Round 14 Galaxy System

[Kal]

Ok, this is going to be much the same as this round, but the key changes will be as follows:

Any free accouns with less than 9 roids OR who have not logged in since tick start will be moved to the C200+ zone in the shuffle. This should save you all from "having" to do lots of exiling.

A question for you here: Would it also be good to filter out any paid randoms who are inactive, or would that be unfair on them as they have paid?

Another question about paid randoms, atm they are put into galaxies with packs randomly but evenly - would it be better to but them in by score in the same way as free accounts are?

Also packs of 3 seems to force alliance to block, would it be better to have 3 packs of 2 in a galaxy rather than 2 packs of 3?

[Marv]

Allow packs of 2 and 3 to be shuffled, that caused alot of proplems from alliance points of view, don't filter the paid randoms, but sort by score so it is fairer to those that have paid and are active.

[Kal]

Originally Posted by Marv

Allow packs of 2 and 3 to be shuffled, that caused alot of proplems from alliance points of view, don't filter the paid randoms, but sort by score so it is fairer to those that have paid and are active.

sorting paid randoms by score means the good paid randoms will be in gals with the worse paid randoms - its fairer on the galaxy, not on the paid randoms

[Ultimate Newbie]

i would have thought that packs of two would force alliances to block more, as there was no way that they would chanec having more than two (full) buddypacks in the same gal - ie four people - and thus each buddypack would have one person from a different alliance.

At least with the current setup, there is still some opportunity to play with mates - as many alliances have instructed their buddypacks to have 2 from your alliance, 1 from another (friendly) alliance.

I think keep the paid randoms, but sort them by score (with the highest paid randoms moving into the lowest score buddypacks?). should even the galaxies out abit more.

[wakey]

Point 1 - Are the accounts timestamped as to when they were created. Just thinking it might be an idea to have a clause where if account was created less than say 24 hours ago its immune so that those learning the ropes or those waiting for their activation confirmation ect arent shunted off to c200 too soon.

Point 2 - Under the same conditions as above then I see no reason for not doing this. After all they will be moved by their galaxy anyway. If they know they are going to miss some ticks and want to stay then they can always go into vacation mode and let your galaxy then decided.

Point 3 - if the inactives get weeded out like in point 2 then shouldnt be a problem doing it randomly. Evertone with a paid account has paid so deserves same chance when being located in the universe

Point 4 - Packs of 3 arent forcing alliances to block, its the alliances just using it as an excuse to block. if they want to block they will block even if its 2 per pack. As i said on IRC 3 is imho a good number, its too small to bring in to many of the issues of a private or semi private galaxy but with two friends around it doesnt leave you feeling too isolated. The only change I think needs made is the handling of unfull packs, just leave the unfull (well the two people ones anyway, single people are a waste of time keeping) and then just fill the empty spot with a paid random. Will increase the galaxy numbers and lowe the initial galaxy sizes

[Kal]

one of the draw backs of shuffling people by score is that the first 36 ticks of a round are not the best meassure of peoples acitivty, though in a way it would be pleasing to have all galaxies having the same approximate score after a shuffle. But then perhpas people could play down their activity in order to be in a better galaxy. Hence I think paid randoms should still be random.

Free randoms still have to be sorted by score becuase we will only be moving the most inactive to C200

[Kal]

Originally Posted by wakey

Point 1 - Are the accounts timestamped as to when they were created. Just thinking it might be an idea to have a clause where if account was created less than say 24 hours ago its immune so that those learning the ropes or those waiting for their activation confirmation ect arent shunted off to c200 too soon.

yes account creation is time stamped, if not in the db its deifntly in a lob, but i'm fairly certain its in the db, so yes we can exlcude the newsest accounts.

[barney]

maybe a limit on gal sizes would be nice i fully understand it rases lots of other issues but atm my gal has 15 players and that is only ever gonna go up , which imo is too many people.

the only other way to acheive something similar would be to reduce gal size, by having only one pack per galaxy and filling up with misc. players. this woudl lead to galaxys of 7-8 with one pack in them (i think... maths could be wrong :P) forcing packed players to take more interest in their randoms. and leaving room for more expansion with new accounts before the gal is rediculously huge.

[Kal]

it won't only ever go up - the ticker deletes inacitves, galaxies exile people. Remember a lot of the current galaxies are inacitve people who will get exiled at some point.

