Round 14 Galaxy System

Originally Posted by Guran

I'm with you.

If I pay to play, I want to choose who I play with or atleast play with others who also have paid for their accounts. None of my galaxies have ever given random newbies a chance. Sorry but many of us cba to teach how to play the game. If they are small, they are out, period.

Even if they are paid planets that just have had the bad luck to land in the wrong gal? I think that your way of sifting people on their size means that not many people will stay in your gal since most of the people being exiled are small. I guess your gla is one of the reasons that some small planets jump through several gals before finally landing in a small one where they can be properly bashed even smaller.

[jerome]

Thinking about it, why do we NEED big gals? What's wrong with 3 man priv+2 randoms.

[Banned]

Originally Posted by _ryzekiel_

Thinking about it, why do we NEED big gals? What's wrong with 3 man priv+2 randoms.

Originally Posted by Comrade Rob

However, there is another far more important point to be made about galaxy size. It is that small galaxies often contain too few active players to function as any kind of social unit. In a 10 or even 15 planet galaxy, it is entire feasible that, for most of the day, only one galaxy member is active on IRC, More fortunate galaxies might have two or three, with only the most lucky reaching the heady heights of five or six members online at any one time. With galaxies or 20-25 planets, it becomes much more likely that two or more galaxy members will be active on IRC at the same time. This coincidence of activity is what allows social bonds to form; it is what gives rise to the community that causes players to come back to the game. Without it, people simply won't come back. The single biggest step forward that this round has made is creating galaxies large enough that a critical mass of IRC-active players can exist in a single galaxy. For the first time in a very very long time, I expect to remain in contact with my galaxy members after the round ends, and this increases the likelihood of all of us playing again.

[jerome]

Enough of a reason for me

My current gal certainly has a couple of people I would like to remain in touch with after the round, and that is the first such case of making friends in random gals since r4.

[Iceman]

(Paid_Planets_score) + (SUM(Free_Planets_score)*0.5) )/Number_of_Planets

formula is WRONG, this would make the maximum lower, shouldnt it be devidied by number of paid planets + number of free planets*0.25 or something... else you are making the situation worse by lowering all the free accounts scores (even more) before u calc them as a gal average

[Guran]

Originally Posted by Unregistered

Even if they are paid planets that just have had the bad luck to land in the wrong gal? I think that your way of sifting people on their size means that not many people will stay in your gal since most of the people being exiled are small. I guess your gla is one of the reasons that some small planets jump through several gals before finally landing in a small one where they can be properly bashed even smaller.

It's easy to spot who have tried and who have not just by looking at their xp/value/score, not size. Yes my gal is most likely one of the reasons small planets are exiled and end up in some small gal where they will be bashed or not.

[Cocteau]

Originally Posted by Kal

The shuffle will now allow packs of 2 as well as packs of 3. It will be either 3 packs of 2 or 2 packs of 3

Im sorry, but just wanted to ask if this is final?

If so, what is the basis - i doubt its due to the opinions in this thread - since i reckon the opinion that garnered the most in this thread is shouting for a little more players in a pack.

[Kal]

the purpose of this forum is not to see what players want as such, but to get feedback on pateam ideas so they can be improved and enhanced. Players look out for themsleves and their friends, we need to look to the long term, months and years in the future.

So yes, the current plans are final:

Galaxy Systems and Shuffle changes

In order for a galaxy to exile someone all ministers will need to agree with the GC, not just one minister.
Only paid accounts will be able to be ministers, but all planets in a galaxy can vote for the GC.
Minsters can only be changed once every 24 ticks.
Self exile will no longer be free, but will be relaitvly cheap for the first time, but the cost will rise with each further self exile (yes you will be able to self exile more than once). The resources from self exile will go into the galaxy fund of the galaxy that the planet is exiling from
The formula used to determine the maximum score of a planet that can receive donations from the galaxy fund will be determined by: ( SUM(Paid_Planets_score) + (SUM(Free_Planets_score)*2.0) )/Number_of_Planets
exile cost formula: value/100 of each resource
exile will not be possible in galaxies in the bottom 10% by number of planets
self exile cost formula: (value/200) * (number of planets in biggest galaxy - number of planets in current galaxy) * (number_of_self_exiles_so_far+1) of each resource

Buddy packs with only 1 member will be deleted.
The shuffle will now allow packs of 2 as well as packs of 3. It will be either 3 packs of 2 or 2 packs of 3, with left overs being hanled as followed:
1 3 left over --> gal with the 3 + 3 randoms
1 2 and 1 free left --> gal with 3 and 2 and 1 random
2 2s left over --> 1 gal with 2 2s and 2 randoms
2 2s and 1 3 left --> 2 gals one with 3 and 3 randoms, 1 with 2 2s and 2 randoms.
This gives all galaxies 6 paid planets by this stage.
Then paid randoms shuffled in randomly but equally accross all galaxies.
free planets with less than 50 roids will be sent to c200 unless they signed up in the last 24 ticks.
the remaining free randoms will be shuffled into the galaxies in order of score and will be distributed randomly
Clusters will be formed in the same way they were this round

[Conall]

Originally Posted by Kal

the purpose of this forum is not to see what players want as such, but to get feedback on pateam ideas so they can be improved and enhanced. Players look out for themsleves and their friends, we need to look to the long term, months and years in the future.

