Make a big change
Please, for the love of ****ing god, can we have a round which doesn't pretty much feel like every other round next time. I would accept almost any change, even if I didn't really like it, as long as it made the round feel a bit different. PA is beyond stagnant and although most of us are still playing on autopilot something that really freshens up things would be so awesome I'd try and hug my computer.
I would accept any of, although not limited to, the following: -No tag limit. -A really small tag limit (I'd draw the line at 20 planets) -Wildly different stats/combat (ie back to single-targeting, introduction of subversion even if it's unbalanced, abolition of salvage etc etc) -The abolition of galaxies -The abolition of alliances -A dramatically different sense of geography ingame (ie travelling to different locations takes different lengths of time beyond the galaxy + cluster/alliance elements) -Any one of a bunch of other changes that would actually require someone to code something significant in and I won't bother posting about as I can't imagine they'd happen Anyone else feel the same way? Anyone got any game-alerting but relatively easy to code changes to the game? PS Some of those changes might not be that easy, like the geography thing but that really just feels to me like it should be easy to do (ie going more than 1 cluster away=+1 eta, more than 2=+2 etc). PPS One of the changes that might seem awkward to code (abolition of galaxies) isn't really as all you have to do is remove exile/ministers/gc/ingal def bonus). |
Re: Make a big change
Likes this.
|
Re: Make a big change
+1
|
Re: Make a big change
/signed
|
Re: Make a big change
Give everyone 10 planets to control, with independant mining/res/con facilities. 1 person = 1 gal.
That'll change the dynamics, will be relatively easy to implement and means we can continue playing in the exact same system. Rule = No two planets from the same gal can hit/def the same target. Benefits: -10x the number of planets/fleets playing -you can crash a fleet without it being "game over". -more to do in PA Drawbacks? Discuss |
Re: Make a big change
Nice idea kenny but we're not all cardi so i'd limit it to 1 of each race however it would have to be hardcoded to stop interaction
|
Re: Make a big change
Quote:
Edit: Just read the "rule". What the ****? Nobody actually has the time for that. 10 separate tps and shit? Christ I'd ****ing kill myself. I don't see anything wrong with letting them interact within the normal rules, if you want to use 9 planets to support 1 good for you. Just literally treat it like you signup and get a galaxy instead of a planet (ie you can only join one alliance but you now have 10 different fleets each with its own roids and 3 fleet slots). |
Re: Make a big change
Pro.
|
Re: Make a big change
Yeah, I added that because the "support planet rule" is still being enforced/highly gay, so thought it'd be more likely to get admin approval.
On second thoughts I was being hasty in pandering to a shit system rather than challenging it/changing it. |
Re: Make a big change
Quote:
|
Re: Make a big change
My prefered change would be small galaxies (which I made a post on).
Or, make it so only 30 can tag before shuffle, and then you can only tag randoms in galaxies with two or members of that alliance already in it. For example, you form a buddy pack with two CT and two ND then those alliances would have to compete to tag up the randoms. This would shuffle the membership of the various alliances. (I ponder this idea periodically and always come up with a reason why I hate it, but what the hell... this thread is for crazy ideas.) |
Re: Make a big change
Quote:
Edit: Thinking a bit more about kenny's idea there might be some issues over how reporting works (nobody wants to be awake 24/7 to avoid getting roided). Might want to consider making it so incs get auto-reported to the alliance. |
Re: Make a big change
Quote:
|
Re: Make a big change
Quote:
Quote:
PS Just remembered. Abolish buddypacks. Although that's a smaller change than any of the earlier ones. |
Re: Make a big change
Quote:
|
Re: Make a big change
Quote:
|
Re: Make a big change
See, my idea would mean something like having 10 planets all being played under 1 account. Which atm would mean some kind of 'planet management' system, which would just attach 10 accounts to 1 username, with an option to switch between 'accounts' on the overview page or something.