But yes only 1 pack per gal is an option, but then agalxies would probably only have 5 ish paid people in them at the start.

As it stands galaxies have about 8 paid people in them atm - which is less than a good galaxy would have had last round, and more than a bad galaxy - surely that is fair. Woudl you really want less than 8 paid people in a galaxy?

[MAdnRisKy]

Kal i think what you propose isn't a bad idea at all really....

(and I liked this system of this round more than last)

[Kal]

I'd predict that if we moved the most inacitve freebies we'd be down to maybe 12 per galaxy, which isn;t to bad.

The idea is that the freebies who upgrade this round then form buddy packs in the next round and so on, so gradually we get more galaxies with each round.

[Holyboy]

3 man gals with buddy groups or 6 man random, reintroduce -1 eta in cluster and lets have fun, :P

[barney]

I can see your point and i agree to some extent, it will depend on how many peeps are deleted to activity, this was one fact missing in my post because i have no idea how big it is. This thread might really be a little premature, surely only time will tell how many people get deleted, but if your predictions hold true (hopefully), you might very well have nailed gal setup as far as i can see

[wakey]

It is maybe marginly high as a start number but tbh I dont mind a large galaxy. The small galaxies of recent rounds just havent felt enough like PA.

And a large galaxy does have advantages

• Every player new and old can learn from others in the game so the more people we have to mix with the better
• Helping teach newbies the ropes can be hard and time consuming, more people mean more people to spread the load over.
• Attacks are harder to do on a galaxy. More planets mean its harder to cover all and cover them with such numbers. Might potentially make it a little easier to survive at a level where its stillf un

Probally a few more if i really think about it

[barney]

also though the fewer peeps you have in a galaxy the more time you spend speaking to them and the more likely you are to be freinds . altho i do agree with some of your points. Personally i find around 10 people a happy medium. If we get the 8-10 actives per gal expected.(around the same size as last round) but distributed in a fairer manner that will be fantastic

/me jumps for joy

[wakey]

I'm not sure that fewer people does produce better 'friends' . Some of it could just be the changing attitudes of PA but the rounds 1-3 were alot better places for meeting new people and making new friends than later rounds with smaller galaxies. You just get more banter going on with more people and its hence easier to get to know them.

[Vencedor]

.... reintroduce 25 ppl gals !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! they were the best

Ow wait ... not enough players damn it

I think (from what I can see so far) that the setup this round is good
But I suppose we really need more time to tell

I think that just letting galaxies exile their inactivies is good ... but maybe lower, or remove the cost? (or was this to stop a player constantly asking to be exiled to try and land in an alliance gal?)

[King]

I think that inactive paid accounts should NOT go with the inactive freebies they did pay. However it would be great if you could take the inactive (whatever inactive will mean) paid accounts and move them all together at the end of the regular uni. Maybe put them in gals without filling the gals or fill the gal with free randoms. That way they are still an active part of the universe if they want to be. However this way they won't be a drag on an active gal that then has to exile them anyways. Or if you even gave each gal 1 free exile that would work too (say a majority of votes after a 48 hour voting period decides.)

I dunno all I know is that I hate having inactives in my gal whether or not they are paid. I want them out.

[Gerbie]

Any free accouns with less than 9 roids OR who have not logged in since tick start will be moved to the C200+ zone in the shuffle. This should save you all from "having" to do lots of exiling.

I would say: less than 10 roids. Anyone with a free account who hasn’t initiated a roid since tickstart should be filtered out. There is no real downside to being moved to the C200+ zone if you are random anyway, so I would not be so reluctant to move people. Hmm…. 20 would be more fair even.
You can even consider moving ALL the non-packed planets to C200+, only to move them to a galaxy when they login (ok, all non-packed planets that are not logged in).


A question for you here: Would it also be good to filter out any paid randoms who are inactive, or would that be unfair on them as they have paid?

See previous answer. I don't see why treating someone who paid the same as a free account can be unfair.


Another question about paid randoms, atm they are put into galaxies with packs randomly but evenly - would it be better to but them in by score in the same way as free accounts are?

I like random more.


Also packs of 3 seems to force alliance to block, would it be better to have 3 packs of 2 in a galaxy rather than 2 packs of 3?

I agree with wakey that packs of 3 don’t force alliances to block. It’s their own choice to block and are simply trying to use this as an argument. Blocks of 3 seems to work.

