Eship by family

#1

Munder posted an idea in MW 70. To pull from that a little and add a little extra I have the following idea.

Eships are based on families only.

6 player family
8 ships a day
48 total available.

Just like you suggested, we can do it like defense station, everyone can fund the area and make the ships, however only the leader can distribute them to players.

So say after a day your family has all 48 ships.

They can have 1 player send them all.

This would change how estage works, AND add a flare for new ways to do things. Races wouldn’t need specific ops, ect.

So it can fix an issue we currently have, plus add a little spice.

Yeah it can have some flaws, but I think the reward is much better than the risk.–

If you like this idea and want to see it happen, please vote for it via the “Vote” button in the top left of this page.

0 Likes

MW 70 suggestion
#2

Here is a link to Munders original post, not to take his thunder.

0 Likes

#3

This is a bad idea.

Someone being able to deny another player the ability to even build eships just because they don’t like them/the/the way they play/don’t think they’re active enough, or even just have a disagreement is not something the game should encourage. It will be abused.

0 Likes

#4

That person could always pick a new leader?
It gives a leader some actual responsibility.

I see you have an issue because you believe SS are a valid option in team based gal, however the leader if keeping a SS could hand out the eships just the same to that person.

A new idea, or an update on this one is also welcome if you have a better idea on how to fix this issue.

0 Likes

#5

One person can’t pick a new leader…

A leader could hand out eships fairly. Or, y’know, they might not. Human nature makes me inclined to think the latter.

And SS is a valid option in a team based gal. As are small attacker/banker teams. Many people have played top tier accounts as SS and the owner of the game himself has said playing SS is perfectly fine

Family bank systems weren’t even around for the first dozens of rounds and they were never meant to be the only play style, and there certainly should never be ideas implemented to allow people to force others to play their way.

Just because the player base has slowly transitioned into believing the idea that fam bank is the only way to play doesn’t make it true. Most people can’t even run a family bank system well.

0 Likes

#6

He doesn’t play MW, which I’m inclined to assume doesn’t understand the dynamics of what happens when an SS is in your family of the size we currently have.

I also didn’t mention family bank at all…

And you sadly didn’t post another idea to piggyback this, which is disappointing as it does need a resolution.

0 Likes

#7

I tend to lean towards @Bit this could cause some leaders to just give them to the people who are playing with the family bank. Or if say you got a new player that doesn’t know the game and is not building defenses they could get black balled. Interesting idea tho.

Not sure if it could be put in the game but say your in a family that has 4 players and fam sizes are 6 since make it to were those 4 players can build an extra 4 ships daily to be able to have the same amount of expos as families with 6 players. This idea probably been put out there but just something to think about

0 Likes

#8

That was indeed Munders original Raw idea :wink:

1 Like

#9

I agree that giving leader the power to distribute them is bad.
But if it’s automated and maybe distributes them evenly… That could maybe work

0 Likes

#10

Well if only thing u really want is the ability to expo same amount of eships…then only change it to where the leader can build the extra ships…

0 Likes

#11

And be nice if you can program a real bank into the game…so we don’t get a real player needing to hold it…

0 Likes

#12

Well that’s just silly. I’ve played MW with small fams before and understand the dynamics just fine. :stuck_out_tongue:

The problem predates our current fam sizes too, but what I mean is that it could get even worse with this change if it doesn’t have a proper counter-balance, whatever that may be.

Just because SS is tough right now doesn’t mean that we should make it tougher. If anything, we should find ways to do the opposite. We should be aiming to reduce the need for hyper-coordination, as it causes a lot of problems. This idea, if not done with that in mind, will perpetuate those problems.

I’m not saying we shouldn’t do it, just that we need to consider what it means for the long term and how to mitigate the risk of further alienating casual players.

SS-play in a team galaxy should be viable. You are correct that it currently isn’t, but that itself is a larger problem that needs to be fixed, not worsened.

0 Likes

#14

You want to make SS more easier? I got some suggestion but not everyone will like it.

-Lose income bonus%
-Lose resource bonuses % planet
-Make all infra income for everyone in the family same time.(If player makes 100k gc, everyone gets 100k per tick, same with res)

That way SS can benefit from other players even if he dont cooperate with other player. Same way other players can benefit from SS who has whatever income.
Maybe we would even have to decrease Cash Factory income down to 5, just a raw number.

Otherwise families who cooperate will make too much gc, same with resources though. So these income numbers should be thought thu properly, otherwise OBing will be too easy/quick. Or we just make building cost higher?

I personally not fan of this idea, but i know that way u could be SS and do really good because u make so much stuff.

You want more hyper-coordination, make ingame family bank, give players option to devide his tick income. Lets say from 0 to 100%, If player puts 100% income into fam bank, then all goes there etc.

@I_like_pie

1 Like

#15

Good thing this idea is to fix the eship issue and not SS :slight_smile:

Also @I_like_pie if I edit my original post does that mess with votes? Because as people have suggested I’d remove the leader distributes and they get distributed via another way (like lottery,or an even distribution when they are completed.

1 Like

#16

As we’ve learned in the #think-tank, every idea is a great one for about 5 minutes. That is generally how long it takes for someone to find a way to exploit it for their own gain.

Bringing balance to the game is much, much easier said than done.

0 Likes

#17

The eship issue is related to SS. :slight_smile: It would be very short sighted to consider one without acknowledging the impact on the other.

This idea by definition increases the dependency on others to play, which is a huge obstacle for casual players.

@Tezcatlipoca those are definitely worth considering, thanks for your input.

0 Likes

#18

Haha true :stuck_out_tongue:
I just found 1 bad thing with my idea, it imbalances things even more if 1 fam has 4 players and another has 6 :smiley:

Because 4 fam fam gets 4x 1 player income, but 6man fam gets 6x1.

But it could be balanced with different income % per player. 4 man fam get 50% extra, so sam as 6 man fam get with 0%, if u understand what i mean

0 Likes

#19

But my opinion is, if we want to make this game more viable for SS players in team-galaxies, we have to change the game itself by quite alot.

1 Like

#20

Even if we dont lose income% and resource bonus%

We just make buildings cost xfam size expensive. 6man fam, buildings cost x6

Since 1 cash factory will be producing 8 gc to every player per tick.

0 Likes

#21

That’s definitely true.

Getting back to this specific idea, if we can hash it out a bit more we could find a middle ground.

One big question I have is, who actually builds the e-ships? Leaders, VLs? Both? What happens if a family wants to build and explore but their leader goes inactive?

It seems risky to centralize all of that building onto the hands of fewer players. How could we preserve autonomy for individual empires while also supporting this concept?

0 Likes