Next game

[Izzanods]

I don't have all the answers but I know about a lot of the problems that this game is currently facing and in about 10 days, the current round is going to end and while it seemed to bring back some people who left us recently, it means nothing if we don't maintain what it brought back to us.

The first problem in general is that we have a small playerbase. We all know this. When we get 40 people on at once, we all notice and remember the good old times when that number was nice but really normal. Now, it means we have 2 alliances trying to op at the same time. So, with the small number of players that we have, we need a smaller map. Some people will hate this but it's necessary. The smaller map will require smarter playing and more action. Now, a smaller map also means two things in my eyes (a) a reduction in the size of forces per player in a sector. I think 15 would be more than sufficient. (b) planets in racials.

I'm sure some of you are already complaining but look at the facts. This isn't some out of left field idea to change things up. We need the changes because as most of you know, the current way isn't helping. Right now, QR has had level 70 planets for weeks and only 3 times has any alliance been 2-3 sectors in that galaxy all game--why? (1) QR has more active players (2) Mines are killing the game.

So, with the smaller map and the racial planets, we need smaller alliances. Because I suggest 15-20 members, the maximum planet level should be like 50--I'm sure someone who's a lot smarter can figure out the proportional %. That's not my thing.

The answer is NOT more money and more turns. First and foremost--I can easily admit--I'm a crappy player. I can't hunt and I don't understand quite a few things and I've been playing 10 years. However, what I know is that a lot of players have a lot of talent but don't know the game and don't know how to play. I think a smaller game would really help the game in the long run because it would require players to be a lot smarter and quicker with decisions. Since we're not keeping official stats yet, people shouldn't complain about dying over and over. When our players get better, we can help other players get better. Right now, we have like 10 awesome players and they consistently dominate rounds--we need more balance.

You may not agree, you may like something I've suggested but don't post garbage because that's not going to help the game. Be productive and constructive.

[JettJackson]

I'll start off with no racial planets, even with smaller mine stacks its still a bad idea as its bad enough people mine non-racials but if u mine racials u kill the game plain and simple

yes a smaller map is good idea but dont go dumb about it like 8x8 racials or no neutrals, the map can be shrank by shrinking all the gals and removing some of the planet gals that are not needed.

lastly the map needs connectivity, obviously this map doesnt have it and proved why there is no one able to hit qr when they mined the only way in from neutral to neutral

[Bonker]

i agree fully with Izza on this point.. yes it would be nice to have a huge player base and naps and everything goin on but the basic fact is we havnt so we cant keep forcing games on like we have.. and really upting turn rate jus makes things alot more horrible more turns to trade = more money more money = more mines more turns = more mines being layed = dead long boring game cause no 1 has the numbers / activity to bust a largly mined gal let alone a lvl 70... and the raiding side of it is a big part of the game.

1)Small map .. yes ppl will moan but i dont see why. it will provoke more action and make trading more fun and help to develop skill while trading if u dont use scouts / local map then well ure gona get blown away but its no reason to cry dying is part of the learnin curve

2) smaller mines stacks... put mine stacks down to 10 atleast newbies who duno wuts goin on got a chance to survive in a mine feild + it would bring alot more raiding back into the game therfor bringing alot more skill and coordination into the game

3) Smaller alliances .. lets get 4 or 5 main active alliances smashing eachother up at the moment this game has only enough for 2 alliance ..... a dominant alliance and the other 1. and as weve seen as QR have dominated to no fault of theyre own they played the game safe and made the game kinda boring for every 1 else yes but to no fault of theyre own all theyve done is play the game jus like armory did and won comfterbly aswell. but its not the awnser smaller alliances and less mine stacks will make more fun more killing and raiding and keep the traders on theyre toes

4) as for plannets yes they will have to be lowered to what degree i dont know either u maths boys will hafta get ure calulators out heh but how about having plannet gals with like 1 or maybe just 2 plannets in them good for raiding and will with the mine stacks lowered will provoke lots more raiding yes ... alliances will go as far as to mine the crap out of the outer warps n uno's n stuff but if u reduce the mine stacks to 10 maybe 15 and with only 15 players in an alliance so the money income wont be as mutch then its gona make things hard