[Kal]

OK I have another idea.

What is we arrange the buddy packs by score so that the best buddy pack is in a gal with the worse buddy pack and so on

[TheRat]

Why wasnt that done this round? :-/

[Guran]

Get rid of the free accounts. I don't get it why you force us to play with freebies. If it's just because we will teach them to play, many don't bother. If you are a slow starter you are exiled in a heartbeat.

[Banned]

Originally Posted by Kal

OK I have another idea.

What is we arrange the buddy packs by score so that the best buddy pack is in a gal with the worse buddy pack and so on

Worst. Suggestion. Ever.

[King]

I think you should just leave the buddy pack random. You get the luck of the draw. You wouldn't want everyone having the same exact gals. I can understand how it could be fair but it also makes for some mundane game play.

[Vencedor]

Originally Posted by Kal

OK I have another idea.

What is we arrange the buddy packs by score so that the best buddy pack is in a gal with the worse buddy pack and so on

I actually like that idea a lot
And as for placing "inactive" people whereever they go, i think that basing it on Score, value or roids are all unfair

It should be based on how LONG they are in their account b4 shuffle, but also if they are above a certain amount of score it bases on their score (to stop really good players that dont need to spend a lot of time in their account but just login right at the right tick, do their thing, and logout as being classed "inactive")

Only PA Team would know how long an average player spends in their account b4 shuffle ... so what do you think?

[Kal]

Originally Posted by Vencedor

I actually like that idea a lot
And as for placing "inactive" people whereever they go, i think that basing it on Score, value or roids are all unfair

It should be based on how LONG they are in their account b4 shuffle, but also if they are above a certain amount of score it bases on their score (to stop really good players that dont need to spend a lot of time in their account but just login right at the right tick, do their thing, and logout as being classed "inactive")

Only PA Team would know how long an average player spends in their account b4 shuffle ... so what do you think?

why should people need to be active before a shuffle - there really isn;t that much to do, not everyone cares about perfect roid intiation

[Vencedor]

Originally Posted by Kal

why should people need to be active before a shuffle - there really isn;t that much to do, not everyone cares about perfect roid intiation

Because what if you are a newbie that wants to play (actively) but is still learning and ends out with crap score after the time b4 shuffle but you are ACTIVE .... but then the game takes one look at you and classes you as inactive ...
Wouldn't it be better for it to take into account how long they use their account ... and then their score ... or something along those lines?

[Kal]

Originally Posted by Vencedor

Because what if you are a newbie that wants to play (actively) but is still learning and ends out with crap score after the time b4 shuffle but you are ACTIVE .... but then the game takes one look at you and classes you as inactive ...
Wouldn't it be better for it to take into account how long they use their account ... and then their score ... or something along those lines?

all we can measure is login tick though and that could easily be abused

[Vencedor]

Originally Posted by Kal

all we can measure is login tick though and that could easily be abused

Why can't you measure the amount of time?
Just make PA Automatically log you out in 5 mins instead of whatever it is
And if you sit on a single page for too long (as I've suggested in another thread) it pops up a javascript alert that asks if you are still there ...
and if it takes you over twenty secs for you to hit OK it logs you out, otherwise it continues your session for another five minutes
That is like what some Internet Banking websites have
But if a person is actively playing the game they aren't going to be bothered by an alert because it won't pop-up cuz they are using their account ... it's only when it's sitting there doing nothing

But I suppose then ppl could make a simple app that would direct the browser randomly through PA pages =/

[Kal]

people don;t like being logged out all the time..

[Dr_Zaius]

Sort paid randoms by score, filter inactive paid randoms out to c200s and then when they log in for 1st time they will be assigned a gal, if thewy dont login then thyre not gonna mind and its better for gals without them

[Kal]

i don't mind filtering all inacitves out to c200 - defining an inactive as - 0 roid initiations since tick start OR 0 login since tick start OR less than 9 roids - EXCLUDING new signups in ticks 1-35 AND people in buddy packs

BUT I think arranging the paid randoms or buddy packs by score would be a mistake

[Alessio]

well first off.. My score was terrible before shuffle and im a decent PA player..
the only thing score says is if you have done "Advanced Core Extraction" or not

and secondly.. this buddypack system is really annoying, I could write a whole story about this but that isnt constructive in any way

Cant we have the option that u can choose between "2 packs of 3" gal with randoms or an "5 private" gal with randoms ??

so that people can do whatever they prefer.. but one option gives u a 1 person disadvantage
Alot of good players go random anyway so the argument that all players will go 5 priv is nonsense..
btw alot of players apreciate the diversity in alliances of the packs (prevents incs) and the extra player (read: 20% extra payeds ingal) could be very handy so both options are good..

