User Name
Password

Go Back   Planetarion Forums > Planetarion Related Forums > Planetarion Suggestions

Reply
Thread Tools Display Modes
Unread 9 Dec 2012, 11:57   #1
Nightwolf
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 113
Nightwolf has a spectacular aura aboutNightwolf has a spectacular aura about
Smaller Galaxies

The thread title pretty much sums it up.

Certain galaxies have become unroidable, one of the problems behind this is the number of players in a galaxy. I would suggest a maximum of 10. Would make fencing harder, would make landing in the same galaxy every round harder and alliances would actually be able to roid a galaxy.

Also makes sense after slimming alliance numbers down.
Nightwolf is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 9 Dec 2012, 12:04   #2
Mzyxptlk
mz.
Alien Invasion Champion, Submarine Champion, Tiger Punch Champion, Barts Watersports Adventure Champion
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 8,587
Mzyxptlk has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.Mzyxptlk has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.Mzyxptlk has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.Mzyxptlk has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.Mzyxptlk has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.Mzyxptlk has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.Mzyxptlk has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.Mzyxptlk has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.Mzyxptlk has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.Mzyxptlk has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.Mzyxptlk has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.
Re: Smaller Galaxies

I'm not sure if setting a hard limit of 10 is even possible The average size of galaxies is the result of a fairly complex interaction between buddy pack size, the number of buddy packs, the number of randoms and the number of mid-round signups, as well as the number of disbanded galaxies (I think PA Team still do that manually, if a galaxy really dies).

How hard galaxies are to roid is also largely dependent on the stats. I don't think r49 is a good example of how future rounds (should!) work out.

That said, it should definitely be possible to change some those variables around, and thereby make galaxies a bit smaller. I think that'd be a good idea.
__________________
The outraged poets threw sticks and rocks over the side of the bridge. They were all missing Mary and he felt a contented smug feeling wash over him. He would have given them a coy little wave if the roof hadn't collapsed just then. Mary then found himself in the middle of an understandably shocked family's kitchen table. So he gave them the coy little wave and realized it probably would have been more effective if he hadn't been lying on their turkey.
Mzyxptlk is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 9 Dec 2012, 12:08   #3
Reincarnate
ToF
 
Reincarnate's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: England
Posts: 607
Reincarnate is a name known to allReincarnate is a name known to allReincarnate is a name known to allReincarnate is a name known to allReincarnate is a name known to allReincarnate is a name known to all
Re: Smaller Galaxies

from the little i know about the way galaxies are created, the only way to do this would be smaller BPs.

smaller BPs = more BPs = more galaxies
__________________
[19:10] <coffee-> dont worry about Reincarnate he is an angry man

R1 - 9 none | R10.5 - 13 [ToF] | R14 [Reunion] | R15-17 [Subh] | R18 - 36 PA vacation | R37 [Evo] | R38 [NFI] | R39 & 40 [ToF] | R41 [Omega] | R42 - 47 [ToF][HC]
Reincarnate is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 9 Dec 2012, 12:18   #4
CBA
Mind-boggling
 
CBA's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Devon, England
Posts: 1,468
CBA is infamous around these partsCBA is infamous around these partsCBA is infamous around these partsCBA is infamous around these partsCBA is infamous around these partsCBA is infamous around these parts
Re: Smaller Galaxies

More players = more planets = more people to roid those galaxies..

I saw most of the top gals get roided last round...

Some were simply not hit due to politics... With there being only 20 gals worth roiding for 10 alliances politics plays a massive part of who gets hit.
__________________
You have enemies? Good. That means you've stood up for something, sometime in your life. (Winston Churchill)

R21-Randy Dandys Winners R21
1:9:5 -SoClose- -YetSoFar-

You have pending friend requests from Newt.
CBA is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 9 Dec 2012, 12:53   #5
Plaguuu
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 477
Plaguuu is just really nicePlaguuu is just really nicePlaguuu is just really nicePlaguuu is just really nicePlaguuu is just really nice
Re: Smaller Galaxies

wish we had a dominating alliance that went for forts.. This fence bullshit is boring.
2 changes that could be fun(guess ill be slaughtered)
If a gal have players from 4 or 5 out of the top 5 alliances they don't get any exiles.
Defending a alliance mate ingal = eta 4 instead of eta 5
Plaguuu is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 9 Dec 2012, 13:21   #6
gzambo
Fightin-irish for life
 
gzambo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: guinness brewery
Posts: 2,177
gzambo has a brilliant futuregzambo has a brilliant futuregzambo has a brilliant futuregzambo has a brilliant futuregzambo has a brilliant futuregzambo has a brilliant futuregzambo has a brilliant futuregzambo has a brilliant futuregzambo has a brilliant futuregzambo has a brilliant futuregzambo has a brilliant future
Re: Smaller Galaxies

