Reduce the Number of Games?

Irobeth · Post by **Irobeth** » Thu Apr 07, 2005 4:16 pm

(I searched for the word 'reduce' and didn't find a similar result, so forgive me if it's been brought up)
I've been playing Starport for a while now (a year, maybe) and the one thing that still annoys me is how empty the galaxies are at times.
At last count, there were almost 30 games running, and I feel that the level of competition in the game could be stepped up a level if the number of games running was reduced.
I'd recommend something along the lines of:
1 Small Galaxy, Low Fuel Gen
1 Large Galaxy, High Fuel Gen
1 Med Galaxy, Normal Fuel Gen
1 Pax Game
1 Battle Royale Game
1 Expert/Suscriber Game

That way, the 40 players who are online aren't spread across 30 games, often making you the only person in the galaxy for a span of hours.

Drifter101 · Post by **Drifter101** » Thu Apr 07, 2005 8:26 pm

I have mixed feelings about this. Sometime there are only a small number of players in a galaxy, this can still be fun if it is competitive. In some circumstances the other players in a game are online at different times than you in which case it become like a turn based game which is not totally bad. In general though I would say lots of players online makes for a more fun game - more combat, chatting / trading. If you reduced the number of active games then the remaining ones would benefit from an increase in numbers so basically I agree with you.

However there are some big differences between the different servers, some may not be the most popular but may be special non the less. For example I wouldnt like to see either of the elliptical galaxies disappear as I find the compact structure of these very easy to play in - no dead ends as you will find in spiral galaxies. Also there are different game lengths, I enjoy the longer games. Then there are different regen rates. So the question would be which galaxies would you scrap. I havent tested all of them out but some of them do seem a bit similar - am I right in saying that the Milky Way and Frontier Wars are both 0.3 regen, spiral 14 days and neither is especially popular, so - just a thought - perhaps scrap Frontier Wars and then the Milky Way would get a boost in player numbers. ?

Ipps · Post by **Ipps** » Fri Apr 08, 2005 12:39 am

I completely agree, although like Drifter101 said, it would have to be well thought out which games to cut. As of typing this right now (Thursday, April 7, 2005 8:26 PM US Eastern time) there are a total of 28 servers. Here's a table with the number of players in each server:

0: 5 servers
1: 9 servers
2: 7 servers
3: 4 servers
4: 0
5: 1 server
6: 0
7: 2 servers

So if some of the servers that consistently have 0, 1, or even 2 people in them at a time are removed (chosen by removing similar servers) then this would significantly increase the number of players in the more popular servers. And I really don't think this would turn many people away from the game, as only the least popular servers would be removed, and those who did play in those servers would simply be able to move to one of the similar servers that were left. Additionally, many people aren't really loyal to a single server (except the most popular ones of course) and wouldn't even notice if a few less popular servers were removed.

Tarvok · Post by **Tarvok** » Fri Apr 08, 2005 4:56 pm

Though I would like to see the number of games reduced, I would prefer it if we only eliminated redundancies. I happen to like the "standard" games, and despite their unpopularity, I would not like to see them gone. However, how many standard games do we need? One is enough, imo. Still, I haven't really checked out all the games yet, so it could very well be that all of them serve some element of the community in some unique way.

(MSR)Peace · Post by **(MSR)Peace** » Fri Apr 08, 2005 6:07 pm

I wouldn't wanna deprive someone of their favorite galaxy, but I'm in favor of fewer, more populated galaxys for many reasons, many of which have already been mentioned.

Humna · Post by **Humna** » Sat Apr 09, 2005 4:45 pm

I'm more concerned about being able to jump into a new game when I want to. Nobody wants to hit the menu screen looking for a new game just to find out that the "newest" game available is 3 days old.

Tarvok · Post by **Tarvok** » Sat Apr 09, 2005 10:28 pm

I actually wouldn't mind that, Hum. One thing that would be nice is if we could have as much warp fuel as we would if we had stared the first day and just sat there in the Sol system.

Come to think of it, that's not a half bad idea. I'm going to have to scan for new games every time I play, and start just to hang out at Sol and accumulate fuel, in case I want to play in it later on...

Proletariat · Post by **Proletariat** » Sun Apr 10, 2005 2:05 am

Yeah, that's pretty much standard procedure nowadays. I think it would make sense if your starting fuel is the same as someone who just sat in sol since 0 hour, if only to keep things even. Or else penalize people who do spend the first few days in Sol doing nothing - maybe add a flat tax of 1k/hour on top of the existing tax for sleeping in UN-protected areas (Exp + Rep).

