|
9 Dec 2012, 11:57
|
#1
|
Registered User
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 113
|
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.
|
|
|
9 Dec 2012, 12:04
|
#2
|
mz.
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 8,587
|
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.
|
|
|
9 Dec 2012, 12:08
|
#3
|
ToF
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: England
Posts: 607
|
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]
|
|
|
9 Dec 2012, 12:18
|
#4
|
Mind-boggling
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Devon, England
Posts: 1,468
|
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.
|
|
|
9 Dec 2012, 12:53
|
#5
|
Registered User
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 477
|
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
|
|
|
9 Dec 2012, 13:21
|
#6
|
Fightin-irish for life
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: guinness brewery
Posts: 2,177
|
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
|
|
|
9 Dec 2012, 16:04
|
#7
|
General (Adjective Army)
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Yorkshire, England.
Posts: 825
|
Re: Smaller Galaxies
Quote:
Originally Posted by gzambo
.....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
|
|
|
9 Dec 2012, 22:09
|
#8
|
Registered User
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 113
|
Re: Smaller Galaxies
Quote:
Originally Posted by CBA
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.
|
|
|
10 Dec 2012, 02:08
|
#9
|
Propaganda Chief
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Under the Rainbow
Posts: 4,740
|
Re: Smaller Galaxies
Quote:
Originally Posted by Plaguuu
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
|
|
|
10 Dec 2012, 02:21
|
#10
|
Registered User
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 846
|
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
|
|
|
10 Dec 2012, 03:55
|
#11
|
Registered User
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 957
|
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.
|
|
|
10 Dec 2012, 12:29
|
#12
|
Finally retired
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 788
|
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
|
|
|
10 Dec 2012, 12:59
|
#13
|
Registered User
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 113
|
Re: Smaller Galaxies
Quote:
Originally Posted by Influence
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.
|
|
|
10 Dec 2012, 14:21
|
#14
|
ToF
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: England
Posts: 607
|
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]
|
|
|
10 Dec 2012, 14:43
|
#15
|
Registered User
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 113
|
Re: Smaller Galaxies
Quote:
Originally Posted by Reincarnate
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.
|
|
|
10 Dec 2012, 20:51
|
#16
|
ToF
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: England
Posts: 607
|
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]
|
|
|
11 Dec 2012, 14:44
|
#17
|
Registered User
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 1,038
|
Re: Smaller Galaxies
no bps.
__________________
Did some stuff, played here n there done just about all there is to do
|
|
|
11 Dec 2012, 18:33
|
#18
|
Registered User
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 113
|
Re: Smaller Galaxies
Quote:
Originally Posted by Reincarnate
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.
|
|
|
11 Dec 2012, 18:52
|
#19
|
Old Skool
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Copenhagen, Denmark
Posts: 278
|
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
|
|
|
11 Dec 2012, 20:01
|
#20
|
Registered User
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 477
|
Re: Smaller Galaxies
a game that everyone would quit after 1 round
|
|
|
11 Dec 2012, 21:47
|
#21
|
Just Awesome
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 165
|
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.
:-)
|
|
|
12 Dec 2012, 05:29
|
#22
|
Registered User
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 1,038
|
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
|
|
|
|
All times are GMT +1. The time now is 04:06.
| |