All in all its a great idea for the game its been brought up before and ignored but i cant see why... it would induce alot more skill to the game alot more teamwork and alot more action as for the newbies of the game it would be alot less mines to worry about a chance for them maybe to raid and it would make them learn how to trade safe or u get poped.. there would be alot more deaths in game but hell u gotta die at the begining to learn to be leet at the end =) awsome idea would help the game atmosphere and activity loads imo

[Blade]

Changes will not be implemented in to classic, it will stay how it is, we can change the map size, but forces, weapons, planets, ships and alliances caps will remain the same.

It will be down to the general population to decrease mining if the map is made smaller, you all have the power to make change.

Classic was given back on the strict understanding that it will not be updated and left to run how it is.

[XDemonX]

Agree.

[adam_phg]

planets in racials is the only one i really liked. if this gets vetoed. put the planets in omar or salzik (the larger neutrals) ... dont make these one way in planet galaxies that encourage stuffing the hole with mines. make a planet galaxy that will force interaction. i have 100k (a rarity for tha playa) right now. why?

• i couldnt find anyone to pod my carapace...
  noone can get past the QR minefield...
  i was never online when the small amount of active players were knocking on our door...

the only problem i see here with this concept is arming routes. with a smaller map, arming routes will be shorter, which will make alliances not need planets (a key point in alliance warfare and ultimately activity). ideas on how to counter a short arming route would be the best idea. as the admin who posted above said, they arent gonna change all that other stuff mentioned, but they can do planets and map size. lets make it work...

[Purify]

I disagree.....

The problems of this game were caused by an inexperienced admin who doesn't know how to make maps. There was little connectivity and too few UNOS /CAs. He tried to recreate a classic design but failed miserably. (400 sector neutrals with 4 UNOs each..... 8 64 sector Planet galaxies..... neutrals only having one connection... the list goes on and on)

Doing all you propose would be disastrous as it would create other imbalances and problems. However a couple of them I would be fine with. Lowering the alliance cap has been tried before but don't see how it could hurt as we only have 3-3.5 alliances this game. Also, a more thoughtful map could be helpful too... smaller or maybe having more than one warp into a planet galaxy....

[JettJackson]

I disagree.....

The problems of this game were caused by an inexperienced admin who doesn't know how to make maps. There was little connectivity and too few UNOS /CAs. He tried to recreate a classic design but failed miserably. (400 sector neutrals with 4 UNOs each..... 8 64 sector Planet galaxies..... neutrals only having one connection... the list goes on and on)

Doing all you propose would be disastrous as it would create other imbalances and problems. However a couple of them I would be fine with. Lowering the alliance cap has been tried before but don't see how it could hurt as we only have 3-3.5 alliances this game. Also, a more thoughtful map could be helpful too... smaller or maybe having more than one warp into a planet galaxy....

i agree with this more, people talk about how this map is too big, take out 4 planet gals, turn the 4 remaining to 6x6 racials to 13x13 and neutrals to 18x18

that drops the number of sectors to 2144 instead of 3176

[Edgecrusher]

I fully agree with Izzy in that he is a crappy player.

[Siege]

I find it funny that some players are so against planets in racials, but they forget ( or maybe they just weren't here ) that it has not only been done, it has been done succesfully. SM started with planets/racials mixed together and had a playerbase a bit bigger then our, and kept that galaxy format in vet/newbie games until there was thousands of active players in a game, it promotes a less competitive style of play in my opinion which isn't necessarily a bad thing.

I agree with Jett though, you could also accomplish this by making planet gals/racials smaller, and adding more warps between neutrals. I am not sure it would be quite as effective but maybe less of a risk.

How hard is it actually (I'm asking I'm not insinuating that it isn't difficult) to cap alliance sizes and force stack sizes? I think 25/25/5 would be the best thing. With alliances of say 20 or 25..not that big of a change, and still use the 1.5 speed. Put more neutral ports in the neutral gals.