Galaxy setups

[on99]

For some time now, i am wondering why we have these big (in number) galaxies in the universe. Galaxies with 14 members with the buddy pack, some late signups and the never-stop-exiling-till-im-there members. You can decribe most of them as hard-core players, being too serious about a game, single dads, students, i don't care how you call them, how you think of them, my point isn't about them, i just have to describe their situation. They also make the game as it is, and eventhough i'm not too serious, even i like to help out someone striving to win.

So, a galaxy with 14 of those "too serious" members, if you have like 3 or 4 of those, somewhere mid-game, where most galaxies are settled, they have the chance to grow at an exponential rate compared to those with less or no activity. After a while, most players aren't able to catch up with these galaxies and the gap keeps getting bigger and bigger. With 14! members and most of them in top alliances, landing on them is nearly impossible. Should we all compliment them or is that just doing of this game's development...?

Please tell me how this development, which is on-going for so many rounds, will help this game from getting ANY better and attract new players or keep those who struggle to be competitive? Don't get me wrong, this is not a rant! For those who know me, i care as much about PA as i care about Rebecca Black's new album.

Bringing down the max alliance number from 80 to 60 was a start to have some more fun between alliances.

Now, i think the PA-staff should rethink about the galaxies, buddy packs, exiles, late signups and all to prevent these "planned" galaxies from existing.

It might be fun...whut?...correct, it might be the only way for some "serious" people to win a game. The system how it is satisfies those abusing it to end up in a huge fortress. How does it ever help PA getting back old players and new players to make it more enjoyable to play??

[eksero]

Originally Posted by on99

It might be fun...whut?...correct, it might be the only way for some "serious" people to win a game. The system how it is satisfies those abusing it to end up in a huge fortress. How does it ever help PA getting back old players and new players to make it more enjoyable to play??

And then you have people like me, who only play cos I can play with my friends in one of these galaxies, and i'm sure i'm not the only one who wouldn't bother signing up if this wasn't possible.

[Plaguuu]

Don't respond to this troll thread people, Rebecca Black unfortunately haven't released a new album yet :,(

[on99]

@eksero, the only reason i sign up is the same, but i don't need them to be in my gal to have some fun, though i'm buddypacked with one of them since i started. The problem to me is that the longer the game last, these forts have a too big advantage over the new and medium-core player base. It is absolutely not unfair that some players wake up 3am to ask for help. That is just their dedication to the game. But if you put all the hard-core players in like 4 or 5 forts, it just ruins the gameplay, WAY too much. Every round again and again, the same people look for each other and the outcome is the same each and every round. That is just great, isn't it?

If for example the numbers of exiling would be limited, the random effect would be much greater and the need for building a galaxy would be much more rewarded. Of course there are inactives, bad players or alt-accounts, idiots and what else... it is just a pity if all of us only sign up if we can get into one of these fortresses...

[eksero]

Originally Posted by on99

@eksero, the only reason i sign up is the same, but i don't need them to be in my gal to have some fun, though i'm buddypacked with one of them since i started. The problem to me is that the longer the game last, these forts have a too big advantage over the new and medium-core player base. It is absolutely not unfair that some players wake up 3am to ask for help. That is just their dedication to the game. But if you put all the hard-core players in like 4 or 5 forts, it just ruins the gameplay, WAY too much. Every round again and again, the same people look for each other and the outcome is the same each and every round. That is just great, isn't it?

If for example the numbers of exiling would be limited, the random effect would be much greater and the need for building a galaxy would be much more rewarded. Of course there are inactives, bad players or alt-accounts, idiots and what else... it is just a pity if all of us only sign up if we can get into one of these fortresses...

Who says there's only hardcore players in these gals?

[on99]

Originally Posted by eksero

Who says there's only hardcore players in these gals?

Notes from the margin....

Constructive replies would be much appreciated.

[eksero]

Originally Posted by on99

Notes from the margin....

Constructive replies would be much appreciated.

Seeing that's the only thing you could come up with, I guess you came to that conclusion yourself

[on99]

Originally Posted by eksero

Seeing that's the only thing you could come up with, I guess you came to that conclusion yourself

Funny that the only thing you had to say is that you like to play with some friends and then started trolling. How mature.

[Mzyxptlk]

Originally Posted by on99

Constructive replies would be much appreciated.

eksero asked a valid question. I assume you resorted to accusations of trolling because you either didn't like or couldn't come up with the answer.

What makes these galaxies is not high activity (what you call 'being hardcore'). If you played in HR with a buddy pack with some random people in it, and you somehow convinced everyone to always be available to send defense, and always get online when called, and somehow everyone in your gal actually did, then you still could not compete with the 3:3s and 7:4s of this world.

Influence and intel makes these gals, not activity and availability.

[Papadoc]

[quote=Mzyxptlk;3224158]eksero asked a valid question. I assume you resorted to accusations of trolling because you either didn't like or couldn't come up with the answer.