[Brimstone]

Originally Posted by Kal

Ok, this is going to be much the same as this round, but the key changes will be as follows:

Any free accouns with less than 9 roids OR who have not logged in since tick start will be moved to the C200+ zone in the shuffle. This should save you all from "having" to do lots of exiling.

A question for you here: Would it also be good to filter out any paid randoms who are inactive, or would that be unfair on them as they have paid?

Another question about paid randoms, atm they are put into galaxies with packs randomly but evenly - would it be better to but them in by score in the same way as free accounts are?

Also packs of 3 seems to force alliance to block, would it be better to have 3 packs of 2 in a galaxy rather than 2 packs of 3?

Shuffle all randoms according to score, imo (still seperating free and paid ofc). As to pack sizes, alliance blocking has nothing to do with it.. Alliances will always block if given the chance. The only reason we haven't seen this the last couple of rounds is because various agreed not to officially (though a number of unofficial ones existed)

Brimstone

[wakey]

Brim: You cant base a shuffle on score at tick 36 for anyone. The score at tick 36 doesnt give you an overall picture of the game and isnt a mark on how good a player will be. All the tick 36 score tells you is who managed to make the most ticks and who had access to the knowledge to get the right things built to maximise score. Overall skill however has alot more to it than these two things.

There are many people like myself whom were well in the top 100 at that point but whom come the end of the round (or even midpoint of round) are unlikly to be anywhere near. It just simply makes more sense to weed out the true inactives before hand and place people randomly as it makes it as fair as it can be.
The only way you can fairly distibute any players in a Large to small system would be if we had a world ranking system based on past results like we see in things like tennis or football co-effiient rankings so that the good players but then people would just signup under false names to make themselves out to be newbies so they would get a galaxy position witrh good players

[Goatsemaster]

Originally Posted by wakey

There are many people like myself whom were well in the top 100 at that point but whom come the end of the round (or even midpoint of round) are unlikly to be anywhere near. It just simply makes more sense to weed out the true inactives before hand and place people randomly as it makes it as fair as it can be.
The only way you can fairly distibute any players in a Large to small system would be if we had a world ranking system based on past results like we see in things like tennis or football co-effiient rankings so that the good players but then people would just signup under false names to make themselves out to be newbies so they would get a galaxy position witrh good players

Yeah. Simplicity is way overrated.

[Kal]

ok next radical idea.

a lot of galaxie shave been destoryed from people either stupidly exiling or silly arguments forcing exiling.

I propose that people in buddy packs cannot be exiled and that they cannot self exile either

[Spritfire]

I fully agree with this, now we can stop ppl being forced to exile buddy members because of their alliance..
This will be good for the game.

[Kal]

ok so current proposal would be - each galaxy has 2 full packs for the whole round (apart form the potential unlukcy gal with only 1 pack)

anyone with less than 50? roids (who isn;t in a pack) would be shuffled into c200+ and then moved into uni on next login.

after oacks are put in gals and "inactives" moved to c200 the paid randoms are shuffled in randomly equally accorss all gals then freebies are shuffled in randomly accorss all gals.

Am I being to harsh on thoose with few roids? Does it really affect them going into c200 temporailly?

[Chika]

Originally Posted by Kal

ok so current proposal would be - each galaxy has 2 full packs for the whole round (apart form the potential unlukcy gal with only 1 pack)

anyone with less than 50? roids (who isn;t in a pack) would be shuffled into c200+ and then moved into uni on next login.

after oacks are put in gals and "inactives" moved to c200 the paid randoms are shuffled in randomly equally accorss all gals then freebies are shuffled in randomly accorss all gals.

Am I being to harsh on thoose with few roids? Does it really affect them going into c200 temporailly?

50 roids is a good #. You kill 2 birds with one stone with a # like that, as it encourages activity at the start, thus increasing potential for early fighting, thus making the game fun for a longer period of time.

[furball]

Originally Posted by Kal

ok next radical idea.

a lot of galaxie shave been destoryed from people either stupidly exiling or silly arguments forcing exiling.