I wouldnt have any problem with smaller sized galaxys or alliances , clinging onto high alliance/galaxy sizes for safety in numbers is kinda pointless with the number of players the game now has .
galaxys with a max of 8 with bp size reduced to 4 and alliance size reduced to 35/40 would make more sense given the dwindling numbers playing but since players like their safety in numbers I can't see it happening .
nobody is willing to look past their own needs and see the big picture adds to this problem
__________________
Ascendancy, now with added Irish

"In the absence of orders, find something and kill it."
-Rommel
gzambo is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 9 Dec 2012, 16:04   #7
ArcChas
General (Adjective Army)
 
ArcChas's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Yorkshire, England.
Posts: 825
ArcChas has much to be proud ofArcChas has much to be proud ofArcChas has much to be proud ofArcChas has much to be proud ofArcChas has much to be proud ofArcChas has much to be proud ofArcChas has much to be proud ofArcChas has much to be proud of
Re: Smaller Galaxies

Quote:
Originally Posted by gzambo View Post
.....and alliance size reduced to 35/40.......
Not this again - please.
__________________
Amnion (aka The Arcane Chas of Arcania) - Playing PA under those and other pseudonyms every genuine round since Round 2. Most recently (and insignificantly):
Onset of Apathy R94 | Stacks of Resources R95 | The Necromancer of Dol Guldur R96
70 Years of Queen Elizabeth R97 | Worst of The Worst R98
Knights of the Green Shield R99 | Look Out of The Window R100 | Most of All R102
Hard of Hearing (2:7:1) R103 | The Lateness of Your Application (1:6:6) R104 | Kinnison of Tellus (5:1:2) R105
ArcChas is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 9 Dec 2012, 22:09   #8
Nightwolf
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 113
Nightwolf has a spectacular aura aboutNightwolf has a spectacular aura about
Re: Smaller Galaxies

Quote:
Originally Posted by CBA View Post
More players = more planets = more people to roid those galaxies..

I saw most of the top gals get roided last round...

Some were simply not hit due to politics... With there being only 20 gals worth roiding for 10 alliances politics plays a massive part of who gets hit.
The top galaxies only got roided if everyone and their dog hit them. Which is exactly the problem.

And like mz stated the shipstats didn't really help this round, but then again we had more shipstats like the last one than actually good ones.
Nightwolf is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 10 Dec 2012, 02:08   #9
BloodyButcher
Propaganda Chief
 
BloodyButcher's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Under the Rainbow
Posts: 4,740
BloodyButcher has much to be proud ofBloodyButcher has much to be proud ofBloodyButcher has much to be proud ofBloodyButcher has much to be proud ofBloodyButcher has much to be proud ofBloodyButcher has much to be proud ofBloodyButcher has much to be proud ofBloodyButcher has much to be proud ofBloodyButcher has much to be proud of
Re: Smaller Galaxies

Quote:
Originally Posted by Plaguuu View Post
wish we had a dominating alliance that went for forts.. This fence bullshit is boring.
2 changes that could be fun(guess ill be slaughtered)
If a gal have players from 4 or 5 out of the top 5 alliances they don't get any exiles.
Defending a alliance mate ingal = eta 4 instead of eta 5
Both FAnG and Ultores went for forts last round.
That and politics is why there were galaxies that were "unroidable" this round.
How ever there will always be players that play for galaxy win, as there will always be players playing for alliance win.
That certain galaxies keep dominating round after round is due to the players in those galaxies have their own policies on how to interact with their alliance, being galaxies should come first.
__________________
RainbowS

RB Ely MISTU Angel Fusi0n 1up ToF VisioN CT FAnG ROCK
BloodyButcher is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 10 Dec 2012, 02:21   #10
Tiamat101
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 846
Tiamat101 is a jewel in the roughTiamat101 is a jewel in the roughTiamat101 is a jewel in the roughTiamat101 is a jewel in the rough
Re: Smaller Galaxies

Galaxy Strength is majorly dependant on Ship stats, If ingal def is better then ally def then forting in the way to go, but if ally def covers all incs well then fences will prevail.

What we need is to reduce max Gal size to say 11/12 and have a set of stats that don't make ingal def FAR superior than ally def vs 3/6 of the meta classes.
__________________
R50-55 Faceless
Tiamat101 is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 10 Dec 2012, 03:55   #11
Patrikc
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 957
Patrikc has a brilliant futurePatrikc has a brilliant futurePatrikc has a brilliant futurePatrikc has a brilliant futurePatrikc has a brilliant futurePatrikc has a brilliant futurePatrikc has a brilliant futurePatrikc has a brilliant futurePatrikc has a brilliant futurePatrikc has a brilliant futurePatrikc has a brilliant future
Re: Smaller Galaxies

Yes, please, please reduce the size of galaxies (3 man bps) or make it full random.

