Galaxy setups
For some time now, i am wondering why we have these big (in number) galaxies in the universe. Galaxies with 14 members with the buddy pack, some late signups and the never-stop-exiling-till-im-there members. You can decribe most of them as hard-core players, being too serious about a game, single dads, students, i don't care how you call them, how you think of them, my point isn't about them, i just have to describe their situation. They also make the game as it is, and eventhough i'm not too serious, even i like to help out someone striving to win.
So, a galaxy with 14 of those "too serious" members, if you have like 3 or 4 of those, somewhere mid-game, where most galaxies are settled, they have the chance to grow at an exponential rate compared to those with less or no activity. After a while, most players aren't able to catch up with these galaxies and the gap keeps getting bigger and bigger. With 14! members and most of them in top alliances, landing on them is nearly impossible. Should we all compliment them or is that just doing of this game's development...? Please tell me how this development, which is on-going for so many rounds, will help this game from getting ANY better and attract new players or keep those who struggle to be competitive? Don't get me wrong, this is not a rant! For those who know me, i care as much about PA as i care about Rebecca Black's new album. Bringing down the max alliance number from 80 to 60 was a start to have some more fun between alliances. Now, i think the PA-staff should rethink about the galaxies, buddy packs, exiles, late signups and all to prevent these "planned" galaxies from existing. It might be fun...whut?...correct, it might be the only way for some "serious" people to win a game. The system how it is satisfies those abusing it to end up in a huge fortress. How does it ever help PA getting back old players and new players to make it more enjoyable to play?? |
Re: Galaxy setups
Quote:
|
Re: Galaxy setups
Don't respond to this troll thread people, Rebecca Black unfortunately haven't released a new album yet :,(
|
Re: Galaxy setups
@eksero, the only reason i sign up is the same, but i don't need them to be in my gal to have some fun, though i'm buddypacked with one of them since i started. The problem to me is that the longer the game last, these forts have a too big advantage over the new and medium-core player base. It is absolutely not unfair that some players wake up 3am to ask for help. That is just their dedication to the game. But if you put all the hard-core players in like 4 or 5 forts, it just ruins the gameplay, WAY too much. Every round again and again, the same people look for each other and the outcome is the same each and every round. That is just great, isn't it?
If for example the numbers of exiling would be limited, the random effect would be much greater and the need for building a galaxy would be much more rewarded. Of course there are inactives, bad players or alt-accounts, idiots and what else... it is just a pity if all of us only sign up if we can get into one of these fortresses... |
Re: Galaxy setups
Quote:
|
Re: Galaxy setups
Quote:
Constructive replies would be much appreciated. |
Re: Galaxy setups
Quote:
|
Re: Galaxy setups
Quote:
|
Re: Galaxy setups
Quote:
|
Re: Galaxy setups
That big forts are not build without a cost and lots of effort. We all know where they are from start and for a considerable amount of time they seem pretty defenseless. If they annoy so much, people just have to hit them to ground them in that early stage.
|
Re: Galaxy setups
It is always an effort to create a good galaxy, and i did it so many times with randoms and also with buddypacks. Again, i have no problem with those who put an effort in this game. I also see our HC's, DC's and BC's doing alot of work to run the alliance.
Fact is, the player base is declining, every round we see fewer galaxies. There are fewer target galaxies and the few of them are getting hit too often because they don't have allied planets in it. The problem isn't early in the game. That is for most of us one of the better times in the game where it is like a free-for-all. They have this late game growing advantage what makes the game go from exciting to boring. Even if you attack these fortresses every day, they still grow faster, even when they aren't attacking. And last, they don't annoy me. I just think that making blocks, first with alliances and second with strong galaxies makes the game so utterly boring for those around it. It makes new players drop out more easily and the most of the medio-core players to slack later in the game because they don't see why they keep trying... Just saying, i don't think that only some minor game chances will help improve the gameplay or attract new and old players. |
Re: Galaxy setups
Quote:
What makes these galaxies is not high activity (what you call 'being hardcore'). If you played in HR with a buddy pack with some random people in it, and you somehow convinced everyone to always be available to send defense, and always get online when called, and somehow everyone in your gal actually did, then you still could not compete with the 3:3s and 7:4s of this world. Influence and intel makes these gals, not activity and availability. |
Re: Galaxy setups
[quote=Mzyxptlk;3224158]eksero asked a valid question. I assume you resorted to accusations of trolling because you either didn't like or couldn't come up with the answer.