"We can believe that we know where the world should go. But unless we're in touch with our customers, our model of the world can diverge from reality. There's no substitute for innovation, of course, but innovation is no substitute for being in touch, either." - Steve Ballmer

"Your most unhappy customers are your greatest source of learning." - Bill Gates

I am no fan of Microsoft, but they are successful and its hard to argue with those quotes.

And at the end of the day any business long term future is decided by those that open their wallets. If this forum isn't about what the customer wants, but is only a way for PATeam to validate itself, then the forum is useless.

[Kal]

Originally Posted by Conall

"We can believe that we know where the world should go. But unless we're in touch with our customers, our model of the world can diverge from reality. There's no substitute for innovation, of course, but innovation is no substitute for being in touch, either." - Steve Ballmer

"Your most unhappy customers are your greatest source of learning." - Bill Gates

I am no fan of Microsoft, but they are successful and its hard to argue with those quotes.

And at the end of the day any business long term future is decided by those that open their wallets. If this forum isn't about what the customer wants, but is only a way for PATeam to validate itself, then the forum is useless.

this isn't a normal business though, yes we want more customers, but its also better for the customers if there are more customers - maybe at the moment we have the wrong customers, there are so many variables. But suffice it to say whatever we do each player has a limited period of timing playing PA - a lot of people retire when they finish uni for example. So as we have a continuous customer turn over we have to look to what new customers want more than we have to look at what existing customers want.

[wakey]

Originally Posted by Conall

"We can believe that we know where the world should go. But unless we're in touch with our customers, our model of the world can diverge from reality. There's no substitute for innovation, of course, but innovation is no substitute for being in touch, either." - Steve Ballmer

"Your most unhappy customers are your greatest source of learning." - Bill Gates

I am no fan of Microsoft, but they are successful and its hard to argue with those quotes.

And at the end of the day any business long term future is decided by those that open their wallets. If this forum isn't about what the customer wants, but is only a way for PATeam to validate itself, then the forum is useless.

When it comes to game design you can actually pull up many quote that disagree with that. In fact most books, articles or seminars on game design will state almost immediatly that the key to designing a successful game is ignore what others are demanding. You should focus on making a game that you would enjoy playing because if you enjoy it there will be others who will also. If you try and please your customers you will have to make too many comprimises that end up ruining gameplay and pleasing no one.

PA does try and take both principles, theres aspects of the microsoft in the business to make money principle but it also tries to stick to a creativity principle where possible and I for one am glad that the balance is more towards doing what they think is creativitly good.

[aNgRyDuCk]

Originally Posted by Kal

this isn't a normal business though, yes we want more customers, but its also better for the customers if there are more customers - maybe at the moment we have the wrong customers, there are so many variables. But suffice it to say whatever we do each player has a limited period of timing playing PA - a lot of people retire when they finish uni for example. So as we have a continuous customer turn over we have to look to what new customers want more than we have to look at what existing customers want.

to Jolt it IS a business, to the players who pay for each round, it is EXTREMELY IMPORTANT that you make some effort to provide what the majority asks for, and the majority wants 5 player buddy packs according to the responses in this thread....

The wrong customers? I'm not sure you realize what you said, but you basically told the current 3-4 thousand players to piss off.....( or atleast the ones who have played more than 1 round)

In business, you have to look at what EVERY customer wants, you cannot single out one demographic. Under your philosophy, you are pretty much saying, "well you guys that have played a while, or happen to be graduating, go to hell...we'll cater the the n00b player who doesn't know any better or hasn't sat here for 13 rounds playing and watching this game grow."

If it's the PA crew's, and Jolt's intention to base the future of this game on n00bs...good luck.... someone better think about listening to the people who have spent the money already, the people who have put up with all the growth, and all the BS, and are still loyal to PA

just curious also....How do you know what new customers want, if they aren't customers yet...or if they've played a half a round and wouldn't know the difference.....

what it looks like, is a strategy that allows the PA crew /Jolt to control everything and blow off their customers. I'm a small business owner, and it's possible that I'd feel the effect of telling one of my customers to piss off, more than Jolt would...still doesn't make it ok.