As alliance size has progressively declined, offensive power has, too, and it becomes harder and harder to hit certain galaxies alone. But since most galaxies are mixtures of alliances, certain galaxies never get hit because teaming up on a member's galaxies just doesn't happen (especially if that member is in a position of power).
Ship stats affect this too, but it is also just a matter of fleets.

I realize people want to play with their friends, and reducing it from 5 to 3 seems like a big change, but it would make the game a little more dynamic rather than seeing the same galaxies get hit over and over. Especially in smaller alliances I've seen the same galaxies get 'recycled' because it's the only one they can really hit.
Patrikc is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 10 Dec 2012, 12:29   #12
Influence
Finally retired
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 788
Influence is a splendid one to beholdInfluence is a splendid one to beholdInfluence is a splendid one to beholdInfluence is a splendid one to beholdInfluence is a splendid one to beholdInfluence is a splendid one to beholdInfluence is a splendid one to beholdInfluence is a splendid one to behold
Re: Smaller Galaxies

reducing BP size will just result in more ppl going random and exiling around until they find their galaxy again. A lot of BP's allready consist of more members than the 5 available slots can offer.

If smaller gals is what ppl want i suggest going back to full private gals again, that aren't eligible for exiles either. And the random gals should then not be allowed to exile members to prevent ppl from creating a 'private' random gal.
__________________
don't be an arse, join [TiT]

In the absence of the good old TiT alliance, look me up in VGN
Influence is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 10 Dec 2012, 12:59   #13
Nightwolf
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 113
Nightwolf has a spectacular aura aboutNightwolf has a spectacular aura about
Re: Smaller Galaxies

Quote:
Originally Posted by Influence View Post
reducing BP size will just result in more ppl going random and exiling around until they find their galaxy again. A lot of BP's allready consist of more members than the 5 available slots can offer.

If smaller gals is what ppl want i suggest going back to full private gals again, that aren't eligible for exiles either. And the random gals should then not be allowed to exile members to prevent ppl from creating a 'private' random gal.
That would put random galaxies on an incredible disadvantage.

If you reduced the size of galaxies exiling around till you land in the galaxy you want will become increasingly hard (more galaxies, less spots availabe). So it fixes both problems at the same time.
Nightwolf is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 10 Dec 2012, 14:21   #14
Reincarnate
ToF
 
Reincarnate's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: England
Posts: 607
Reincarnate is a name known to allReincarnate is a name known to allReincarnate is a name known to allReincarnate is a name known to allReincarnate is a name known to allReincarnate is a name known to all
Re: Smaller Galaxies

i think the only way to do it would be smaller BPs and no exiling. however, i think this would just push more people into not playing.
__________________
[19:10] <coffee-> dont worry about Reincarnate he is an angry man

R1 - 9 none | R10.5 - 13 [ToF] | R14 [Reunion] | R15-17 [Subh] | R18 - 36 PA vacation | R37 [Evo] | R38 [NFI] | R39 & 40 [ToF] | R41 [Omega] | R42 - 47 [ToF][HC]
Reincarnate is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 10 Dec 2012, 14:43   #15
Nightwolf
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 113
Nightwolf has a spectacular aura aboutNightwolf has a spectacular aura about
Re: Smaller Galaxies

Quote:
Originally Posted by Reincarnate View Post
i think the only way to do it would be smaller BPs and no exiling. however, i think this would just push more people into not playing.
Why would that be the only way to do it? No exiling is obviously fail. Adjust the formula so galaxies don't grow in size at the pace they do at the moment.
Nightwolf is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 10 Dec 2012, 20:51   #16
Reincarnate
ToF
 
Reincarnate's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: England
Posts: 607
Reincarnate is a name known to allReincarnate is a name known to allReincarnate is a name known to allReincarnate is a name known to allReincarnate is a name known to allReincarnate is a name known to all
Re: Smaller Galaxies

wouldnt work nightwolf. the base for galaxies is number of BPs. because there are so few bps you start from a low base. then once you exile you cannot exile into the same gal again.

the only way to slow the growth of galaxies is to have more and to stop/greatly reduce exiling.
__________________
[19:10] <coffee-> dont worry about Reincarnate he is an angry man