What makes these galaxies is not high activity (what you call 'being hardcore'). If you played in HR with a buddy pack with some random people in it, and you somehow convinced everyone to always be available to send defense, and always get online when called, and somehow everyone in your gal actually did, then you still could not compete with the 3:3s and 7:4s of this world. Influence and intel makes these gals, not activity and availability.[/ With that kind of logic, why do we need galaxies at all? Those same players would be at the top with or without 3:3 or 7:4 right? Fencing, forting, is all part of the game. Eluding incoming through politics has always been fun. Why should we have to abuse the exile system to do this? Just make it private and random gals again. Cap the private gals at 10 and let the ransoms roll with 15. I think most private gals would take those odds. Why beat around the bush? A majority of the player base has always and will continue to want to play with people they enjoying playing with. |
Re: Galaxy setups
Quote:
They also have "lackeys"/"Friends" in other alliances that escort or leak info to them. The fact that they are active and get a lot of defense, well that's alright and anyone that is active can do that. However they do reserve defense for themselves if they know they have incomings. For instance they tell their friends/alliance-mates to not put ships into mydef so that they dont get used by another member. Is that good or bad, depends on each person I guess. Dont get me wrong, great players and all, but they do (ab)use their individual alliances for personal gain. If they want to play together that's fine, but if they plan to create a fence galaxy with X number of alliances to keep the incomings to a minimum....yeah well dont expect to get any praise from some people. If they really wanted praise maybe play only in like 2/3 alliances and achieve top gal. In any case, its not like they will do that. These gals are too used to getting their way and using their influence to protect their galaxies. Nothing will change except for the rest of us to hit them. Too bad there are just too many of them out there for anything to be done so other galaxies can win. Oh well. |
Re: Galaxy setups
Quote:
And i don't see why we have to argue about the definition of hard-core players. I'm active aswell, though i don't regard myself part of hard-core player base. I totally agree with what you say about the gals you mention and that is one of the issues with the game. And ofcourse, everyone like to be in a rocking gal, i would lie if i say i wouldn't. But how i see it, they are able to combine too much power in too few places. And personally, i don't think that helps this game. |
Re: Galaxy setups
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
Re: Galaxy setups
Quote:
Do you think these kind of players are making the game less fun with their style of play? Trying to get back to the topic, On99 thinks this way of playing, or that PA crew encourage this kind of play is killing the game, if thats it, is it a thought you share with him? And if so. Would you allow this kind of players in your group? Not trying to troll, or take cheap shots at you, but knowing earlier what a lot of the ex TGV people thought of de-sizeing the tags and all, amke the game more "competetive", it just amuze me that your post seems to be so supportive to On99s. The game has been going in this directions, where it dosnt matter if your apart of a big group of players, being a loyal peon, dosnt pay off. PA started out as "browser-based massively multiplayer online game", when came PaX and 1up/eXi came it changed from a numbers game to a dedication and skill game. 30 rounds or what not ago, atleast being active, and in a good alliance or a lot of pnaps wouldve enabled you to end top100, and very little else tbh. Today, being in certain gals will enable you to end top10 without any special effort at all. Just look at eksero, he ended up ranked #9 barely doing anything r49. I guess PA crew better decide wether to have big random gals of 25 planets, allowing ingal attacking, and upping alliance limits to twice the amount of today could make the game interesting again, instead of trying to tweak around with BP size/Tag size, like there is a special ratio to this that is the answer to all the problems. |
Re: Galaxy setups
Quote:
Eluding incoming through politics is only fun to the point that you are avoiding unnecessary incoming, but ultimately is only half the game. The other half is playing to survive, dominate and win (through war and politics), rather than roid race. Relying on the former is obviously successful, but the more you get of the latter the better. PA should encourage more of it. |
Re: Galaxy setups
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
Re: Galaxy setups
Quote:
Except the last part, absurd amount of people to take em down? whaaaat? |
Re: Galaxy setups
He's referring to the massive waves put on 7:4 this past week, I believe.