What makes these galaxies is not high activity (what you call 'being hardcore'). If you played in HR with a buddy pack with some random people in it, and you somehow convinced everyone to always be available to send defense, and always get online when called, and somehow everyone in your gal actually did, then you still could not compete with the 3:3s and 7:4s of this world.

Influence and intel makes these gals, not activity and availability.[/



With that kind of logic, why do we need galaxies at all? Those same players would be at the top with or without 3:3 or 7:4 right?

Fencing, forting, is all part of the game. Eluding incoming through politics has always been fun. Why should we have to abuse the exile system to do this? Just make it private and random gals again. Cap the private gals at 10 and let the ransoms roll with 15. I think most private gals would take those odds.
Why beat around the bush? A majority of the player base has always and will continue to want to play with people they enjoying playing with.

[RexDrax]

Originally Posted by Mzyxptlk

Influence and intel makes these gals, not activity and availability.

Yep that about does it. They have people in like 4/5 of the top alliances or near the top and as such can get intel pretty quick on anything going on.

They also have "lackeys"/"Friends" in other alliances that escort or leak info to them. The fact that they are active and get a lot of defense, well that's alright and anyone that is active can do that. However they do reserve defense for themselves if they know they have incomings. For instance they tell their friends/alliance-mates to not put ships into mydef so that they dont get used by another member. Is that good or bad, depends on each person I guess.

Dont get me wrong, great players and all, but they do (ab)use their individual alliances for personal gain. If they want to play together that's fine, but if they plan to create a fence galaxy with X number of alliances to keep the incomings to a minimum....yeah well dont expect to get any praise from some people. If they really wanted praise maybe play only in like 2/3 alliances and achieve top gal.

In any case, its not like they will do that. These gals are too used to getting their way and using their influence to protect their galaxies. Nothing will change except for the rest of us to hit them. Too bad there are just too many of them out there for anything to be done so other galaxies can win.

Oh well.

[on99]

Originally Posted by Mzyxptlk

eksero asked a valid question. I assume you resorted to accusations of trolling because you either didn't like or couldn't come up with the answer.

It is an appropiate reaction to an unneccecary observation from someone most like adequate enough to react in a normal way. Maybe trolling wasn't the proper word to use.

And i don't see why we have to argue about the definition of hard-core players. I'm active aswell, though i don't regard myself part of hard-core player base. I totally agree with what you say about the gals you mention and that is one of the issues with the game. And ofcourse, everyone like to be in a rocking gal, i would lie if i say i wouldn't. But how i see it, they are able to combine too much power in too few places. And personally, i don't think that helps this game.

[lokken]

Originally Posted by Mzyxptlk

eksero asked a valid question. I assume you resorted to accusations of trolling because you either didn't like or couldn't come up with the answer.

What makes these galaxies is not high activity (what you call 'being hardcore'). If you played in HR with a buddy pack with some random people in it, and you somehow convinced everyone to always be available to send defense, and always get online when called, and somehow everyone in your gal actually did, then you still could not compete with the 3:3s and 7:4s of this world.

Influence and intel makes these gals, not activity and availability.

If you seriously limit buddypacks, exiles and alliance tag features (eg fleets screen and potentially defence reporting), you will force influential players to rely more on their skills to motivate than their influence. A greater mix forces alliances to hit galaxies with their planets in it to gain roids, and if top players are isolated, they will be forced to play accordingly. All tags should be there for is to calculate score and provide defence eta benefits. Obviously one might argue that this is harsh: ill point out that you have an alliance organisation to protect you.

Eluding incoming through politics is only fun to the point that you are avoiding unnecessary incoming, but ultimately is only half the game. The other half is playing to survive, dominate and win (through war and politics), rather than roid race. Relying on the former is obviously successful, but the more you get of the latter the better. PA should encourage more of it.

[on99]

It is always an effort to create a good galaxy, and i did it so many times with randoms and also with buddypacks. Again, i have no problem with those who put an effort in this game. I also see our HC's, DC's and BC's doing alot of work to run the alliance.

Fact is, the player base is declining, every round we see fewer galaxies. There are fewer target galaxies and the few of them are getting hit too often because they don't have allied planets in it.

The problem isn't early in the game. That is for most of us one of the better times in the game where it is like a free-for-all. They have this late game growing advantage what makes the game go from exciting to boring. Even if you attack these fortresses every day, they still grow faster, even when they aren't attacking.

And last, they don't annoy me. I just think that making blocks, first with alliances and second with strong galaxies makes the game so utterly boring for those around it. It makes new players drop out more easily and the most of the medio-core players to slack later in the game because they don't see why they keep trying...

Just saying, i don't think that only some minor game chances will help improve the gameplay or attract new and old players.

[Shev]

I am. That was about what, 4 alliances attacking, and while it's certainly meant we wont win this round unless something odd happens, we are still second. It's pretty silly that we can remain that close.

[Papadoc]

Originally Posted by Shev

I am. That was about what, 4 alliances attacking, and while it's certainly meant we wont win this round unless something odd happens, we are still second. It's pretty silly that we can remain that close.