R1 - 9 none | R10.5 - 13 [ToF] | R14 [Reunion] | R15-17 [Subh] | R18 - 36 PA vacation | R37 [Evo] | R38 [NFI] | R39 & 40 [ToF] | R41 [Omega] | R42 - 47 [ToF][HC]
Reincarnate is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 11 Dec 2012, 14:44   #17
Blue_Esper
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 1,038
Blue_Esper is a glorious beacon of lightBlue_Esper is a glorious beacon of lightBlue_Esper is a glorious beacon of lightBlue_Esper is a glorious beacon of lightBlue_Esper is a glorious beacon of lightBlue_Esper is a glorious beacon of light
Re: Smaller Galaxies

no bps.
__________________
Did some stuff, played here n there done just about all there is to do
Blue_Esper is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 11 Dec 2012, 18:33   #18
Nightwolf
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 113
Nightwolf has a spectacular aura aboutNightwolf has a spectacular aura about
Re: Smaller Galaxies

Quote:
Originally Posted by Reincarnate View Post
wouldnt work nightwolf. the base for galaxies is number of BPs. because there are so few bps you start from a low base. then once you exile you cannot exile into the same gal again.

the only way to slow the growth of galaxies is to have more and to stop/greatly reduce exiling.
The base could be changed. Enabling full random galaxies would work. It's not like BP's automatically make for a good galaxy.
Nightwolf is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 11 Dec 2012, 18:52   #19
Killeah
Old Skool
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Copenhagen, Denmark
Posts: 278
Killeah has a spectacular aura aboutKilleah has a spectacular aura about
Re: Smaller Galaxies

remove all BP's - remove all self exile.

two easy actions.

A whole new game.


edit: or back to where it actually started
Killeah is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 11 Dec 2012, 20:01   #20
Plaguuu
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 477
Plaguuu is just really nicePlaguuu is just really nicePlaguuu is just really nicePlaguuu is just really nicePlaguuu is just really nice
Re: Smaller Galaxies

a game that everyone would quit after 1 round
Plaguuu is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 11 Dec 2012, 21:47   #21
Motti
Just Awesome
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 165
Motti has a spectacular aura aboutMotti has a spectacular aura aboutMotti has a spectacular aura about
Re: Smaller Galaxies

Without quoting, as it is spread a bit around in the post, here is my thoughts.

1. Making smaller galaxies does not sound better to me. From my experience galaxy is very important for defence, as for many of us alliance defence will not cover you at all times - that is for a select few only. The smaller the galaxy, the easier it is to roid you, which was a point earlier here. But again, what fun is it if anyone can easily roid you?

2. This game is not to big anymore. I saw someone suggest making all galaxies random, surely this can be quiet fun if you get a decent galaxy. But the chance of having quiet a few inactive planets and/or planets who only play for alliance and could care less for galaxy, well sames as #1 really.

From a personal point of view I play just as much for galaxy as for alliance previous rounds - perhaps not for #1 galaxy, but atleast a galaxy that has some level of interaction. Give me randoms only, and it is quiet possible that I either won't be bothered anymore, or I turn somewhat inactive and def alliance only..?

From my understanding the reasoning behind this thread was to brain storm ideas to prevent that serten group of people end up in same galaxy every round, which most of the time end up as a well fenced/strong galaxy who have a easy ride in the round.

But, my issue with this is that those changes suggested in this thread will also affect everyone else, and in my opinion not for the better.

What is making people sign up round after round in this game? I would say for many the chance to play with a few friends in galaxy, regardless of which alliance you choose to participate in.

If you for example eliminate the possibility to have BPs, you effectivly remove one of the incentives to keep on playing.

If you reduce the galaxy size much more, perhaps less then 10-11 planets I belive you are making most galaxies easier to roid, but not the ones you really want to slow down? I can not see this being benificial for the general player in PA, unless the goal is making it easier to land everyone.... and by everyone I feel it is safe to say that would be all apart the few you initially wish to weaken (the "exile bp's") as they will still have end up together more or less, will still keep a higher activity level then most, and will still have good ties into their respective alliances that prevent them from being atleast overly targetted.

:-)
Motti is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 12 Dec 2012, 05:29   #22
Blue_Esper
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 1,038
Blue_Esper is a glorious beacon of lightBlue_Esper is a glorious beacon of lightBlue_Esper is a glorious beacon of lightBlue_Esper is a glorious beacon of lightBlue_Esper is a glorious beacon of lightBlue_Esper is a glorious beacon of light
Re: Smaller Galaxies

Removing Bp's level the playing field for alliances in the lower third of the top ten who aren't necessarily considered as good choices for Bps. exiling and self exiling are still possible so for those who want to move out of the galaxy can, but with no Bp's i believe there will be more competition for top galaxy because of the wider spread of awesome players.
__________________
Did some stuff, played here n there done just about all there is to do
Blue_Esper is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 17:47.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.1
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2002 - 2018