|
Re: Galaxy setups
I am. That was about what, 4 alliances attacking, and while it's certainly meant we wont win this round unless something odd happens, we are still second. It's pretty silly that we can remain that close.
|
Re: Galaxy setups
Quote:
|
Re: Galaxy setups
Quote:
|
Re: Galaxy setups
Quote:
I read your post a few times and not 100% sure what your asking me. If your asking me will i let those players into vikings, yeah but with clear rules the same way we informed the apps that we took in and we even kicked some for breaking the rules multiple times. Speaking of the 7 4 crew, dav is part of them, but he knows that his galaxy does not come ahead of the alliance and if their galaxy becomes hostile to vikings we would attack them and we have in the past. I expect members to play for the alliance since the alliance is who defends them, gives them teh chance to get roids and provides the tools for them, ie call bot, sms, etc. If any member is playing for their galaxy then they can leave and rely on their galaxy. Not saying that is not possible. Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Well how else are we supposed to get through on that gal. Quote:
|
Re: Galaxy setups
Quote:
Quote:
|
Re: Galaxy setups
Quote:
But, that wouldn't stop some people from getting together in the end. Even if they would have premade gals of 10 and random gals of 15, those premades would still rock. But, than again, others are able to create a premade galaxy aswell, without the making an effort of exiling/late-signups and buddypacks. The aim of PA should be that good players compete with eachother rather than stick to eachother in these forts. Maybe an idea to divide the top ranking players of a round into separate galaxies the next without being able to exile. Sounds lame, but i really think PA should do something about the clustering of these hard core players. (To come back to that Mzy, i think you were referring to fanatic players and players with influence, where the hard core player base are those with power and influence.) The problem is obviously the problem to maintain the current player base. If there are some players who threaten to quit if they can't play together, it withholds the PA staff from making any chances to the system. Ofcourse the game will lose alot of charme (if there already is), when some veterans quit the game. And that is not what i have in mind. |
Re: Galaxy setups
Quote:
1) Smaller galaxies = more galaxies = smaller chance of exiling into your target galaxy. 2) Smaller galaxies = fewer players per galaxy = fewer alliances to influence. Quote:
Quote:
|
Re: Galaxy setups
Anyone recall what gal set up we have had in the past?
Overall I am in favor of smaller gals and having more gals in the PA universe. My rational is that smaller gals will hopefully mean its harder to set up big fence gals and maybe even spread out some of the influential members, but that's probably not likely. I think going down to 3-planet BPs with 1 late starter and having galaxies capped at 8 planets per galaxy should be looked at and then implemented. This will hopefully reduce those big fence galaxies, create more galaxies that have roids so they dont get double/triple booked. The downside is that the potential exists for more farm/crappy gals that will get hit hard for the 1st 300 ticks. I wouldnt mind seeing a exile counter on the galaxy or making the exile cost for the galaxy very expensive so that we somewhat can combat people using the exile system to build their fence galaxy. This means that if you get a good decent player but is not your friend that is trying to exile in, you have to think long and hard if you want to exile that person or not. If the above is implemented then I would also like to see the ability for the rest of the galaxy to see your incomings to be controlled by the planet and not the galaxy ministers. For instance lets say the exile cost gets very expensive the more you exile from the galaxy. I can definitely see people abusing unwanted planets by getting their friends to attack them. Since they have full access to the unwanted planets incomnig/defense they can plan it better. In order to combat such a scenario the unwanted planet should have a setting where they can choose to have their incomings visible to the rest of the galaxy or not. |
Re: Galaxy setups
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
Re: Galaxy setups
Quote:
Quote:
|
Re: Galaxy setups
|
Re: Galaxy setups
Again people is comming with good suggestion how to randomize/balance out gals. I think its impossibole atm.