Last I heard it was 6 alliances and 7 waves. Not a lot of Landing happened either

[RexDrax]

Originally Posted by BloodyButcher

Its pretty funny, the "vikings" looking(or what ever) atm to end in top3 the 3rd round in a row, and afaik, atm your more or less their spiritual leader or what you could call it.
Do you think these kind of players are making the game less fun with their style of play?
Trying to get back to the topic, On99 thinks this way of playing, or that PA crew encourage this kind of play is killing the game, if thats it, is it a thought you share with him?
And if so.
Would you allow this kind of players in your group?
Not trying to troll, or take cheap shots at you, but knowing earlier what a lot of the ex TGV people thought of de-sizeing the tags and all, amke the game more "competetive", it just amuze me that your post seems to be so supportive to On99s.

The game has been going in this directions, where it dosnt matter if your apart of a big group of players, being a loyal peon, dosnt pay off.
PA started out as "browser-based massively multiplayer online game", when came PaX and 1up/eXi came it changed from a numbers game to a dedication and skill game. 30 rounds or what not ago, atleast being active, and in a good alliance or a lot of pnaps wouldve enabled you to end top100, and very little else tbh.
Today, being in certain gals will enable you to end top10 without any special effort at all. Just look at eksero, he ended up ranked #9 barely doing anything r49.
I guess PA crew better decide wether to have big random gals of 25 planets, allowing ingal attacking, and upping alliance limits to twice the amount of today could make the game interesting again, instead of trying to tweak around with BP size/Tag size, like there is a special ratio to this that is the answer to all the problems.

So many things to reply to...

I read your post a few times and not 100% sure what your asking me. If your asking me will i let those players into vikings, yeah but with clear rules the same way we informed the apps that we took in and we even kicked some for breaking the rules multiple times. Speaking of the 7 4 crew, dav is part of them, but he knows that his galaxy does not come ahead of the alliance and if their galaxy becomes hostile to vikings we would attack them and we have in the past.

I expect members to play for the alliance since the alliance is who defends them, gives them teh chance to get roids and provides the tools for them, ie call bot, sms, etc. If any member is playing for their galaxy then they can leave and rely on their galaxy. Not saying that is not possible.

Originally Posted by Shev

Who does, exactly? I'm not saying it doesn't happen at all but it certainly doesn't happen anywhere near as much as you think it does. If it's as obvious as you say then you'll have plenty of specific examples though.

It doesnt happen often but occasionally. Not going to mention names since it will be a he-said-she-said kinda scenario. Rumor also has it that in some cases HC/Officer abused their position by sending fake defense to a member of their alliance when they had incoming from these top gals. I dont have anything concrete just rumors I have heard in the last 3 rounds. Remember I just have rumor and nothing concrete and I am not accusing anyone.

Originally Posted by Shev

If you look through the names in most of the top galaxies, you'll find that most of the players in them have "achieved" top galaxy finishes in the past in far less fenced galaxies. As much as you don't like to hear it, large groups of good players tend to rise to the top or close however their galaxy sets up.

Oh no doubt, I did say they are skilled great players, no doubt about that. But constantly hearing the same crap and them asking why we are hitting them or that we shouldnt etc.... well come on, those gals are fenced, got a nice roid count and we have no choice but to bring our friends, enemies, dogs, cats and pet guinea pig in order to get roids. Those gals build nice fences, as such a huge undertaking has to occur in order to land on them.

Originally Posted by Shev

This is pretty much the problem. The galaxies are so big that you need an absurd amount of people to take them down with their intelligence and influence. You can do it to one, but then another one wins, like this round.

Yep, which sucks but there is only so much we can do

Originally Posted by Shev

I am. That was about what, 4 alliances attacking, and while it's certainly meant we wont win this round unless something odd happens, we are still second. It's pretty silly that we can remain that close.

HAHA
Well how else are we supposed to get through on that gal.

Originally Posted by Papadoc

Last I heard it was 6 alliances and 7 waves. Not a lot of Landing happened either

Not sure what your refering to but every time we have hit 7 4 we have landed some. Not sure how many waves but I would wager at least 1/3 if not 1/2.

[Mzyxptlk]

Originally Posted by RexDrax

dav is part of them, but he knows that his galaxy does not come ahead of the alliance and if their galaxy becomes hostile to vikings we would attack them and we have in the past..

I heard Dav was in Ultores. I bet he's just spying on you. Do something! Also, tell him hi from me. <3

Originally Posted by RexDrax

HAHA
Well how else are we supposed to get through on that gal.

He was saying it's silly that we've now regularly got a situation in which you require 4 alliances to roid a single galaxy, not that you were silly for roiding 7:4 with 4 alliances.

[Zotnam]

Originally Posted by Shev

I am. That was about what, 4 alliances attacking, and while it's certainly meant we wont win this round unless something odd happens, we are still second. It's pretty silly that we can remain that close.

Some people seem to think it's fair that they get to play with 10+ friends of their choosing every round. It isn't. That sort of thing should be impossible, but it's been going on for 10+ rounds and it's honestly not that hard to do. So this isn't a new thing at all, and it's not something that's been talked openly about until this round because my galaxy is also doing it and I actually dare tell people how easy and unfair it is.

