Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Eldrad]

No more fleets carrying rocks and eliminate deploy. Cloaks are somewhat useful in the start of the round, but due to upkeep, I can calculate how many you have close enough to render them ineffective. We have went from a war game to a game of strategy. We seldom have battles, and part of that stems from the rock carrying. You cant attack to regain your rocks until you find out where they are. And that may be last tick of round. Thus, more time between battles = less battles.

would interception of fleets work better?
interesting point i had not considered it like that - how would beseige (deploy, attacking) affect this along with auto-dropping of rocks (i like the idea of a fleet taking rocks away and going on the run like BSG, but i think that mechanic would need to be worked out properly...)

[Samus_Aran]

would interception of fleets work better?
interesting point i had not considered it like that - how would beseige (deploy, attacking) affect this along with auto-dropping of rocks (i like the idea of a fleet taking rocks away and going on the run like BSG, but i think that mechanic would need to be worked out properly...)

I suggested something like this earlier. Or maybe just thought about it. Can't remember. It just seemed like it would become a coding nightmare for you guys. I think that would just make things even more complicated, when I think that a simplification of the game is needed.

[sarge33rd]

The game contains 2 elements of play, which are clearly intended to instill "balance" of one degree or another. Those being the restrictions on rock capping based on attacker-v-defender population and the inability to attack at all, based on attackers population compared to defenders.

That the fleets are currently able to carry/transport/transfer rocks, creates an exploit which totally disrupts and nullifies these intended balancing features.

By allowing any one player or group of players to transport rocks to another player, you enable that other player to artificially enhance their economy (resource generation) to a potentially absurd degree. The original players then simply reclaim their rocks, and the "beneficiary" now has the resources to build a fleet which completely out classes that possessed by any player currently in the same population range.

That this can be accomplished in a simple matter of a few hours, completely destroys any semblance of play balance; and presents IMHO, the single greatest argument for doing away with anything other than, a capping fleets dropping its rocks immediately upon return to their planet of origin. There should be no option even, of the fleets "holding" the rocks for a single tic. Fleet returns, rocks drop, period.

I would even go so far at this stage, as to present a couple of ideas which I realize full well, would require extensive testing and unfortunately I fear, coding.

First, a couple of identified "dilemmas":

1) Nemesis/Lurkers are of questionable value.
2) That questionable value, makes War 5, of questionable value.

Since I think it would be agreed upon, that resource management (getting the right logistics to the right place at the intended time), is not an easy task and could be loosely tied to a planets economic technologies (advanced ability to "manipulate" an economy would reflect an advanced resource/material management skill set); tie the maximum fleet upkeep costs to the level of economic technology. For ex: lvl 1 = 50% income as a max upkeep allowance. Lvl 2 = 65%, lvl 3 = 75%, lvl 4 = 95% and lvl 5 = 150%. Under no circumstances in this scenario, could fleet maintenance exceed 150% of income. IOW, while you may have sufficient fuel, munitions and spare parts in 'inventory'; getting the correct amount of each to the right place and at the right time, to ensure that you dont have fleets running on empty docking at your munitions point, would require a certain amount of "economic expertise". (The greater your tech lvl, the lower your essential reserves would have to be in order to have sufficient supplies on hand. JIT or 'just in time' inventory control is what it is called in the real world.)

I would then tie the maximum number of ships, to a formula combining population tech lvl and war tech lvl. (Theorizing that a government high in war tech would be more "war like" than one lower, said government should then be able to field a higher percentage of its population in the pursuit of war. Further, the greater the population, the greater the potential pool for obtaining military personnel. So maybe something like (pop/200)*(war tech) = max nr of war ships. This nr could not be exceeded regardless of upkeep allowances from economic development. A single hawk, counts as 1 ship, just as a nemesis counts as 1 ship. Now, the Nemesis and Lurker serve a viable purpose; war 5 has a viable purpose; and play balance becomes reasonably "absolute".

(All numbers cited above are for illustrative purposes only, in order to get the "gist" of what I am saying across. I have not evaluated via any math application, the viability of these numbers.) I fully understand, that extensive testing should first be done on the test server(s) in order to establish the viability of any such dramatic alterations.

And now, for the TRULY dramatic changes I might be so bold as to suggest:

Lets be honest shall we? The very idea of hauling asteroids/meteors across the universe from galaxy to galaxy is more than a little absurd. I would suggest that population gains could ONLY be had, thru the purchase/construction of population platforms, ie asteroids/meteors.