[aNgRyDuCk]

Originally Posted by wakey

When it comes to game design you can actually pull up many quote that disagree with that. In fact most books, articles or seminars on game design will state almost immediatly that the key to designing a successful game is ignore what others are demanding. You should focus on making a game that you would enjoy playing because if you enjoy it there will be others who will also. If you try and please your customers you will have to make too many comprimises that end up ruining gameplay and pleasing no one.

PA does try and take both principles, theres aspects of the microsoft in the business to make money principle but it also tries to stick to a creativity principle where possible and I for one am glad that the balance is more towards doing what they think is creativitly good.

if you ignore what the players want, when making tweeks, or other subtle changes... why would they continue to play it? Ex; the majority are asking for bigger buddy packs....so if they get it, they'll not enjoy it? That's rediculous......players ask for something.. they get it, they enjoy it..... how can anyone argue with that logic? .... PA team administer this game..so they are supposed to worry about what they (a few people considering the amount of people who play PA) think is cool, or good, and ignore the other 3990 people? again, completely rediculous

If I like cheeseburgers... and I ask for a cheeseburger, but I get a chicken sandwich, because thats what the manager likes.... you think I'll visit that restaraunt again? So, let's expand for a moment... you'll say.."well this restaraunt has a secret recipe, that makes their cheeseburger better than all the other cheeseburgers" .......... realize, that it's a "better cheeseburger, because of that secret sauce, because a lot of people like that secret sauce...now the place down the street has their own secret sauce, and it's pretty good to.... so when I get a chicken sandwich, I'm going to go down the street...because at the end of the day.. a cheeseburger is just a cheeseburger. So some people like pickles, some like mayo....... some like Terrans, some like Zikonians........whatever condiment you like...it's still how you like YOUR cheeseburger.... and if I can't get my cheeseburger how I like it at your place, I'll go elsewhere.

[aNgRyDuCk]

just to be hypothetical for a moment, and I realize it's a stretch...but how would the PA crew / Jolt feel if EVERY PA player said "let's ALL play as a free planet... screw Jolt and their 10 bucks.... lets all play for free, with the same advantages/disadvantages"... what if the whole PA community decided to blow Jolt off...... it would very likely end the game......

[h3ll]

i agree with conall theres no point in asking for feedback if our feedback is just being ignored

Kal how do u know what us players want?How can 8 pa team guys know what we want?How do u know what the "new customers" want?Without the old timers PA is nothing , PA cannot function as a game without the hardcore ppl who have played it for a few rounds.

wakey are u saying the 8 pa admins r the most "creative" among the 4k players who have played this game?u must be crazy to even think that way

[ReligFree]

Originally Posted by aNgRyDuCk

If I like cheeseburgers... and I ask for a cheeseburger, but I get a chicken sandwich, because thats what the manager likes.... you think I'll visit that restaraunt again? So, let's expand for a moment... you'll say.."well this restaraunt has a secret recipe, that makes their cheeseburger better than all the other cheeseburgers" .......... realize, that it's a "better cheeseburger, because of that secret sauce, because a lot of people like that secret sauce...now the place down the street has their own secret sauce, and it's pretty good to.... so when I get a chicken sandwich, I'm going to go down the street...because at the end of the day.. a cheeseburger is just a cheeseburger. So some people like pickles, some like mayo....... some like Terrans, some like Zikonians........whatever condiment you like...it's still how you like YOUR cheeseburger.... and if I can't get my cheeseburger how I like it at your place, I'll go elsewhere.

Dont anger the Duck and his cheeseburgers...


I fully agree with what Ducks been saying here. A prime example is this upcoming speed game, as i stated in #speedgame last night, how many people have you heard say "Yay its capture the flag (again)"

I think thats why so few really have signed up. But this is not the place for that discussion so i'l shh about that.

Plz can we have bigger buddypacks? :xmas:

[Kal]

This is going to be a bit of a biity reply, but here goes.

angryduck:
I think you will find their are plenty of people who do not want anything resembling private galaxies - in the olden days there was a tendancy to make the private/random decision each round as we knew about half the players would be annoyed either way. Since the buddy pack system we have had far less complaints, and actually only a small handful of people out of out 3.5k playerbase this round want bigger buddy packs. We should not adjust the game based on the complaints and views of a minority unless we actually agree its in the best interests of the game.
Also the hardcore players are not the future of this game, as by their nature they will allways do well and the newer less active players will suffer as a result. The game needs to change to remove activity as a focus and bring in skill as a focus, however that must be done in a way that does not alter the 24 hour 7 days a week presence of the game, it will be a hard balence to firstly find and then maintain.

Religfree:
I'm actually quite happy with the speedgame turnout, if it grows much more we would have to prevent some people from playing in order to maintain tick speed. Its also more players than we would ever have for a paid speedgame of any sort.