There will always be galaxies that are better than others. Right now it's just too easy to make those galaxies that are better, and after 150 ticks you can pretty much say "ok these galaxies will be top5". The game needs to be more dynamic than that.

No normal galaxy can compete with one where a whole alliance grounds for two planets in a certain galaxy having incoming, especially not when the grounded alliances is also sending defense to planets in the same galaxy in other alliances.. I've never seen power abuse on a level even close to this round, and eventually it did piss enough people off to do something about it.

All the while, the people in the same galaxy claims to "not care" and "not play active", yet PM every single alliance HC "why are you attacking us and not x:X wah wah so unfair" and stay up all night leeching def from their respective alliances. That's without even starting on attacking out of alliance raids, attacking while grounded or farming a planet that later turns into an escort bot for the same galaxy.

It used to be that you had a fair amount of give and take, I def you, you def me. But when a galaxy has perfected the art of just taking, nobody else can come close to them.

I know you as a good guy Shev, with a good head for pa and we've played/fought well together in the past. Do you honestly think things are currently fair?

[eksero]

Originally Posted by Zotnam

Some people seem to think it's fair that they get to play with 10+ friends of their choosing every round. It isn't. That sort of thing should be impossible, but it's been going on for 10+ rounds and it's honestly not that hard to do. So this isn't a new thing at all, and it's not something that's been talked openly about until this round because my galaxy is also doing it and I actually dare tell people how easy and unfair it is.

There will always be galaxies that are better than others. Right now it's just too easy to make those galaxies that are better, and after 150 ticks you can pretty much say "ok these galaxies will be top5". The game needs to be more dynamic than that.

No normal galaxy can compete with one where a whole alliance grounds for two planets in a certain galaxy having incoming, especially not when the grounded alliances is also sending defense to planets in the same galaxy in other alliances.. I've never seen power abuse on a level even close to this round, and eventually it did piss enough people off to do something about it.

All the while, the people in the same galaxy claims to "not care" and "not play active", yet PM every single alliance HC "why are you attacking us and not x:X wah wah so unfair" and stay up all night leeching def from their respective alliances. That's without even starting on attacking out of alliance raids, attacking while grounded or farming a planet that later turns into an escort bot for the same galaxy.

It used to be that you had a fair amount of give and take, I def you, you def me. But when a galaxy has perfected the art of just taking, nobody else can come close to them.

I know you as a good guy Shev, with a good head for pa and we've played/fought well together in the past. Do you honestly think things are currently fair?

Now now, that's a lot of trashtalking coming from a guy who leaks ND's targets and LT's to Ult in order to stay clear of incomings

[Zotnam]

Originally Posted by eksero

Now now, that's a lot of trashtalking coming from a guy who leaks ND's targets and LT's to Ult in order to stay clear of incomings

I can see 7:4 gets really bitter when people tell some truths about them and how they play. With this currently system I could personally benefit from doing what I've done this round with my galaxy, effectively making a super galaxy every round. I just don't see why it should even be possible. I would welcome more equal galaxies, even if it means my own will be weaker.

It's not about "saving" PA, heck it isn't even about making the game "fair". With the amount of effort some people are putting in they will rise to the top in smaller galaxies too. They just don't pull 5 friends with them who do nothing all round.

[eksero]

Originally Posted by Zotnam

I can see 7:4 gets really bitter when people tell some truths about them and how they play. With this currently system I could personally benefit from doing what I've done this round with my galaxy, effectively making a super galaxy every round. I just don't see why it should even be possible. I would welcome more equal galaxies, even if it means my own will be weaker.

It's not about "saving" PA, heck it isn't even about making the game "fair". With the amount of effort some people are putting in they will rise to the top in smaller galaxies too. They just don't pull 5 friends with them who do nothing all round.

What do I have to be bitter about?

We aren't doing anything that others can't do with the current galaxy setups, they just choose not to. I just fail to see why we shouldn't be able to play together just because others who choose a different way of playing feels it is 'unfair'.

[Shev]

Originally Posted by Zotnam

Some people seem to think it's fair that they get to play with 10+ friends of their choosing every round. It isn't. That sort of thing should be impossible, but it's been going on for 10+ rounds and it's honestly not that hard to do. So this isn't a new thing at all, and it's not something that's been talked openly about until this round because my galaxy is also doing it and I actually dare tell people how easy and unfair it is.

There will always be galaxies that are better than others. Right now it's just too easy to make those galaxies that are better, and after 150 ticks you can pretty much say "ok these galaxies will be top5". The game needs to be more dynamic than that.

No normal galaxy can compete with one where a whole alliance grounds for two planets in a certain galaxy having incoming, especially not when the grounded alliances is also sending defense to planets in the same galaxy in other alliances.. I've never seen power abuse on a level even close to this round, and eventually it did piss enough people off to do something about it.

All the while, the people in the same galaxy claims to "not care" and "not play active", yet PM every single alliance HC "why are you attacking us and not x:X wah wah so unfair" and stay up all night leeching def from their respective alliances. That's without even starting on attacking out of alliance raids, attacking while grounded or farming a planet that later turns into an escort bot for the same galaxy.

