This ballparking it using what I know to be the typical system spread. Supernova is spread terribly thin this round, which increases travel times and makes it much easier to play a defensive game. Typically players demand more fighting, so this thin spread isn’t ideal.
1 Like
Just an fyi, per pie
“To clarify, mw can be HC this round of the votes happen that way”
1 Like
@TheBigOne
Yup, as everyone is allowed to vote - I am just as allowed to choose what I want to do with my time.
1 Like
Giving TBO the benefit of the doubt - I removed this post.
1 Like
Pie was responding to me argue against MW even having the HC option
1 Like
Ah, I thought you meant the 57 playground stuff.
A MW56 link has been added for those too lazy to use the forum search. =P
2 Likes
Ok everybody, back home now and ready to finalize this thing soon. A few things to clarify in the meantime:
This is a fair concern, but the setting that determines system density is flexible and involves a manual “approval” step, which helps avoid this exact problem. It’s been that way for awhile now.
It’s a matter of opinion, which is the point of the vote in the first place. Nearly every round somebody says they won’t play because of some rule they don’t like, which is fine. You can’t please em all. 
This process is working out the kinks. 
Power goes to the players to decide whether or not they want to collectively try something different, like MW being HC.
See above. 
This is incorrect; the voting threads are tailored to each galaxy. That is why “Number of Draft Spots” isn’t a poll in this thread. Morale having a HC option for MW57 is by intention.
A significant portion of voters clearly disagree, and that’s a good thing. We want to allow players to disagree with each other, not force a single long-term opinion onto everybody.
This guy gets it. If the people want HC morale, they can have it.
Last thing: there’s nothing wrong with trying to convince people to vote one way or another; that’s the point of this thread. To be clear though; staff will never change anything to account for any single player, new or old, Patron or not.
So that’s that. I’ll have another update soon to finally get the actual drafting going. Thanks for your input everybody, and as usual we’ll be taking what we learned here to make future rounds easier to set up.
2 Likes
I’m sorry but when I first joined it was lay out for me that there were 3 galaxies. All 3 existing for their own purpose. Unless I misunderstood, I was told that SN is the FFA galaxy, Balius is the HC galaxy and MW was the Team Deathmatch of sorts galaxy.
I was never told that MW could be HC because it always seemed like it would never happen due to Balius. And then in polls you see Darrk going ahead saying that the HC option didn’t matter because it wasn’t going to be HC (now I am assuming that this last point is a mixture of that round being specific to non-HC and a little bit of bias).
In any case, I know that the playground style is more of a way to pick teams rather than change the game (mechanic wise not in a have an affect way) but look at all the problems we already have to face by Friday (or put it off and delay the round). Surely adding HC in would cause more problems? Half of the stuff we just tailored to this round looks like it would fail in HC, for example the morale changes, if it was HC then you would see even more Pax because you can cast even more spells per tick.
Not sure if this last point is set in stone either though because if I remember correctly, the morale changes have not been finalised.
Sorry for the long read,
TL;DR
I am just misunderstood what MW was.
Yes I put it at the end out of irony.
Thanks,
MaceWindex
2 Likes
There’s no need to apologize.
FWIW, you came into the game after a somewhat rough transition with regard to how galaxies were managed. A lot of what we know right now is still settling in.
This is accurate, but not necessarily permanent. For example, what do we do if the players decide that they want a solo HC galaxy? Is that SN or Balius? Do we create a 4th?
It’s worth noting that there is a difference between a hardcore galaxy (Balius, where you can get permanently killed off) and a regular galaxy with hardcore morale rules (possibly MW57 where there would be no attacking restrictions, but you can not get killed off).
This is needlessly confusing and should be reworded to avoid these misunderstandings.
Regardless, as it stands MW57 is NOT up for vote as a HC galaxy. It IS up for vote as a regular galaxy with HC morale, which specifically means no morale limit and nothing else. This is also not new. This has happened every single round for every single galaxy since galaxy votes were opened to the public.
The only difference is that this is the first time MW is seeing interest in people voting for HC morale, so it’s only just now getting talked about. But again, this is not a new thing at all.
The round votes (including HC morale) were always going to happen, before the playground scenario was ever discussed. The same thing will happen for MW58, MW59, and so on.
If we’re looking to create a galaxy where every player doesn’t get to vote, that falls more into the realm of custom galaxies where a Patron can host a galaxy of their own design regardless of what other players want.
We’re experience some growing pains right now, which is actually a good sign. This whole thing was born out of the think-tank and now we have some things to take away from this process.
2 Likes
lol i really dont like hardcore… oh how i miss virgo… pick me last not sure if ill play.
2 Likes
The thing of a vote like this is, it’s gets a complete mess because we’re mixing ingredients not intended for mixing.
It’s like: let’s bake a cake together.
Vote one - kind of cake:
Chocolate cake
Quiche
NY Cheesecake
Vote two - must have ingredients:
Ricotta
Colyflower and patato
Milk chocolate
Vote three - Bake or no bake?
Yes bake it
No Don’t bake it
Result:
A New York style cheesecake with colyflower and not bakes at all. Total fuckup.
We should get 3 viable options, and choose from that. Combinations that make sense.
Or maybe first vote for certain sets, then make combinations and then final vote or so.
But with the current vote, we could have the biggest galaxy ever, with normal resources, with 15 planets per system,minimum, a 4 week duration, of which one week is non-attack. That would be the stupidest freaking round ever.