Some general comments:
Our signups statistics are quire clear - lots of people sign up to Planetarion, but then they don;t stay around, thoose that do stay around only a minority actually upgrade (ignoring start of round signups).
This is why a galaxy setup that gets new players into existing functioning galaxies is important as they get to meet experianced players quickly, and can hence then be pushed into the community and alliances. It also suggests that the manual and game need to appear simpler on first glance, but need to have lots of hidden depth, the game needs to be more approachable than it is now.
Having bigger buddy packs would not cause a problem with this, as in essence we could operate the same galaxy system around them, just with 1 pack per gal. But it is actually only a very small percentage of players that have said bigger buddy packs would be good. There is also a danger that bigger buddy packs will result in fewer galaxies as less will be formed as the newer players may have less friends or contacts to form packs in. So big buddy packs may be good for say the top 10 alliances, but that is far from the whole community and playerbase and we have to look out for the community and game as a whole.

[Askane]

buddy packs 3 are finne, cos leave some space to take control of the gal, and 2 can't do that. i agrre alloing both packs of 3 and packs of 3.

[Appocomaster]

Looking over this thread again, not many people commented they wanted bigger buddy packs. Changing the shuffling system to allow bigger buddy packs is not possible so close to next round, as it'd mean putting a lot of other stuff on hold that is currently being done. It may be possible for Round 15 to change it to something like 1x5, +1 random 1x4 + 1 pack of 2,, 2x3 / 3x2 etc, but this won't happen for Round 14
With regards to the speedgame issue, it's been said a few times now that not all future speedrounds will be CTF, but a lot of people seemed to like it, and so we're having a CTF speedgame as opposed to a normal one. I know a lot of people do enjoy normal speedgames (and will use the betas as an excuse to catch up on their "missed time" ), and we will have "normal" speedgame setups for many of the future setups, but many did like the way different tactics evolved, and galaxy organisation was important so we decided to make this game a CTF game.
With regards to the new player / old player issue and who to compensate most, we do appreciate how long a lot of players have played with us, and we are trying to make the game more interesting and less repetative for us. But if we purely concentrated on them, and ignored new players, it'd be very difficult to get players into the game, and so the community would dwindle more and more. This is why we're trying to make it easier for new players to play, or old players to return, and that was one of the reasons behind the questionnaire, and some of the latter questions. We should be improving things in the near future so that new players can understand the game more easily, and feel more welcome and want to get involved. This is related to the galaxy system, and while some people say "let's go to 5 man private galaxies and dump all the other people into separate galaxies", this really isn't the way to go. You have lots of people without a great idea of the game destroyed by the galaxies. A lot of people have mentioned how much better the galaxy spirit is, and how it is so much more "PA like", and we're happy we've achieved this, as before a lot of people just played for their alliance and that, if anything, fragments the community. Combing new and old players in slightly bigger galaxies means that the newer players can experience this community spirit too, and so will be more likely to stay. Admittedly, at the end of last round the galaxies were rather large, and hopefully they'll be slightly smaller this round, and more evenly distributed with regards to activity.

[aNgRyDuCk]

I'm not asking you to blow off he new player Appoco... but 1 5 player buddy pack +5 randoms in a galaxy DOES filter the new in with the old, and gives those players exposure to older more experienced players, and it's on a more surgical level. I would be MUCH more inclined to work with new players in a 10 player galaxy with the above set up, as opposed to having 4-5 active players and 20 that aren't active.

my whole point is that PA needs to cater to both groups..the old and the new, not one or the other.

[aNgRyDuCk]

Kal, you took a vote on the round 14 lenght....why not on buddy pack size...post a vote here, or on AD etc, let's see the numbers.

[Kal]

Originally Posted by aNgRyDuCk

Kal, you took a vote on the round 14 lenght....why not on buddy pack size...post a vote here, or on AD etc, let's see the numbers.

As Appocomaster said its to late now to make this sort of change. And a forums vote is not really the best way to do it, that was only done for the round length for interests sake - thought it does look like we will end up sticking with 10 weeks.

We may do another questionairre similar to the end of round 13 questionairre half way through round 14.

[wakey]

Originally Posted by aNgRyDuCk

if you ignore what the players want, when making tweeks, or other subtle changes... why would they continue to play it? Ex; the majority are asking for bigger buddy packs....so if they get it, they'll not enjoy it? That's rediculous......players ask for something.. they get it, they enjoy it..... how can anyone argue with that logic? .... PA team administer this game..so they are supposed to worry about what they (a few people considering the amount of people who play PA) think is cool, or good, and ignore the other 3990 people? again, completely rediculous

If I like cheeseburgers... and I ask for a cheeseburger, but I get a chicken sandwich, because thats what the manager likes.... you think I'll visit that restaraunt again? So, let's expand for a moment... you'll say.."well this restaraunt has a secret recipe, that makes their cheeseburger better than all the other cheeseburgers" .......... realize, that it's a "better cheeseburger, because of that secret sauce, because a lot of people like that secret sauce...now the place down the street has their own secret sauce, and it's pretty good to.... so when I get a chicken sandwich, I'm going to go down the street...because at the end of the day.. a cheeseburger is just a cheeseburger. So some people like pickles, some like mayo....... some like Terrans, some like Zikonians........whatever condiment you like...it's still how you like YOUR cheeseburger.... and if I can't get my cheeseburger how I like it at your place, I'll go elsewhere.