It used to be that you had a fair amount of give and take, I def you, you def me. But when a galaxy has perfected the art of just taking, nobody else can come close to them.

I know you as a good guy Shev, with a good head for pa and we've played/fought well together in the past. Do you honestly think things are currently fair?

I'm not sure what you smoked this morning, but try reading my posts again. Oh, and you obviously feel very self congratulatory about "speaking out" but you're certainly not the first to do so.

[Mzyxptlk]

http://knowitall.cthq.net/graph-uni.php?large=true

[BloodyButcher]

Again people is comming with good suggestion how to randomize/balance out gals. I think its impossibole atm.
Keep the current gal setup, only remove the late sign option.

What we can do is increase tag size to 120 members, this will decrease the amout of influencal people trying to turn this game in the direction where they can suceed all the time.
With bigger tags the amout of influence a normal "peon" will have is brought to a minimum.

[Forest]

eksero, I dont think anyone is saying what you are doing is unfair, everyone has the same opportunity.

I think the issue is, certainly from my point of view, that in a game with such small numbers, its not sustainable to play like that, and as pointed out, when gals like this play for the gal instead of the alliance, even using the alliances as fodder to defend them or other alliances in the gal, it ruins it.

and i think you know that.

I think the problem with pa is, too many influential people play with the 'we play for our enjoyment, not yours' mantra. That is fine when there are 30k planets, but with only 600, we lose players round on round.

hell, I am in an alliance that told people they werent allowed to defend a certain alliance. Members ignored that and got kicked for it and i actually got accused of 'ruining my and my galaxies round'. as if we exist just to support the said galaxy

[Appocomaster]

I'm happy to admit that the buddy pack / galaxy / exile system needs looking at.

However, firstly, having skimmed this thread, I must say that a lot of the "suggestions" have already been discussed and discarded due to fundamental flaws - e.g. capping galaxies means that new planets and exiles end up in new galaxies and get farmed to pieces, and then people quit.

Whilst in theory, everyone wants small galaxies, etc etc, everyone also wants active galaxies, and if they're not in an active galaxy, they either exile people who aren't "active enough" and keep exiling until they get more, or they just self exile constantly until they find a galaxy they are happy enough with, and leave almost "dead" galaxies of semi-actives to be farmed. I've seen players quit because they didn't exile into a "good" enough galaxy. Late joiners are useful, as it allows for some of these planets to be 'saved'.

A few points on the private/random split:
-Due to the fact that private galaxy planets are generally more active than randoms, 10/15 is too little of a divide for a private/random setup.
-Due to the fact that, even 15 can be abused due to the exile system, 10/15 is also potentially too big of a divide. This fundamentally flaws this setup
-Previous rounds using private/ random didn't cap random, so eventually private galaxies disbanded, causing big random galaxies which dominated the round
-I know that many people actually enjoyed the big (20+) planet galaxies as lots of people were met / new friendships formed, so from a social view i think it worked.

On a "just cap all galaxy sizes":
-This doesn't work due to the aforementioned point about how you handle new signups / exiles and how they all end up dumped in inactive galaxies
-Also, you limit the amount of movement between galaxies (assuming that people want to exile) - you can't exile into a new place if no slots exist.

I think a few key points need to be supported in a new system:

1) it must allow galaxy sizes to be around 1/4 - 1/5 of the size of an alliance (for targets / claiming / etc).

2) it must handle very inactive people / new inactive signups (but still allow for e.g. covert ops planets) - something like the current auto exile/ wanted system

3) it must allow for some system to give a limited number of people quicker ETA to defend your planet

4) it must definitely allow for new players / new signups to fit in and not be penalised too heavily for not knowing anyone; this may mean that planets included in "galaxy" groups that are in the bottom 20-30% of the game do not get included in any counts until they pass that threshold or something?

Edit:
I don't think that we should force galaxy-style setups to be part of an alliance (as by default that means small planets will get excluded). I don't mind the fact that sometimes there may be conflicting setups between galaxies and alliances - I think if a whole alliance is grounding their fleets to save one galaxy, that's very much an alliance issue and the planet should be deciding if they are willing to do that for their alliance or find a new one.


Edit #2:
yes "lol new player support why we need that??!???!??!?" but once I'm personally happy with the galaxy system (and maybe some more around manual/intro stuff), I would be more happy to try and get support to get new planets into planetarion (e.g. through begging for Jagex mail shots).

I still can't honestly say I'd be happy trying to get mail shots done atm (and Jagex aren't looking to focus their resources outside of a few key projects, as I mentioned some time ago)

[Bashar]

Originally Posted by Appocomaster

I'm happy to admit that the buddy pack / galaxy / exile system needs looking at.

Good start.

However, firstly, having skimmed this thread, I must say that a lot of the "suggestions" have already been discussed and discarded due to fundamental flaws - e.g. capping galaxies means that new planets and exiles end up in new galaxies and get farmed to pieces, and then people quit.