Keep the current gal setup, only remove the late sign option. What we can do is increase tag size to 120 members, this will decrease the amout of influencal people trying to turn this game in the direction where they can suceed all the time. With bigger tags the amout of influence a normal "peon" will have is brought to a minimum. |
Re: Galaxy setups
Quote:
The last time we had random vs private galaxies (r36&37) there were 8 people in private galaxy and that seemed like a good number. Random galaxies ended up with 25 planets which obviously wasn't fair and so we had a random galaxy winning both those rounds while all the top planets were in private galaxies. It's definitely time for a change, all random, all private small gals, something! People have learned to outsmart the current system. |
Re: Galaxy setups
Quote:
There will always be galaxies that are better than others. Right now it's just too easy to make those galaxies that are better, and after 150 ticks you can pretty much say "ok these galaxies will be top5". The game needs to be more dynamic than that. No normal galaxy can compete with one where a whole alliance grounds for two planets in a certain galaxy having incoming, especially not when the grounded alliances is also sending defense to planets in the same galaxy in other alliances.. I've never seen power abuse on a level even close to this round, and eventually it did piss enough people off to do something about it. All the while, the people in the same galaxy claims to "not care" and "not play active", yet PM every single alliance HC "why are you attacking us and not x:X wah wah so unfair" and stay up all night leeching def from their respective alliances. That's without even starting on attacking out of alliance raids, attacking while grounded or farming a planet that later turns into an escort bot for the same galaxy. It used to be that you had a fair amount of give and take, I def you, you def me. But when a galaxy has perfected the art of just taking, nobody else can come close to them. I know you as a good guy Shev, with a good head for pa and we've played/fought well together in the past. Do you honestly think things are currently fair? |
Re: Galaxy setups
[quote=Mzyxptlk;3224180]How many times do I have to say it? This is impossible, you can't do this, stop suggesting it.
It is impossible with the CURRENT system, not impossible in general. You can obviously just remove BP's altogether, or not have galaxies depend on the number of BP's. Because playing with the same people, doing exactly the same thing for 10 rounds is fun eksero? :p |
Re: Galaxy setups
Quote:
|
Re: Galaxy setups
Quote:
|
Re: Galaxy setups
Quote:
|
Re: Galaxy setups
Quote:
|
Re: Galaxy setups
Quote:
It's not about "saving" PA, heck it isn't even about making the game "fair". With the amount of effort some people are putting in they will rise to the top in smaller galaxies too. They just don't pull 5 friends with them who do nothing all round. |
Re: Galaxy setups
Quote:
We aren't doing anything that others can't do with the current galaxy setups, they just choose not to. I just fail to see why we shouldn't be able to play together just because others who choose a different way of playing feels it is 'unfair'. |
Re: Galaxy setups
Quote:
|
Re: Galaxy setups
eksero, I dont think anyone is saying what you are doing is unfair, everyone has the same opportunity.
I think the issue is, certainly from my point of view, that in a game with such small numbers, its not sustainable to play like that, and as pointed out, when gals like this play for the gal instead of the alliance, even using the alliances as fodder to defend them or other alliances in the gal, it ruins it. and i think you know that. I think the problem with pa is, too many influential people play with the 'we play for our enjoyment, not yours' mantra. That is fine when there are 30k planets, but with only 600, we lose players round on round. hell, I am in an alliance that told people they werent allowed to defend a certain alliance. Members ignored that and got kicked for it and i actually got accused of 'ruining my and my galaxies round'. as if we exist just to support the said galaxy |
Re: Galaxy setups
I'm happy to admit that the buddy pack / galaxy / exile system needs looking at.