I know the old saying is "The customer knows best" but often when developing a game that isnt the case. The reason for this is that players often dont know fully what they want or understand the side effects to something. Theres a perfect example over on suggestions where we have someone wanting prelaunch removed. In a responce to one of the posts saying that removing it would hinder the less active the person says "I dont pay for this game to help inactives and newbies". Heres someone who as a paying customer thinks they should be listened to but who is clearly failing to understand the link between the the lower players and the new players joining and the game growing. Trying to please your customers is leading to a lose lose situation, theres no way you can please everyone. Either you implement something which alienates some of the community anyway OR you try and comprimise a feature which pleases no-one and loses the desired efftec and often produces more problems than it solves.

Its why in games design you can listen to ideas from the customers but you shouldnt let it force your hand. The designers should either be totally independant of any community ties or the design team should be balanced and all open minded to each side of an argument so they are looking to make the best game for the masses rather than just wanting whats best for them

[aNgRyDuCk]

so give the players the choice, if they want to go solo, they can, if they want to play with friends, they can.......if you want a game that just Jolt and the PA team play, fine, call it what it is

[wakey]

Originally Posted by aNgRyDuCk

so give the players the choice, if they want to go solo, they can, if they want to play with friends, they can.......if you want a game that just Jolt and the PA team play, fine, call it what it is

The players are given a choice, they can play with 2 other friends or go solo. This was a value that was deemed by PATeam the figure that that suited the game best from a gameplay pov. It might not be the best figure for you top 10 alliances but then the game isnt being designed to make things easier for the top 10 alliances. Its being designed to be most appealing for the masses so that the player numbers are higher which is better for everyone.

All larger buddy packs would do is
1) Decrease galaxies thus make them larger as fewer people could fill a buddy pack and thus many wouldnt bother
2) Spread quality less evenly. With 2 of 3 or 3 of 2 then theres a much greater chance of getting a group of quality in each galaxy than there is if its 1 pack of 5
3) streangth blocks and top alliances.
4) Weaken the smaller alliances whom become easier targets

Now what some people need to realise that the top end of the game isnt the everything. TBH the importance of the top alliances hanging around isnt that great if they are going to continually try and stand in the way of making the game more accessable is fairly minor. If they quit it doesnt mean all their players will and new alliances will take the places they vacate and if losing some of these players means features are added that makes it easier to attract and keep new players are made it doesnt matter if some are lost. After all it hardly matters if your playing aNgRyDuCk or some other person is playing in your place as its still a member, thats certainly the case with the way the wider community spirit has splittered since p2p so that only the spirt of our own alliances community spirt matters

The sooner people start to realise that the top players hold very little power the better and the thinly veiled threats that happens whenever ideas that dont directly help them are suggested can stop

[notsure]

As a relatively new player to PA (I played a round way back when then left for ages - only having been back for 2 1/2 rounds now) - I know from experience the benefits of putting new players in gals with experienced players.

The first 1/2 round of my recent play was pretty average - I didn't really know what I was doing, and was in a pretty inactive gal, so didn't get the benefit of learning from more experienced players.

To be honest, if not for the fact that I wanted to make a decision based on a full round, that half round did nothing towards making me come back and play again.

The following round, I was fortunate that one of the more experienced players in my gal took the time to pass on some of the knowledge they had....and showed me how much fun the game could be - even if you weren't competing for a high rank. It was during that round I joined my first alliance - all be it a small - exist for one round alliance - it was enough to show me the benefits of alliance membership.

This past round I joined a "real" alliance, and again got to learn from more experienced players, both within my alliance and my galaxy - in fact the knowledge I gained was enough for me to end up DC, something I wouldn't have done if I'd been relegated to the nether regions of the universe simply because I was a new player.

It's probably a very small number of people that sign up for PA the first time and immediately upgrade - why pay for the unknown after all. However, the trick is to show these players the benefits of continuing to play, and of upgrading, something that won't happen if they're stuck in some small inactive gal that continuously takes incoming - nobody enjoys a game when they're "losing". Give them some sound advice, and let them land a few attacks successfully, and they will start to see themselves as winning the game (it's not always about finishing top 10 - heck I still remember the first time I broke 1 million score at the time that was a big achievement for me - and I then set myself higher goals).