The most enjoyable galaxy I was ever in was my first one, which was one of those where people supposedly quit. I am sure some do, but the root problem with PA is the attitude of both the community and PA-Team over the last decade. By having an attitude of "let's make it easy for new players", you (collectively) have largely killed the game. Crap like startup bonuses, overly cheap exile systems to let people bounce around until they get into a good galaxy, ridiculously large upgrade bonuses, game features that largely play the game for you and quests that give fairly high boosts with little tangible benefits to the community. All of these things have contributed to a game where anybody can make a decent planet with minimal effort and difficulty (look at Wishmaster last round, he freely admits he was only properly active for about a week). Whilst these features were put in with laudable aims (i.e. helping new players to get involved and join the community), the game's own charity is killing it. By making it so easy, there is no sense of achievement any more, it is like the UK welfare system, it has created a sense of entitlement to success within the community and those who work their bollocks off and try to achieve something good can look at their next-door neighbour and see they didn't bother and still achieved the same. When this is the case, why bother? You don't have to play the game any more, you are protected from the setbacks which just means that the successes and small victories against the evil goliaths no longer have meaning.

A few points on the private/random split:
-Due to the fact that private galaxy planets are generally more active than randoms, 10/15 is too little of a divide for a private/random setup.

Worked OK at that before, but it can easily be tweaked.

-Due to the fact that, even 15 can be abused due to the exile system, 10/15 is also potentially too big of a divide. This fundamentally flaws this setup

No, this means that the exile system is fundamentally flawed. You need to fix the problems not the symptoms.

-Previous rounds using private/ random didn't cap random, so eventually private galaxies disbanded, causing big random galaxies which dominated the round

So do it the old way (which worked) and cap all galaxies (with whatever appropriate split there is) and give private galaxies an option of "accept/deny new signups" and only increase galaxy sizes as new planets signup, iterate through the galaxies that accept new signups and add them to those galaxies, increasing that galaxies maximum to match the galaxy size with the new signup. It's not hard.

-I know that many people actually enjoyed the big (20+) planet galaxies as lots of people were met / new friendships formed, so from a social view i think it worked.

Yeah, with 30k players.

On a "just cap all galaxy sizes":
-This doesn't work due to the aforementioned point about how you handle new signups / exiles and how they all end up dumped in inactive galaxies
-Also, you limit the amount of movement between galaxies (assuming that people want to exile) - you can't exile into a new place if no slots exist.

If you wanted, you could just make all the ranks on the universe page and dumps say #1, that way everybody could have what they want.

Alternatively, you could just accept that at times this game is supposed to be tough, it's a war game not the teddy bear's picnic! People have to lose, otherwise nobody can win, that means some rounds people get a shit deal, that just means that they have to do better next time and will come back determined to improve.

1) it must allow galaxy sizes to be around 1/4 - 1/5 of the size of an alliance (for targets / claiming / etc).

Rubbish - where the hell did this arbitrary number come from? Don't try to dictate how alliances play the game, let us sort ourselves out, stop trying to make the game play itself for us. Make galaxies 1/10 the size of alliances and alliances aren't going to collapse, we can cope with attacking multiple targets you know! Smaller galaxies allow the game to be far more dynamic.

2) it must handle very inactive people / new inactive signups (but still allow for e.g. covert ops planets) - something like the current auto exile/ wanted system

Make it less worthwhile to exile people and harder to exile yourself round and round until you reach the top galaxies. This reduces both the push and pull factors (i.e. it addresses the problems rather than just the symptoms).

3) it must allow for some system to give a limited number of people quicker ETA to defend your planet

Oh how I miss clusters and the dynamics of cluster politics alongside alliance politics. That really used to draw people together and make the game interesting. Just think, with smaller galaxies, this could be brought back. [/sidepoint]


Basically, you REALLY need to stop the trend of making the game easy for new players out of a mistaken belief that is better. It always used to be a hard game and it grew like no other game had before. Look what's happened now, it's been ruined and all sense of achievement at small successes has been replaced with a sense of entitlement to large successes. Yes, some new players will find it tough and leave, but right now most find it to be shit and leave. I know which game I'd rather play. I don't play a war game to get easy wins all the time. Stop enabling "God Mode" for every planet and let people actually fight hard and get that great sense of achievement for that elusive victory!

[Forest]

You need to make the exile system work but not abusable.

Something like:
*Only three exiles, first one costs same as now, second one is 500% more than now and third one is 500% more than the second one (meaning its just too expensive to abuse).
*Exiles score only counts 20% to gal score (meaning less use to have them score wise).
*Late sign ups only count 10% of score if in top 5 alliance, 20% in top 10, 30% in top 15 etc etc

I would also like to see coded something linked to ingame alliances, such as, if one alliance (say ult) send more than 30% of their fleets at another (say ND), then ND are not only hard-coded not to be able to defend but also attacks ingal are allowed (this would need a LOT of discussion, I can see so many abuses but something like that could be discussed I guess)

[lokken]

PA team should always operate on the idea that alliance players are cynical bastards, because that's exactly what they are. I see no reason why two or three good quality players in a buddy pack, with a collection of randoms or maybe another buddy pack can't make something of it, particularly in a smaller universe like this one. If these players complain or disagree, then I'm not sure they are being honest about it.

