I heard this round(MW69) had same problem with unequal players per family. I also heard that my suggestion im about to post was on the table already but idea died? Im not sure, but…
We had same problem 2 rounds ago in MW, we had 4 players while some had 5, or even 6. For me, most painful was losing 16 eship per day, thats a lot of infra room. U basically keep falling behind everday.
Cant we make eships based on max fam size? like this MW69 is 6man fams, so your fam can build total 8x6=48 eships
One option how those “missing eships” should go to family, would be by funding “Family Defense” and eships buying would work tru there, 1x per day. Leader can buy them out and ship from home system only, with lets say speed 100%.
Lets say if family has 4 players, then leader can build extra 16 eships tru “Family Defense” 1x per day, make that time whenever u want.
Why 1x per day? To avoid exploiting it, when family has been atleast 24hours with less player, an option for 8 eships appears in “Fam defense” or smth like that.
Maybe shipping cost should be fams average planet size or something like that.
It doesnt solve to starting unequal player numbers, but it sure helps alot.
New/less active players will be hated and killed off so the more active players can have their daily eships. Like 3 people will just take over a a family and kill off anybody that joins because they want their eships.
It takes away the incentive people have to try and work with people they don’t know/like/work with noobs.
I definitely understand the frustration that this idea comes from - but this is a bad idea and it will be abused.
Yea sorry guys, not trying to steal anyone`s ideas, good its back on table though.
If eships go directly to FAM, not player, building tru “fam defense” , then rogue cant take all eships.
Neither new players can
Exploring these eships would be like when leader moving family defense. We would need new option there for that of course. You will need to fund gc to exploration too, no contruction can help to reduce eship building cost, no SA works there either.
Who gets these plants once it has launched?
Family Leader
Family leader chooses that player( if so, i think he should be able to choose only 1, not devide them)
Bit :
Inactive/less active players are being killed off right now too, to get friends playing or more active ones
If player is less active and plays(explores) i dont think people would be willing to kill him off to be able to explore tru “new FAM option”
Some people only log on once a day and will sometimes even forget to build eships. As a competitive player I’d view it from the perspective that our family is better off killing this player off so we can use his planets and his daily eships more effectively. The game should not encourage this.
Some people prefer to play on their own and play self sufficient. Some people don’t like having this type of player in their family, but right now there isn’t really any incentive to kill them off if they’re active because at least they’re contributing to the family in some way and he explores more planets for us. If this idea was implemented people would justify killing off any players that don’t want to work in a fam bank system that they’re holding the family back and they want their extra eships. The game should not encourage this.
This is a possible outcome, but there are already incentives to kill off inactive/less active players and get a replacement, I don’t see this majorly increasing them.
This idea addresses a core issue with the game which is a level playing field, having less ships has a massive affect on smaller families that are already at a disadvantage.
Player who prefer to play on their own and play self sufficient, should play solo galaxies(thats why we have them), it is irresponsible to into teamplay fam and play alone?
You realize the attitude in your post is exactly why I’m right and exactly why it will be abused. You don’t have the right to kill someone off just because you don’t like how they play.
Plenty of good players don’t enjoy playing in fam bank systems and this will make people want to kill them off just for not wanting to play how you want them to.
@Bit’s points are definitely important to consider.
One issue we have right now is thinking very heavily in terms of existing and hyper-competitive players. Even the concept off killing of “inactives” who are not actually inactive is something I take issue with, because we may very well be killing of causal players who aren’t as efficient as the family wants them to be.
I still think this is a good idea though, I just wonder if it will make the game less appealing to casual and SS players. Is there a possible counter-balance to prevent this?
SS does not mean solo though. The game should be balanced enough that you can have team mates but not have to play-by-numbers to a strict team plan.
The game is overly focused on team activity, not skill. I do see the potential that this idea could make that problem worse if there’s no counter-balance.
With Pie`s new joining system, family can never stay at 3 player.
Lets say u kill off 3 inactives, hoping to get 24 eships after 24h been passed from killing.
U will more likely to get new players within that time, that means “fam new option” wouldnt get those explos. If u want to kill that player again for “your own explos” u would have to wait 48h to kil him off + 24h to get his expoos, i just dont see point to do it.
We could always try to for one round? I would be interested to see how many more inactive killing there would be, maybe u guys are right.
SS play is currently so inefficient compared with specialization that there is no room for SS players in any family that wants todo well.
Small family size also mean that there is little room for less active players either.
A potential solution for these problem would be increase family size, so they have less of an impact.
Or make changes to the mechanics to improve SS viability and less activity, like a building synergy bonus, and or remove income bonus from the game.
Replace decay with interest would be a way of making activity less important. Beucracy/decay is an extra penalty for being less active.
I don’t think this really has much todo with solving the level playing field issues the game has, which are magnified as the families get smaller.
That’s not true in the slightest. SS players/attacker banker pairs can compete just fine. Family bank systems are overrated. If you do fam banks well they’re clearly super good, but almost nobody does them well. Sometimes the best strategy is to just be active, and you can be just as active as an SS as you can in a family bank system. You can do it even better sometimes because you don’t have to wait around for players less active than you, or rely on unreliable people, etc. SS is even more viable now that Evolution has been added to the game!
And again, another post from another player showing exactly why this idea is a bad idea and how players will justify abusing it by killing off anybody whos activity/playstyle they don’t like.
We can always reduce the numbers of eships that fam would get.
Make that eship delay even longer than 24 hours. If no player for 48 hours u start getting 4 explos per day. Even that would help, and should have less impact for killing less actives.
I understand your point, but you seem to be missing mine.
The incentives are already there to remove less active/inefficient players from families that want to compete. It’s really just a case of where a family draws the line and if they can get a replacement.
I don’t see this change significantly increasing the incentives to remove players.
Your wrong @Bit not sure if u played with an active fam but if u have or had the most obvious thing about having more players rather than killing players off is that u neeed morale, u cannot succeed 3 vs 6 fam for many reasons. Namely being morale, portal costs. Ops. Different races etc.
What munder is suggesting is something that will fix the gap of explos which is a big deal.