In short - the only way we're going to get new paid players, is to help the new players to learn the tactics of the game, and to show them not only the benefits of paying to play, but the fun that can be had, both in game and within the PA community as a whole. Saying I'm a paid player - therefore screw the unpaids, is only going to result in less unpaid players upgrading - and therefore less paid players, which I'm sure is not what anybody wants...since it will eventually lead to the demise of the game.

No doubt, like me, many of the paid players received help & advice from more experienced players when they started, surely then it’s our job to do the same and pass on what we know to other new players.

[Cocteau]

Originally Posted by wakey

....

Flawfull, I cant even start where.

[Ginga]

Get rid of packs. Everyone goes random. Have 15 planets per galaxy.

Its a good formula.

[hylands]

if everybody goes random ginga then hell breaks lose seen as you got members allmost everywhere making good attacks harder to do.

[Paddy]

I first played PA "properly" in round 4 and was lucky enough to land in one of those rare things, an active random galaxy. If I had landed in a gal that was inactive I don't think I would have come back. As it was they taught me the basics of the game and although I quit again when it went p2p in r5 I came back in r6 and because I had been taught the basics of the game and IRC I enjoyed it. This round I wasn't in the most active of galaxies, we started well but activity dropped. However as GC I gave new players a chance. Through this I think our gal got about 5 people who had never played before (or maybe played a round ages ago) to come on IRC and get into the community spirit. I am 90% certain that these players will be back next round.

From my experience I have found that anything resembling private galaxies doesn't help new players get into the game. In r10(?) when there were packs of 5 I again wasn't in the most active of gals, but this time because of the setup I think we may have had 1, if that new player come into the gal channel and get involved with IRC. This probably wasn't helped by the fact that gal sizes were limitted but I think that having packs of 2/3 with some paid randoms is the best way to go.

I think I lost my track somewhere in the middle there but I hope you get my point

[ChubbyChecker]

Yeah, private galaxies suck. I wasn't around Rounds 6 - 12 but I wouldn't be surprised if private galaxies had a lot to do with the dramatic decline in the player base during that period.

[noah02]

Originally Posted by ChubbyChecker

Yeah, private galaxies suck. I wasn't around Rounds 6 - 12 but I wouldn't be surprised if private galaxies had a lot to do with the dramatic decline in the player base during that period.

Kinda made all the active pals and buddys stick together and put all the n00bs onto the firing range for target practice till they could only get something worthwhile attacking the big boys/girls in other gals

[Edge]

I think anyone who is not active should just be moved right away.. paid or not... as for the packs.. just ****ing make the goddamn galaxy code!!!! **** the packs all together

[Alonso fan]

here is a side question for you, how many players per galaxy are proposing? also about how many galaxies would there be assuming about a 10% increase in number of players compared to round 13?

[Zoro]

Alonso fan

Do u support Liverpool?

[Clogg]

Well Kal read your updates on the gal system, I like the majority of it. But what I still miss in any of your passed is the auto-exile function, like the one used in round 11. Will this system be used again (which I really hope) or is this routine abolished for good?

[Jinstarro]

There should be a limit to galaxy size, definitely. It's annoying when people come and people go ALL the time, and you have to exile two guys per day. Incredible boring tbh. i think two buddypacks (3+3) and 3-5 random would be appropiate.

[ChubbyChecker]

Originally Posted by Jinstarro

There should be a limit to galaxy size, definitely. It's annoying when people come and people go ALL the time, and you have to exile two guys per day. Incredible boring tbh. i think two buddypacks (3+3) and 3-5 random would be appropiate.

So what if there are more randoms than buddy packers at the start of the round? And what if new planets are created? Which they are, every round. They just get clumped in a galaxy that doesn't have the benefit of having 6 buddy packers in it? Or we just don't let them create planets at all? Great way to promote the game

imo the way galaxies are created is perfect as it is. What needs work is the exile system.

[rnd|One]

It is less than two weeks into the game and I have had to undergo the chore of exiling over 30 planets from my galaxy. I will not get into the details on how very tedious it is to wait until there are four people online to perform an exile just to have another empty shell land in the galaxy. This all feels like a boring mini-game within Planetarion; exile-O-rama.

Many of the planets that end in the galaxy do not even possess the ability to read what is on the Overview. Does Planetarion have such a negative effect on new players when they start up the game? Probably.

The few people whom have been able to read plain English in coloured and bold letters have been a welcome addition to the galaxy and it has been rather uplifting seeing them enjoy the game; their first alliance, IRC and attacks after introducing them to all these things.