If you want to make the game more interesting, you have to spread the quality of the galaxies in these top 5 fortresses around. Also, we have talked a lot about game mechanics, but I think the alliance leaders deserve quite a bit of criticism, even if it is "the nature of things". As Forest said, I'm surprised that rank and file members put up with it, alongside other HC who aren't involved in the practice (if any exist).

[BloodyButcher]

Originally Posted by lokken

PA team should always operate on the idea that alliance players are cynical bastards, because that's exactly what they are. I see no reason why two or three good quality players in a buddy pack, with a collection of randoms or maybe another buddy pack can't make something of it, particularly in a smaller universe like this one. If these players complain or disagree, then I'm not sure they are being honest about it.

If you want to make the game more interesting, you have to spread the quality of the galaxies in these top 5 fortresses around. Also, we have talked a lot about game mechanics, but I think the alliance leaders deserve quite a bit of criticism, even if it is "the nature of things". As Forest said, I'm surprised that rank and file members put up with it, alongside other HC who aren't involved in the practice (if any exist).

After it became posibole for every active cynical bastard to run a alliance wich could tip the scale in any round on what alliance wins or not PA was realy in theory dead.
We need bigger alliances, 60 tag limit is waaaaaay to little. This is a major part of the problem, if not the only.
Bigger allies need stronger leadership, and it requires more of the HCs to just avoid civil war. There will be no room for the "all about me" HCs in big gals.

[Nightwolf]

Originally Posted by BloodyButcher

After it became posibole for every active cynical bastard to run a alliance wich could tip the scale in any round on what alliance wins or not PA was realy in theory dead.
We need bigger alliances, 60 tag limit is waaaaaay to little. This is a major part of the problem, if not the only.
Bigger allies need stronger leadership, and it requires more of the HCs to just avoid civil war. There will be no room for the "all about me" HCs in big gals.

You do understand everybody is ignoring your suggestion of bigger this and bigger that for a reason?

[BloodyButcher]

Originally Posted by Nightwolf

You do understand everybody is ignoring your suggestion of bigger this and bigger that for a reason?

Cus they are clueless.
They dont know what this game needs, and theyve been doing their best to try ruining this game for everyone else but themself.

[Plaguuu]

To exile into a specific gal u often have to do a shitload of exiles(30+). Give planets a max of 10 selfexiles(the cost system is fine) and a extra exile every 100 ticks. And give gals like 10 planet exiles and 1 extra every 100 ticks.

And make it so that top 10 gals(perhaps in size) get less latestarters(or none) compared to the other gals.

I myself don't have much against the best gals clearly doing the best. But I think it might be bad for the game.

[budious]

No more galaxies, just lump all planets by alliances into clusters. This will eliminate the overhead of having to separate the two.

[Forest]

I don't think more ideas, or new ideas, will make one jot of difference.

At the end of the day, its the community that made this game great and it is the community that has destroyed it.

The game itself was never that interesting, without IRC it would have never taken off like it has for so long

[Monroe]

Ability to actually destroy someone's fleet would be awesome! It's the single biggest problem with combat in this game... There is no good way to significantly reduce enemy value, so the entire game degenerates into a roid race.

[Bashar]

Originally Posted by Monroe

Ability to actually destroy someone's fleet would be awesome! It's the single biggest problem with combat in this game... There is no good way to significantly reduce enemy value, so the entire game degenerates into a roid race.

That's true. The ship stats are frankly bizarre. I can't quite work out what the aim is with them, but it certainly seems to be attempting to achieve balance by putting a massive hole in everybody's fleets and making it so that everybody knows exactly who they can hit purely by race alone. Most of the round I didn't even need scans - without defence I could roid nearly every terran in the game, and I was a scanner and rarely t400 for value. What's that about?!?! It's as though someone has read "ship stats for dummies" and not finished reading it.:

Chapter 1: Providing 2 attacking classes per race.
Chapter 2: Providing a weakness in every race.
Chapter 3: Ensuing each race's weakness is targeted by another's strength.
Chapter 4: Ensuring each race's strength has another race's weakness to target.

Unfortunately they stopped reading there so they missed "Chapter 5: Achieving these through subtleties and providing dynamic options" and all the rest of the book that actually explained how to do it. Consequently we're left with the stats equivalent of The Da Vinci Code - at first glance it looks entertaining and intriguing, but once you start reading properly, you realise that it's one of the worst written pieces out there; you spend the whole time reading it grimacing about the crap literary quality and the tendency to tell you everything that has, will and is happening without you being able to do a damn thing about it because, despite what you thought when you picked it up, it's got huge holes and there is cock all you can do about it.

I really should stop ranting tonight.

[eksero]

Originally Posted by Monroe

Ability to actually destroy someone's fleet would be awesome! It's the single biggest problem with combat in this game... There is no good way to significantly reduce enemy value, so the entire game degenerates into a roid race.