Ipps · Post by **Ipps** » Sun Apr 10, 2005 10:57 pm

Proletariat, the only problem with that is that it pretty much ruins the game for newbies.

Proletariat · Post by **Proletariat** » Sun Apr 10, 2005 11:05 pm

How so? I mean, if making the game more fair for players who join late in game somehow makes it less fair for newbies... I just don't see it.

Ipps · Post by **Ipps** » Sun Apr 10, 2005 11:15 pm

Well newbies tend to be the people who use UN space to sleep in the most. Adding a tax that is just going to kick them out (because they don't have much money in the first place) and get them shot down will just discourage them from playing.

And I don't really see what's wrong with someone joining the first day and letting them build their fuel build up. The people who join the first day and play immediately are generating just the same amount of fuel as someone who doesn't play, AND they have the ability to convert spice into fuel.

Proletariat · Post by **Proletariat** » Sun Apr 10, 2005 11:56 pm

Except people who join late in the game and don't know about this loophole (ie. *gasp* newbies), are at a severe disadvantage to people who just start on the 3rd day with 3-4k fuel in their tank. Your comparison to people who start playing on the first day is a red herring because, you know, they actually play.

Also, you do realize that 1k tax is equivalent to sleeping in UN space with 1k exp and 0 rep? Anyways, the point is moot because 1) newbie protection 2) You shouldn't be sleeping in UN protected space anyways.

(MSR)Peace · Post by **(MSR)Peace** » Mon Apr 11, 2005 5:24 pm

What kinda bugs me is that a medal on battle royal is the same as a medal on ye old yonder galaxy no one ever plays on. I'm not really concerned that much about medals, but I will say that I enjoy being able to show my victories off a little bit.

I mean, it's one thing to take a battle royal gold when the 10th person is an emporer, or get on 8 hours before the end of a game on another server, pwn some nubs and take a gold there... Which is the strategy (I am sure) of many, many vet players.

Ipps · Post by **Ipps** » Mon Apr 11, 2005 8:32 pm

Proletariat, do newbies not have to pay taxes while in UN space? If so, then I think I would definitely support some sort of a tax.

And Peace, I know what you mean. I have 4 bronze medals and 1 gold. 3 of the 4 bronzes were earned on Battle Royal I believe. If I had gotten an equivalent amount of EXP on a less competitive server I would have gotten golds or silvers instead, like how I got the 1 gold medal that I do have.

Proletariat · Post by **Proletariat** » Mon Apr 11, 2005 9:32 pm

Oh they do, but that's not what I was trying to say at all. You said:

Adding a tax that is just going to kick them out (because they don't have much money in the first place) and get them shot down will just discourage them from playing.

... which is why we have newbie protection in place. Also, the extra flat tax would be so insignificant compared to the tax you'd normally pay with just an hour's worth of experience, it's not even worth mentioning.

Anyways, I'd still rather the starting fuel was adjusted according to how late you enter the game and make things more even for late-comers, rather than just penalize people who join but don't play (which I don't really have a problem with.)

As for medals: I don't personally care for them, but maybe each server could have its own set of medals independent of all the other servers. If it was up to me, though, I'd just scrap the whole thing, if only to hear all the pissing and moaning from people who split their time between 3-5 games "fishing" for medals.

Ipps · Post by **Ipps** » Mon Apr 11, 2005 10:04 pm

Hmm, yeah. Just giving more fuel to people who start later in the game seems like a better idea. Would they receive more than, the same as, or less than people who joined on the first day and built up fuel for several days?

shawn · Post by **shawn** » Tue Apr 12, 2005 4:44 am

just give them a base amount derived from the age of the game times the fuel regen per minute.

i mean, its only fair

its definately a drawback to start late, youre way behind on colonizing and exp building, every other player has alot more cash thus putting you at the bottom of the barrel right off the start, whereas the other players started out equally. having a fair and just amount of fuel when you start late is definately a good idea. And it is capped at 5000, so its not like its gonna get ridiculous right?