Currently exiles are randomly placed in "bottom 15% galaxies by size". This is all very misleading. A top10 galaxy can be rated "bottom 15%". When the top galaxies are eligible for exiles -- galaxies that are (even now) in score .5-4 times bigger, galaxies that are 2-5 times more active based on XP and have largely established themselves for the round already -- all exiling does is shift the quality to the top. This also means that a portion of the paid planets, whom are mixed with randoms to help them out with the initial kinks of the game will leave an even bigger percentage of new players out in the cold.

Exiling should also factor in:

• Combined score of the galaxy
• Amount of XP the galaxy has earned
• Number of paid planets within the galaxy

A random round means duking it out wherever you land. Currently the ratio of paid:free planets is likely tilted in a way that prohibits making galaxies more "even", like only one buddypack per galaxy combined with 15 randoms. Should all the t20 alliances hold paid planets and all active paid planets be represented by these alliances there are currently around 1200 paid accounts and 1000 freebies that havent ended up in c200 yet. This ratio makes it impossible to have small single buddygroups in galaxies: 300 small galaxies likely wouldn't be a hit. Another negative side is that the alliances do not mix properly when galaxies do not have multiple buddypacks. Should they mix much is a debatable topic.

Would an even smaller number of initial galaxies (say 100 -- from start to finish) with a higher number of planets be a step in the right direction? In that case a small amount of inactives would not be an instant deathblow and the activity in the galaxy should also be somewhat better. Galaxies would begin with around 15 planets and grow to be over 25 during the course of the round.

The buddypacks pose quite a problem when ironing out the strength differences with random galaxies. Not everyone wants to be left without their mates; which leads to requests for private galaxies and bigger buddypacks. Then again, how much does the placement of one's buddy in the same galaxy in a random round matter? Help with ingal defence at times, but most of the round will be spent in alliance/bg/other channels rather than the galaxy channel. On the contrary this would require the elitist players to put effort into their galaxy in more depth than mere NAPs and defence infoes. They would need to form their "buddypack" ad-hoc from the players within the galaxy.

...what if buddypacks were entirely removed?

...what if there were 2 shuffles?

Considering that all alliance players are represented ingame this knowledge could be used to level out the skilled active players (top alliances) with the second shuffle. The initial shuffle could be timed as usual with the second occuring 10 days into the round. 10 days to make sure all alliances are added ingame and any attempt to play the system would cost the alliance 7 days into the round. Should some alliances fib with their name it should be easy to spot such conduct by this time as well.


Would this all be too much trouble to be worth it or a system that might work better than what is being used currently? Critique welcome.

[Agerus]

current gal size is too big!

[pig]

Originally Posted by rnd|One

Snip

I completly aggree with everything written here, im glad someone has taken the time to think it thoroughly through and give an honest opinion.

What annoys me is that theres no recognition in galaxies anymore. Theres no galaxy and alliance. At least for me my galaxy always played a big role in pa, however it is to a lesser extent a role at all now, although i am trying to change this.

But still I think galaxies should have more of a comradeship feel, rather than fake nicks, kick noobs etc.

[Kal]

I propose the following changes for next round:

enabling eixling when in the bottom 15% by number of planets
changing exile to work as follows:
when paid planet returns from c200, or self exiles it goes into a galaxy in the bottom 25% by number of paid planets
when a free planet returns from c200, or self exiles it goes into a galaxy in the bottom 25% by number of free planets

this in theory means the better galaxies that are nice and active with many paid planets will get new free planets to train into active players, whereas the galaxies that are lacking in acitve paid accounts will gain new paid accounts.

I'm also contemplating some kind of automatic exiling of inactive free acccounts - say after 3 days of no logins.

any thoughts?

[ChubbyChecker]

Originally Posted by Kal

I propose the following changes for next round:

enabling eixling when in the bottom 15% by number of planets
changing exile to work as follows:
when paid planet returns from c200, or self exiles it goes into a galaxy in the bottom 25% by number of paid planets
when a free planet returns from c200, or self exiles it goes into a galaxy in the bottom 25% by number of free planets

this in theory means the better galaxies that are nice and active with many paid planets will get new free planets to train into active players, whereas the galaxies that are lacking in acitve paid accounts will gain new paid accounts.

I'm also contemplating some kind of automatic exiling of inactive free acccounts - say after 3 days of no logins.

any thoughts?

er, very bad idea. Paid planets will end up in bad galaxies and free planets in good galaxies. Where you end up shouldn't have anything to do with number of paid or free planets.

[Kal]

the point of exile is to produce the desired planets distribution and to promote game growth, not to to give individuals good galaxies. Its quite tempting to remove self exile again really, either that or make self exile VERY expensive but totally random, but have galaxy exile as described above.

[ChubbyChecker]

Well, rather than distributing people by paid planets / free planets I would suggest making it impossible for big planets to exile into top galaxies.

