MW 65 feedback

Universal News
,
1

I am struggeling abit with having fun in MW this round…and we have more players than normaly it seems, and i cant help beliving its partialy the setup that is making it hard to find the joy…

and wonder what others feel about it?

for me the small systems is a bad bad feature it pushes in favour of the so called " ping pong game style"

Map size is kinda forcing attackers to do camaar and 0 speed races have a hard time getting around…passing planets TAKES forever.

for a map size like this also the new map works well but lacks the ability to implement plist etc to make it usefull…

others have thoughts or simular feeling?

2

I agree very little fun this round. Granted I’m in a bottom family with no activity but wondering if thats why fam’s 3 times our size are farming us down because they have no range to get to others.

6 planet systems do feel a little small. You can expo a whole system with a single group of eships in a day doesn’t allow for attackers to get spread as much as a banker may jsut pick a system and fill it up themselves. I also have been away from the game for 2 years but just my observations thus far.

3

Yeah the new map is hard to attack with as an attacker I don’t have s computer anymore since my old dinosaur finally crashed the small systems are weird I say make them atleast 10 planets per system

4

@Airwing maybe it’s because you NAP’d literally everybody? :stuck_out_tongue:

5

Idk if this is a good idea or not but maybe through out the round have the systems get bigger by adding planets randomly to systems not sure if it’s possible tho.

6

It may indeed be possible as long ago there was a MW round where the galaxy was almost donut shaped with a large void in the middle, then as expo phase was winding down, it suddenly populated with new systems in the void.

7

I would reduce the galaxy size, up the systems to 10 planets and reduce fam sizes to 7 and add a few extra fams.

8

And have a reshuffle do the people in the bottom fams have a chance to land with some new players and have s chance at a good round

9

Galaxy size is crazy. I haven’t played in 5 years but some of the system to next closest system jumps are far too long even for camaar to attack effectively.

Although I suspect I missed the boat on this conversation at some point in recent years I really think inter family planet attack/swap should affect morale. It puts the bottom 80% of fams at such a disadvantage its almost a guarantee that they get smashed/farmed as mentioned in this thread already. I can’t see how that possibly changes without morale affecting inter fam attacks. More likely than not they end up farmed early and have to wait forever/get bored and leave the game - so it’s not even like they are getting 75, 85, 95% of the way through the round until they lose a ton of planets (and motivation for the round). Now they have a far longer window to sit around and wonder about what to do next round, or find something else to do altogether.

It is also wild how many morale planets exist, far too many considering you barely have to use morale and even though I heard it is capped, at some point yet again that extra morale bonus does very little for the bottom 80% and just pure advantage for the top. So they are easy to get and don’t help a large portion of the player base and the group it does help is already at a massive advantage.

10

Agreed. They do seem to be quite plentiful. And when a player can be attacked 24 times in two ticks by another player with 3x the net worth and 2x the planet count, something is indeed rotten.

11

Yeah i remember when a morale planet was a rare find that needs passed to an attacker. Now i dont even flinch when i see one or worry about it going anywhere

12

galaxy size is way to big for the small amount of players, i think the focus should be to attract more players so there are more fams. Or at least open up some extra slots for new fams to form. I think lack of players is the biggest issue.

its a chicken and egg situation however

13

@Static

i think your on to somthing here, the whole science jump thing we are doing early is basicily possible due to 0 moral loss on intra fam attacks. These jumps require the team to be well coordinated and active. In other words this feature is pushing in favor of the active and well organized crews to do even better.

@I_like_pie . have you thought about that?

14

Just make the galaxies smaller, more dense with systems, keep systems around 15p or bigger depending how small you make it. Make it a rule to have a minimum starting rez thats like 25x of current round. The idea is for this game to be entertaining. Everybody complains about slow starts, long travel times.
With smaller galaxies fams will nap quicker in expo phase, like in the past, because they nap early, which leads to cancellation cuz they nap with small cores…depending on start, get a 5 day block on market and offensive opps. And you can have quicker and shorter rounds. Cut the building times of units/infra down. Use 1 tick as a minimum for units and 2 for infra/CFs?

