Modifying the game in a unique way

[You_Fool]

Maybe we can have the college/recruitment league as the 3 empire per account ss galaxy, then the (semi)pro league as the Andro round… run concurrently… could do draft ICPG type setup for pro where people can register as leaders then pick/get picked by players

[xMoDx]

Interesting, you could even have the top players or fams of the reg galaxy be the ones doing the drafts or some other mechanic to split up the power a bit more. So people would be fighting for option to pick in drafts

[HydroP]

There is a lot to it that could go on. A drafted player would be good for say 2 rounds before having to go back into the draft and become available again just to keep the power dynamic constantly changing.

[DownLoad]

@HydroP

I suggested that a solution could be that when you join a Galaxy that you are given control of 3 empires (1 account) inside of your own family and then you can choose who you would like to align with from there. Maybe even having an ingame setup where you can have a maximum set of allies. This would mean you never get stuck with a bad teammate unless you are that bad teammate or choose one as an Ally

This sounds a pretty cool idea to me. I prefer to have 2 empires instead of 3. That way you aren’t in control of EVERYTHING and still probably promotes working together a bit.

@You_Fool

This could be achieved also by making changes so that having 1 empire that can do all is viable (i.e. more expos/day, lower morale losses so can hold more planets, change on nw limits for keeping buildings/planets to be fam based not empire based) without adding the complication of trying to log into 3 accounts and move resources, gc and planets between them.

I was thinking somewhere along the lines of this at first too when I first read the post, but I think the nw changing to fam based sounds like a pretty big change and probably has it’s own issues. I think I would prefer to keep the NW calculations (morale loss and op success rate empire based rather than fam based)

@SpartanLegion

The score thing was tried, alot has been tried but these damn Vets always chose size regardless of what else was on the table . I remember when we had the scores but no one really cared about it, everyone reverted back to size for comparison ( I feel like there is a pun there )

Just because the “vets” think size means you win the round doesn’t mean YOU necessarily need feel that’s the way you win the round. Personally I think highest overall income wins the round in my books. I think its a lot less harder to inflate size/nw that way.

[Funeral]

Without being controversial, that’s a legitimate way to win, though. Arguably if you’re in a position to farm then you deserve to do so. And at least that takes the essence of the game to do (conflict) whereas saving and jumping possibly not so much.

[I_like_pie]

I don’t think that’s controversial, it shows that players play for different reasons. On that note though, the same can be said for NW; if you’re in a position to save and jump then you deserve to do so.

A player or family doing a NW jump at the end of the round isn’t artificial, it’s a real expression of one’s economic power. Saving and jumping is part of econ, and the econ side of the game is no less part of the essence than the conflict side. In addition to @You_Fool’s point, size is also largely inflated by the explo phase so it isn’t necessarily a measure of a player or family’s skill in conflict anyway.

They’re 2 sides of the same coin: size is a measure of current territory and the potential for economic power. Networth is a measure of current economic power and the potential for expanding territory. Neither is “better” than the other, they just represent different focuses and goals.

That’s my takeaway from what @DownLoad and @sCriv are saying, which I think is worth really really thinking about. Instead of seeing only 2 sides of a single coin, we should measure the multiple facets of the playing experience that already exist.

Going back to the original idea here: I do like the idea of “sub-empires”. If somebody is willing to do the work of managing an extra empire, it could indirectly minimize the disparity between hyper-activity and casual players by spreading a hardcore player’s attention across more tasks. They would incure management overhead as well, which would actually make the game harder for them. The additional workload would be entirely optional, so I don’t see any risk that it would drive away casuals.

To mitigate that risk though, we could make additional empires something that you have to earn. So newbies would be limited to only 1, but more experienced players could unlock spots over time.

[DownLoad]

@I_like_pie

To mitigate that risk though, we could make additional empires something that you have to earn. So newbies would be limited to only 1, but more experienced players could unlock spots over time.

My initial reaction to this was that anyone would always pick being able to control 2 empires over 1 (I definitely would pick 2). Its definitely easier to play when you’re able to control when you get aid, when to pass planets, when to save, when to jump, etc. Even new players would probably prefer 2 empires over 1 because if they mess up on 1 empire, they have a second one that they can use.

But that’s where I can see problems arise. If a newer player or inactive player were to take two empire slots and not be effective, it could be a huge detriment to the entire fam. So maybe earning the right to have two empires is a good idea. Or even limiting the number of players that can have multiple empires in a fam and have the fam leader delegate who is allowed to do that.