players the better and the lower the numbers get the more focusses the 'pressure' becomes focussed on individuals

Zoro · 14 Jun 2006, 11:33

I have to agree about the lack of players leading to problems

But and this is where I disagree - I believe the current BP system adds to the lowering of numbers (not just in the game as a whole BUT during the game people leaving after a few weeks etc).
When I play I play pretty hardcore - usually only 3 or 4 hours a day missed.
How disheartening do u think it is when the incomming arrives in that period and none of ur pack are on to report AND the randoms and free planets are so bad that they are never really there anyway.
The point is - i'm struggling with myself thinking should I play atall.
AND I would presume I am the type of player PA wants to keep.

How many more rounds would I play if I get the same fustrating situation again and again?
If i'm not lucky enough to be in the top 5 or 6 gals that just by chance have a higher number of good players than most.
How many good players are littered throughout the top 100 gals - thinking the same way I am?

JonnyBGood · 14 Jun 2006, 11:39

No offence but if you're playing that hardcore and weren't bothered organising your buddypack so that someone was online in the four hours you miss that's really nobody's fault but your own. I wouldn't recommend anything beyond an extra member in each buddypack.

wakey · 14 Jun 2006, 14:37

As JBG said your problem is more a problem with your BP creation and its a problem which your not alone in. The game in general lacks active people at the peak incoming time and seeing as so many Buddy packs are built around 'friends' it means that most lack anything remotly approaching 24 hour coverage. Your chances of getting a BP that compliments your own are hence really small and your more likly than not going to have to deal with exiling a group of RL friends whos activity time is little more than 1800GMT to 2300GMT.

If people want to ensure 24/7 coverage in galaxy its down to themselves to ensure that. if you dont then you have to rely on luck

Zoro · 14 Jun 2006, 16:34

Again ur points add weight to my arguments - I joined a pretty good pack - with two Canadians (i'm English). And it was only as the round progressed that the problems of not finding suitable randoms/free planets took it's toll. Eventually the pack became less active after exiling more than 50 planets and realising that this was not to be our round.

If my pack had been added to even an average pack - we would have stood are far better chance of having a more interesting round

This is the last i'll say on the subject as my views don't seeming to being received positively

JonnyBGood · 14 Jun 2006, 18:19

Leaving in the middle of a discussion is worse than the holocaust

Aragno · 20 Jun 2006, 08:58

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zoro

Maybe the randoms would enjoy it more as they would be random in gals with 8 BP people which would surely make the quality of the gals better

Since when is a buddy pack player a player that grantees an active good player?

I had to self exile out 2 gals due to bad/inactive players in buddy packs. To make it worse this was when players in buddy packs could not be exiled.