Allow multing

[Sebos]

This has prolly been said more than once but i could not see it in here, sorry if it is.

Could it be possible to have more than one Universe running a universe the same as now and a universe where u can run as many planets as you can control.

I haven't quite thought through how it would work as PA is P2P but maybe for your £5 or whatever it is where u play from u can have up to 5 planets in this new universe. Ofc u would be able to pay more allowing you access to more planets.

This could potentially solve two problems.
1. There would be a place for multis to play and so leading to less multis in the other Universe
2. there would be increased targets for ppl who compain about lack of players/ targets in the new universe.

I understand that multiing is used to cheat and so it might not stop people harming the other universe with multi accounts.

Another slant on this would be to allow multiing in the main uni. So for your £5 or whatever u gain access to 5 planets potentially making it more value for money and increasing the number of targets at the same time

Just an idea that im sure has been floated before

Dryph

p.s this is nothing against the MH team who do a great job, but it would make life easier for them if people that want to multi have a place to do so.

[Phil^]

i cant say no enough times to this idea, or to the others who have suggested it in the past

legalising multiple accounts is bad.

[Sebos]

thanks to the reply phil i did say it had prolly been talked about b4. :/

[jupp]

there are a lot of games out where you have 1 account and start with 1 planet and colonize unknown or take over hostile planets but i think that changes the gaming experience known from pa r1 - 14 completly and i would just not be Planetarion anymore.

[Ultimate Newbie]

Originally Posted by Phil^

i cant say no enough times to this idea, or to the others who have suggested it in the past

legalising multiple accounts is bad.

Its interesting though - with the new exception system that you coded, you could declare another planet or two hardcoded as your multi planet. All multi exceptions would permit 0 interaction. In effect, they are two different players resulting in twice the roids and twice the revenue for Jolt. I would imagine that you would limit multi planets to 1 or 2 additional ones, but still.

Or are there other problems, such as when is it OK to multi and what to do with multies who dont declare their second planet etc? (personally, i would delete both and say stiff cheese, but still). Or does it undermine the whole 0 tolerance of cheaters that the MH team reply on etc?

[Squishy]

Im dead againt this idea.

Multiing does not have its place in this game in any shape or form.

Lets concentrate on getting more players rather than giveing the ones we have more planets

[Smudge]

I think if there were a 2nd multi universe, Jolt would allow it and ignore the community on this one - its brilliant from a fiscal point of view as they can make more money

[Cayl]

Phil and I talked about it once long ago. I've never seen anyone make a real logical argument against it. I'm sure that there exists reasons not to do it but nobody can be arsed to actually lay them out.

Here is one possibility:
Allow and hard code into the game, 2 planets per login.
Each planet has the same Ruler and Planet name
Add a column to the galaxy screen. In this column you will see either "Prime" or "Minor" Letting you know that this is either the primary or alternate planet.
Primes may join alliances, Minor's may not
A Prime and its Minor are always in the same cluster and never in the same galaxy. This holds true for whatever else happens, exiling, buddy packing, whatever.
There is no exception in place between a prime and a minor, but there are no other special advantages granted either other than the in-cluster travel time. Of course neither planet would be able to actually attack the other one.
Add a top 100 list. There will be a top 100 Binary list where the scores of Primes and Minors are added up into one score. Traditional Top 100 Planet list will also still be there as usual

This is just a rough sketch of the idea. A Full well thought out project plan would take several pages. There are lots of implications in that idea that need to be worked out fully.

Advantages:
We all agree that a larger planet base is a positive thing. It makes rounds more interesting for longer. It makes individual planet's numbers get bigger, and people like to see and throw around bigger numbers.

Of course there is revenue, this is why -Jolt- should allow it. Its also a net positive for the PA community. If the game can suddenly generate 1.75x more revenue because 3/4 of the game is willingly paying double, then that can't be any -worse- for the game, and might even lead to some more resources being thrown into things like bug quashing and other requested features.

Also this game is built on the idea that the a balance of skill and activity will get you to the top. It will take more skill to run two planets, and certainly a lot more activity.

There are a few things you shouldn't say from this point forward:

1) Its against the rules. Of course it is now, we're suggesting CHANGES
2) It doesn't seem like Planetarion. Most of the new things we've seen from PaX and beyond would have been ridiculed by r1-2 PA players. The honest to god truth is Planetarion is going to evolve or its going to die.
3) I don't like it. Period. Well thank you for your valuable feedback. Now back it up with some actual discussion

--Cayl

[Forest]

Thats not actually a bad idea.

Some questiosn that would need more thought would be:

* What is to stop people simply farming minor planets. With no alliance, it would come down to the galaxy, and retals. The bigger galaxies get the decent minors, and the small aliances just get an extra reason to be farmed. Its basically gonna provide legalised farming.

* Would minor/ prime accounts be allowed to attack together?

[Cayl]

Originally Posted by Forest

Thats not actually a bad idea.

Some questiosn that would need more thought would be:

* What is to stop people simply farming minor planets. With no alliance, it would come down to the galaxy, and retals. The bigger galaxies get the decent minors, and the small aliances just get an extra reason to be farmed. Its basically gonna provide legalised farming.

This is an excellent point. I was originally thinking that in-cluster from one's own planet, their galaxy mates, or alliance mates might be enough, but I think you're right.

I had no reason for saying that Minor planets shouldn't have an alliance. So I shall modify the suggestion by saying Minor planets can join the same alliance as the Prime planet and will take up an alliance slot as normal. Alliances may not attack a Minor planet of a Prime ally whether or not that Minor is actually in their alliance. A Prime and Minor may not be in different alliances.

* Would minor/ prime accounts be allowed to attack together?

Specifically I believe they should be allowed to attack together.