I still don't get why SK'ing people is frowned upon and the above is not

[Bashar]

Originally Posted by eksero

I still don't get why SK'ing people is frowned upon and the above is not

SKs shouldn't be frowned upon, it's part of the game. Some people just need to dry their eyes and grow some balls.

[BloodyButcher]

Originally Posted by Bashar

SKs shouldn't be frowned upon, it's part of the game. Some people just need to dry their eyes and grow some balls.

SK isnt frowned upon, the rounds where there actualy is something going on, like a contest for top alliance, or a real war, SKing is being used as often as possibole.
Though these days its more important for certain allies to being smooth with everyone else, like they are walking on broken glass. Welcome to NAPtarion

[fortran]

Originally Posted by Monroe

Ability to actually destroy someone's fleet would be awesome! It's the single biggest problem with combat in this game... There is no good way to significantly reduce enemy value, so the entire game degenerates into a roid race.

Being difficult to destroy ships with the "Hide and Run" feature helps in extending the round and in people not abandoning it too early(as many do after a crash).

[Monroe]

Originally Posted by fortran

Being difficult to destroy ships with the "Hide and Run" feature helps in extending the round and in people not abandoning it too early(as many do after a crash).

Did you not read Bashar's post? Run and hide actually makes the game easier, not harder.We need things to make the game harder not easier. I don't object to run and hide per say, but it would really be nice if there were more effective ways to fleet catch people. Maybe less defensive salvage would be good, making it more costly to defend, I dunno. But the simple fact is it is very RARE for someone to loose a fleet these days, making the game very one dimensional.

[Benneh]

Originally Posted by Monroe

Did you not read Bashar's post? Run and hide actually makes the game easier, not harder.We need things to make the game harder not easier. I don't object to run and hide per say, but it would really be nice if there were more effective ways to fleet catch people. Maybe less defensive salvage would be good, making it more costly to defend, I dunno. But the simple fact is it is very RARE for someone to loose a fleet these days, making the game very one dimensional.

LEss defensive salvage?

Please tell me you're kidding, its bad enough as it is. Morons who "dont care" can crash stupid things just to screw you over. You're punished enough by salvage as it is in the t20 you can barely afford to land decent defences.

[BloodyButcher]

Originally Posted by fortran

Being difficult to destroy ships with the "Hide and Run" feature helps in extending the round and in people not abandoning it too early(as many do after a crash).

Clearly if you were to remove the "hide and run" feature, you would have to adjust the stats to suit this better.

[lokken]

There is only one way to really help newbies: spread the good players around and force them to work with newer and weaker players to survive. This in turn puts top players in positions of weakness, which means the game at the top is more dynamic.

So in that way I agree, planetarion has to be difficult to be good. In fact it probably has to be difficult to work properly, so players can't just game the mechanics and win: they need initiative and effort to do so.

[Mzyxptlk]

Personally, I think it should be very hard to gain a lot of value through salvage. That said, the current salvage rates are quite punishing, and if anything, it might be good if they went up a little.

[Benneh]

Originally Posted by Mzyxptlk

Personally, I think it should be very hard to gain a lot of value through salvage. That said, the current salvage rates are quite punishing, and if anything, it might be good if they went up a little.

I dont think you should be gaining but you should be breaking even...

[Mzyxptlk]

Well, that's kind of a problem in a game like PA. In Starcraft (which was one of the main inspirations for PA), if you lose 60% of what your opponent is losing, generally speaking, you're way ahead. In PA, you have multiple opponents. Even if you lose only 30% of what one of your opponents is losing, you're way behind, because there's another opponent who lost nothing.

This is one of the main causes behind the current (though by no means new) climate of PA, wherein going to war almost always hurts you. This round has been one of the few in which wars somewhat paid off, because even if the 2 top alliances lost 20m score each, they would still be ahead of the number 3. And even this round, we see TGV creeping up on us. If Faceless and fANG had been bigger, ND and Ultores would not have been able to fight it out for as long as we did.

To counter this type of NAP culture, you want war to be a profitable affair. A chance to gain a lot of roids or salvage encourages alliances to fight, rather than out-farm, each other.

High salvage encourages war (which we want), but if it's easy to break even, it can't be hard to gain a lot of value either. This opens all kinds of avenues for cheating. It's no coincidence that we see almost no accusations of ship farming at round end any more; it's just not that feasible.

The only real solution to the above problem that I can think of is a hard cap. This makes it impossible to gain much fleet value through salvage. If you implement that, you can do anything you like with salvage rates, it won't cause cheating.

Quite frankly, I haven't played a non-EMP planet since r35 or so, so I don't know exactly how salvage is calculated nowadays. It's possible the salvage cap solution has already been implemented. If so, I see no reason to refrain from raising salvage by 5% or so.

[on99]

How about we change the exponential increasing mining incoming to some sort of exponential decay. Make it more worth attacking simillar sized planets rather than roid farming small flies.

That should also solve the 2k roid count late signup in a fortress who even ends bigger than most players who put more effort in it.