Via combat, you seek then to reduce the targets population, war ships and then to steal resources. Now, to steal resources, means landing on the asteroid/meteor and loading then transporting the resources to the fleet. I would now, introduce 1 new ship class, at 3 new "lvls". Welcome, the transporter; which comes in small, medium and large configurations

Transporters unfortunately are slow. They are also not effective in combat. Their OFF rating would be = 0+(OFF tech lvl - 1) and their DEF would = 0 +(DEF Tech -1) while their speed would be = 0+(ENG tech lvl -1). So yes, they would slow down your entire fleet. However, they are necessary if one is to steal resources, with which you hope to build your own asteroids/meteors.

They might work like this:

A SM TRANS, carries on board, 2 LANDERS. Each lander, can carry 5,000 resources and make 2 trips/tic. So the SM TRANS, has an inherent cargo capacity of 20,000 plus its 2 LANDERS with their 5,000 ea.

A MED TRANS, would carry 4 LANDERS, have an inherent cargo capacity of 40,000 plus its 4 loaded LANDERS and a LGE TRANS would carry 8 LANDERS, have an inherent capacity of 80,000 plus its 8 loaded LANDERS.

Since the LANDERS have to be both orbital and atmospheric flight capable, maintenance/upkeep would be reasonably high. Further, needing to fly both in space and in atmospheric conditions, LANDERS would take a little time/cost to build.


Now, this last little "tidbit", would mean a radical change to the game itself. I would therefore, suggest something equally radical; like a perma reset. As the game stands now, it is broken and the intended balancing features are too easily negated/manipulated into something meaningless. I for one, am not going to pay to play, a broken game. Regardless of how much I might enjoy the concept of the game. Since one could (and some probably would) argue that a reset is inherently unfair to those who are established; I would think perhaps a number of days of "free" subscription equal to the number of millions of population, might be in order. Why? You just might find, that enjoying a week or thereabouts of experiencing the benefits of subscription would entice a few more people TO subscribe. This in turn, would increase your revenue stream and thereby reward you a little more appropriately for your work/efforts.


And that my friends, is my story and I'm sticking to it. 

[Eldrad]

tie the maximum fleet upkeep costs to the level of economic technology. For ex: lvl 1 = 50% income as a max upkeep allowance. Lvl 2 = 65%, lvl 3 = 75%, lvl 4 = 95% and lvl 5 = 150%.

This can't be done in the current community - this solution while interesting and potentially useufl amounts to taking something away from the players who are used to playing this game - in a new game which was started from scratch that might be a great answer but i'd rather not take something away which players enjoy (even while claiming itwill improve the game - i admit having learnt my lesson from the introduction of upkeep)

And now, for the TRULY dramatic changes I might be so bold as to suggest:

Lets be honest shall we? The very idea of hauling asteroids/meteors across the universe from galaxy to galaxy is more than a little absurd. I would suggest that population gains could ONLY be had, thru the purchase/construction of population platforms, ie asteroids/meteors.

Via combat, you seek then to reduce the targets population, war ships and then to steal resources.

unfortunately the basis of this game is it is cheaper to steal rocks from an opponent than to build them - so everyone fights instead of sitting at home doing nothing.

I can't see the hauling rocks home bit being changed (in this game, though it is possible to change it in a new game which does't claim to be CW - but i might write something if i have the chance - feel free to put a whole game together if you want, i'll be happy to host it here and let the community choose to play what they want.)

NOW as to your dilema - waay back in the day myself and Surly were in AKA, we beat the Ghostrider clan and took the top (more details can be found on the wiki, including the cheating which lead to a reset and left us on top...)

We were bored and to avoid the bash limit i decided to let one of my allies take my rocks so i could attack smaller players (this meant our alliance gained net population - i'm pretty sure it was my idea but Surly seems to htink someone else thought it up, all i remember them coming up with was really good tactical warfare... but i digress)
NO MATTER WHAT if rocks can be moved from one planet to another it is possible to use this tactic - and as i've said this is fundamental to the game.

The various limits are to make it harder for farmers and dive bombers (as we used to call them) to achieve this victory - however it is not a major problem when there is no set end date to the game - ie on the perma as opposed to the round.

If you are in the situation where two alliances are competing for the top ten then all the time and effort you spend sending fleets to steal tiny amount of rocks from smaller players means you are losing out fleets and ships which could be used to attack the enemy alliance - this is why i don't think it is game breaking.

other than not planning to throw out everything all of your ideas are valid and interesting - i admit i like some of them but i'm not going to write the game you propose on my own - as i said i'm willing to help you make it if you're willing to put in the effort.

