then its indeed upsetting me x(
pie, could u kindly explain why there is no assimilation possible with 8member fams? i dont think its bad to assimilate the weakest fam into the 2nd weakest fam midrounds. there wont be 16 fam members playing bec some of those families members are usually inactiv
Youâre incorrectly assuming that nobody asked for this.
Regardless, sometimes this will happen. I donât expect it to be a popular decision, but i see it as beneficial to the game nonetheless. Not every decision here is up to a vote.
Super fams are a problem. This is a fix.
1 Like
Well, however this ends up going will determine if I play this next round or not.
The direction I see IC going in is mostly good, but some of these changes are ridiculous imo. Itâs like the people who work hard and take great pains to plan things are almost getting punished. While rules are constantly being adjusted at any given time for struggling players to try and help them. Some people just have to accept that if you have a very bad start to your round, that you might not have any chance at winning that round⌠and why should they? You can still have fun in IC without winning the round. Iâve had plenty of very fun rounds where i didnât have a chance at winning. IC can be a very difficult game. When I first started I had plenty of tough rounds and struggles. I think that is part of the reason I am as good as I am now. It forced me to try harder and make myself want to be the best as possible. I think you should try and listen to your loyal veteran players as much as the whiners. 
2 Likes
Super fams arenât the problem Pie, be honest. One super fam is the problem hahaha.
i agree, this round my fam never had a chance of winning, but it was still fun. we had our wars and organized the fam for the coming round. its no problem to play as a small fam and there are still goals to reach, if only farming could be reduced i am sure everybody could have fun, big fam or small fam.
1 Like
Has the draft bug where you can draft as many people as you want, regardless of a draft limit, been fixed? And can you play this round Pie? I feel you would have a better grasp on what changes are needed (and not needed) for future rounds if you played. For example, the last round you played you fixed fam exploring immediately after seeing how big of a pain in the ass it was.
The âChance to stay in familyâ thing seems a little silly⌠you arenât actually staying in the fam if the family is essentially being broken up. You are âChoosing to play with a few players that were in your fam last roundâ which you could just as easily do if you chose to random, and then use your 3 drafts.
Either full drafts or full random is the way to go imo. Maybe alternate them each round⌠full draft round followed buy a full random round.
1 Like
i agree with pickle, but also 8 man teams? cant u do 6 instead. u said 7 was optimal @I_like_pie
People who voted for 100x starting resources and 7 day delay⌠well they basically just want a second HC round, because hell is going to break lose after 7 days of play.
Not saying Iâm not a fan. Could be interesting 
1 Like
Am I? I asked around, couldnât find a single player enthusiastic about this change.
Iâm not complaining about you implementing a change by executive decision. Iâm complaining about doing that in a totally different fashion than all other changes, while with the other ones you say they canât happen that fast because we do thing with a rounds delay.
Also, Iâm complaining about implementing a change without any explanation of the mechanics. How is it determined who stays and who goes (RNG, First-come-fist-serve?)? Do all fams get equal people to stay in fam? How does the stay in fam selection influence the draft options?
Finally: I understand itâs the only way to reduce fam size immediately, but you could have made it a vote with this (in my view: very bad) solution for stay-in-fam as one option, and just complete shuffle as another option. Iâd prefer the complete shuffle over this, in order to reduce fam sizes.
1 Like
Not to mention the one super fam from last round is breaking up, so there really wasnât a need to implement this change.
My fam was looking forward to giving this another go, we knew it was a stay in family round and were pumped to get the next round started and then this. We were not a super fam by any means, and like I said the only super fam isnât sticking together.
I could see implementing this change to a single family that did so well it would be unfair for them all to stay together, but that isnât what is happening here. This is just punishing the lower fams that built chemistry throughout the round and want to try again with a fresh round. This just pisses people off and doesnât solve anything.
200x 200 :o . expo gone last for 2 months now?
Not if we all start with 50 expos each 
200x200 is fine if the systems only have half the planets in them
50 expos wont do much when ur gone do 8 e ships a day in following 
So MW will have room for 96 players, 96 x 8(eships/day) x 7 (days) for the optimal of expo phase lasting 1 week. 5300 planets in a perfect world 
My problem with the âStay in famâ thing is that I selected âstay in famâ with the assumption I would be, you know, staying in fam. Like Pickle said, we were really looking forward to sticking together.
sticking together is overrated no?
