Topic: Fam equality at round start

The thing I love from Super Nova is that everyone starts out equal. In Star Burst I find it increasingly frustrating that having a full fam at round start gives so many advantages, that I wonder if we should equalize it a bit more. Especially because we can't choose the number of players and the activiness you start out with. It is random.

By comparison. I think cats started out with 9 active players. My fam barcodes started out with 5 active players and 2 inactives.

What advantages did cats have from the start
+80% starting resources
+80% more expo slots (filling up systems almost twice as fast)
+80% availability of morale in the family

To give families more equal chances I think morale and expo slots should be to some extent be family based instead of player based. Especially having the extra expo slots gives a huge advantage in terms of spread (and targets), economy (having more planets early keeps you from ob longer, resulting in cheap infra) and security (fill faster).

Giving a family for instance 80 expo slots a day would reduce this equality alot. The only benefits from having multiple fam members should be race specialization and increased activity i.m.ho.

What are your thoughts on family based starting resources, morale and expo slots?

~Attacking is a Skill~
~Defending is an Art~

Re: Fam equality at round start

Not sure how that would work out... who gets control of the family bank?  Can the first player who logs in builds max number of units and drain it?   Family moral is interesting but that would penalize families with inactives as the inactives would count against the family moral.  And it would also lend to attackers having as many planets as bankers yikes.  You might think attackers give those planets up out of the kindness of there hearts but I would argue largest reason attackers shed planets to bankers is to keep moral costs down wink

Re: Fam equality at round start

sharing is fun, the same should apply for starting resources they should devide whats in the pot amoungst the people in the fam at tick 1.
This way every fam has a shot at the same growth curve it doesnt matter if your a full fam or not.

morale i see no reason to do so, when the actual level of playing field has been equialized. but explo build slot max per fam would be a good idea.

Colorado: even in the 11/01 war i made more hits.
Colorado: 447 blow jobs.
Big Gary:  Only a fool cannot admit when he's wrong...
AW:    i love rim jobs
RisingDown: I know you do

Re: Fam equality at round start

Then the factor of inactives will have a greater effect on monetary distribution. No matter what you do someone is going to have more and someone less.

Insanity and genius are closely related!
*** Eltie for mod! ***
Failing Lemming of Teachings and Australian Cop Orgies: Gwynedd

Re: Fam equality at round start

This is a pretty interesting idea.  A smaller fam would be able to offset an otherwise doomed round with a boosted start.  Each additional player afterward takes a piece of the pie but also contributes potential activity.  If we combine this with an improved way of handling inactives, this could reintroduce some balance into the game.

For example, let's pretend each starting fam has 100k cash.  In LiGhTGuNs' situation, that 9 member family would have each of its players start with about 11k cash.  LiGhTGuNs' family, having 7, would each start with about 14k cash.  Now let's say those 2 players go inactive and get removed from the fam.  The 28kish cash from those 2 players gets redistributed amongst the remaining 5 (this would be a new feature).  Now each player in that fam has 20k cash to start with.

This 5 member fam now has a better shot at competing, and the 9 member fam has to fight harder to maintain their rank.

There are probably some issues with this though.  For instance, what happens when this 5 member family gets a new 6th player after the round starts?  What if the 9 member fam loses a player after the round starts?  This idea balances out the round start but doesn't guarantee balance afterward.  In fact it might actually damage active players during the critical moments before inactive fam members are removed, as some others here have mentioned.

There's something here though.  Being in a small family is way too challenging, and having a fam full of actives is too much of a safe bet.  The game is skewed in a way that punishes players who just happen to be unlucky enough to land in a small family.

I think there are a few ideas that are related to this idea, but I do like this concept of a collective family starting resource pool that is predetermined by the *potential* number of players in a family, rather than the number of actives.  In terms of the game setting, this puts a stronger emphasis on the family system itself and less on individual empires.

Think of it this way: if you land in a family by yourself, you get ALL of the system resources to yourself.  That might be pretty damned exciting, or at least enough benefit to lessen the impact of not having active teammates.

I can see this working well for resources.  For explorations and morale though it's a little more complicated although conceptually similar.

What do you guys think of the hypothetical scenario described above?

Got a few bucks?  The Imperial Tip Jar is accepting contributions!

Re: Fam equality at round start

Having resources of a deleter or removal restributed of the fam seems logical to implement already.

As for the impact of late joiners. Lowering their starting resources  limits that impact.  Very late joiners already have to rely on fam support anyway to get going.

~Attacking is a Skill~
~Defending is an Art~

Re: Fam equality at round start

sounds retarded, so because i get into a fam with more inactive pos players i get less resources than someone in a fam with 2 less total players.

“I don't know half of you half as well as I should like; and I like less than half of you half as well as you deserve.”

Re: Fam equality at round start

I do like the basis behind this idea of more equality between family members. It would require more cooperation and less specialization of roles, which I think is bad for the game overall. The last couple of rounds have shown the huge disparity that results from the number of active family members from the beginning of the round. Not having a close to full family with active players a couple of days after the round starts is basically a death sentence.

I like the idea of shared morale for the family since it would pretty much get rid of the HC attacker role. This would have to be thought out to not be exploitable in other ways though. Maybe it needs a whole new system to limit attacks rather than the current morale system. Right now it's frustrating that family NW seems to matter so much more than planet count or personal NW that they barely even factor into account.

But man is not made for defeat. A man can be destroyed but not defeated

Re: Fam equality at round start

I agree we need to close the loopholes that helped create hc attackers that no longer needed planets except a few for spread.  Personal nw/psize would be a way to deal with that.  People are forgetting a well organized team of 4 is better than 8 who are not.  communication and coordination > numbers

“I don't know half of you half as well as I should like; and I like less than half of you half as well as you deserve.”