[sarge33rd]

At the risk of repeating myself, I'll again say how much I appreciate that you are not only willing, but apparently eager to engage your players in discourse. Alas, a programmer I am not. An idea guy? Yep...tons of them. lol Ability to code diddly squat? Nope.

Back in college, taking courses like COBOL, FORTRAN etc etc; I played hell with the simple task of programming a computer to roll and sort sequentially, 5 6-sided die. (As in a Yahtzee roll) Seems I am not always so good at breaking it down to its lowest common denominator, in determining what is actually being done and then the "how" to do it.

I can fully appreciate the enormity of some of my proposals. That you would decline to implement them, comes as no shock to me. Not because you find the ideas bad, but because they would indeed change the very nature of the game.

EDIT: As to my 'dilemma" lol

I'll read the wiki Sunday. No time tonight and a long day at work again tomorrow. However, tactically speaking, my position is an untenable one.

My alliance is at war with another. That 'other', has 90% or thereabouts, control of a galaxy 5 tics from me and 2 members in the same galaxy as I and thus 4 tics from me. My nearest source of large reinforcements, is 6 tics away. By waiting until 1 min "pre tic", my attackers are 4 tics away or 3 tics away, before I even know they are enroute. So there is no means by which my alliance can bolster my geography.

So my choices are severely limited:

1) change my allaince

not gonna happen. Not my style, and not the way I "roll".

2) quit the game

and accomplish what?

3) play the role of "spoiler" as best I am able, and hope somewhere along the line that I and/or my alliance am able to pull something "astounding".

of the available options, it's the only acceptable one.

[Eldrad]

So my choices are severely limited:

1) change my allaince

not gonna happen. Not my style, and not the way I "roll".

2) quit the game

and accomplish what?

3) play the role of "spoiler" as best I am able, and hope somewhere along the line that I and/or my alliance am able to pull something "astounding".

of the available options, it's the only acceptable one.

 this is the essence of the defence eta problem which ninja was talking about.
Somehow if defence took a shorter time than offence this would help alieviate the problem but it makes no sense...

Fortunately you have a few options - your allies deploying fleets to your planet means they can be prepared for an attack before it happens (this wasn't possible when the defence eta issue was raised first)

now your alliance may not have enough resources to spare sending you lots of ships, counter attacking is of course a great idea, but as for option 3 having you save up sufficient resources to upkeep a big fleet and then sending it to you via the alliance docks gives you the opportunity to attack those players in your galaxy (with them not having a chance to get defence from anyone in their alliance (eta 5 guys out of galaxy, themselves eta 4) This means you can use your position offensively to great effect.

Now because of the limits on rock capture it may take more than one tick to actually beat an enemy (so an ally may have time to get to you before the fight is over) - i hope that this means fights are slower and more tactical (as some players may need to cnacel and send their fleets somewhere else...)

The geography is a small problem, but i can't think of a better way to arrange people in galaxies.

[Samus_Aran]

That geography problem is just part of CW. It's been around since the start and I rather not see it go. It helps force more tactical relationships between players and adds more to the diplomatic side of the game.

[crapshoot]

The new immediate problem is the rock carrying problem. The rocks have to go somewhere.  Coupled with the switching from defend to attack and refueling makes getting rocks very difficult. Farm someone to drop their pop is fine, but the rocks have to go somewhere.

The nems and lurks issues will continue unless they redesigned. I understand that they were changed by dropping their upkeep and tweeking the price but they became impossible to maintain, and their off/def scores still don't make them a good choice.

[Eldrad]

The new immediate problem is the rock carrying problem. The rocks have to go somewhere.  Coupled with the switching from defend to attack and refueling makes getting rocks very difficult. Farm someone to drop their pop is fine, but the rocks have to go somewhere.

The nems and lurks issues will continue unless they redesigned. I understand that they were changed by dropping their upkeep and tweeking the price but they became impossible to maintain, and their off/def scores still don't make them a good choice.

Removing recon fleets will be easy enough.
that does mean you will have to chase and defend/attack at the place where a rock carrying fleet is headed.

I don't know about capping the total rocks in a fleet, that might need some extra coding which i don't have the time to do and test properly - it would mean dropping extra rocks when you moved ships out and when you did anything else...  hmm, that makes me think of something good actually...

[crapshoot]

in response to the following: topic 3302

i would say that having the login info helps weed out the inactives and provide some easy pickings for new players.

maybe the inactivity rule could be: 1 week not logged in, OK. second week = your rocks are up for grabs. thereafter, account deleted