Re : Reliance on Planets

[buck]

No, it has to work for all planets, that way they cannot be relied upon for anything.

[Sarevok]

I agree Buck. People whom have an attack of 1T, with a planet bonus of 500B and a MS bonus of 250B is just silly.

If we were going to make planets under Merlin near useless (well, perhaps those which aren't Naq and UU maybe), make defenses more useful. That way, your prized planet maybe on display, but it would take effort to take your trophy from you, rather then as it is, being able to take it in a matter of minutes.

[minisaiyan]

@Sarevok: planet defences are already big enough, maybe too big as plenty of them are more than well enough defended to stop them being taken.

[Sarevok]

@Sarevok: planet defences are already big enough, maybe too big as plenty of them are more than well enough defended to stop them being taken.

Consider this, if you would. Before saying planets are to defensible...
10 planets, with 500k defenses each costs 350T naq. Equivalent fleet hangers is about 264,000. 264k fleets can take up to ~2T worth of planet defenses. Yet these planets with only 500k have a defense power of 1.5T (about 75% of the fleets power)
10 planets with 600k defenses costs 510T naq. Giving about 320k fleets. This can take up to 2.46T defense power. With a planet defense power of 1.8T (about 73%)
10 planets with 700k defenses costs 830T naq. Giving about 407k fleets. This can take up to 3.14T defense power. With a planet defense power of 2.1T (about 67%)
Save 800k and 900k, i'll jump to 1M
10 planets with 1000k (1M) defenses costs 5310T naq. Giving about 1030k (1.03M) fleets. This can take up to 7.94T defense power. With a planet defense power of 3T (about 38%)

I'd disagree.

If your talking 1 planet, verses fleets yes. As soon as you make it over 2 or more planets, no, fleets are the cheeper option by far. And if your talking 10 planets, then fleets only require 75% or less, as shown above, to take them.

[minisaiyan]

Didn't the %needed change so it was higher amount of fleets needed?

Edit: and plus, yes 10 planets means you need less fleets... but most people only keep 2, maybe 3 planets worth defending properly, the rest are just for the sake of annoying your enemy...

[CABAL]

Didn't the %needed change so it was higher amount of fleets needed?

Edit: and plus, yes 10 planets means you need less fleets... but most people only keep 2, maybe 3 planets worth defending properly, the rest are just for the sake of annoying your enemy...

30% is still nothing compared to the cost of the defs.

I really like this idea; though; to hopefully decrease snipering; what if planet stats slowly 'fade in' after Merlin? i.e. It takes 3 hours for an atk planet that just came off of Merlin to get back to it's 'maximum power' (Increasing it's power by 16.67% per turn), and 'slows down' if the player masses?

[buck]

I agree Buck. People whom have an attack of 1T, with a planet bonus of 500B and a MS bonus of 250B is just silly.

If we were going to make planets under Merlin near useless (well, perhaps those which aren't Naq and UU maybe), make defenses more useful. That way, your prized planet maybe on display, but it would take effort to take your trophy from you, rather then as it is, being able to take it in a matter of minutes.

Easy done, just factor in a number relevent to the current climate, so, we would times all planet defences, currently, by say, 4 or 10, or whatever, or Significantly decrease the power of fleetsd, thus rendering them difficult to take. But also not impossible.

[Andariel]

these updates would make planets worthless.
merlins are admins main $$ maker never happen.

[buck]

these updates would make planets worthless.
merlins are admins main $$ maker never happen.

Not worthless, just not relied upon, they were never meant to be a main asset, only a bonus. Makeing them a bonus again would make wars proper.

[minisaiyan]

agreed, if they were meant to be relied upon as many do now, they would be ranked like other stats...

[lord zhou]

Not worthless, just not relied upon, they were never meant to be a main asset, only a bonus. Makeing them a bonus again would make wars proper.

i agree with u, but what is a "main asset".
if u remove the ability to hide planets then u hand the advantage to large MS.
all my def planets combined equal the strike of an average MS.

if this was implemented how long before a thread begins about MS power.
some MS's with fleets armed have over 1.5tril strike. how would u suggest we balance that out

[MaxSterling]

I can only see this a viable option if MS techs are completely removed.

[dastupy]

I can only see this a viable option if MS techs are completely removed.

Or if the MS power gets twitched, as in 1 weapon giving 1 mill instead of 2 mill.

[Sarevok]

if this was implemented how long before a thread begins about MS power.
some MS's with fleets armed have over 1.5tril strike. how would u suggest we balance that out

hehe, i admire your lack of confidence in MS fleet power. But it's not true. For 1.5T power, they'd need 1.3m hangers... However, You are right if you say 200k hanger can damage a planet with 1.5T defense power, yes.

Didn't the %needed change so it was higher amount of fleets needed?

It increased by 5% yes. So lets make the first number 80%, and the last number 43%. Its still more then 50% advantage to fleets. Not to mention the ability to use Techs to reduce the costs by almost 30% again. Meaning the first is like 56% needed, and the last... 27%.
I would support you in your statement, if fleets had their costs double every 100k over 200k or something. Since this is what planets do. The defense doubles every 100k over 500k, and the first jump is actually almost 130% increase.

Edit: and plus, yes 10 planets means you need less fleets... but most people only keep 2, maybe 3 planets worth defending properly, the rest are just for the sake of annoying your enemy...

But you forget. Your fleets can take any number of planets you desire. Planet defenses protect 1 planet only. Why have 2 200B attack planets defended with planet defense, when you can just spend that on weapon slots, and get the same power, without the need to worry about the MS being damaged.

[Sarevok]

I agree with both Buck and AoH's olriginal ideas. Admin has stated many times, and you all seem to forget, planets were never ment to be held forever.

TBH, i don't see why. Why should the same effort put into an MS, being put into planets be able to be taken/destroyed, but MS can not. IMO, destroying weapons and shields is far far cheaper, then rebuilding a taken planet. Since taken planets is like destroying MS slots.
MS was never meant to be forever, till Admin introduced the permanent MS that wasn't destroyed by ascension.