Really though for the idea to work extremely well, it would mean a bigger change to PA. See below: http://tinyurl.com/OverviewPage (quick photoshop edit) Basically the 'Overview' would become an overview of all planets, so would have all-round stats like "total gal roids", "total gal fleets" and such. Then for pages like 'Fleets', 'Military', 'Population' and 'Mining', the first page would take you to an overview page for that particular category. Population, for example would be organised as follows: Galaxies would be lead by one planet and have one unifying government (which would represent the overview page, along with a 'master population settings control' for control over all planets), but individual planet population settings. Mining would look like this: http://tinyurl.com/MiningPage (quick photoshop edit) And within the 'Mining' tab are tabs for each of the 10 planets. On second thoughts, this idea is a bit too radical for quick implementation. We should just get rid of tag limits tbh. |
Re: Make a big change
Quote:
|
Re: Make a big change
How many people play that one, ell? :p
|
Re: Make a big change
I'm not against trying something new, but I already calc and organize def for a lot of people. I don't need more planets. Please...
I like Cowch's idea about 2 alliances per galaxy, but why not just go for 1 alliance? And please ban exiling: you have to make the best of what you get. I also like the idea of banning buddypacks for once. If you want to play with your friends, then join the same alliance. |
Re: Make a big change
Instead of ten planets, why not just let people have 25 or 30 fleet slots and increase resources by a factor of 10? I don't love either idea, but that would be easier than having 10 planets.
If they removed buddy packs and banned exiling, I probably wouldn't play. It's so much more fun to be in a galaxy full of active people. I've spent a lot of nights crossdeffing until the wee hours of the morning, and those were the most fun nights of this game. That doesn't happen in a galaxy full of noobs. |
Re: Make a big change
I sugested a system where people would be in control of their on galaxies... up to 5 planets. Providing they go through the "exploration" branch.
All interaction could be ok if the score is based on the planets average. Interface wouldn't be very difficult to do... 5 tabs on every page (with the possibility to change the planets names). Another completely different idea to bring some fresh air into the game would be for every alliance to designate a list of 5 champions among their members... roiding them would bring more XP to the attackers, keeping them in top 50 would bring bonuses to the alliance. |
Re: Make a big change
Champions is an interesting idea. Of course, alliances could already decide at the beginning of their round that they want to flagship and rule 10 of the top 50 spots.
|
Re: Make a big change
y/
|
Re: Make a big change
Why are we talking about the multy planets as if they were in the same gal? Spread them out, that way they only have the alliance tick advantage to minimise 'support rule'-edness, although I'd limit it to 3 planets myself rather than a galfull 10. I'd also code it so the planets can't farm each other, can't def/attack same planet same tick or something, just my 2 pence
|
Re: Make a big change
I really cant be bothered to run 10 planets, especially if they cant send their fleets to the same location and 99% of PA players feel the same way (or would a week into the round). However I do like this only two allies per gal idea, how would exiling work though? Only people from one of the two allies can exile in? Or there is no exiling?
|
Re: Make a big change
another idea: give a cluster to each registered alliance with 50 members minimum, with 10 galaxies to populate... smaller alliances are grouped in other clusters if they chose to.
|
Re: Make a big change
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
If you're really interested in seeing a significant change to the game next round please point the people in charge in the direction of this thread. |
Re: Make a big change
Quote:
|
Re: Make a big change
not exactly, to play like CT the champions would have to pnap the alliance's enemies...
|
Re: Make a big change
I'd like to remind everyone that JBG's purpose here is not to bring forth The One Pure Way To Improve the game, just to get the ****ers in charge to do ****ing anything at all to make next round different and interesting.
|
Re: Make a big change
If you'd implement a system where people control multiple planets I'd suggest the following (will become a whole different strategy game btw):
You start with 1 planet and get to colonize other planets (e.g. new shipclass which can be hit by any other shipclass). Attacking certain planets with enough (expensive and vulnerable) colony ships gives you a shot at stealing/colonizing someone elses planet. It's a very different game that way, the more planets you control the faster you can strengthen, but the more you'd have to defend and would be able to lose. I think Travian has a system like this, not sure though. |
Re: Make a big change
Quote:
|
Re: Make a big change
Done :).
|
Re: Make a big change
More relevantly for my thread who in the hell do I actually need to convince that changes need to be made for next round? Cin/appoco? Has anyone recommended a change and had it implemented recently?
|
Re: Make a big change
Heartless and me advocated value-based capping a couple of rounds ago. When guards were first introduced, I convinced Appoco of leaving wages for them at 1 ea (for one round), but that was about 8 rounds ago.
Beyond that, as far as I know, it's all small interface fixes, nothing game changing. |
Re: Make a big change
I am at the point of boredom with this game where I consider not playing next round.
