Milky Way 64 Review

milky-way-64
milky-way
round-review
#1

Let’s hear it all!

The setup polls for next round will go up soon. This is your chance to influence Milky Way 65 before we start creating it.

Let’s keep it constructive. Be specific about things you enjoyed and didn’t enjoy.


To start:

What is the thing that you liked most?
What is the thing that you disliked most?

0 Likes

New Format MW
#2

i liked most the many new players we got from the newsletter
i disliked the timing, they came when explo phase was nearly over and i couldnt hold them, also they had no other place to go (other galaxy)

1 Like

#3

I liked the fact Pie sent the newsletter and brought some old memories back.
I landed in a cooperative family and the Assimilation was interesting as we also got active players, some old timers (@daydreamer).

Meeting old folks was great.

Thanks, @I_like_pie

1 Like

#4

I think it was a pretty good round… I think just about every fam is fighting someone right now, usually rounds get dull and boring towards the end.

  • 8 weeks is too long

  • Maybe send out another news letter once MW 65 is created

  • Assimilation seemed to work pretty well, perhaps let fams vote to assimilate with each other for next round? maybe limit it so their combined NW cannot exceed the top family or something?

  • Start round with more families, we have 86 players in MW currently, could do 12 fams of 7, or 14 fams of 6… even 17 fams of 5 could be interesting… then assimilate as needed.

2 Likes

#5

Round length was good, shouldn’t have been shortenend. My fam wanted to cancel on 50 after their war with 47. Same with 47 and 46/pickle claims he had the same idea, but rather opp 47 and claim he didn’t know about their war. Now that changes a rounds outcome.

No more invite mails during active round, do it a day before round starts.

Smaller fam size / more fams.

Stop allowing for drafting/stay in family rounds in standard galaxies. Its fun to stay in the same fam for 2 rounds, but 3 in a row is a bit much with so few families.

1 Like

split this topic #6

5 posts were split to a new topic: Mw64 alleged war plans

0 Likes

#9

If this isn’t viable, as was the case this round, would you prefer no invite email over mid-round invite email? Are mid-round influxes disruptive enough to negate the activity gains?

0 Likes

#10

If you have to do the invite e-mails when the round has already started, make sure there is still plenty of expo phase time left. Rather have mid-round than nothing at all, however we need to keep players when they return to have a peek at this game and nothing is worse then landing in a near full galaxy and having to wait till next round, especially if you just want to explore and build to get back in the game.

It feels like we lost a lot of people who came to have a look, I don’t know how many stayed and if that was within your goal reach of the e-mail invite.

0 Likes

#11

We can’t really ensure anything about expo timing. Our email choices are either pre-BoR (ideal), post-BoR (non-specific timing), or no email.

MW65 should pan out better though.

0 Likes

#12

If those are the options, then send pre-BOR. You will maximize the effect of the email by keeping the players who come around to check IC out. They will most likely be here for the whole round at least and possibly more if they like the changes.

Mid-round email may draw attention, but those players just might have a short visit and not be interested in emails after that.

I have to say, that I stayed (for now) regardless of timing, but I am not a good example. I am sort of masochist. :smiley:

0 Likes

#13

Yeah, we always want to send pre-BoR. We didn’t avoid that by choice.

What I mean though is, if that can’t happen for some reason we have to decide to either send mid-round or not send at all.

The mid-round send this round was our best option imo given the circumstances.

0 Likes

#14

This! :point_up:

You might instead offer the new inflow of players an alternative shorter round galaxy, that ends at the same time, so they can join MW the round after?

2 Likes

#15

I joined the round a couple of weeks in so missed the start.

Assimilation didn’t really work for us and may have caused a couple of players to go inactive after turning them into planet farms for other fams closer to them.

I think the fams were too large and would like to see smaller fams but more of them.

Drafting should be limited when the player base is small as it doesn’t take too much to make 1 or 2 fams OP. Maybe a have 1 round in every couple that is completely random like PW used to be.

As first MW round back i do like the map system although makes it too easy to spot other fams in your core.

Love being back after a long break :slight_smile:

2 Likes

split this topic #16

6 posts were merged into an existing topic: Balancing drafts and randoms

0 Likes

#17

also, now that the player count went up, can we have more planets next round pls? and i would like 8 member fams!!! everything else is tiny and in order to get good family interaction 7 players is so-so, but 6 and below theres not enough interaction in the family, esp if some are from other time zones etc

0 Likes

#18

That’s a good take. I think the underlying issue was that there weren’t any compelling alternatives.

This is the first I’ve heard that planet counts were an issue. I’m interested if others agree or disagree with this suggestion.

In general, bumping planet counts is a risky move as it creates large size gaps and encourages planet hoarding.

I’m not against making an adjustment, but I haven’t seen a good argument yet for that specifically.

Will definitely be dropping family size. :+1:

0 Likes

#19

dear pie, its the first time u heared about it bec its the first time player count went up by a good % - also if the average stays about same, theres no big change, no?

1 Like

#20

That’s a fair point; any increase in players means a smaller average planets-per-player ratio.

My question then to everybody who played: did this ratio feel too small? To those who played other rounds recently: did this ratio feel better or worse than previous rounds?

0 Likes

#23
  • Fams of 8 ish sounds good for me. Enough interaction and action, enough room for good co-operation but not too many to keep track of.

  • I am against assimilation. You can’t cancel out negative effects in assimilation, for some fams this has a major negative impact (way too far away, bigger fams will always be able to give those smaller players better support so in the end even with measure’s I think the bigger fams will gain the most. Longer protection won’t help, planet swappping banking planets with an attacker is always a loss. Also fam’s close to the assimilated players will always have an advantage even with protection long enough when at war they only need to blok the portals of the (ex)planets of the 1-2 players that switched fam and that fam has much larger travel times to defend, …To be honest I wasn’t motivated after the assimilation it spoiled the round for me, and I can’t see how it could ever work

I said this already somewhere else I think you can do something about the farming. Sort of protection for smaller fams. If they are a certain % smaller they can’t be attacked unless attacked.
Someone commented that you also need to be able to keep your core safe:
I think this could be fixed like if you own 90% of the system you it doesn’t count or the size gap needs to be much larger, the chance that small fam does a major jump that outjump the big fam to then war is smaller. Havn’t yet thought about all the details and probably something that needs new programming but think it should be looked at.

0 Likes

Restrict attacks on smaller families
#24

i think they now want to switch to full fam assimilation

0 Likes