Or the other way around, supersmall, HC, no morale, and make it last 8 weeks… everybody will be dead after day 2, and the game will die.
3 Likes
I don’t disagree @Hala, but this process came out of the shortcomings of the previous process, which was no process at all. We have 3 choices:
- @Imperial_Conflict determines how every galaxy is set up, even if they don’t play. This is what we had for years because we had nothing else. Galaxies were set up entirely by a group of people who were less active than the people actually playing, with little if any input from the players themselves.
- An open vote: what we have now. Not perfect, but at least the people who actually play can provide their insight into what they think works and what doesn’t.
- Something better. This doesn’t exist yet, and is an open topic for discussion.
This isn’t new either. This has been pointed out from the beginning of public votes and every time it comes up I do a bit of a facepalm because it’s been explained over and over again and all I can tell people is “yeah, I know.”
Put it this way: at least in that scenario you all get to make something with safe ingredients even if it tastes bad. Kind of weird but at least it won’t make you sick. What we had before was baking with a mystery pantry that may or may not contain old unrefrigerated eggs.
Better still, is that you all can convince each other that cauliflower is the wrong choice. You all can do this right now. As an example, @Darrk used his own methods in the forum to swing people against the HC-morale vote. I’m not quite a fan of the style he used but I can’t ignore the results.
That’s why this is in the forums now after all; you can say right now that MW57 cauliflower will be gross.
Part of the problem is also a lack of forum direction, which is on me. This thread is supposed to be about MW57 but it is turning into a thread about the voting process. I’ll clean this up somehow tomorrow.
This is an intuitive feeling option, but who decides what the viable options are? What if people don’t agree, or want 4 options instead? Or maybe just 2? Are we ok accepting that these options are permanent or do we want to allow for change? If so, what determines when an option should change? Who makes that determination?
If any of those answers are “@I_like_pie” then I’ll let you borrow my time machine so you can visit last year when I first took over and pissed everybody off by legalizing unofficial alliances. I clearly don’t share the opinion of most players on how this game should be played. FWIW I have also long thought about removing morale entirely and even legalizing multi accounts. The mods got a good scare when I came into the picture.
It’s out of respect for you all that I let your votes trump my opinion on what makes a balanced game, because I acknowledge that you all actually play the game and for the most part I don’t. Your guys’ insight is what tempers my extremes, which is why these votes being open are so important.
This has been discussed a bit and is closer to a more realistic and scalable process. This also takes a lot of lead time though, and would require us to start planning for new rounds in the middle of current rounds. That’s not a bad thing though.
Will this happen by the next MW57 round? No way. But we can and should open this up to figure it out. This kind of stuff is what the Think-Tank was brought back for, after all.
In the meantime, I’m letting you all cook those cauliflower cheesecakes, because at least everybody can learn together and eventually bake something more palatable. That’s a big step up from the sometimes-rotten cakes that you had no say in consuming for over a decade.
2 Likes
I do not “know” if my toaster is going to work tomorrow.
However I have more actual faith in that toaster then I do in what anyone else says they “know” about the divine (myself included).
Much like a “No Morale, Unlimited Ops - MW” will look.
Sure, sssooooooomthign might be different, but “toaster sure” there is no way it will be entertaining for 8 ducking weeks. Let alone the tick ops go live.
Ops, when used cunningly - are simply not beatable. It was true with 7 ops - it will be “truer” with unlimited ops, because shitty players won’t need to be cunning.
Much like this round! 
-
MW traditionally has not been a HC gala, it is the very reason I play in it.
-
My participation is not requisite for MW 57.
-
I have no power.
-
No Morale + Unlimited ops = 99.999% HC.
-
Perhaps my willingness to withdraw affecting the vote that much speaks to something more significant.
-
Vote for whatever the hell you want!
-
I am perfectly content not playing.
Final Sugestion:
I suggest we (we are a very connected community) stop now, get it right. Everyone can wait a few days without the crazy added pressure of starting a round.
We can all keep our Star Pants on for a few extra days and get it sorted - if @I_like_pie allows.
1 Like
A boat needs a captain … don’t let the crew run the ship.
2 Likes
@Picklearmy Personally I agree with you.
@I_like_pie applies a very non-western philosophical view on the way he manages IC.
His captainship, has (thus far) been the disciplined application of it. If he sticks to his gun I bet it works out.
“A person is smart.”
“People… are dumb, panicy, and you know it.”
-Agent K, M.I.B.
1 Like
I agree for the most part. This is why I post this:
Too many cookie spoil the broth, yes.
That’s why the group vote isn’t the actual final word right now. The end decision is ultimately on me, and I use these threads/polls to hear what people have to say and also to allow people to hash it out.
Again, it isn’t perfect but it’s much better than what we had. @Hala’s suggestions are an example of ways to further improve this process.
The end goal for me is to allow the game to run somewhat autonomously. We want a boat with auto-pilot where the crews have tools to properly course-correct without the need for a captain. It’s not easy but it is possible.
2 Likes
You’ve never had to deal with players complaining about slow resets of you think the community is reasonable about delays
2 Likes
@Groot
True!
I have always been a bit of a romantic. 
1 Like
so when this draft gonna happen
1 Like
I just want to be able to play with my long time friend oosh so whom ever picks me pick him please or vice versa …it will probably force me to be super active for a round well the most i can be this sub contracting and baby thing is really taking out of my ic time haha