Smaller familie sizes, 5/6 players per fam. More fams more action, less likely you have one or two dominating fams. Let people sign up pre-round and cover them randomly, add spots for randoms later and voila, so many quick fixes to make this game more fitting to its name and to avoid getting stuck in a fam with only 3 active players when there are other fams with more than double making people leave the game.

At least imo that should be the setup of a standard main galaxy round like Milky Way is? Or just bring back Pinwheel! =D

15

i think the focus should be to attract more players so there are more fams. … I think lack of players is the biggest issue.

agreed. Agreed. AGREED.

(Easy to say. Harder to fix.)

16

I think we were too ambitious with the setup. We saw the increase in players and thought “bigger map!” and got excited. 74% of the players who voted wanted the 200x200 map, including some here who are now reasoning why a smaller map would have been better.

The problem is, we have to have either a bigger map with smaller systems or a smaller map with bigger systems. We can’t have a bigger map with bigger systems because it turns into a hoarding contest with giant size gaps between players. We’ve seen this in prior rounds and is something we try to avoid.

Its in our best interest to maintain a stable planet-per-player ratio, and unfortunately, doing that with such a large map means that systems get thinner.

I think for next round, we should return the size back to 100x100. I’m all for trying new things that the players want, but the consensus seems to be that this sounded better than it ended up being.

Then, there’s the family size. Agreed, we should drop it but weren’t able to this round due to the “stay in fam” controversy. Fwiw, I went against my gut here due to player backlash which meant that we had to keep fam sizes at higher than 7 in order for families to stay together. I can’t say I’m surprised at the result here.

Players have mixed opinions on this, but regardless if we were to change how this works it would have wider implications than just MW. This seems like a good dedicated topic for #support:feedback.

You make a good argument for reducing this. I agree with the idea that top players holding most of the morale planets negates the deterrent effect of morale in the first place.

We may end up changing this back to how it used to be. Great point.

The 1x ressies were decided by player vote, so people are getting what they wanted. It was a strong split though, so I think what might make more sense is upping MW’s resources as a default and saving 1x for a different galaxy for those who want it.

As it stands, we’ll at least be looking at:

  • returning to a 100x100 map
  • minimum 10x starting resources
  • bigger systems
  • at most 7 players per fam
  • reducing number of morale planets
17

@Airwing there were plenty of times in the past I was waiting for morale take from an attacker as banker and what not. Now that’s not a concern it creates a massive ripple affect through every aspect of the game.

In the past a family 50% of the way through the round made 100mil/t now at that same point they are double making 200mil/t. With little to no benefit to the smaller less active fams which is where the majority of the player base flees never to be heard of from if I had to place a bet.

My largest concern is it seems a lot of the changes made in recent years are due to player feedback and input. Much like this thread those same voices are the more active playerbase also more likely than not to be the big guys. Of course any change to make their lives easier is embraced but we really need to consider how it’s affecting the smaller less vocal.

1 Like
18

@Static i 100% agree. Alot of the “newer” features is working in favour of the active/big teams. And i’w been trying to point that our for years! :smiley: im glad somone agrees with me :smiley: we recently got income rankings removed and we are trying out “hidden/old” map atm. So we are kinda moving somwhat in the right direction.

i also remember the days when in fam attacks cost moral and we marked eachother inactive when passing planets etc, though if i remember correct it was a pain sitting on planets waiting for bankers to be able to take. :stuck_out_tongue: still i see how this would work against the farming and pro big fams so i am all for it! we should make it an idea and vote it up! :smiley:

19

I don’t think we should vote on galaxy options or if there is a vote it should be restricted options that work together to make for a more interesting round

Huge map, lots of starting resources, longer round length
Average sized map and average starting resources, normal round length
Small map and low starting resources, normal round length
Small map, lots of resources, shorter round length

Would be examples off the top of my head.

20

We’ve discussed as much before, the votes were indeed flawed in that you could end up with weird combinations depending on how the results split.

It’s a non-issue now though, as galaxy setup voting was deprecated as of this MW round. Threads like this one are going to be what influences changes, so thank you all for providing your thoughts!