greg · Post by **greg** » Wed Apr 13, 2005 3:31 pm

I'd have to disagree with the whole idea of givin ppl the amount of gas you would get if you started on the first day because, well, peace is right. I can't tell you how many times I've jumped in with 8 hours left in a game just to get a medal. But as it sits now, there atleast has to be some effort (not much, but some) to go through and create a character on every server. Also this would be very exploitable, a person needing something at their colony 30 hops from sol could just go to another server, get a friend or newb to come back and help and be 2-3 times as effecient. So I'd prefer to see it stay the way it is, but I do like the idea of taxing, but let me suggest this amendment, instead of a flat 1000 have it be a growing tax, say, if you sit inactive in UN space for 1 day you are charged normal rates, the second day costs 10k plus the normal rate and the 3rd day 20k, and so on and so forth. On the second day (on most servers) all the gas soakers would be expelled from UN space and shot down, thus taking 1/4th their fuel. I think this would be resonable, and fair to newbs as well because they would not get the penalty if they played every day.
Now feel free to pick it apart, and correct anything you may see wrong with the idea.

prosoft · Post by **prosoft** » Wed Apr 13, 2005 7:50 pm

Well, I see your point greg, but my idea was to only allow the people that join like within 5 days of the beginning to get the extra warp fuel, that way no one can do such a thing as jump in a steal a medal. As for inviting friends, you could already do that, though you'd have to plan ahead, like have a friend start his character in the game, get a cheap ship thats under 109k, then set it out of sol, if he is blowen up, he makes money because, seeing as the pod gets 109k trade in, he could trade in for a better ship. Then, when you need the help, get him back in, he could start with a barge and still have money left, not much of course.

Tarvok · Post by **Tarvok** » Wed Apr 13, 2005 9:28 pm

Greg has a good point. At least with the current system, we can see that there are vets registered on the server who, though not currently playing seriously, could jump in suddenly and steal a victory. If we took off even that small requirement (taking the time to register on day 1), people could really ambush the rest of the players.

Proletariat · Post by **Proletariat** » Wed Apr 13, 2005 10:32 pm

If we took off even that small requirement (taking the time to register on day 1), people could really ambush the rest of the players.

What does that even mean? What difference is there between someone who joins a week late and someone who creates an account on the first day but then disappears for a week? I could go on right now and create an account on every server within 5 minutes. What the hell is so hard about that?

You use the words "steal" and "ambush" as if people are going to just show up on a server, club the top player over the head and take all of his exps. This just doesn't happen.

. Also this would be very exploitable, a person needing something at their colony 30 hops from sol could just go to another server, get a friend or newb to come back and help and be 2-3 times as effecient.

Irrelevant. They can already do this now if they so choose. This has absolutely nothing to do with the topic at hand.

if you sit inactive in UN space for 1 day you are charged normal rates, the second day costs 10k plus the normal rate and the 3rd day 20k, and so on and so forth. On the second day (on most servers) all the gas soakers would be expelled from UN space and shot down, thus taking 1/4th their fuel. I think this would be resonable, and fair to newbs as well because they would not get the penalty if they played every day.

Then you're only punishing players who go idle for more than a day. People will simpy log in every 24 hours, maybe fly around a bit, then continue to sit merrily in UN space and paying no taxes.

Again, I don't have a problem with idle players. People have lives, after all. I have no intention to penalize people who have been playing for days, then inadvertently log out in UN space while they go away for the weekend. What I have a problem is this silly notion that in order to get the most fuel, you have to create your account the first day. Whether you actually play or not is irrelevant - just your mere presence in the game is enough to give you a leg up over the rest of the schmucks (ie. newbs), who joined late, likely because they figured they'd finish their previous game before starting a new one.

Drifter101 · Post by **Drifter101** » Thu Apr 14, 2005 8:08 pm

Yes people who join in late can fly up the rankings, but from what I've seen there is a greater chance of winning if you start in the first few days. Also latecomers can replace those who may have quit the server and so keep things interesting, so I dont think we should make life harder for late starters.

MadAce · Post by **MadAce** » Mon Apr 17, 2006 1:09 pm

People have been asking for it even before perma's...

Wow.

Dolphin · Post by **Dolphin** » Mon Apr 17, 2006 3:04 pm

No new servers... delete some current ones

MadAce · Post by **MadAce** » Mon Apr 17, 2006 3:06 pm

Really? Well, well. Aren't you scared this will unbalance the game? Or make it boring?

In short: Wouldn't servers stagnate and die, trapping us?

Mab · Post by **Mab** » Mon Apr 17, 2006 6:05 pm

Sometimes there are few people playing, but this weekend, i mean A dark future had 50+ people in it. so i think that it just depends on the time you play. I normally play with 10-15 on a dark future, sometimes 1-5 but for the most part i think other than perma 2 where intergalatic peace corp has the whole galaxy locked up, there are still a decent number of people playing.

Starport: Galactic Empires

Reduce the Number of Games?

Reduce the Number of Active games?

Reduce the Number of Games?

Comments