I agree we need something new and different, fast and easy to implement. Focusing on balanced stats is more a problem than a solution. Stats should be fun. So yes, let's give emp to everyone, reintroduce golden roids or flags, place planets by races in their own clusters, or alliances, reintroduce ingal attack, add cargo ships... but plz PA Team do something, good or bad we'll judge and improve on the following round. But not another round like this. For JBG: difference between alliance cluster and private gals. In a priv gal you select the players you want to be with (whatever their alliances), in ally clusters all you know is you'll end up with ally mates (no choice though) in a gal within a cluster controlled by your alliance. |
Re: Make a big change
I'm obviously in favor of big changes.
If it happens I'll eat my hat. |
Re: Make a big change
Obviously, I've not played much for a long time...But a very simple change with a heavy impact could be something like not being able to send ships to defend...Call it an all-out-attack-round.
And with a tiny bit of coding, make the #1 planet extra vulnerable so it will lose some extra roids just for being #1..And cap the amount of resources everyone can "save up", anything above 24 hours worth of income is simply voided.. Or I might be very much not only up the wrong tree but in fact in the wrong Forest here (-: |
Re: Make a big change
I played a no def speed round once and I agree it was fun. I would definitely play a round like that.
Would a ingal def only be better ? |
Re: Make a big change
Quote:
|
Re: Make a big change
Quote:
|
Re: Make a big change
Would be interesting to see.
Most of the stress in the game probably comes from organising defence, people sending their ships overnight forcing people to organise defenders and people having to get up just to defend others. This would be eliminated for a round. You'd also have people able to play during the day for once! If others can't send defence then you can attack at pretty much any time. It's a minor change which would have a major impact. |
Re: Make a big change
Removing defence would eliminate an important reason why alliances exist. I think it would remove most of why this game is so addictive. It can make the game a lot more accessible for new players, although it will probably result in loads of fleetcatches.
|
Re: Make a big change
Quote:
And as I've mentioned elsewhere, if you're in an alliance purely with the hope of getting defense from them then you're either not a team player in which case I have no time for your selfishness - or the alliance sucks and wont ever get anywhere anyway. This is a space combat game - and teaming up on attacks, coordinating galaxy raids/raids on other alliances, organising fleetcatches, playing with friends, playing with people you choose to.. are all part of what makes an alliance an alliance and taking away the ability to defend for one round isn't going to ruin anything. It will, however, kill the fortress gals (gals can still be predominantly 'pure' but "fortress" by definition is a defensive system). Maybe losing this (For one round?) is what you're concerned for? |
Re: Make a big change
By the by, I'm in favour of removing defense for one round.
|
Re: Make a big change
Let's see how it could work. No def at all would mean there is no more travel ingal (as ingal attack is forbidden).
- should we then reduce the general travel time by 1 or 2 ticks ? - should we reintroduce fuel cost ? - what's the purpose of a galaxy ? Shouldn't we then re-allow ingal attacks, give the GC automatically to the biggest score ingal, the GC can pick 3 ministers who can't attack him... |
Re: Make a big change
No? Why are you MAKING this complicated.
Galaxies will simply be groups of people who are trying to out-play other groups of people in other galaxies. And get away with that 'fuel costs' nonsense, it was removed for a reason. Nothing else needs to change - just remove the option to def and that's it. You're still competing for score in the EXACT SAME WAY as you are at the moment. |
Re: Make a big change
Quote:
- I like reintroducing fuel costs as a way of limiting the number of attacks you could pull off. There should probably be something to limit attacks if defense is removed. - galaxies would be pointless, but in-gal attacks would be annoying for same reason as above; the attack eta is too low. Overall, I don't like the idea of removing def though. It takes too much out of the game. |
Re: Make a big change
- You can sleep all the same with ships showing up eta5 or not coz there is no def and you can set your base to 'run and hide'.
- I like fuel cost, as Cowch said it can limit the number of attacks or the size of the fleets you send which in a no def environment could be a good thing. - Ingal attacks were fun, that's all that matters to me. With half the (shrinking) universe napped against the other half it's not as if we don't need those extra targets. And it would make exiling, fencing, buddy packing a lot more interesting. |
All times are GMT +1. The time now is 11:25. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.1
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2002 - 2018