[The Real Arfy]

Originally Posted by Cayl

I had no reason for saying that Minor planets shouldn't have an alliance. So I shall modify the suggestion by saying Minor planets can join the same alliance as the Prime planet and will take up an alliance slot as normal.

Would this not lead to half as many players in each alliance, thus cutting alot of the community in half? We could always double the player limit, but then this leaves it open to abuse whereby an alliance now has double that of another.

[Cayl]

Originally Posted by The Real Arfy

Would this not lead to half as many players in each alliance, thus cutting alot of the community in half? We could always double the player limit, but then this leaves it open to abuse whereby an alliance now has double that of another.

Nope, the community is moving towards smaller alliances anyway. I say implement this idea, and leave the limit at 100.

Smaller alliances are good, it will force more leaders to emerge and get more involved.

[Morden]

if anything, most alliances would drop down to 50 high activity players, each havinbg 2 planets within the alliance.

Thus, there would likely be 4-5 new alliances evolve out of this.

I know for one, that if it were feasable to have an alliance of 40-50 people compete properly, then I would deffinetly consider reforming a group to play.

[The Real Arfy]

Do so then, since the alliance limit is likely to drop this round*. In which case, 50 people can certainly compete.

* Not facts, guesses.

[Morden]

I might do. Though I still dont like the length of the round.

Personally I think the round is almost always over after 5-6 weeks. and anything after that is just wasted time, which makes everyone get bitter and causes people to leave.

If they ever cut the round time down to a sensible amount, then I think a lot more people would play. Its not like Jolt wouldnt gain out of it either, as they would generate more revenue annually due to an increased # of rounds per year.

[Heartless]

Originally Posted by Morden

I might do. Though I still dont like the length of the round.

Personally I think the round is almost always over after 5-6 weeks. and anything after that is just wasted time, which makes everyone get bitter and causes people to leave.

If they ever cut the round time down to a sensible amount, then I think a lot more people would play. Its not like Jolt wouldnt gain out of it either, as they would generate more revenue annually due to an increased # of rounds per year.

1000 ticks per round would be worth it, no? Would almost fit to 6 weeks. + 2 weeks signup time would mean that we could play 5 to 6 rounds a year.

Considering Cayl's suggestion about multi-planets (which should definately be though through imho) this could actually benefit us all. Once the player base has grown big enough, however, the round most likely needs to be slightly increased again in its duration.

The overall side-effects tend to be overwhelming from a first look: allowing 2 planets per player takes stress from the new people, it highly increases the universe size and amount of alliances.

Personally I am all up for giving it a try.

[Alessio]

Yay for frying some DC's brains..

Yay for being in 2 battlegroups with the same 100 people..

Yay for killing newbies twice as fast..

[Chika]

I tried this idea, and my main planet ended the best planet rank that I ever had before.

[Heartless]

Originally Posted by Alessio

Yay for frying some DC's brains..

I don't know what you did when being a DC, but I just ask for ships and then assign those ships to the different open calls. There is absolutely no increased work for a DC, really.

Originally Posted by Alessio

Yay for being in 2 battlegroups with the same 100 people..

There's no problem with this either. So it is just double the size like most other things. Keep in mind we don't want to raise alliance member count.

Originally Posted by Alessio

Yay for killing newbies twice as fast..

Let's face it: Newbies get killed anyways if they match the "worth it!" criterias. This would either speed up the process of separating the boys from the men to a degree where it is going to benefit most newbies since it will be one, maybe two nights of being waved instead of one week while intel is being collected.

[Cayl]

Originally Posted by Alessio

Yay for frying some DC's brains..

Yeah, I don't know what you're on about. Coords would be different, its just another planet.

Originally Posted by Alessio

Yay for being in 2 battlegroups with the same 100 people..

Like how I'm in a Fighter attack group with one fleet slot, and my Frigates go to another AG later in the night? That doesn't seem to bad. If it is, well, its your alliance, disallow it.

Originally Posted by Alessio

Yay for killing newbies twice as fast..

As Heartless says, if you're right, then the vets seperate from the newbies that much faster, and they can move on with having their own wars underneath our bash limit. If you're wrong then its a non-argument.

You may be right, as you're essentially doubling the paying veteran player count and leaving the same number of non-paying free planets.


As an additional point of discussion. Here are two ways that exiling might work:
1) The simple way: There's one exile button for both planets. You punch it, and a new cluster is chosen and the planets are redistributed appropriately inside it.

2) The complex way: If the Prime planet chooses to exile, then it happens like option 1). If the Minor planet chooses to exile, then it just goes to a different galaxy inside the same cluster.

As I reflect on it, I really don't like option 2. Too abuseable.

[Ferretus]

Originally Posted by Ultimate Newbie

...with the new exception system that you coded, you could declare another planet or two hardcoded as your multi planet. All multi exceptions would permit 0 interaction. In effect, they are two different players resulting in twice the roids and twice the revenue for Jolt. I would imagine that you would limit multi planets to 1 or 2 additional ones, but still.

Or are there other problems, such as when is it OK to multi and what to do with multies who dont declare their second planet etc? (personally, i would delete both and say stiff cheese, but still). Or does it undermine the whole 0 tolerance of cheaters that the MH team reply on etc?

What he said. I would love to get rid of the multihunter function all together really but they have their uses I spose. Yes we will have lots of cheaters and spies etc BUT with the exception system it is hardcoded to prevent interaction.

We need a game again, we are not getting new players so lets make the most of the playerbase available.

[Alessio]

I just wanted to trow in some discussion points that weren't mentioned yet
I myself would enjoy some refreshing playstyle like with 2 planets in PA...
I think its good to give the game a new twist..

I don't know what you did when being a DC, but I just ask for ships and then assign those ships to the different open calls. There is absolutely no increased work for a DC, really.

ooohh I usually just panic...