However, firstly, having skimmed this thread, I must say that a lot of the "suggestions" have already been discussed and discarded due to fundamental flaws - e.g. capping galaxies means that new planets and exiles end up in new galaxies and get farmed to pieces, and then people quit. Whilst in theory, everyone wants small galaxies, etc etc, everyone also wants active galaxies, and if they're not in an active galaxy, they either exile people who aren't "active enough" and keep exiling until they get more, or they just self exile constantly until they find a galaxy they are happy enough with, and leave almost "dead" galaxies of semi-actives to be farmed. I've seen players quit because they didn't exile into a "good" enough galaxy. Late joiners are useful, as it allows for some of these planets to be 'saved'. A few points on the private/random split: -Due to the fact that private galaxy planets are generally more active than randoms, 10/15 is too little of a divide for a private/random setup. -Due to the fact that, even 15 can be abused due to the exile system, 10/15 is also potentially too big of a divide. This fundamentally flaws this setup -Previous rounds using private/ random didn't cap random, so eventually private galaxies disbanded, causing big random galaxies which dominated the round -I know that many people actually enjoyed the big (20+) planet galaxies as lots of people were met / new friendships formed, so from a social view i think it worked. On a "just cap all galaxy sizes": -This doesn't work due to the aforementioned point about how you handle new signups / exiles and how they all end up dumped in inactive galaxies -Also, you limit the amount of movement between galaxies (assuming that people want to exile) - you can't exile into a new place if no slots exist. I think a few key points need to be supported in a new system: 1) it must allow galaxy sizes to be around 1/4 - 1/5 of the size of an alliance (for targets / claiming / etc). 2) it must handle very inactive people / new inactive signups (but still allow for e.g. covert ops planets) - something like the current auto exile/ wanted system 3) it must allow for some system to give a limited number of people quicker ETA to defend your planet 4) it must definitely allow for new players / new signups to fit in and not be penalised too heavily for not knowing anyone; this may mean that planets included in "galaxy" groups that are in the bottom 20-30% of the game do not get included in any counts until they pass that threshold or something? Edit: I don't think that we should force galaxy-style setups to be part of an alliance (as by default that means small planets will get excluded). I don't mind the fact that sometimes there may be conflicting setups between galaxies and alliances - I think if a whole alliance is grounding their fleets to save one galaxy, that's very much an alliance issue and the planet should be deciding if they are willing to do that for their alliance or find a new one. Edit #2: yes "lol new player support why we need that??!???!??!?" but once I'm personally happy with the galaxy system (and maybe some more around manual/intro stuff), I would be more happy to try and get support to get new planets into planetarion (e.g. through begging for Jagex mail shots). I still can't honestly say I'd be happy trying to get mail shots done atm (and Jagex aren't looking to focus their resources outside of a few key projects, as I mentioned some time ago) |
Re: Galaxy setups
Quote:
there are only so many Irvine/Zwan/Cardi's of pa, in a position to ground a whole alliance to save their own gal. To be honest, it amazes me that rank and file members even put up with it. I am in an alliance that will NEVER ground to protect one or two influential players and that will never change |
Re: Galaxy setups
You need to make the exile system work but not abusable.
Something like: *Only three exiles, first one costs same as now, second one is 500% more than now and third one is 500% more than the second one (meaning its just too expensive to abuse). *Exiles score only counts 20% to gal score (meaning less use to have them score wise). *Late sign ups only count 10% of score if in top 5 alliance, 20% in top 10, 30% in top 15 etc etc I would also like to see coded something linked to ingame alliances, such as, if one alliance (say ult) send more than 30% of their fleets at another (say ND), then ND are not only hard-coded not to be able to defend but also attacks ingal are allowed (this would need a LOT of discussion, I can see so many abuses but something like that could be discussed I guess) |
Re: Galaxy setups
To exile into a specific gal u often have to do a shitload of exiles(30+). Give planets a max of 10 selfexiles(the cost system is fine) and a extra exile every 100 ticks. And give gals like 10 planet exiles and 1 extra every 100 ticks.
And make it so that top 10 gals(perhaps in size) get less latestarters(or none) compared to the other gals. I myself don't have much against the best gals clearly doing the best. But I think it might be bad for the game. |
Re: Galaxy setups
PA team should always operate on the idea that alliance players are cynical bastards, because that's exactly what they are. I see no reason why two or three good quality players in a buddy pack, with a collection of randoms or maybe another buddy pack can't make something of it, particularly in a smaller universe like this one. If these players complain or disagree, then I'm not sure they are being honest about it.
If you want to make the game more interesting, you have to spread the quality of the galaxies in these top 5 fortresses around. Also, we have talked a lot about game mechanics, but I think the alliance leaders deserve quite a bit of criticism, even if it is "the nature of things". As Forest said, I'm surprised that rank and file members put up with it, alongside other HC who aren't involved in the practice (if any exist). |
Re: Galaxy setups
Quote:
We need bigger alliances, 60 tag limit is waaaaaay to little. This is a major part of the problem, if not the only. Bigger allies need stronger leadership, and it requires more of the HCs to just avoid civil war. There will be no room for the "all about me" HCs in big gals. |
All times are GMT +1. The time now is 17:42. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.1
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2002 - 2018