To me itâs not really an issue to random, or even have the chance of randoming. However the âStay in famâ option isnât what it says it is. It should be âPotentially stay in famâ or something.
Believe me, if I was ignoring the vetsâ preferences the changes would be even more drastic.
I agree with you mostly, but thereâs an issue on both sides of this. As you mention, it makes it feel like people who plan are getting punished. On the other side of that though, at least you even had a chance to feel that way compared to players (especially new players) who walk into an inactive family and donât even know what theyâre missing.
âStay in famâ is imo a relic and needs to be challenged. We should allow some sense of families sticking together while also forcing some sense of shuffle.
What we are doing for MS65 is combining those 2 ideas. Indeed, this will be disappointing for people who want to ensure they stick together, but I think that is a worthwhile tradeoff for new players to have a chance at that fun.
No, itâs the concept itself. This is hardly unique to what we just saw with MW64, and forcing a shuffle every 3rd round (as some suggest) is not a proper solution. We need something that is more consistently balanced.
I canât prioritize it right now. 
My day job is picking up such that I might not even have much dev time soon, let alone play time. I wish that wasnât the case, but thatâs how it goes. 
Crossing my fingers to try MW66. 
You are right, and this is by design. The draft spots were set up such specifically so that random-based fams could organize themselves with friends in a reasonably close setup as to the âstay in famâ peeps that do stick together. What we effectively have are big groups being broken into 2 smaller groups, which again is by intention.
I get your logic, and weâve done this before, but I donât think this was ever a proper solution. Looking at this from a distance, this is a lot of lost opportunity for new players who come in, look around, and never come back.
We lose quite a bit of players regularly due to inactivity, perhaps more than some realize. In MW64 it was 27 people who signed up and eventually bailed. Thatâs over 1/4 of the entire galaxy.
Stay in family rounds arenât 100% at fault here of course, but they do make the game less friendly to new players. We need a more consistent approach to our setups than alternating draft and random rounds. Despite the admittedly abrupt nature of this change, I am aiming for this to be a long term approach and gain for stability.
Yes, we may lose some existing players who dislike this but we have to remember the opportunity cost of not changing this, and we canât know what that is unless we try something different. What weâre doing now is not working, if 28% player churn in a single round is any indicator. And it is.
It sucks when old vets say stuff like âok iâm leaving thenâ but Iâm also not going to hold progress hostage because certain players feel entitled. Thereâs a separate group of players who donât post in forums, donât post in chat, and are otherwise non-vocal and many of those players are new.
If we lose some old players but gain some new players, so be it. Right now we have the opposite problem: new players are bouncing and our activity is dominated by people whoâve been with the game for over a decade.
Unless youâre privy to every private conversation I have with every player, then yes, you are assuming that nobody asked for this.
I donât disagree that most players that are likely to respond to you are not happy with the change, but that is not the same thing as ânobody asked for thisâ.
Thatâs understandable, but even this isnât without precedent. We did something similar last year with similar complaints, and it ended up accomplishing itâs goal (reducing super fams). Yes, we typically do things a certain way but I am not against breaking our mold if I feel something is necessary. That is what is happening now.
Yes it is inconsistent. The need for the change supersedes the need for consistency.
Iâd love to have enough time to do so, but thatâs not the case right now. The best I can say right now is RNG and based by % (as in every player who chooses has the same %) but that is subject to change as I test it so do not take that as a certainty.
I donât think a complete shuffle is the right solution either. This hybrid approach is my intended direction, and Iâm aware that most older players will not like it. I am also aware that most older players are overrepresented in our feedback compared to newer players and those who go inactive, who are the people this is specifically intended to help.
Iâve explained my rationale above. Iâm not just turning random dials here, there are overarching goals that determine my decisions.
Disagreements aside, I do appreciate everybodyâs feedback so please donât think that Iâm ignoring anybody.
Sometimes I will make a decision that I feel is right even if many players are saying otherwise. Thatâs part of my job to balance the needs of everybody in the community, not just long time players who are the most vocal and represented in our public communications.
As far as timing, Iâm still swamped with work but am hoping to send out the email either tomorrow or the day after, which means the round will either start this Friday, or the following Monday.