While I agree that the small size of planet gals and the low number of total planets is the main reason for not bonding (at least for us), I think the presence of the super routes each alliance built was also a big factor. When you can bring in 100+ a day with only a few traders, you don't need to risk a bond.JettJackson wrote:I will speak of my alliance and say we didn't bond.Infinity wrote:All reasonable comments so far
Thank you for the bar in the p-gals, and it's not booze, but gambling that I miss in between builds during weekends
My main objection is that everything is symmetrical, or identical, esp the planet galaxies layout and the even distances between planet galaxies warps and CA / Uno. Just as it was this round. Suggestion is to add some diversity, in regards of choosing the planet galaxy. One or more of these:: random walls in planet galaxies, random CA / Uno positions in neutrals, random neutral - planet galaxy warp distribution in one and/or both galaxies, various port races (levels should tho be same in all planet galaxies, or all level 9 ports if you really wanna make it fun) in one and /or both galaxies... there is likely moreSome randomness is fun, cause not every part of the galaxy is the same
Knowing you, you will pick one of these, but trust me, should be two
![]()
Second thing, yet again, planet galaxies could be a bit bigger with more planets. I don't know if Jester had the guts to bond this round, likely, knowing him, but three (or, oh, wait, FOUR, on this map) planets is very few. Yes it costs, but it also brings more strategy into the whole alliance warfare thingy (I see three alliances are in planby the design of the map). Where to land, where to bond, to bond at all, etc.
That is all
K.
Jouldax - Triforce
Re: Jouldax - Triforce
I+N+C+O+G+N+I+T+O=Not you
I took a calculated risk. Unfortunately, I am bad at math.
I took a calculated risk. Unfortunately, I am bad at math.
Re: Jouldax - Triforce
I'd be very interested to hear more feedback on Kinky's thoughts. I received a lot of pushback when I offered to place more than 4 planets because it made successful busting of a lander less likely. Now, with lower distances between p-gals, I am hoping more busting will occur, so maybe I can incent bonding by increasing the galaxy size and number of planets, but I'd like to hear your opinions.
Kinks - the reason it's symmetrical is that sadly we just don't have enough activity that, if I were to create strategic advantages beyond port races and distances to specific feds, whichever alliance grabbed those advantages would likely carry them through the rest of the round. The Unos and CAs were placed simply to increase the amount of PBs by lowering the turns required to carry out an op. I would love to build a less conventional map but I just don't see now as the time to try for one. Let's see what happens when smr v2 rolls around. Also, symmetrical maps are pretty
.
Kinks - the reason it's symmetrical is that sadly we just don't have enough activity that, if I were to create strategic advantages beyond port races and distances to specific feds, whichever alliance grabbed those advantages would likely carry them through the rest of the round. The Unos and CAs were placed simply to increase the amount of PBs by lowering the turns required to carry out an op. I would love to build a less conventional map but I just don't see now as the time to try for one. Let's see what happens when smr v2 rolls around. Also, symmetrical maps are pretty
![Razz :P](./images/smilies/icon_razz.gif)