1: Smaller fams! 4 player teams, 2 drafts! This setup for MW i belive would give multiple setup choises , 2 attackers or 1 attacker 2 bankers i belive we would see ALOT of action in MW with small teams like this.
2: BIG MAP! the more teams the bigger map needed, let people travel some! it enhances strategic thinking vs small map where you build and send fleets. But big map dosent mean Alot of planets!
2: Amount of planets: imo should be the amount of players in galaxy (full) x 8 e ships a day for 1 week. Ergo in a perfect world expo phase would last aprox 1 week. I also agree with Pie with to many planets you get farming rounds, I
If expo phase was over in 1 week ish, ppl would maybe think twice about getting into that fight before expo phase was over, since if they did, they would miss out on expo phase. -> this pushes in favour of diplomacy and players interacting with eachother before a battle.
Less planets also will force people to think/plan how to build their empire, how to maximise income and also securing area/clusters. -> this pushes players to learn the game!
3: Map, i think the hidden Map for MW would stir things up, and i would like ppl to be able to vote for it. since if it was tested in MW, we would see a completly new MW
nah pls why always so extreme, 4 players is really not enough. how to get the fam feeling then when 1 guy is from different time zone, 1 guy is inactiv, 1 guy has real life issues… mayke it 6 players and a draft or so minimum, so 7 minimum per family
big fams = big diffrences, the more drafts the bigger the diffrence.
Smaller teams will help even out the diffrences, and than each person in the fam becomes more important to the team, which push/motivates
for activity normaly. More teams will also increase general activity/gameplay since there will more “key” players and more factions to fight eatchother, break naps, do diplo, Op eachother the list goes on. as a bonus, if 1 fam gets 3 of the good attackers, in a 4 man fam, one of them is forced to bank which evens out the diffrences even more!.
I’w been lead in alot of fams in my time, and ONE thing that works EVERY time, if u make people play a sentral role in the team they stay active and commit normaly. in bigger teams, the semi active players normaly get low priority on jumps, planets, fleet etc. THIS kills motivation and activity. Small teams will counter this!
Look at Ultimate after 48h, when was the last time u saw 10/15 fams as contenders, based on planets, and infra. We are proving that small teams work!
Btw @Mrblonde we typically do a galaxy review before EoR; i’ve moved this thread to uni news as it is serving that purpose. We also usually do setup polls every round (example) for players to vote on a per-feature basis.
We’re going to implement some kind of change as a matter of routine, so the votes for a single ideas thread can be assumed here, and replaced with the upcoming per-feature voting.
The flipside of this is that inactives hurt much, much more. That’s the benefit of having the huge families; inactives still suck but they’re more of an annoyance than certain loss.
The only way smaller fams can really work is if those fams who get hosed with inactives have options mid-round. Otherwise with your example even 1 player disappearing kills 25% of your collective power.
We can offset this with:
Some form of assimilation
Single empire migration by request
Allowing Unofficial Alliances
I’m still not sure about #1, given the problems we saw this round. I’d like to move assimilation to a different galaxy, but we’ll see how players vote about that. I’m hearing now that some players actually liked how it all worked out, after the initial fear and anxiety about it subsided.
#2 is similar but less extreme. My fear there is that it would be a crutch for individual players to avoid working through difficult situations. “Gimme a new fam!” is an easy out, and not something we really want to set a precedent for. We might be able to offset this if say, over 50% of a family agrees to disband. Or rather, if over 50% doesn’t actively object; that way a player stuck with all inactives could still get out.
#3 is the easiest and most natural feeling imo, but players are typically split on UA.
I personally like #2 and #3 together, but am curious to see how players vote. The polls should go up shortly.
after experiencing assimilation in a family who always was directly involved somehow, i think assimilation isnt a bad thing if the whole fam gets assimilated into the 2nd lowest fam. if assimilation is successful it brings manpower and activity, if not it brings nothing (which is also not too bad). if things are clear at sor i have no problem with it, the 2 bottom fams can even work on a sucessful assimilation before midround then.
I completly agree pie, but u cant just look at the 25% and think thats ALOT, couse its NOT. 1 man down in a 4 man fam is VERY managable and its also less likely to happen as the player has a much more central role in the fam. VS a 10 man fam,were loosing 2-3 players (20-30%) to inactivity due to lack of Attention/aid/planets etc etc happens on regular basis. You know what priority a semi active random gets in a 10 man fam, its not alot, and this creates inactives.
IA works in the same way as a big fam - you will have that “ELite” getting together now not in the same fam but together as allies.
IA is alowed this round in Ultimate, and i am afraid this will hurt the players who dosent talk much and diplo etc. NO IA would be a better option in Ultimate IMO.
While manageable, it still creates a strong disadvantage compared to other families. Any family operating at 75% of a different family is going to have a hard time, and that’s just if one person goes inactive. Having a 2nd puts your team at 50% capacity, which in any competition is pretty much a certain loss. This most definitely also creates inactives.
4 is too small imo without some counter balance. Somebody is going to get the short end of the stick there, and we need to be prepared to help them out somehow.
The reasoning makes sense, but some level of inactives are a certainty, regardless of how great a family might be. No setup is going to guarantee otherwise, so we have to minimize the impact on those effected.
Imo that risk is much higher with fams as small as 4. We’ve found 7 to be a pretty good sweet spot.
Sombody always will… but we can try make it more fair anyway? and smaller teams does that, even if 1 team is at 50% capacity. there will be alot of other teams that can compete. Today there is 1 team that can compete (50)… look at ultimate atm there is 10 teams that can compete.
but in a smaller fam there is a bigger chanse for less inactive, due to sentral roles
with 100% surtanty you will experience the same unfair diffrence with 7 man teams as with 10. WHY… couse there is only afew people active enough, skilled enough and willing to organise a 7 man team. Its ALOT easier with less players, this opens for alot more leaders to shine, take ownership and MOTIVATE them for activity.
why cant we just try it 1 round? on a big map where expophase dont last 3 weeks but 1.
Yes we definitely want to make it more fair, but smaller teams doing that is an opinion as far as I can tell. A valid one for sure, but there’s not any evidence to say that its more fair than larger families.
That’s why a lot of this stuff comes down to judgement calls and player votes. Ultimate is looking great, but I would be careful not to draw too many conclusions too quickly. We’ve done small families before in other galaxies with mixed results.
These are certain claims for things that are anything but certain. There are too many factors for any of us to say we are 100% sure that anything will happen.
Again, I don’t disagree with your reasoning, just your conclusion. Nothing is ever a sure thing, and there is plenty of valid argument against your suggestion as well.
We have. It didn’t make any noticeable difference with inactives. This is why I’m not convinced that it’s a magic bullet.
That said, we may try 4-member fams again, but it will depend on how players vote. On that note, feel free to cast yours below:
i belive we would see ALOT of action in MW with small teams like this.
There are too many factors for any of us to say we are 100% sure that anything will happen.