I propose that people in buddy packs cannot be exiled and that they cannot self exile either

No. People in buddy packs should be allowed to be exiled and to self-exile.

Or are you trying to encourage people to go random?

[Kal]

Originally Posted by Nonentity

No. People in buddy packs should be allowed to be exiled and to self-exile.

Or are you trying to encourage people to go random?

you need to give a reason for objecting to things.

the whole point about preventing exile is it means that when picking a pack initally you are picking people you want to be with for the whole round. We have seen people's rounds ruined becuase they accidentally got exilied, or one pack dominated a gaalxy and exiled the other pack. This prevents that, and in most cases would not affect people.

[MAdnRisKy]

people in buddy packs should still be able to self exile, but yeah maybe not in the normal way.

[Kal]

Originally Posted by MAdnRisKy

people in buddy packs should still be able to self exile, but yeah maybe not in the normal way.

I really disagree, the galaxies were really very even after the shuffle - then self exiling by people (who often later regrestted it) destroyed that. If people don't want to be with their buddies then they shouldn't form buddy packs.

[Walldo]

Originally Posted by Kal

I really disagree, the galaxies were really very even after the shuffle - then self exiling by people (who often later regrestted it) destroyed that. If people don't want to be with their buddies then they shouldn't form buddy packs.

wel not total true Kal, My gal had 3 players lesser then other gals. And we got 6 inactive with lesser as 15 roids. So not kinda very even.

But the new thing you suggested should delete those 6 inactives we had. Would be glad if we had that this rnd.

[wakey]

I'm tirn tbh, while i'm a firm believer in doing the best with what you have got rather than sitting there expecting to have the game handed to you ona silver plate I have in my time playing this game come across countless of cases where exiling was a must. The problem is people missuse it as its just not expensive enough to put people off doing so.

So perhaps as I said in another thread we should really make it costs, not a small one off fee paid to exile them but rather something a bit more substantial and long term to make sure everyone looks to pull their weight in helping build a strong galaxy. For example you could have it so to exile someone would immediatly cost EVERYONE in the galaxy a percentage of their income EVERY TICK and would continue to do so even if they exiled themselves. The more you exile people the more your have to pay and the bigger you get the you pay. Say for arguments sake we deduct 5% per exile that would be a major incentive for not exiling people. In my case for example id be looking at around 1.5k Metal and crystal a tick and 2.25k eon. Thats 5.25k lost a TICK or a 125k a Day and if spread that acorss the whole galaxy would be a massive knock to it. Ofc you could use lower figures and if you wish even 2 or 3% would stack up and i guess youd have to have a cut off point so you didnt have planets making 0% a tick (although at 5% thats 20 exiles to before you lose all your income and id be surpised if anyone really has the need to remove that many).

But basically this shifts the responsability to everyone in the galaxy when it comes to helping others do better and to learn the ropes as well as when it comes to being fair. If a buddy pack tries to exile the other buddy pack its upto the galaxy to make a stand unless its for a valid reason else they will all lose 15% of income. IBut if you let them stay in power and let them do this then you deserve losing the income

And to help these lower planets be accepted even more you could pool all the resources deducted and then once every 24 hours hold a galaxy lottery where the days funds would be handed out to a number of planets. Would have to have some conditions for example, has to have been active in that 24 hour period and only planets in a set lower percentile would be eligiable.

On self exiles it could work in a simerlar way, but perhaps have it multi tier. Exile froma buddy pack and pay a higher value than if you exile out of a random spot

[Ultimate Newbie]

Originally Posted by wakey

So perhaps as I said in another thread we should really make it costs, not a small one off fee paid to exile them but rather something a bit more substantial and long term to make sure everyone looks to pull their weight in helping build a strong galaxy.

How long is 'long term'?

For example you could have it so to exile someone would immediatly cost EVERYONE in the galaxy a percentage of their income EVERY TICK and would continue to do so even if they exiled themselves. The more you exile people the more your have to pay and the bigger you get the you pay. Say for arguments sake we deduct 5% per exile that would be a major incentive for not exiling people. In my case for example id be looking at around 1.5k Metal and crystal a tick and 2.25k eon. Thats 5.25k lost a TICK or a 125k a Day and if spread that acorss the whole galaxy would be a massive knock to it.