So for example the top 10% of galaxies can only get planets exiling / self exiling into them that are less than 50% of the average Universe planet score. Also keep it as it is this round where you can't exile planets if the number of planets in your galaxy is too small. This way the top galaxies won't get big planets exiling into them and there will be a more even distribution of large planets across the Universe.

Obviously the percentages can be played with to get the desired effect.

[Kal]

new proposal:

I propose the following changes for next round:

cannot exile PAID planets while in the bottom 15% by number of paid planets
when a planet (paid or free) returns from c200, or self exiles it goes into a galaxy in the bottom 15% by number of paid planets
**a PAID planet canot self exile from a galaxy in the bottom 15% by number of paid planets** <-- most controverisal and not sure on it
self exile formula change to use paid planets stuff rather than total number of planets

this in theory means the galaxies lakcing in paid and hence active planets get new planets of all types. i.e. if they get lots of freebies it in someway compesnates for the lack of paid planets.

I'm also contemplating some kind of automatic exiling of inactive free acccounts - say after 3 days of no logins.

any thoughts?

[barney]

Originally Posted by Kal

new proposal:

I'm also contemplating some kind of automatic exiling of inactive free acccounts - say after 3 days of no logins.

any thoughts?

EXCELLENT idea

[ChubbyChecker]

I deleted my last post cos I didn't actu0ally read this post before commenting on it. Never a good idea

Originally Posted by Kal

new proposal:

I propose the following changes for next round:

cannot exile PAID planets while in the bottom 15% by number of paid planets

So if a paid planet decides to quit PA, what then? Just have a paid planet sitting there til the end of the round doing nothing? This hurts the galaxy even more seeing as they have 1 extra paid planet, making them less likely to be in the bottom 15% of paid planets.
You could beg an admin to exile/delete him. And they'll probably agree to do it. But that's not exactly enforcing the rules now is it
Also, the fact that you're paid isn't exactly a guarantee that you'll be active. I'm sure there are many free planets in the Universe that are currently of bigger value to their galaxy due to the fact that they give more in-galaxy defence than a paid planet.

Originally Posted by Kal

when a planet (paid or free) returns from c200, or self exiles it goes into a galaxy in the bottom 15% by number of paid planets
**a PAID planet canot self exile from a galaxy in the bottom 15% by number of paid planets** <-- most controverisal and not sure on it
self exile formula change to use paid planets stuff rather than total number of planets

this in theory means the galaxies lacking in paid and hence active planets get new planets of all types. i.e. if they get lots of freebies it in someway compensates for the lack of paid planets.

You haven't made any mention of what happens to new planets. Do they appear in a galaxy with few paid planets? If so then this will make the galaxies in the bottom 15% of paid planets slightly more dynamic as new planets join and upgrade. Only slightly though cos I doubt whether many people sign up and upgrade after tick 1. You'll have the same galaxies in the bottom 15% for pretty much the entire round, sucking up free planets like there's no tomorrow.

Also, under this system you have absolutely no incentive to exile a free planet. So he never comes on irc, never posts on the forum, ignores all your messages, never defends in-galaxy, never even attacks. So what? Leave him there, he's not hurting your chances of getting new planets in so why exile him? Let his 100k score add to your galaxy total and ignore him for the rest of the round.

Originally Posted by Kal

I'm also contemplating some kind of automatic exiling of inactive free acccounts - say after 3 days of no logins.

any thoughts?

Don't think this'll make much difference really. They'll just bounce around the bottom 15% of the Universe for the rest of the round, nothing but a bit of dynamic scenery.

And going back to the point about new sign ups, if you put them in galaxies with few paid planets then you're going to have about 50% of the Universe's planets in the bottom 15% of galaxies by paid planet numbers. The rate of change of which galaxies are in the bottom 15% is totally dependent on what free planets decide to upgrade later in the round. Not a large number I imagine.

And what of the galaxies with a large number of paid planets in? You might have 10 paid planets and a few freebies that haven't been kicked for not logging in for 3 days. They will never see any new planets join them seeing as they have so many paid planets already. I don' t know about the rest of you but part of the joy of Planetarion for me is seeing new planets turn up in my galaxy, wondering whether they're new to PA, hoping they'll use IRC, etc.. You'll deprive this from a large number of PA's active players, thereby depriving whatever newbies turn up of their experience. 30 noobs in a galaxy together are still noobs, stick one in a galaxy with 10 paid planets and they might learn something. I realise that every galaxy will have a minimum of 6 paid planets in it but you can't guarantee that they're active, or that they're interested in helping noobs in their galaxy.

What we need is a system where small planets exile into large galaxies and large planets exile into small galaxies. This will give newbies the benefit of experience of the larger players and big players a disincentive to exile.

I also think that evening out the number of planets in a galaxy and making it impossible to exile when your galaxy is too small was a big step in the right direction, abolishing that would be a shame imo.