Milky Way 62 Review

Universal News
, ,
1

Milky Way Round 62 Review:

The round for Milky Way Round 62 is coming to an end. I hope everyone enjoyed the round.

I have some questions for you.

  1. What do you think of this round? Did you enjoy it?

  2. What do you think about the map? Is it right size or need to be adjusted?

  3. Is the number of players per fam right? Do you think we need less or more players per family?

  4. What changes do you think need to be done for next round?

  5. Any additional comments you want to add here?

Thank you all for playing Milky Way Round 62!!!

1 Like
2

A great round, I like everything just like it was.

3

Family size was fine. Adding one more would be perfect, but the size now isn’t bad.
Systems were fine. So was map size.
Length was fine
I think more galactic events would be nice. Good and bad.

I think perm naps should be removed from the game and only allow 24/48/72 imo.

We need clearly rules on what can be addressed in making a nap also. Can you ask for systems? Is that illegal?? Can you ask for # of planets but not exact cords?

Can you message anyone? Or basically not anyone out of your family in fear of a block?

Should IA be allowed in a MW setting like in SN?

2 Likes
4

I like the idea of removing pnap and allow only 24/48/72. It encourage others to challenge themselves for a fight. I usually dislike pnap because once its done, you’re stuck with it.

1 Like
5

i think maybe a couple more families with less players per family would be cool. we struggled with never having a full complement and only 3-5 active people at a time which made it really hard to compete with families with a full 7

6

I think next time needs to be a resuffle also. You can’t for 63, but can for 64

1 Like
7

split the fams make them 4 to 5 player… allow 1 ally

8

u cant shrink family sizes as their arent enough leaders as it is… leaving shit the way it is is better too many changes nobody can properly adjust… more galactic events would be good

9

I strongly suggest not reducing fam sizes either. This round, multiple wars were immediately decided because a few players were unable to be around at all for the first day or two of wars. This is because three people make up just about half of a fam, which doesn’t even mention the fams that get a few players at the start who don’t stick around and have to play with just a couple players. If fam size is reduced it is completely possible multiple players could end up as the only active players who stick around in their respective families.

I have always advocated for larger fam sizes to reduce the variance in needing each player to be extremely active during the round and to help small families lessen the impact of having players go inactive at the start and throughout the round. The downside of lowering the number of families and increasing fam size is that while focusing infra some players can feel left out as aiding in for days at a time while others grow doesn’t appeal to everyone .

10

Looking back on this round, there were some extremely long breaks between periods of action. Given that this round was a 100x start with starting explores in fleet, I hope that next round will have a slower start to involve lots of infra strategies. This round started quickly and had a lot going on but I think that definitely impacted the mid to late round and made it much less interesting. Maybe mix it up with an unusual start like 1x with 4 explores each where it’s a situation most people haven’t seen before. Anyway, I’m hoping for a 2-5x resources start next round.

I also agree with TBO that more galactic events of both variety and frequency (maybe introduce some new ones) would be good to add low impact randomness and help mix things up.