125k resources per day for how long? the rest of the round? because that's rediculous. you'd need like 10 finance centres per person you exiled just to return your income to its original level - without covering the costs of the finance centres themselves.

Ofc you could use lower figures and if you wish even 2 or 3% would stack up and i guess youd have to have a cut off point so you didnt have planets making 0% a tick (although at 5% thats 20 exiles to before you lose all your income and id be surpised if anyone really has the need to remove that many).

Granted, 20 exiles is unlikely, but 10 is quite possible throughout the course of a round - and that is HALF of your income just gone. I argue that these costs are astronomical, and i fear that you must have been either drunk or extremely tired when you thought up this suggestion.

But basically this shifts the responsability to everyone in the galaxy when it comes to helping others do better and to learn the ropes as well as when it comes to being fair.

I dont know about you, but i have attempted to help every new planet in my galaxy - including ones pre shuffle through the galaxy forum. Most of the time, these players simply do not respond (recently i have been mailing them), do not init any roids, do not log in (let alone hop on IRC) and whatnot. I challenge you to justify why a galaxy must suffer this burden of an effectively null planet (which could be occupied by a new player willing to learn - or at least log in), in addition to all planets loosing x amount of their income indefinately to remove them to C200 where they belong (untill they log in, at least).

I grant you, this doesnt happen in every case. However i think that people randomly exiling small planets without good cause doesnt tend to happen much - any half decent galaxy is willing to give a new player a chance to demonstrate that they are actually alive. failure to demonstrate this simple requirement means that such a player is unlikely to benefit from anything a galaxy has to offer - whether that is advice, resources, tutelage or friendship.

Really wakey, what's going on mate?



On a seperate issue, why not consider a buddy pack as one entity and when all three of them choose 'self exile with buddy pack', they are all exiled to another galaxy together? This has all the advantages of the buddy pack system present at shuffle, but still gives the freedom of players to jump ship if they find themself in a bind - like being in the same gal as a certain hated alliance's HC and thus getting n00bed every night because of it.

:\

[Floi]

Originally Posted by Alessio

well first off.. My score was terrible before shuffle and im a decent PA player..
the only thing score says is if you have done "Advanced Core Extraction" or not

and secondly.. this buddypack system is really annoying, I could write a whole story about this but that isnt constructive in any way

Cant we have the option that u can choose between "2 packs of 3" gal with randoms or an "5 private" gal with randoms ??

so that people can do whatever they prefer.. but one option gives u a 1 person disadvantage
Alot of good players go random anyway so the argument that all players will go 5 priv is nonsense..
btw alot of players apreciate the diversity in alliances of the packs (prevents incs) and the extra player (read: 20% extra payeds ingal) could be very handy so both options are good..

I would prefer something like that as well:
1BP with 5 players or 2 BPs with 3 players in one gal
rest filled up with randoms

i guess this could be fun.

1BP with 5 means u know those guys, but u get 5 randoms who may be new to the game
2BPs with 3 means u only knwo ur 2 mates, but there will be at least another 3 paid accounts and only 4 maybe inactive gal members ...

what u think ?

Floi

[furball]

Originally Posted by Floi

I would prefer something like that as well:
1BP with 5 players or 2 BPs with 3 players in one gal
rest filled up with randoms

i guess this could be fun.

1BP with 5 means u know those guys, but u get 5 randoms who may be new to the game
2BPs with 3 means u only knwo ur 2 mates, but there will be at least another 3 paid accounts and only 4 maybe inactive gal members ...

what u think ?

Floi

I think this is pretty good actually. To make myself clear, it is what I'd like to see (self-interest, etc).

As for its effect on the game, it's hard to say, depending on galaxy size. If galaxies are large (15+), then taking option 2 (the buddy pack option) would work out best. If galaxies returned to about 10 planets, then the first option would be stronger. Since no-one would know, depending on the number of each buddy pack type, it could create an excellent round.

[Kal]

Originally Posted by Ultimate Newbie

On a seperate issue, why not consider a buddy pack as one entity and when all three of them choose 'self exile with buddy pack', they are all exiled to another galaxy together? This has all the advantages of the buddy pack system present at shuffle, but still gives the freedom of players to jump ship if they find themself in a bind - like being in the same gal as a certain hated alliance's HC and thus getting n00bed every night because of it.

:\

That could have serious issues - injecting an extra 3 paid planets into 1 galaxy would be very bad indeed.